<html>
<body>
<h1><font size=4><b>The "Ethical Interrogation": The Myth of
Michael Gelles and the al-Qahtani
Interrogation</b></font></h1><font size=3>December 07, 2009 By <b>Stephen
Soldz</b> <br><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/stephensoldz">Stephen
Soldz's ZSpace Page</a> <br><br>
<a href="https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup">Join
ZSpace</a> <br><br>
Several public accounts of abusive interrogations at Guantanamo have
praised psychologist Dr. Michael Gelles for his opposition to these
abuses. Similarly, the American Psychological Association (APA) has
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/02/19/apas-rhea-farberman-responds-to-questions-from-the-swedish-journal-of-psychology/">
repeatedly</a>
<a href="http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1285473">
pointed</a> to actions of Dr. Gelles to instantiate their claim that
psychologists played a crucial role in opposing abuses and protecting
detainees. Gelles also has been a regular
<a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4645">public
presence</a>, discussing the errors at Guantanamo while
<a href="http://www.apa.org/ethics/pdfs/gellesletter.pdf"> advocating</a>
for the APA's "policy of participation" in interrogations. The
APA policy encourages psychologists to aid interrogations to keep them
"safe, legal, ethical, and effective." But a recently released
Defense Department document challenges Dr. Gelles's role as an exemplar
of psychological ethics in interrogations.<br><br>
As reported by <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361462/">Bill
Dedman</a>,
<a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805">
Phillipe Sands</a>, and
<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/02/27/060227fa_fact?printable=true">
Jane Mayer</a>, Gelles objected to the "harsh" interrogation
tactics being used at Guantanamo. In particular, he strenuously objected
to the plans to
<a href="http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf">
"reverse engineer"</a> the tactics used by the military's
<a href="http://counterpunch.org/soldz06072007.html">Survival, Evasion,
Resistance, and Escape</a> (SERE) program to inculcate strategies for
resistance to torture in US service members at high risk for capture.
<br><br>
In November 2002, the military planned to use these SERE-based techniques
on prisoner 063,
<a href="http://ajobonline.com/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1140">Mohammed
al Qahtani</a>, one of several US captives dubbed the "20th
hijacker." Gelles and colleagues from the Criminal Investigative
Task Force (CITF), the FBI, and other agencies proposed an alternative
interrogation plan for al Qahtani, one that did not involve use of SERE
techniques. This plan was rejected. Instead, al-Qahtani was
<a href="http://ajobonline.com/journal/j_articles.php?aid=1140">subjected
to an interrogation</a> that met the legal definition of
"torture," according to Bush Administration appointee Susan
Crawford, convener of the Guantanamo Military Commissions. [Phillipe
Sands detailed the development of the al-Qahtani torture plan in his
book,
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Torture-Team-Rumsfelds-Betrayal-American/dp/0230614434/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258992364&sr=8-3">
<i>The Torture Team</a></i>, an extract from which was published in
<a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805">
<i>Vanity Fair</a></i>. Sands also describes the alternate CITF/FBI plan
as written by "Gelles' team" (p. 130).] Gelles reported his
concerns regarding use of SERE techniques and the al-Qahtani
interrogation up the chain of command, leading Navy General Counsel
Alberto Mora to protest and force at least temporary change in official
interrogation policy in early 2003. <br><br>
A few weeks ago, in response to an ACLU's years-long Freedom of
Information Act Request, the alternative interrogation plan for
al-Qahtani was quietly released, apparently unnoticed between other
documents on FBI and CITF concerns about Guantanamo practices. According
to the alternative plan document, it was drafted: <br><br>
"by representatives of the FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit (BAU), and
behavioral specialists, psychiatrists and psychologists with the Criminal
Investigation Task Force (ClTF)."<br><br>
Given the prominent roles of mental health professionals in its drafting,
the alternative "rapport-based" plan should be examined for
consistency with Gelles' and the other authors' ethical responsibilities
as psychologists and psychiatrists.<br><br>
At the time the plan was written, on November 22, 2002, al-Qahtani had
been in isolation for three months and was exhibiting signs of severe
mental deterioration to the extent of psychosis. An FBI agent
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/FBI_4622_4624.pdf">
described this deterioration</a> in a report to headquarters:<br><br>
"In September or October of 2002 FBI agents observed that a canine
was used in an aggressive manner to intimidate detainee __ after he had
been subjected to intense isolation for over three months. During that
time period, __ was totally isolated (with the exception of occasional
interrogations) in a cell that was always flooded with light. By late
November, the detainee was evidencing behavior consistent with extreme
psychological trauma (talking to non-existent people, reporting hearing
voices, crouching in the corner of a cell covered with a sheet for hours
on end)."<br><br>
Gelles and the other authors on the CITF/FBI interrogation plan also
noticed his psychological distress:<br><br>
"#63's behavior has changed significantly during his three months of
isolation. He spends much of his day covered by a sheet, either crouched
in the corner of his cell or hunched on his knees on top of his bed.
These behaviors appear to be unrelated to his praying activities. His
cell has no exterior windows, and because it is continuously lit, he is
prevented from orientating himself as to time of day. Recently, he was
observed by a hidden video camera having conversations with non-existent
people. During his last interview on 11/17/02, he reported hearing
unusual sounds which he believes are evil spirits, including
Satan."<br><br>
After discussing whether al-Qahtani was faking his symptoms, without
coming to a conclusion, the interrogation plan proposed exploiting
al-Qahtani's distress from his prolonged isolation:<br><br>
"Although we are uncertain as to his mental status and recommend a
mental evaluation be conducted, there is little doubt that #63 is hungry
for human interaction. Our plan is designed to exploit this need and to
create an environment in which it [is] easier for #63 to please the
interviewer with whom he has come to have complete trust and dependence
thus developing a motivation to be forthright and cooperative in
providing reliable information."<br><br>
In order to exploit this hunger for human contact, the CITF/FBI plan
recommended that he be kept in continued isolation for up to an
additional year:<br><br>
"The long-term strategy would be to create an environment in which
total dependence and trust between #63 and the interviewer is established
at its own pace. Such a plan should be given up to a year to complete
although the actual time may be considerably shorter depending on how
events unfold."<br><br>
Al-Qahtani's hunger for human contact would be exploited by making his
interrogator the only person he saw over this year:<br><br>
"To help foster an environment conducive to the establishment of
dependence and trust, we propose that the interviewer initially meet with
#63 every other day. This should be his only contact with other people,
and we believe he will anxiously look forward to these
meetings."<br><br>
It was recommended that al-Qahtani be periodically subjected to
additional stresses so that his interrogator could become his
savior:<br><br>
"Built into this plan will be periodic stressors such as the
stripping of certain items of comfort from him by guards, such as the
removal of his mirror or the issuance of a sheet, half the size of the
one he likes to drape around himself. These and other stressors will be
carefully and subtly introduced not by the interrogator, but by guards.
We believe that #63 will likely look to his only human contact, his
interviewer, in an attempt to gain help. The interviewer status as a
caregiver and problem-solver will thus be increased.... [D]emands by #63
for restoration of things taken from him should be honored slowly so as
to create the impression that the interviewer can ultimately help him
although not necessarily quickly or with ease."<br><br>
This plan for prolonged manipulation to develop al-Qahtani's complete
dependency might or might not be ethical as an interrogation strategy.
However, former police investigator and veteran Army counterintelligence
operative David DeBatto, who has supervised many hundreds of
interrogations, disparaged the use of isolation in the CITF/FBI
interrogation plan for al Quitani (personal communication, November 28,
2009):<br><br>
"That [the initial three-months isolation] is an excessively long
time and on the face of it, violates the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military
Justice] and international law. Two major problems I have with this is
first, solitary is a punishment reserved for the worst kind of behavior
by inmates in a prison, not for refusing to answer questions. Second, it
is the worst possible way to interrogate anyone and will almost always
produce negative results."<br><br>
At a minimum, there is no question that the participation of
psychologists and psychiatrists in the development of this interrogation
plan led to the recommendation of strategies that would be likely to
cause severe psychological distress and clearly violated psychological
and psychiatric ethics.<br><br>
Prolonged isolation frequently causes severe emotional distress,
including psychotic symptoms identical to those appearing in al-Qahtani,
such as hearing non-existent voices and talking to non-existent people.
Physicians for Human Rights summed up the psychological and psychiatric
evidence regarding the harmful effects of isolation or "solitary
confinement" in their
<a href="http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/documents/reports/leave-no-marks.pdf">
<i>Leave No Marks</a></i> report on the US use of psychological
torture:<br><br>
"Findings from clinical research performed by prominent
psychologists such as Dr. Stuart Grassian and Dr. Craig Haney, highlight
the destructive impact of solitary confinement. Effects include
depression, anxiety, difficulties with concentration and memory,
hypersensitivity to external stimuli, hallucinations and perceptual
distortions, paranoia, suicidal thoughts and behavior, and problems with
impulse control.<br><br>
"According to Dr. Haney many of the negative effects of solitary
confinement are analogous to the acute reactions suffered by torture and
trauma victims, including posttraumatic stress disorder and the kind of
psychiatric consequences that plague victims of what are called
'deprivation and constraint' torture techniques" (pp.
32-33).<br><br>
The American Psychiatric Association, concerned about the conflicts
inherent in such interrogation assistance, in 2006 explicitly condemned
any direct involvement of their members in interrogations of specific
detainees or prisoners, in domestic or national security settings. The
<a href="http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200601.pdf">
Association stated</a> in May 2006:<br><br>
"No psychiatrist should participate directly in the interrogation of
persons held in custody by military or civilian investigative or law
enforcement authorities, whether in the United States or elsewhere.
Direct participation includes being present in the interrogation room,
asking or suggesting questions, or advising authorities on the use of
specific techniques of interrogation with particular detainees."
<br><br>
Until the membership
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opednews.com%2Farticles%2FPsychologists-Reject-the-D-by-Stephen-Soldz-080922-841.html&ei=1asWS6-bHcOglAfSl62uCQ&usg=AFQjCNFlw27V7rADoO5OemUgLHUvly_S_A&sig2=cWt98Ss37I5">
forced a change in APA policy</a> in September 2008, psychologists were
allowed to aid interrogations as long as they did not participate in
torture or "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment" and followed the
<a href="http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html">APA's ethics code</a>.
Psychologists like Michael Gelles are subject to the APA ethics code, if
they are members of the Association, as is Dr. Gelles. In addition, the
military requires psychologists consulting to interrogations to be
licensed by a state as health providers and most states require adherence
to the APA ethics code as a requirement of licensure. <br><br>
According to the APA, the prolonged use of isolation to aid
interrogations, as was clearly the case with al-Qahtani, constitutes
"cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." In August 2007, the
APA, under member pressure,
<a href="http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/councilres0807.html">
banned psychologist participation</a> in a number of interrogation
techniques as constituting either "torture" or "cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," including<br><br>
"the following used for the purposes of eliciting information in an
interrogation process... isolation... used in a manner that represents
significant pain or suffering or in a manner that a reasonable person
would judge to cause lasting harm."<br><br>
After this resolution was passed, it came under withering
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/apa_faq_coalition_comments_v12c.pdf">
criticism</a> from
<a href="http://i2.democracynow.org/2007/8/17/dissident_members_challenge_american_psychological_association">
dissident</a>
<a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.counterpunch.org%2Fsoldz08252007.html&ei=x7YWS6jCOc2-lAfgiKzLBQ&usg=AFQjCNHluNAsc9rxFuu9uSv00CTBkApSSQ&sig2=OruXuWSlv4bOQ7eMXq2JCg">
psychologists</a> and the
<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/08/21/psychologists/index.html">
press</a>. As a consequence, the APA's Ethics Director was forced to
issue a
<a href="http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001724">clarifying
statement</a> in response to reports of four weeks mandatory isolation
for new detainees at Guantanamo:<br><br>
"[T]he 2007 Resolution should never be interpreted as allowing
isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation, or sleep deprivation
either alone or in combination to be used as interrogation techniques to
break down a detainee in order to elicit information."<br><br>
In February 2008, in response to criticism, the APA amended its 2007
Resolution to unambiguously condemn psychologist involvement in the use
of isolation. The
<a href="http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/amend022208.html">
revised resolution</a>
<a href="http://www.zhelp.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16711">
proclaimed</a>:<br><br>
"An absolute prohibition against the following techniques...: ...
isolation.... Psychologists are absolutely prohibited from knowingly
planning, designing, participating in or assisting in the use of all
condemned techniques at any time and may not enlist others to employ
these techniques in order to circumvent this resolution's
prohibition."<br><br>
The CITF/FBI interrogation plan for al-Qahtani indicates that Gelles
clearly engaged in a prohibited activity: "knowingly planning,
designing... the use of ... condemned techniques... and may not enlist
others to employ these techniques...." Interestingly, when I raised
concerns about the loophole regarding isolation in the 2007 Resolution at
the APA convention the day after its passage, Gelles said to me
"Steve, you have to understand that isolation is often used only
very temporarily, only for a few hours" [quote from memory]. He did
not mention its use for months at Guantanamo nor his team's
recommendation that it be used for up to a year on al-Qahtani.<br><br>
Another ethical concern arises from the reported psychological distress
that al-Qahtani was experiencing prior to the CITF/FBI interrogation plan
being developed. The interrogation plan notes al-Qahtani's psychotic
symptoms, but, other than suggesting a mental evaluation, they simply
view his vulnerability as an opportunity for exploitation. This ignoring
of al-Qahtani's mental distress violates the fundamental
<a href="http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#principle_a">Principle
A</a> undergirding the entire APA ethics code:<br><br>
"Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take
care to do no harm. In their professional actions, psychologists seek to
safeguard the welfare and rights of those with whom they interact
professionally and other affected persons.... When conflicts occur among
psychologists' obligations or concerns, they attempt to resolve these
conflicts in a responsible fashion that avoids or minimizes
harm."<br><br>
There is simply no evidence that Gelles and the other authors of this
plan sought to "avoid or minimize harm." Rather, as the plan
makes clear, their intention was to systematically increase and exploit
distress and disorientation experienced by al-Qahtani, in violation of
the ethics code. <br><br>
The entire plan, with its emphasis on "exploit[ing]"
al-Qahtani's need for human contact violates the ethic's code's ban on
exploitation:<br><br>
"Psychologists do not exploit persons over whom they have
supervisory, evaluative, or other authority such as clients/patients,
students, supervisees, research participants, and employees."
[<a href="http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#3_08">Ethics Standard
3.08</a>]<br><br>
Clearly Gelles and the other mental health professionals had, at a
minimum, "evaluative authority" over al-Qahtani as they
developed their plans to exploit his weaknesses. <br><br>
Counterintelligence operative DeBatto also expressed concerns regarding
the plan's proposal to impose additional stressors on al-Qahtani in order
to render him more dependent upon the interrogator. As expressed by
DeBatto:<br><br>
"Depriving him of sheets, a mirror and adding other `stressors' is
utter nonsense and counterproductive. He has already endured months of
stressors. Forcing him to endure more as a form of a 'stick and carrot'
approach will produce nothing of value. It also violates the
interrogators' ethical training and is blatantly in violation of U.S. and
international law."<br><br>
Gelles' proposals in the al-Qahtani case must be deemed unethical and, if
executed, would have constituted gross violations of the APA Ethics code,
as the APA itself asserted in detailing unethical conduct in detainee
treatment in its resolutions of 2007 and 2008. The APA's parading Gelles
as a "heroic" upholder of ethical standards for military
interrogations must be revisited. Gelles now joins the ranks of other APA
psychologists, including
<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/05/torture/">Morgan
Banks</a>,
<a href="http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/rights-groups-call-canada-investigate-guantanamo-psychologist-possible-tortu">
Larry James</a>, and
<a href="http://counterpunch.org/soldz05062009.html">Bryce Lefever</a>,
whom the organization upheld as models for ethical military interrogation
processes, but who subsequently appeared sympathetic to or may have aided
abusive practices. <br><br>
As psychologist Jeffrey Kaye pointed out last summer in
<a href="http://pubrecord.org/special-to-the-public-record/2722/former-psychologist-involved-pre-911/">
two</a>
<a href="http://pubrecord.org/torture/4321/broken-faith-military-psychologist/">
articles</a> [see my commentary
<a href="http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22167">here</a>
<a name="_Hlk247539913"></a>] ethical concerns about Gelles'
pre-Guantanamo interrogation actions had already been raised with the APA
long prior to APA's lauding him as the standard-bearer for psychological
ethics in interrogations. Attorney Jonathan Turley reported filing an APA
ethics complaint against Gelles for abuses in the prolonged isolation and
interrogation of Navy Chief Petty Officer Daniel King, following an
ambiguous polygraph result. As described by Turley in
<a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/king/ssci_turley.html">testimony
before the Senate Intelligence Committee</a>, King requested a mental
health consultation because he felt he was losing his grip on reality.
Dr. Gelles met with King for a consultation and, according to Turley,
ignored King's reports of suicidal thoughts. Instead, Gelles made help
for King contingent upon King's confession to espionage charges he had
denied. Turley, who represented King, reports that the APA did not
respond to his ethics complaint against Gelles. To our knowledge, the APA
has never commented publicly on Turley's charges, or on the ethics of
Gelles' treatment of King.<br><br>
In any case, it turns out that Gelles was well aware of the potential
ethical conflicts involved in his work with the CITF. In a 2003 paper in
the <i>Journal of Threat Assessment</i>, apparently written at about the
same time, Gelles and colleague Patrick Ewing argued that psychiatrists
and psychologists involved in national security work should not be
subject to professional ethics codes:<br><br>
"Given the grave dangers faced by the United States and its allies
post September 11, the government can ill afford to lose the input of
psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in
cases involving national safety and security. Such input has been and
will continue to be vital to protecting the lives of many Americans,
civilian and military, at home and abroad. In order to maintain the
ability and willingness of these dedicated professionals to continue in
these roles, we cannot continue to place them in situations where the
ethics of their conduct will be judged, <i>post hoc</i>, either by rules
that have little if any relevance to their vital governmental functions
or by professional organizations or licensing authorities based upon the
weight the members of these bodies chose to afford competing
interests..." (p. 106). <br><br>
In 2005, two years after this article appeared, Gelles, along with James,
Banks, and Lefever, was appointed by the APA, to the seminal APA
Presidential Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security
(PENS). This military- and intelligence-dominated group gave the ethical
go-ahead for psychologists to aid detainee interrogations at Guantanamo
and elsewhere. <br><br>
In an <a href="http://www.apa.org/ethics/pdfs/uwejacobs.pdf">open
letter</a> in 2007, psychologist Uwe Jacobs posed a series of questions
to Dr. Gelles including: <br><br>
"[W]hat were the techniques used that you did <i>not </i>find
objectionable? To cite a few examples, did you believe it was ethical to
transport prisoners to Guantanamo under conditions of sensory
deprivation, i.e. wearing hoods, goggles, earmuffs, and other devices
designed to create sensory deprivation and isolation, along with very
restrictive shackling? Did you believe it was ethical to keep prisoners
in solitary confinement for very long periods of time? Is it ethical to
deprive prisoners of sleep? Is it ethical to subject them to severe heat
and cold, constant noises or lights, stress positions, short shackling,
screaming abuse etc.? You know the list I am referring to. Do you agree
that these techniques have long been proven to produce severe nervous
system dysregulation and often lasting psychological damage? Do these
techniques not by definition constitute torture, just as stated by the
UN?"<br><br>
Gelles refused to answer Jacobs' questions. We can surmise, from his
earlier statements, that Gelles simply did not believe that intelligence
psychologists should "be judged, <i>post hoc</i>, either by
[ethical] rules that have little if any relevance to their vital
governmental functions...." The APA has yet to explain why it
appointed to the PENS task force someone who had already expressed
disdain for the APA ethics code and why it continues to extol Gelles as a
paragon of psychological ethics in interrogations.<br><br>
<b>Note</b>: I would like to thank Jeffrey Kaye for pointing me to the
Ewing and Gelles paper.<br><br>
<br><br>
<a href="mailto:ssoldz@bgsp.edu">Stephen Soldz</a> is a psychoanalyst,
psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the
<a href="http://www.bgsp.edu/">Boston Graduate School of
Psychoanalysis</a>. He edits the
<a href="http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/">Psyche, Science, and
Society</a> blog. He is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical
Psychology, one of the organizations working to change American
Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive
interrogations. He is President-Elect of
<a href="http://psysr.org/">Psychologists for Social Responsibility</a>
[PsySR].<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>