A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. ~Winston Churchill

Comments on Military Psychologists, Interrogation, and Torture

Recently, I was interviewed by NPR and quoted in a spot that aired on their "All Things Considered" program.  Although I provided hours of background information, an article on waterboarding, and was interviewed for an additional three hours, NPR chose five minutes of various statements and misapplied them in order to create the statement they wished to make, not the position I hold. Although it would be impossible for me to give a statement-by-statement refutation of their presentation, I will discuss a few general points, and may update my comments in the future.  I am simply not going to spend my time tracking down every contemptible lie. 

1.  I defended military psychology; I did not defend techniques, but discussed them (a distinction that should be clear even to NPR); I also did not defend individuals. I specifically and directly declined to defend individuals because a) I am not privy to details and, unlike NPR, am unwilling to discuss matters in a way that might misrepresent them, and b) the individuals discussed are capable of defending themselves. I defended, and will continue to stand up for, military psychology because it has recently come under attack--including from our own organization, the APA.

2.  Interrogation, harsh interrogation, and torture are different issues. Interrogation is asking questions. It is how one gets answers, whether from patients, from crime suspects, or from enemy combatants. Asking questions of any of these people is ethical. It is the pursuit of the truth that is, in every case, the issue.  There is currently debate about the ethics of harsh interrogation. It is a matter of record that the U.S. government has used and had approved harsh interrogation techniques. Some people claim waterboarding is torture. I, as someone who has been waterboarded, recognize that it is harsh interrogation; I have never taken a public position on whether it is or is not torture, or whether it should be used on enemy combatants.

3.  Whether something is effective and whether it is ethical are two different issues. Former POWs from Vietnam, such as John McCain and the late Admiral Stockdale, have acknowledged breaking under torture. Read some of the harrowing accounts of what these brave Americans experienced at the hands of the enemy (yes, in war we have enemies). People who claim torture doesn't work simply don't know what they are talking about. NPR knows that my discussion of various torture techniques was related to what Americans have experienced at the hands of their captors, not about what Americans do to their captives. I am aware of no cases in which the arms-behind-the-back technique (the "rope torture"), for example, has ever been used by Americans against people we have held prisoner. However, this is a different question from whether it is ethical.

I have never taken the position that torture is ethical. I know of no American psychologist who believes torture is ethical. There are many people, including psychologists, who believe that waterboarding is harsh interrogation, but not torture. This is an item of legitimate debate, and those of us who have been waterboarded should have our opinions heard.  What is insulting is how many members of the APA automatically assume members of the military and military psychologists are going to behave unethically, and need supervision from the UN Human Rights Council (which includes countries with such stellar records as China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia) in order to behave ethically. The APA's current position, which seems to be shared by much of the news media and the Left, is that military psychologists are guilty until proven innocent.

4.   Pain and harm are also different issues. Again, this is something I discussed at length with NPR, as well as previous interviews. There are various types of pain people can experience (physical, emotional, spiritual, psychological). Some pain, such as the pain a patient must face in therapy, is beneficial; some pain is harmful, such as the pain that crippled John McCain. I experienced pain in the form of fear when I was waterboarded, but I have never considered myself harmed from the experience; in fact, I consider myself better for having gone through it. Telling this truth is not taking a public position on the technique. Incidentally, NPR tried a number of times to get me to say that the enemy could benefit and grow from waterboarding, to the point that I confronted them on it. Listening to this interview, or reading the article on their website, one would certainly never come close to understanding what I said.

5. I am proud of my work at the SERE school, helping brave Americans learn how to resist a brutal and relentless enemy. I enjoyed and shared their pride in their accomplishments. I was proud to have gone through the program in 1990. NPR chose to misrepresent this to intimate that I have enjoyed participating in torture. How despicable.

6.  America's military works hard to prepare its troops and officers to face the enemy with honor. I stand by my statement that America should give us thanks (this would be considered "supporting the troops.")

Context matters, which is why no one wants to be taken out of context. NPR's treatment of my interview was contemptible because they made a conscious decision to edit in such a way as to misrepresent my statements and my views. If I was harmed by them, was I tortured? Perhaps if I apply the logic they used in order to justify what could accurately called a "hit piece." Of the three most recent interviews I have given, all three have misconstrued what I said in order to support what they wanted to support, not to present an honest discussion of various elements of the issues. Small wonder the vast majority of Americans mistrust the media.

I am proud of my profession, I am proud of the military, and I am proud of my country.

Bryce Lefever