Includes bibliographical references (p. [209]-213) and index.

If you can't oppose torture, what can you oppose? Psychologists confront coercive interrogations -- What's wrong with supporting national security? psychology and the -- Pursuit of national security -- Interrogating justic e: the "torture" memos and the office of legal counsel -- Ticking bombs and dirty hands: coercive interrogation and the rule of law -- Treating terrorists : the conflicting pull of role responsibility -- Discipline and punish : the importance of professional accountability -- Professional responsibility and the virtuous professional -- The day they enter active service : the military conscience -- Lessons learned : dignity and the rule of law -- This we do not do : the future of interrogation and the ethics of professional responsibility.

Can harsh interrogation techniques and torture ever be morally justified for a nation at war or under the threat of imminent attack? In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist strikes, the United States and other liberal democracies were forced to grapple once again with the issue of balancing national security concerns against the protection of individual civil and political rights. This question was particularly poignant when US forces took prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq who arguably had information about additional attacks. In this volume, ethicist Paul Lauritzen takes on ethical debates about counterterrorism techniques that are increasingly central to US foreign policy and discusses the ramifications for the future of interrogation. He examines how doctors, lawyers, psychologists, military officers, and other professionals addressed the issue of the appropriate limits in interrogating detainees. In the case of each of these professions, a vigorous debate ensued about whether the interrogation policy developed by the Bush administration violated codes of ethics governing professional practice. These codes are critical, according to Lauritzen, because they provide resources for democracies and professionals seeking to balance concerns about safety with civil liberties, while also shaping the character of those within these professional guilds. This volume argues that some of the techniques used at Guant�anamo Bay and elsewhere were morally impermissible; nevertheless, the healthy debates that raged among professionals provide hope that we may safeguard human rights and the rule of law more effectively in the future.