Prison Camp or “Prison Clinic?” - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 201

blood oxidation. The scanner would measure this increase, which a researcher could
then use to create a map of my brain with the pain receptors “lit up” so to speak.
This technology has a number of potential uses, ranging from medical diagnosis to
increasing our understanding of memory formation. However, there is one potential
use of fMRI technology which will drive our investigation. This is the attempt to use
fMRI technology as a lie detector.
It is widely accepted that polygraph lie detecting technology, currently used by a
variety of public and private groups, is not a precise way to measure the veracity of any
given statement (National Research Council 2003, 61). 2 Some enterprising companies
have seized on this fact and offer what they claim to be a far more accurate alterna-
tive. 3 By utilizing fMRI technology, these companies claim that they are able to deter-
mine when an individual is lying by observing blood oxidation levels in the brain. If
you ask a subject a question to which they lie in response, the “lying centers” of the
brain lights up and those conducting a scan can act accordingly. These scans bypass
the problems of a polygraph by going straight to the brain, so the companies claim.
Marketing efforts target a number of sectors. Of particular interest, are the campaign
efforts focusing on government agencies and departments, such as the U.S. Department
of Defense (DoD) and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (No Lie MRI
Inc. 2012). These two departments, among others, already utilize polygraph tests. The
sales pitch claims that this more accurate tool would greatly benefit our military and
serve as a more effective tool for ensuring national security. After all, when gathering
information which is critical to national security, one would want this information to be
as accurate as possible. I will now apply this claim to an imaginary test case in an effort
to demonstrate the national security application of fMRI technology.
Let us say that during the course of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, a special
forces team captures a high-level insurgent named X. X is designated as an enemy
combatant and transported to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation and eventual pros-
ecution. While X is under detention, intelligence reports arise which indicate that
X has detailed knowledge of an impending attack on U.S. soil. If the U.S. govern-
ment could acquire this knowledge, the attack would be thwarted and lives would be
saved. Throughout the course of X's interrogation, agents of the U.S. government uti-
lize fMRI-based lie detecting technology. At first X gives false answers to the ques-
tions regarding time and location of the attack. These answers result in measurable
increases in the blood oxygen level (BOLD) signed in “lying centers” of X's brain,
and the interrogators continue their efforts. Eventually, X supplies information which
does not trigger lying centers of his brain, and this presumably true information is for-
warded on to the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to thwart the attack.
This imaginary example clearly demonstrates the use of fMRI lie detecting tech-
nology in a national security context, and it allows us to narrow our focus onto one of
the State's most likely applications of neuroscientific advancement. The “high-pro-
file” detainees at Guantanamo Bay, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, presumably
have information which countries such as the United States consider vital to improv-
ing national security. Guantanamo is largely out of the public eye, making it an ideal
testing ground for new interrogation techniques. Couple this with the compromised
rights status of the detainees, and you have the perfect test case for neuroscientific
technology applied in the name of national security. Two questions arise. First, has