In one type of such circumstance, the consultant has no direct access to the individual about whom psychological insight is being sought, but still the consultant's input may have serious consequences for the individual at issue as well as for legal, public-safety, and national security policies. In another type of circumstance, the consultant may have professional contact with the individual in question, but the law, national security, and/or public-safety concerns dictate that the true purpose of the contact with the individual be withheld from him/her. In both of these circumstances, certain elements of the consultant's role are dictated in part by legal parameters over which the consultant has no control or input. In the scenarios presented in this paper, the strict application of the prevailing ethical standards of psychology and psychiatry would preclude psychologists and psychiatrists from practicing under such circumstances. Still, under the grave dangers faced by the United States under the terrorist threat, the U.S. Government cannot afford to lose the input of mental health professionals in cases that involve national safety and security. Such input has been and will continue to be vital to protecting the lives of many Americans, both civilian and military, at home and abroad. There is a compelling and immediate need for the development of realistic ethical standards that are tailored to the specific circumstances and practices of mental health professionals engaged in such national-security matters. 10 references