Standardizing psycho-medical torture during the War on Terror: Why it happened, how it happened, and why it didn't work
Introduction
After 9/11/2001 the United States launched a global War on Terror. Suspects were captured by the U.S. military and by the C.I.A. and detained at various acknowledged and black sites across the world. It is now widely recognized that the United States tortured a number of detainees in its custody in the context of its ‘enhanced interrogation’ programme (IMAP/OSF, 2013, SSIR, 2014).
This torture had a number of features. One was a strong reliance on healthcare professionals, who supported, designed and carried out enhanced interrogation. A second feature was the emphasis placed by the programme on clean (Rejali, 2007) violence. A third was the role played by standards, protocols and guidelines in the torture programme.
To date, no study has fully considered the role that standards played in enhanced interrogation. This is an important absence because standards were key to the entire initiative. They were invoked throughout all its stages, from its development through to its termination. One of the key documents that initially justified the programme's violent tactics, for example, was called the “Standards of Conduct for Interrogation 18 USC 2340-2340A” (Department of Justice, 2002). Without the standards developed in this and related documents, the enhanced interrogation programme could not have been created, let alone operationalized.
Standards were also significant because they were responsible for drawing health professionals into torture. Research on standards suggests that, because of their ability to systematise technical information, scientific experts are often called upon when standards are being formulated (Jordan and Lynch, 1998). Health professionals became involved in the enhanced interrogation programme out of a perceived need to regulate interrogation practices and thereby protect detainees from harm. This shows that health professionals can become drawn into serious medical deviance through a mixture of moral and bureaucratic imperatives bound up in standards.
Finally, a third reason to consider the role played by standards in the enhanced interrogation programme is because the programme highlights that certain activities cannot be standardized. Although the point that health professionals often find it difficult to standardize their activities has been previously noted (Timmermans, 2005), it is worth emphasising it again in this context given that the programme's authorization was based on a belief on the part of policy and operational architects that brutal interrogation tactics could be standardized.
This article has two purposes. The first is to consider the overall role played by standards in the enhanced interrogation programme. The second is to consider the wider lessons that the case study of enhanced interrogation has for the more general field of the sociology of standards. The first section of this article therefore considers recent sociological research on standards. This is followed by sections on the creation of enhanced interrogation standards, why health professionals became involved in standard creation, how torture standards played out in practice, and the role played by standards in stopping the programme. The discussion considers the wider lessons that the enhanced interrogation programme offers.
Section snippets
Methods
This article is based on an analysis of data extracted from key government (e.g. SSIR, 2014) and health professional reports (e.g. IMAP/OSF, 2013), and government protocols that the enhanced interrogation programme used (Department of Justice, 2002, Department of Justice, 2005). The article also draws upon news media articles from sources of record (e.g. the New York Times, the New Yorker) that discuss the standards used by the programme. Information from all these sources was extracted and
Sociology of standards
The past decade have seen significant research interest in standards, and the impacts that standards have for organizations and individuals. A standard, broadly speaking, is a convention or requirement (Timmermans and Epstein, 2010), usually outlined in a formal document, that describes the uniform methods and processes that need to be undertaken if the standard is to be met. Standards fit somewhere between laws and norms in their ability to direct action, and have, as such, been called ‘soft
Medical standards and torture
All healthcare professions produce ethical standards, manifested in guidelines, protocols and principles, that govern their members’ behaviour; regulation of ethical behaviour through codes is in fact one of the defining features of a profession. These standards of conduct outline the behaviours that healthcare professionals should and should not engage in.
For doctors, a foundational ethical standard or principle is ‘do no harm’; another is ‘do good’ (Miles, 2006). Torture and other forms of
Developing violent interrogation standards
During the initial phases of the War on Terror, sectors of the U.S. state developed new behavioural and interrogation standards that allowed their staff to participate in what were presented as new, ‘safe’, methods of torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading punishment. These organisations included components of the C.I.A. and the U.S. military, and further included healthcare professionals who worked for both of these organisations. These new standards contravened the standards outlined
Standardizing interrogation techniques
Immense effort went into controlling these interrogation techniques. Even the extrajudicial rendition process that led to the capture and incorporation of detainees into the enhanced interrogation programme was standardized. During each rendition medical personnel were given a detailed medical standard operating procedure that they needed to follow. Rendition SOPs also noted that “the background and circumstances of the detainee do not override the obligation to maintain the highest
Why did health professionals become involved?
Health professionals played key roles throughout the enhanced interrogation programme. Health professionals (doctors and psychologists) were involved in designing, carrying out and monitoring the military's interrogations (in their roles as Behavioural Science Consultants, or BSCTs) (IMAP/OSF, 2013) and also the CIA's programme. The CIA, for example, hired psychologists to develop its violent interrogation programme “because their experience with ‘nonstandard’ interrogation was ‘unparalleled’”
Standards in practice
Significant resources went in to standardizing the enhanced interrogation programme. The reality, however, was that attempts to control the programme often failed in practice.
FBI agents reported finding detainees chained hand and feet with no food or water (Mayer, 2005a). They found detainees who had pulled out their own hair from distress (Mayer, 2005a). One detainee recovering from abdominal surgery was apparently waterboarded (Physicians for Human Rights, 2014). Others were subjected to ice
The role played by standards in stopping the enhanced interrogation programme
Standards were key to the eventual dismantling of the programme; as Busch (2000) notes, standards are often used to discipline things and people who do not conform to accepted definitions of good. Although U.S. security services developed new standards and definitions to allow violent interrogations and the involvement of health personnel in those interrogations, this was not an uncontested process. Both core and allied security services came under sustained criticism for violating fundamental
Discussion
The enhanced interrogation programme was notable for many reasons, not least in relation to widespread the role played by standards in its construction, maintenance and dismantling. Standards were evoked in all of these stages, and were used to both support and attack enhanced interrogation, or torture as it is now widely recognized as being (Baquet, 2014), and the involvement of healthcare professionals in it. The enhanced interrogation programme has key lessons for researchers working on the
Conclusion
The enhanced interrogation initiative ran from the early to mid 2000s. It was responsible for the capture and interrogation of large number of detainees, and generated huge international controversy. It had transformational impacts on the individuals and organisations who developed and were caught up in it. Designed for efficiency, predictability, control and calculability (Deshotels et al., 2012), it became inefficient, unpredictable, uncontrollable and incalculable. While it was created to
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the three reviewers for their useful comments.
References (59)
The moral economy of grades and standards
J. Rural Stud.
(2000)- et al.
Objectification, standardization and commodification in health care. A conceptual readjustment
Soc. Sci. Med.
(2009) Position Statement on Psychiatric Participation in Interrogation of Detainees
(2006)Why did U.S. healthcare professionals become involved in torture during the War on Terror?
J. Bioeth. Inq.
(2016)The executive editor on the word ‘torture
Nytimes
(2014)Dirty hands, clean Conscience? The CIA inspector General's investigation of “enhanced interrogation techniques” in the war on terror and the torture debate
J. Hum. Rights
(2011)- et al.
Sorting Things Out
(1999) Statement from Director Brennan on the SSCI Study on the Former Detention and Interrogation Program
(2014)Standards, law and governance
J. Rural Soc. Sci.
(2010)Food standards: the cacophony of governance
J. Exp. Bot.
(2011)
Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement
JAMA
Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody
Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 USC 2340-2340A
Application of 18 USC 2340-2340A to Certain Techniques that May Be Used in the Interrogation of a High Value Al Quaeda Detainee
McSexy: exotic dancing and institutional power
Deviant Behav.
Hunger strikers: ethical and legal dimensions of medical complicity in torture at Guantanamo Bay
Prehospial Disaster Med.
Professionalism: value and ideology
Curr. Sociol.
PTSD: History and Overview
Guidelines on Interrogations Conducted Pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum of Notification of 17 September 2001
Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations and Torture
Draft
Ethics Abandoned. Medical Professionalism and Detained Abuse in the ‘War on Terror’
The dissemination, standardization and routinization of a molecular biological technique
Soc. Stud. Sci.
Doctors, interrogation and torture
BMJ
Commentary: torture and the professions
Crim. Justice Ethics
Outsourcing torture: the secret history of America's extraordinary rendition program
New Yorker
The experiment
New Yorker
The memo: how an internal effort to ban the abuse and torture of detainees was thwarted
New Yorker
The black sites
New Yorker
Cited by (4)
The chiral nature of the enhanced interrogation programme
2018, Aggression and Violent BehaviorCitation Excerpt :Medical personnel also set specific limits on detainees' exposure to low temperatures (Rubenstein & Xenakis, 2010). Non-medical interrogators were told to understand and respect the important role that medical personnel play in the programme (Balfe, 2016a). It was felt that by seeking to document and assess the efficacy and safety of enhanced interrogation techniques, monitoring health professionals may have been engaging in illegal human experimentation that violated the Nuremberg Code (Physicians for Human Rights, 2010, 2017) (undoubtedly aware of the risks of being compared to the Nazi Doctors, CIA doctors appeared to be very aware about the potential ethical risks of undertaking “guinea pig research on human beings” (Soldz et al., 2015).
Horror, Experimentation and Enhanced Interrogation
2021, Deviant BehaviorNeuroethics of Non-primary Brain Computer Interface: Focus on Potential Military Applications
2018, Frontiers in Neuroscience