EMAIL MESSAGES FROM THE LISTERV OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATIONʼS PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE ON PSYCHOLOGICAL ETHICS AND NATIONAL SECURITY: APRIL 22, 2005 – JUNE 26, 2006 Editorʼs note: Email addresses, physical addresses and phone numbers have been deleted. From: "Behnke, Stephen" < > Date: April 22, 2005 10:56:04 AM PDT Subject: Welcome Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Dear Task Force Members, By this message, I am welcoming you to the Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) listserve. To send a message to the list, please use this address: PENS@ This listserve is "hidden," which means that, unlike other APA listserves, it does not show up on the webportion of the server, which provides this listserve an extra layer of security. Only members of this Task Force, the APA President and Board liaisons, and relevant APA staff will have access or be able to send messages to or retrieve messages from the list. Below you will find the welcome letter, which provides information about certain commands. Task Force members, please send a message to the listserve by Monday COB, simply to let us know that you all have received this message and are able to send a message to the list. Thanks so much, Steve Dear Colleague, Congratulations and welcome to the PENS list. If you are getting this message, you have been successfully subscribed to this list. The resources (hardware, software, and technical assistance) for this effort are provided without charge by the American Psychological Association as a public service. 1 There are very few rules as a member of this list/forum. Few restrictions, we have found, result in the greatest number of innovative contributions. However, these rules are critically important. If you are subscribed to this forum and especially if you send messages to the forum, you are agreeing to these rules. These rules, by the way, apply to members of nearly any Internet news or interest group. Please read the accompanying Subscription Notice Email for these rules, and/or go to this web page: http://listserve. /cgi-bin/wa.exe?SHOWTPL=GUIDE Some day you may wish to unsubscribe from the Forum. If so, please send me a message. However, if you can remember, simply send a message to: listserv@ Use no subject line. Your message should say only: signoff PENS To contact the owner of the list address your message to: PENS-request@ From: "Banks, Louie M. COL" < > Date: April 22, 2005 11:04:03 AM PDT Subject: Establish Communications Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Steve, I received your email, and if you get this, I am on the list server. Morgan Banks COL L. Morgan Banks Director, Psychological Applications Directorate US Army Special Operations Command DSN COM Cell banksl@ /louie.morgan.banks@ 2 From: Jean Maria Arrigo < > Date: April 22, 2005 11:15:42 AM PDT Subject: Fwd: [PRESIDENTIAL] Welcome Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Thank you. I have received the PENS listserve information and am checking in as requested. Jean Maria Arrigo ____________________________________ Jean Maria Arrigo, PhD Project on Ethics and Art in Testimony From: "Gerald P. Koocher, Ph.D." < > Date: April 22, 2005 12:17:50 PM PDT Subject: Establish Communications Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > I'm on. Gerry Gerald P. Koocher, Ph.D. ABPP Professor and Dean School for Health Studies Simmons College From: Robert Fein < > Date: April 22, 2005 6:28:42 PM PDT Subject: Re: Welcome Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > 3 Checking in. Robert Fein From: Nina Thomas < > Date: April 22, 2005 6:53:29 PM PDT Subject: Re: Welcome Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Glad to be participating, Nina Thomas From: "R. Scott Shumate" < > Date: April 22, 2005 7:40:02 PM PDT Subject: Checking in Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Checking in From: "Col. Larry C. James PhD" < > Date: April 22, 2005 11:02:28 PM PDT Subject: Re: Welcome Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > yeap, I got the message Steve, 4 Larry James From: anton < > Date: April 23, 2005 6:58:06 AM PDT Subject: Re: Welcome Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Steve: I'm on. Barry Barry S. Anton, Ph.D., ABPP Department of Psychology University of Puget Sound From: "Gelles, Mike" < > Date: April 23, 2005 8:10:10 AM PDT Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > I received the message -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld 5 From: "Gelles, Mike" < > Date: April 23, 2005 8:22:52 AM PDT Subject: Fw: Presidential Task Force Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > nt from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- From: Behnke, Stephen < > To: Gelles, Mike < > Sent: Wed Apr 20 22:01:35 2005 Subject: RE: Presidential Task Force Mike--thanks, excellent thoughts & observations. If you'd be willing, please put them on the listserve (that you'll receive information about shortly). I'd like the others to read. It's extremely helpful having people like yourself with so close to the ground. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Gelles, Mike [mailto: ] Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 8:38 AM To: Behnke, Stephen Subject: Re: Presidential Task Force 6 Steve as we move forward and based on the composition of the group DOD is trying to update current policy on interrogation. Interesting in that it initially tried to incoporate behavioral consultant into the policy. My and others position was that "behavioral consultant" should not be included in a general policy statement but more clearly defined as a resource and then further defined as who what etc that resource is and does. I think based on the GTMO experience putting mental ealth care professionals in the role of having to consult on interrogations when their training and role is to treat patients puts them in an untenable position. They do not have the training as it relates to being a consutant to interrogations and an awareness of where the lanes in the road are interrogation is a law enforcement and intelligence function. While we may serve as consultants to the interrogator there are area which we need to know not to go. I mentiond to DOD that APA was looking at the role of psychologists. Mike -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld From: "LeFever, Bryce E. (CDR)" < > Date: April 25, 2005 6:36:30 AM PDT Subject: Re: Welcome Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Received. Bryce Lefever From: Olivia Moorehead-Slaughter < > Date: April 27, 2005 1:45:03 PM PDT Subject: Welcome to All Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Hello Everyone, This is a message to welcome you to the Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security. I am looking forward to meeting each of you in Washington in June and know that we will be fully engaged in our discussions around this important topic in the weeks leading to that time. Thank you for your interest in coming together to contribute your time and talents towards grappling with the myriad of ethical issues within our profession in relation to national 7 security.Your expertise will be invaluable as we think, discuss, and ultimately document our collective response. It is both a pleasure and an honor to chair this committee and I look forward to working with all of you. Sincerely, Olivia Moorehead-Slaughter From: "Col. Larry C. James PhD" < > Date: April 27, 2005 7:42:38 PM PDT Subject: Re: Welcome to All Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Same here, I look forward to meeting you and working with you. Larry James From: Olivia Moorehead-Slaughter < > Date: May 2, 2005 11:41:10 AM PDT Subject: Discussion Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Hello Everyone, I suspect that all of you have been perusing the rather thick book of readings as have I. I took Steve Behnke's suggestion in terms of where to start and I find myself thoroughly engrossed by what I have been reading. The issues related to ethics, individual versus social concerns, harm, and the role of the psychologist, to name a few, deserve much consideration. 8 Mike, I began my reading with your article which I found quite compelling. To get the discourse started, would you be willing to comment on your article, particularly noting whether it is an accurate representation of your current thinking? If not, how has your thinking changed and what might be some of your current commentation on this subject? (There are also two newspaper articles in which Mike is mentioned under Tabs 17 and 26.) As this dialogue begins, I am sure that the core and salient issues which this Task Force has been charged to address will emerge and I will do my best to capture these along the way. It is my hope that by our June meeting, all of us will feel meaningfully engaged in discussion around these issues as a group and poised to think about and to talk about the document that we will draft. Many thanks. Olivia From: "Gelles, Mike" < > Date: May 3, 2005 4:59:38 AM PDT Subject: Re: Discussion Reply-To: Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security <PENS@ > Olivia, The article was written a couple of years ago. It was an attempt to put out in the professional arena issues that were ethical challenges for those of us who practice outside of the conventional world of psychology and who were held accountable to standards that did not fit what we did or the challenges we faced. Perhaps most importantly, the article was meant to be provocative, to get others to think about what the challenges were and for the profession to move forward in considering how to adapt and interpret the ethical guidelines to a changing role of psychology that was beyond the treatment room and classroom. As psychologists broadened their role and became "more visible" in the government, law enforcement and intelligence community there were new demands placed upon us, serving our client the "organization". As Chuck Ewing has said on many an occasion when we were writing this article, the Agency is entitled to consultation just as an individual. This not to suggest that this had not been occurring it just became more visible. In the Squillicoate case referenced in the article, and to some extent my experience with the King case, a new demand to re-think how the profession was going to hold psychologists in practice accountable in contexts outside of the clinical and academic arena's was becoming more evident. Psychology as a profession had begun it's own struggle in finding a comfortable place with the "new" and more visible role of psychology in national safety and security. Psychology now had to 9 provide some guidance to psychologist to exercise their best judgment when asked to consult in situations of national safety and security. My thinking at best has continued to evolve since the article was written based on the new challenges I have had to confront in the GWOT as a psychologist directly involved in operational consultation and responsible for the oversight of other psychologist doing the same. There are several tenets that I have begun to adhere to in my practice. 1. Recognize who is the client. The client is the organization; Agency, Government etc. Adhere to what is sound judgment and not be unduly influence by the organization or the emotionality of it's leadership who is often under pressure from higher up who may have a political agenda and been relatively uninformed of ground level operations. 2. Provide a disciplined consultation, remain strict in adherence to role and function and stay in your lane. Don't try to assume responsibilities or functions of the roles of others to be helpful. For example, in an interrogation consultation, be a psychological consultant, not an interrogator. Based on what is available today in regard to sources of behavior in which to conduct an indirect assessment, there is no need to go into a room with a subject. If in fact the psychologist is well trained in the area of consultation, indirect assessment and interrogation he or she can be effective without having to comprise their role. In the area of source assessment is easier today to identify yourself as a psychologist and move away from a more clandestine role. 3. Being an organizational consultant requires being responsible for staying in your lane and being accountable for what you suggest and what you do. What we see in less experienced and untrained psychologists (in this arena) is the tendency to want to be helpful and try to be everything to everyone in the service of national safety and security. It is exciting to be in the game and with those who have minimal experience in the context of operational psychology they subsequently step over the boundaries into other professional roles that both compromise their effectiveness and the value of a psychological consultation. It puts them and psychology in an ethical dilemma. We must think about what we are being asked, be responsible when we are asked to do something that is inappropriate and have a channel or chain of command in which to report such. 4. Each consultation requires careful thought and consideration. Models and templates are not effectively applied across subjects. The contexts in which interrogations and assessments are conducted are variable and in some cases change over time. Subject's change over time impact by incarceration etc as well as the value of what they know may erode with time. People who may work for the government are impacted by events and time. It is important for psychologists not to get caught up in the agenda that others hold. Be focused on what is safe, what is effective and what may be moral and ethical. 5. The GWOT and the threat to the US is ambiguous and ever changing. It is a problem that requires a multidisciplinary response. There is no on profession that can offer a specific solution, rather the whole in this case is greater than the sum of the parts. For example, it is important to have some knowledge of the contexts in which you are consulting. There are other professionals such as intelligence analysts who have expertise in different contexts who in partnership with the psychologist can provide the necessary background and foundation from which behavior can be assessed and interpreted. This include, culture, ethnic issues, geographic, etc. In all case that are related to law enforcement and the intelligence community psychologists are not strategic decision makers. Their role is to inform and advise the strategic decision 10