Debates over Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Mental Health Evaluations at Guantánamo

Abstract

Ethical debates over the use of mental health knowledge and practice at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility have mostly revolved around military clinicians sharing detainee medical information with interrogators, falsifying death certificates in interrogations, and disagreements over whether the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) “enhanced interrogation techniques” violated bioethical principles to do no harm. However, debates over the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the mental health evaluations of detainees have received little attention. This paper provides the first known analysis of such debates over MRI use in the case of Abd al-Rahim al- Nashiri. Through a close reading of open-source legal documents such as defense motions, prosecution motions, judge rulings, and al-Nashiri’s mental health evaluation, debates over MRI use become interpretive contests over the very meanings of mental illness and the extent to which MRI results can verify whether he was tortured in CIA custody. Such work can revitalize interest in the neuroethics of national security.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.

    Bush, George. 2010. Decision points. New York: Crown Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bybee, Jay S. 2002. Memorandum for Alberto R Gonzales: Counsel to the president. The National Security Archive. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.08.01.pdf. Accessed 7 March 2018.

  3. 3.

    Slevin, Peter, and Joe Stephens. 2004. Detainees’ medical files shared; Guantanamo interrogators' access criticized. Washington Post, June 10.

  4. 4.

    Contenta, Sandra. 2004. U.S. doctors tied to prisoner abuse. Toronto Star, August 20.

  5. 5.

    Hotakainen, Rob, and Josephine Marcotty. 2004. 'U' doctor questions ethics in Iraq; He says medical personnel breached human rights. Star Tribune, August 20.

  6. 6.

    Rubenstein, Leonard S., and Stephen N. Xenakis. 2010. Doctors without morals. New York Times, March 1.

  7. 7.

    Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 2014. S. Rpt. 113–288. Committee study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program together with foreword by Chairman Feinstein and additional and minority views. U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CRPT-113srpt288.pdf. Accessed 7 March 2018.

  8. 8.

    Singh, Jerome A. 2003. Military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay: Dual loyalty conflicts. Lancet 362: 573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Miles, Steven. 2004. Abu Ghraib: Its legacy for military medicine. Lancet 364: 725–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Annas, George J. 2006. Hunger strikes at Guantanamo--medical ethics and human rights in a “legal black hole”. New England Journal of Medicine 355: 1377–1382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Stephens, Joe. 2005. Army doctors implicated in abuse; Medical workers helped tailor interrogations of detainees, article says. Washington Post, January 6.

  12. 12.

    Sessums, Laura L., Jacob F. Collen, Patrick G. O’Malley, Jeffery L. Jackson, and Michael J. Roy. 2009. Ethical practice under fire: Deployed physicians in the global war on terrorism. Military Medicine 174: 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    American Psychiatric Association. 2006. Position statement on psychiatric participation in interrogation of detainees. American Psychiatric Association. https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/About-APA/Organization-Documents-Policies/Policies/Position-2014-Interrogation-Detainees-Psychiatric-Participation.pdf. Accessed 7 March 2018.

  14. 14.

    American Psychological Association. 2015. Resolution to amend the 2006 and 2013 council resolutions to clarify the roles of psychologists related to interrogation and detainee welfare in national security settings, to further implement the 2008 petition resolution, and to safeguard against acts of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment in all settings. American Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/independent-review/psychologists-interrogation.pdf. Accessed 7 March 2018.

  15. 15.

    Donald Trump. 2018. Presidential executive order on protecting America through lawful detention of terrorists. White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-executive-order-protecting-america-lawful-detention-terrorists/. Accessed 7 March 2018.

  16. 16.

    Moriarty, Jane Campbell. 2008. Flickering admissibility: Neuroimaging evidence in the U.S. courts. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 26: 29–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Patel, Purvak, Carolyn Cidis Meltzer, Helen S. Mayberg, and Kay Levine. 2007. The role of imaging in United States courtrooms. Neuroimaging Clinics of North America 17: 557–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Office of Military Commissions. 2018. USS Cole: Abd al-Rahim Hussein Muhammed Abdu Al-Nashiri (2). Department of Defense. http://www.mc.mil/Cases.aspx?caseType=omc&status=1&id=34. Accessed 8 March 2018.

  19. 19.

    Rosenberg, Carol. 2015. Guantánamo judge orders MRI of USS Cole defendant’s brain, abates trial. Miami Herald, April 10.

  20. 20.

    Rosenberg, Carol. 2017. Guantánamo gets MRI on four-month deployment, for one detainee? Miami herald, October 2.

  21. 21.

    Rosenberg, Carol. 2017. The pentagon paid $370,000 to rent an MRI for Guantánamo. It doesn’t work. Miami Herald, November 14.

  22. 22.

    Meynen, Gerben. 2014. Neurolaw: Neuroscience, ethics, and law. Review essay. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 17: 819–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Parens, Erik, and Josephine Johnston. 2014. Neuroimaging: Beginning to appreciate its complexities. The Hastings Center Report 44: S2–S7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Aggarwal, Neil Krishan, and Elizabeth Ford. 2013. The neuroethics and neurolaw of brain injury. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31: 789–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Greene, Edith, and Brian S. Cahill. 2012. Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 30: 280–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Remmel, Rheanna J., Andrea L. Glenn, and Jennifer Cox. 2018. Biological evidence regarding psychopathy does not affect mock jury sentencing. Journal of Personality Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_337.

  27. 27.

    Kennedy, Carrie H., Rosemary C. Malone, and Michael J. Franks. 2009. Provision of mental health services at the detention hospital in Guantanamo Bay. Psychological Services 6: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas. 2013. Guantanamo’s children: The Wikileaked testimonies. University of California Davis. http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/reports/guantanamos-children-the-wikileaked-testimonies/guantanamos-children-the-wikileaked-testimonies. Accessed 12 March 2018.

  29. 29.

    Aggarwal, Neil Krishan, and Andres J. Pumariega. 2011. Mental health services for minor detainees at Guantanamo. Adolescent Psychiatry 1: 325–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    American Civil Liberties Union. 2018. Guantánamo by the numbers. https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/detention/guantanamo-numbers. Accessed 9 March 2018.

  31. 31.

    United States Congress. Public Law 109-366 – Oct. 17, 2006: Military commissions act of 2006. Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2018.

  32. 32.

    Department of Defense. Part II. Rules for Military Commissions. Office of Military Commissions. http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/Part%20II%20-%20RMCs%20(FINAL).pdf. Accessed 10 March 2018.

  33. 33.

    United States Congress. H.R. 2647–385. Military Commissions Act of 2006. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/portals/0/mca20pub20law200920.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2018.

  34. 34.

    Department of Defense. 2011. Regulation for trial by military commission. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/2011%20Regulation.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2018.

  35. 35.

    Department of Defense. 2016. Military commission trial judiciary rules of court. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/MCTJ%20Rules%20of%20Court%20(2016).pdf. Accessed 10 March 2018.

  36. 36.

    Department of Defense. 2016. Manual for military commissions United States. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/2016_Manual_for_Military_Commissions.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2018.

  37. 37.

    Aggarwal, Neil Krishan. 2009. Allowing independent forensic evaluations for Guantánamo detainees. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 37: 533–537.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Howell, Alison. 2007. Victims or madmen? The diagnostic competition over “terrorist” detainees at Guantánamo Bay. International Political Sociology 1: 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Aggarwal, Neil Krishan. 2015. Mental health in the war on terror. Culture, science, and statecraft. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Department of Defense. 2011. Referred charges dated 9/28/2011. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(Referred%20Charges).pdf. Accessed 12 March 2018.

  41. 41.

    Department of Defense. 2012. Renewed defense motion to require JTF GTMO to allow the defendant to be unrestrained during attorney client meetings. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE026C).pdf. Accessed 12 March 2018.

  42. 42.

    Department of Defense. 2012. Government motion to compel disclosure of the accuseds mental-health information in light of the defense having placed his mental health at issue in its request for the accused to be unrestrained during attorney-client meetings. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE064).pdf. Accessed 12 March 2018.

  43. 43.

    Department of Defense. 2012. Defense response to government motion to compel disclosure of the accused's mental health information in light of the defense having placed his mental health at issue in its request for the accused to be unrestrained during attorney-client meetings. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE064A).pdf. Accessed 12 March 2018.

  44. 44.

    Department of Defense. 2012. Government motion for inquiry into the mental capacity of the accused under R.M.C. 706. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE140).pdf. Accessed 14 March 2018.

  45. 45.

    Department of Defense. 2012. Defense response to government motion for inquiry into the mental capacity of the accused under R.M.C. 706. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE140A).pdf. Accessed 14 March 2018.

  46. 46.

    Department of Defense. 2013. Military judges’ order on government motion for inquiry into the mental capacity of the accused under R.M.C. 706. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE140F).pdf. Accessed 14 March 2018.

  47. 47.

    Department of Defense. 2013. R.M.C. 706 sanity board evaluation of Mr. Al-Nashiri dated 28 March 2013. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE140J).pdf. Accessed 14 March 2018.

  48. 48.

    Department of Defense. 2014. Defense motion for appropriate relief - order a MRI of Mr Al-Nashiris brain. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE277).pdf. Accessed 15 March 2018.

  49. 49.

    Department of Defense. 2014. Government response to defense motion for appropriate relief: Order a magnetic resonance image (MRI) of Mr. Al Nashiris brain. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE277A).pdf. Accessed 15 March 2018.

  50. 50.

    Department of Defense. 2014. Defense reply to government response to defense motion for appropriate relief: Order a magnetic resonance image (MRI) of Mr. Al-Nashiris brain. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE277C).pdf. Accessed 15 March 2018.

  51. 51.

    Department of Defense. 2015. Military judge ruling defense motion for appropriate relief: Order a magnetic resonance image (MRI) of Mr. al-Nashiri's brain. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/alNashiri2/Al%20Nashiri%20II%20(AE277M)Ruling)).pdf. Accessed 15 March 2018.

  52. 52.

    Department of Defense. 2017. Government notice of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exam availability to all accused. Office of Military Commissions. http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/pdfs/KSM2/KSM%20II%20(AE526(Gov)).PDF. Accessed 15 March 2018.

  53. 53.

    Arturo Silva, J. 2009. Forensic psychiatry, neuroscience, and the law. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 37: 489–502.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Nadelhoffer, Thomas, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. 2012. Neurolaw and neuroprediction: Potential promises and perils. Philosophy Compass 7: 641–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Aggarwal, Neil Krishan. 2009. Neuroimaging, culture, and forensic psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 37: 239–244.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Liu, Christina T. 2015. Scanning the evidence: The evidentiary admissibility of expert witness testimony on MRI brain scans in civil cases in the post-Daubert era. N.Y.U. Annual Survey of American Law 70: 479–536.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Canli, Turhan, Susan Brandon, William Casebeer, Phillip J. Crowley, Don DuRousseau, Henry T. Greely, and Alvaro Pascual-Leone. 2007. Neuroethics and national security. American Journal of Bioethics 7: 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Rosenberg, Leah, and Eric Gehrie. 2007. Against the use of medical technologies for military or national security interests. American Journal of Bioethics 7: 22–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Griffith, Ezra E.H. 2003. Truth in forensic psychiatry: A cultural response to Gutheil and colleagues. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 31: 428–431.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Glancy, Graham D., Peter Ash, Erica P.J. Bath, Alec Buchanan, Paul Fedoroff, Richard L. Frierson, Victoria L. Harris, Susan J. Hatters Friedman, Mark J. Hauser, James Knoll, Mike Norko, Debra Pinals, Marilyn Price, Patricia Recupero, Charles L. Scott, and Howard V. Zonana. 2015. AAPL practice guideline for the forensic assessment. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 43: S3–S53.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Rippon, Gina, and Carl Senior. 2010. Neuroscience has no role in national security. AJOB Neuroscience 1: 37–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Krishan Aggarwal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aggarwal, N.K. Debates over Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Mental Health Evaluations at Guantánamo. Neuroethics 11, 337–346 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-018-9377-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • War on terror
  • Mental health
  • Psychology
  • Psychiatry
  • Guantánamo