espanolComo consecuencia de los atentados de septiembre de 2001 en EEUU, muchos sospechosos fueron arrestados, mantenidos bajo custodia e interrogados por diversas agencias gubernamentales de EEUU, con el proposito de obtener informacion sobre grupos terroristas. Existen pruebas de que algunos de los metodos utilizados, las denominadas “tecnicas intensificadas de interrogatorio”, incluian tortura, y senalan la implicacion de psicologos en ellas. Este articulo revisa esa implicacion como sigue: primero, con la creacion de los Behavioral Science Consultation Teams en centros de detencion como Guantanamo; segundo, en la variedad de tecnicas empleadas para “intensificar” el interrogatorio, muchas de ellas disenadas e implementadas por psicologos; tercero, en los sucesivos intentos realizados por la American Psychological Association (APA) para hacer frente a la protesta generalizada provocada por su implicacion en estas practicas; finalmente, se presentan razones que explican la amplia aceptacion de la tortura y otras que niegan su efectividad para obtener informacion relevante. EnglishIn the aftermath of the September 2001 attacks in the USA, many suspects were arrested, kept in custody and interrogated by several US government agencies in order to obtain information about terrorist groups. Significant evidence indicates that some of the methods used, so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques”, included torture, and points to psychologists being involved in these practices. This article looks into this involvement as follows: firstly, the creation of the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams in detention centers such as Guantanamo; secondly, the variety of techniques employed to “enhance” interrogation, many of which had been designed, and even implemented by psychologists; thirdly, the successive efforts carried out by the American Psychological Association (APA) to respond to the public outcry provoked by their involvement in these practices; finally, motives for the widespread acceptability of torture, and motives that deny its effectiveness for obtaining relevant information.