I sincerely think the American Psychological Association promises not to participate in Torture again, unless of course it gets paid enough to tolerate the "pain" of public chastisement.
3
The psychologists who participated in investigations involving torture are immoral. They should have their licenses revoked. But the APA, in banning the participation of members in any national security interrogations, is, in effect, saying that their members are so morally obtuse that they are unable to distinguish right from wrong, and therefor, the organization has to make the decision (that they not be allowed to participate) for them in advance.
4
The American Psychological Association will say whatever it has to say to make believe whoever can be duped that it will from now on embrace humanistic ethics, but to to all who know better it is clear the APA and other organizations will do whatever is in their best interest, every time, and that they forever remain for sale at the right price.
2
This certainly is good news! Although I'm surprised, that the text had to be re-written to satisfy some cranks.
I was horrified when I read about psychologists participating in torture, and making good money out of it.
But, there are still doctors conducting executions by lethal injection. What about them?
I was horrified when I read about psychologists participating in torture, and making good money out of it.
But, there are still doctors conducting executions by lethal injection. What about them?
1
I woul not be surprised if those same psychologists or their peers will participating right now in the interrogations and torture of Americans in the secret sites of the Chicago police department.
I woul not be surprised if those same psychologists, or their peers, were participating right now in the interrogations and torture of Americans in the secret sites of the Chicago police department.
3
This scratches surface of abuses by medical personnel at the behest of Intelligence agencies. Physicians are being bribed and coerced to implant 'bio mems' in Americans falsely targeted. I am one of those individuals who have implants that track & internally torture. These bio mems are visible on xrays and scans yet physicians ignore them. I have contacted Risen who dismissed my claims. But he is very behind on awareness of technology being used by DOD. You can read about a similar case here: http://topinfopost.com/2015/02/02/chip-removed-from-an-individual-body. This story is not a hoax as I have talked to virtually ever party mentioned. The NYTs is falling down on its responsibilities to investigate these abuses.
1
Tell it to Sidney Gottlieb at MK-Ultra.
He'd be so proud.
My, my, my - look at them now: the APA (now) strongly (after the fact) reprimands interrogation as practiced by those who got caught, because they got their (collective) APA reputation sullied? As if there had been a line that had ever been drawn before.
It's the era of Obama! They've gotta quarterback this thing ....
I spent a few years in undergrad psychology - questionable ethics such as seen herein were never delimited then, as it is not now.
Whether psychiatry or psychology, cultural dictates and cultural imperatives have dominated the field. Ethics have always been seen as a quesy option - paraded loudly only when taught, then ultimately expunged.
Here's the APA mantra: Cuz we all need a job, and we all have to do a job, and if I don't do it, someone else will.
That's psychology/psychiatry today.
It's the era of Obama! They've gotta quarterback this thing ....
I spent a few years in undergrad psychology - questionable ethics such as seen herein were never delimited then, as it is not now.
Whether psychiatry or psychology, cultural dictates and cultural imperatives have dominated the field. Ethics have always been seen as a quesy option - paraded loudly only when taught, then ultimately expunged.
Here's the APA mantra: Cuz we all need a job, and we all have to do a job, and if I don't do it, someone else will.
That's psychology/psychiatry today.
6
It's as if the German Medical Association, assuming there is one,voted after WWII not to sanction doctors taking part in medical experiments on twins, babies and other vulnerable people.
The American psychologists who took part in and made millions of dollars working for the CIA to torture other human beings belong in jail and this vote does not fix what they did and never will.
Where was were these people and their organization when their colleagues were committing war crimes?
The American psychologists who took part in and made millions of dollars working for the CIA to torture other human beings belong in jail and this vote does not fix what they did and never will.
Where was were these people and their organization when their colleagues were committing war crimes?
11
Better late than never. The psychologists who supported,encouraged, participated and reaped monetary benefits by helping CIA torture hapless detainees should be thrown out of the association and charged in a court of law. They did great damage to their profession and are a stigma on the association.
6
Is this that old cliché about closing the barn door after the horse is out? I never joined the APA in the 30 years I was in practice, but this kind of acceptance of such an immoral stance was merely one of the reasons. Banning something is the talk rather than the walk.....that remains to be seen.
8
Too little and late, but still essential, Psychology must establish it's credibility as a health profession and deprive leaders from using the tools of psychology to commit crimes against humanity. Mr. Yoo's scholarly justification is a tempting bit of sophistry and should be recognized as an example to be condemned.
In the meanwhile, William Lewinski, a psychologist, has taken it upon himself to justify police shootings of unarmed Black men and others. Explaining such impulses gives permission. This practice must also be recognized as a public harm, as unhealthy, and in need of regulation by the APA. While the APA has finally taken a strong stance regarding torture it must also prevent condoning killing by police.
In the meanwhile, William Lewinski, a psychologist, has taken it upon himself to justify police shootings of unarmed Black men and others. Explaining such impulses gives permission. This practice must also be recognized as a public harm, as unhealthy, and in need of regulation by the APA. While the APA has finally taken a strong stance regarding torture it must also prevent condoning killing by police.
4
I'm curious about what the journalist means by the term "voluntary interrogations of detainees" (referring to detainees at Guantánamo Bay). Perhaps you could clarify?
All in all though this ruling makes me feel significantly happier about the US.
All in all though this ruling makes me feel significantly happier about the US.
1
I think that we should prohibit not the involvement by psychologists in national security interrogations, but the use of torture in our prisons.
6
I'm pleasantly surprised the vote was so one-sided, but a bit suspicious.
The separate though related matter of psychology and all medicine / healthcare interaction with the police must be dealt with as well. The police should never be allowed access to a suspect's or other individual's medical records or the persons of their physicians
The separate though related matter of psychology and all medicine / healthcare interaction with the police must be dealt with as well. The police should never be allowed access to a suspect's or other individual's medical records or the persons of their physicians
4
A day late and a dollar short. I'm not impressed.
5
It's called cya.
2
Maybe decisions like this help explain why less then 45% of psychologists are members of the APA and membership continues to fall.
8
While they are at it, the APA may want to consider banning this as well. http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2011/01/psychological-resilience....
Using positive psychology to train soldiers to feel positive when killing is also ethically questionable, no?
Using positive psychology to train soldiers to feel positive when killing is also ethically questionable, no?
20
They should shut down, disgusting !
past member ,long past for the above reasons.
past member ,long past for the above reasons.
3
It is important to recognize that the participation in interrogation was by psychologists, not psychiatrists. Psychiatrists are medical doctors and are bound by the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm. Psychiatrists at the CIA refused participation and warned that psychologist activities were unethical, according to the psychologists' investigation report and NY Times reporting.
13
This important step affirms what apparently the APA ethically has required it members to do all along. But the important question is what do they intend to do to sanction their own members who violated rules of professional conduct that were in place at the time the interrogations took place.
The APA has to be decisive about this issue, or it risks diluting it credibility. It is not enough to say that the rules didn't exist then--they did--or that the rules weren't clear--they were very clear. The rules were modified after the fact to make the unethical conduct appear ethical.
If the APA isn't decisive about this, they cannot call themselves a professional organization and have no business regulating the professional conduct of these health providers.
The APA has to be decisive about this issue, or it risks diluting it credibility. It is not enough to say that the rules didn't exist then--they did--or that the rules weren't clear--they were very clear. The rules were modified after the fact to make the unethical conduct appear ethical.
If the APA isn't decisive about this, they cannot call themselves a professional organization and have no business regulating the professional conduct of these health providers.
5
If the military psychologists split off from the APA they need to be sued, shamed, hounded and exposed as torture-enablers. Bring cases against individuals in the International Court of Justice so they can't travel overseas without risk of arrest and transfer to the Hague to face justice. They can join David Addington, Jay Bybee (what a travesty he is now a federal judge) and the Bay Area's own John Yoo, all who sleep with one eye open and will vacation at Disneyland forever.
14
And now what do American law professors says about their collegue Prof Yoo, the author of the infamous torture memos ?
UCLA Berkley must be ashamed to have a Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law who paved the legal way for torture.
You can image that a legal council of the SS still held a law chair after 1945 ?
UCLA Berkley must be ashamed to have a Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law who paved the legal way for torture.
You can image that a legal council of the SS still held a law chair after 1945 ?
19
Mike Benefield
St Louis
From one extreme to the other … like a rubber band (typically an emotional human reaction, even for the nation’s professional body of psychologists). Perhaps someday some years down the road, the APA will find a rational, reasoned, moderate position somewhere between the two extremes…in their professional reasoned and experiential wisdom rather than in their emotion-driven, overreacting extreme knee-jerk. A supposedly consensus-based remedy -- the total ‘ban’ syndrome -- which includes withholding professional healthcare-oversight to people undergoing clandestine interrogation every day in our country, people now declared by the APA vote as a non-inclusive group of human beings. Not good in any professed civilization, especially among the professions. It diminishes our pride in being a civilized nation, and undermines our moral acuity.
St Louis
From one extreme to the other … like a rubber band (typically an emotional human reaction, even for the nation’s professional body of psychologists). Perhaps someday some years down the road, the APA will find a rational, reasoned, moderate position somewhere between the two extremes…in their professional reasoned and experiential wisdom rather than in their emotion-driven, overreacting extreme knee-jerk. A supposedly consensus-based remedy -- the total ‘ban’ syndrome -- which includes withholding professional healthcare-oversight to people undergoing clandestine interrogation every day in our country, people now declared by the APA vote as a non-inclusive group of human beings. Not good in any professed civilization, especially among the professions. It diminishes our pride in being a civilized nation, and undermines our moral acuity.
5
I am not an APA member or a psychologist, but I take your point in so far as it would be good should the US gov't engage in torture practice again to have an APA member present to report it immediately. I am glad the APA is denouncing its past collaboration, but the wording of the new ban also works against
learning if any torture is going on at all.
learning if any torture is going on at all.
2
I’ve been a member of the APA for 40 years, & except for this recent involvement in dubious interrogation practices, I’ve always thought & still do, that the APA is mostly a force for good for Humanity. To me this mess, like others, is symptomatic of the low ethical quality of the entire Bush/Cheney administration. Is there such a thing as ETHICAL intelligence? If so, the previous administration would rate a low score on it in my opinion. This is something independent from traditional religiosity which becomes a perverse hypocrisy when combined with it. Manifest evil in the world is sometimes not the result of malicious intent, but rather more due to grievous ethical error.
The excessive torture practices are actually only a small part of the problem. A greater issue to me is the initiation of unnecessary warfare, the consequences of which are much more horrific than isolated cases of torture. The war in Afghanistan could possibly be morally justified as necessary, but not the one in Iraq, which a few of us (liberal & conservative) strenuously asserted from the beginning of it. The invasion of Iraq represented the abandonment of the Just War Tradition by the U.S.
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. ……It was right to resist the war.” Pope Benedict XVI
“It is essential not to lose sight of the moral dimension of war. ……..The War in Iraq did not even come close to satisfying the requirements of a just war.” Ron Paul
The excessive torture practices are actually only a small part of the problem. A greater issue to me is the initiation of unnecessary warfare, the consequences of which are much more horrific than isolated cases of torture. The war in Afghanistan could possibly be morally justified as necessary, but not the one in Iraq, which a few of us (liberal & conservative) strenuously asserted from the beginning of it. The invasion of Iraq represented the abandonment of the Just War Tradition by the U.S.
"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. ……It was right to resist the war.” Pope Benedict XVI
“It is essential not to lose sight of the moral dimension of war. ……..The War in Iraq did not even come close to satisfying the requirements of a just war.” Ron Paul
5
There were several M.D.s, physicians, medical doctors who supported the torturers kin questioning many of the Guantanamo prisoners. doctors who stopped the torture proceedings when it looked like organ damage or nearness to death itself was obvious. Then the doctors treated the prisoners, helped them back to health, SO THE PRISONERS COULD BE TORTURED SOME MORE.
These are them men, medical doctors, who had taken the Hippocratic Oath, that were the despicable villains of the torture chambers of Guantanamo, for at least 6 years. Where is the American Medical Association on this issue. Why are their outcry's? Where is the moral fiber of America on this issue. Psychologists can easily error. Doctors have a far deeper training, usually with ethics, morality, and human life and dignity given a place in their decision making training. For Doctors to support the actions of torturing fools is take a humane profession and use to impose man's inhumanities to man. We know who Mengele was in the German Death Camps. Who was his counter part in Guantanamo? Who's hiding his - or their - names? Who ever they are. They should be given the opportunity to explain their medical support of known torture. Then, if found lacking, they should be punished.
Oh, and just for the new people running for President: Where are the weapons of mass destruction we paid 4,000 lives, 25,000 wounded and 4 trillion dollars to find? Maybe a new Republican President can find them?
These are them men, medical doctors, who had taken the Hippocratic Oath, that were the despicable villains of the torture chambers of Guantanamo, for at least 6 years. Where is the American Medical Association on this issue. Why are their outcry's? Where is the moral fiber of America on this issue. Psychologists can easily error. Doctors have a far deeper training, usually with ethics, morality, and human life and dignity given a place in their decision making training. For Doctors to support the actions of torturing fools is take a humane profession and use to impose man's inhumanities to man. We know who Mengele was in the German Death Camps. Who was his counter part in Guantanamo? Who's hiding his - or their - names? Who ever they are. They should be given the opportunity to explain their medical support of known torture. Then, if found lacking, they should be punished.
Oh, and just for the new people running for President: Where are the weapons of mass destruction we paid 4,000 lives, 25,000 wounded and 4 trillion dollars to find? Maybe a new Republican President can find them?
8
This just further undermines their legitimacy.
It guarantees that they have zero say or oversight in crucial national security investigations. We NEED ethical 3rd party involvement, but these folks just can't take the heat, I guess.
It's just too hard to stand firm for ethical principles, when Dick Cheney's spraying spittle all over your face!
It guarantees that they have zero say or oversight in crucial national security investigations. We NEED ethical 3rd party involvement, but these folks just can't take the heat, I guess.
It's just too hard to stand firm for ethical principles, when Dick Cheney's spraying spittle all over your face!
7
This is an exercise in academic, sanctimonious narcissism. It's one thing to have an ethics code that bans involvement in some kinds of forced interrogation. It's another thing to claim that one is above any kind of involvement in national security issues. We are all in the same boat when it comes to threats to national security, and for a subset of self-involved psychologists to claim that their simple-minded notions of ethical purity trump the common good is not only intellectually lazy, but morally reprehensible.
10
"We are all in the same boat when it comes to threats to national security,"
Yes we are. And when it comes to the kind of threats that are at issue here it's a boat that's about ninety million parts fearmongering and idiocy to one part actual threat.
Yes we are. And when it comes to the kind of threats that are at issue here it's a boat that's about ninety million parts fearmongering and idiocy to one part actual threat.
6
Too bad the APA cannot define a role for using psychological skills to glean useful information from detainees or any putative criminals. Aren't they supposed to be the experts in understanding how the mind works to deceive, even across cultures and how to draw an ethical line between interrogation and torture? Shouldn't that be allowed under a well-regulated and transparent policy?
8
In fact, the APA excluded the cooperation of psychologists for torture - if you use plain English.
APA explicitely allowed psychologists' work in criminal affairs.
It was a shame that APA accepted torture as a working field of applied psychologists.
APA explicitely allowed psychologists' work in criminal affairs.
It was a shame that APA accepted torture as a working field of applied psychologists.
2
Assisting in torture in any form should not be permitted. There is a temptation to condone torture when urgency and dire circumstances arise. That is precisely when the APA must condemn torture and refuse to help. Well regulated torture, Mr. Yoo's scholarly sophistry, sound reasonable, even appealing. That is why a policy is required for health professions.
1
It's about time. But why wasn't the vote unanimous?
5
The APA has always had ethical standards that did not allow participation in torture but the organization's leadership, dominated by militarists, circumvented those rules of conduct. Now the APA pass a ban because this time they really mean it. They've lost my trust. Without holding members accountable for their prior transgressions, what's to prevent them from accommodating the authoritarians in charge once again. As they say on Passover, "What's different this night than any other night?"
7
Sorry CSW. Your Passover quote is more accurately translated as "Why is this night different from all other nights?" Not what is different but "why" is it different? Still, I do not condone the APA's come from behind attempt to restore it's significantly tarnished reputation and credibility vis a vis ethical practices. The APA vote merely makes cosmetic changes. When I hear that former members have been stripped of their membership and reported to respective state Boards of Examiners I might alter my view. APA might be the biggest psychological organization in size but it is surely not the best.
1
CSW, you misunderstand the meaning of the question. The night of the Passover seder IS different from all other nights, and the response by the seder participants is to explain why. Your quote sounds like you're saying there is no difference, just as you expect the APA in the future to be no different than it has been in the past. (In that respect, I agree. If they don't hold members accountable--and if the U.S. government doesn't hold torturers accountable--they will continue to behave in exactly the same way.)
2
i don't what's worse.... that it took them 10 years to acknowledge their complicity and approve this rule; or that it's required in the first place.
disgusting.
disgusting.
12
In war, we have to do whatever it takes to win. There is nothing politically correct about war. I think this is just repulsive.
6
There was also no useful information gotten by the methods used. It has been shown repeatedly that other methods, not torture, are more effective. It is unethical to use methods that are not proven. Yes, you are right: war is hell, but psychologists are expected to act ethically.
2
"In war, we have to do whatever it takes to win."
Mustard gas? White phosphorus? Cluster bombs on civilian areas? Nuclear strikes like in the film Dr. Strangelove? We humans are killing our planet (and ourselves) enough, Mr. Barker; it's time you got onboard the peace train.
Mustard gas? White phosphorus? Cluster bombs on civilian areas? Nuclear strikes like in the film Dr. Strangelove? We humans are killing our planet (and ourselves) enough, Mr. Barker; it's time you got onboard the peace train.
13
YOu sound like a so-called "jihadist"....I don't agree that "we have to do whatever it takes to win"....Win what, exactly? And when do you know you have won? Since Vietnam (of which I am a veteran), this country has ben conducting "war" all over the place, without a clear goal or enemy. Perpetual war is what its called in order to justifiy the military industrial complex and its control of our government. Trillions of dollars mis-spent in unwarranted interventions, invasions, occupations that have accomplished only one thing: Creating more and more "enemies" for your beloved country. You want war? Go volunteer and join the Marines. Reinstate the draft (and if you mess with Iran that option will be essential as they have armed manpower of 20x1 to U.S. forces. Not even high tech weapons will be succesful tools of war under those conditions.
14
The APA deserves national scorn for the role they played for years in supporting the Bush administration's torture policies. An organization that is allegedly dedicated to supporting people to resolve psychological problems and function at their best should NEVER have participated in such policies. This new ban is way too little, too late, as far as I'm concerned.
Further, I understand that some of the architects or participants in the creation of the torture techniques themselves are still working with the APA today and have not been punished in any way.
SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!
Further, I understand that some of the architects or participants in the creation of the torture techniques themselves are still working with the APA today and have not been punished in any way.
SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!
9
Although I am not a psychologist, I want readers to know that the psychoanalytic psychologists (Division 39) vehemently and courageously opposed the corruption of their parent organization. Many of them resigned when their protests were ignored.
36
Gosh, it only took a decade to decide the ethics of abetting torture!
11
So now it finally comes out that some of the APA's own officers and other "prominent" members "colluded" with the government to participate in "harsh" interrogation techniques. Harsh indeed. You know that if they're calling it "harsh", it was far worse. Words like "inhumane" and "torture" and "suffering"--likely too mild--come to mind. Isn't it extraordinary that an organization whose members are devoted to understanding and treating thought disorders and issues of perception, motivation and impulse control would so quickly succumb to the overtures and seduction of the CIA and the Department of Defense. I think the APA and some of its more "prominent" members need some serious "therapy"--long-term (as they often recommend) to get to the root of the problem. And why give them just a mental health pass? Take them to their respective disciplinary boards and subject them to civilized yet probing interrogation. Maybe a deterrent effect will help.
8
Many people don't understand that psychologists, like physicians and other health care professionals, are often business people as well. Where there is money to be made, there will always be someone there to vacuum up the profits. Sadly, (some) professional psychologists are no different.
14
The APA, having been caught being hypocritical, is now veering off to a mix of PC, CYA and sanctimony.
It shows that psychologists do not have the integrity and bravery to participate in a process, but blow the whistle if it violates their ethics.
It shows that psychologists do not have the integrity and bravery to participate in a process, but blow the whistle if it violates their ethics.
5
Unfortunately, psychology/psychiatry have soiled their reputations by their contradictory testimony in thousands of trials--no matter the situation, there is always a mental health professional on both sides of trials. To me this means that at least some of these folks will tailor their opinion for money, or, even worse, that the profession is not really science. Where is the APA on this issue?
7
Well, I don't know about the APA's position on this subject (though I can easily IMAGINE what it would be), but from my point of view the profession is clearly NOT science in the sense that, say, physics or organic chemistry or molecular biology are. The human brain is complex enough, the human MIND is off the charts in its complexity. That's why you get these duels of opposing "experts" at trials. These people may firmly BELIEVE what they say, but what they KNOW is precious little.
8
Yes, psychology is just another social "science", with lots of emphasis on prevailing ideological currents, and little on actual science. It's telling that plenty of psychologists still think Freud did science. Today's psychologists are to the future's brain scientists as alchemists were to today's chemists.
1
There are different forms and realms of science. The fact that psychology, or any of the social sciences, is not a science in the way organic chemistry is simply speaks to the diversity of the various sciences, not the weakness of psychology. Furthermore, speaking of physics: if you think physics is somehow less theoretical than psychology, you haven't done your homework.
3
The full profession has been tainted by its representatives' sanctioning torture. Period.
14
Any psychologist who is a member of the APA should be denied Federal reimbursement. This is not ethics, it is politics. This is no different from the AMA taking action against a physician who performs abortions. Will the APA ban it's members from working with psychologists from Israel. So long as it is legal, the APA, the AMA, and the American Bar Association has no business imposing it's beliefs, political, religious or moral, on others. They are hypocrites.
5
Too late, too little unless the org excommunicates all that took part in the "enhanced" interrogations.
13
There heart may have been in the right place, but I also worry about the "unintended consequences" contemplated by some of the APA's own membership. I would understand refusing to participate in torture, but non-coercive interrogation is, by nature, not the same as the enhanced interrogation techniques cited in the report. So what's the situation now if the government wants to interrogate a prisoner without torturing them? No experts in the field of psychology can assist without being sanctioned by the APA, so the government will have to wing it. And if their interrogation is unsuccessful, and the need for information becomes pressing, they will become desperate. Perhaps a trained psychologist might have provided hope of a less barbarous means of interrogation. If the APA wants to rehabilitate their image, they should use their expertise to show that we can successfully interrogate prisoners without torturing them. Instead, amateurs and/or sadists may fill the vacuum the APA has left, promising irresistible results to agencies who are charged with gathering vital intelligence from a prisoner, but who are out of humane ways to do so. Not to be flippant, but it reminds me of that quote from the Dark Knight about how the Joker became so powerful in Gotham: "You made them desperate. And in their desperation, they turned to a man they didn't fully understand." That's the kind of person the government will eventually turn to in the APA's absence.
3
In our hour of crisis, we failed. we went to war without justification, we imprisoned and tortured people without discrimination and we violated American and international laws and treaties. This was a failure of government, politics, media, morals, religious academic and professional ethics. It was the low point in our national history. Our Golgatha. There is shame enough to go around.
26
The low point in national history? Reminds me of scorpion and the frog. It's in our nature.
Meh. I can't really find myself as wound up as you. We did what we felt was needed at the time. Our greatest failing was in not killing enough people in Iraq, shattering the spirit of the nation, and remodeling them to suit our needs. The world is a dirty place, and sometimes you have to go into the mud.
1
Larry James, the article's chosen spokesman for those who spoke out against the ban, is not merely 'a psychologist'. He was on government payroll while helping draft the PENS report that defended psychologists' role in interrogations. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dangerous-ideas/201503/collusion-wh... In a speech to the APA Board on the occasion of the public release of the Hoffman report, James Reisner listed James as one of those who should be banned from leadership positions in the APA. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/13/opening-comments-to-the-american-...
24
Readers with some knowledge of 20th century history will see intriguing parallels between this post and the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s.
2
So you are defending the use of psychologists for torture ????
No guts. The APA has been irredeemably corrupted by a government tainted by violations of decency and law that the government cannot undo, or even up to this point be fully truthful about.
The APA should disband. Start a new organization with an entirely new set of by-laws. A "ban" proclaimed against present membership winks and nods at perpetrators and non-perpetrators alike. It says, "We're all going to be better people now, going forward." But in what way weren't you good people as the torture counseling went on? How many of your members knew or cared enough to be outraged? Are you different now, or just inescapably embarrassed?
A new organization is the only way for APA members to answer that question. I'm no psychologist, but I believe that people who continually, exhaustively, torture -- which we know happened here -- do so because they enjoy it. The APA needs to look its complicity in such conscienceless malignity squarely in the face. You can't "ban" it. You have to root it out and eradicate it.
The APA should disband. Start a new organization with an entirely new set of by-laws. A "ban" proclaimed against present membership winks and nods at perpetrators and non-perpetrators alike. It says, "We're all going to be better people now, going forward." But in what way weren't you good people as the torture counseling went on? How many of your members knew or cared enough to be outraged? Are you different now, or just inescapably embarrassed?
A new organization is the only way for APA members to answer that question. I'm no psychologist, but I believe that people who continually, exhaustively, torture -- which we know happened here -- do so because they enjoy it. The APA needs to look its complicity in such conscienceless malignity squarely in the face. You can't "ban" it. You have to root it out and eradicate it.
28
And it only took 14 years.
16
Really they had to be told this? It just confirms why so many people refuse to take psychologists seriously.
17
I am somewhat surprised that James Risen uses the euphemism "harsh interrogation" instead of the accurate and publicly accepted "torture." I suppose our society started becoming desensitized to reality when, during the Viet Nam War, it accepted "collateral damage" as a sanitized euphemism for "civilian casualties." A decade later all semblance of shame at prostituting language dissolved, when "anti-abortion" became "right to life."
The truly sad part is not that partisan advocates for a policy had and have no shame at such practices but, rather, that their activities have become mainstream acceptable, so much so that even the Times, N.P.R., and P.B.S. accept it.
As to the psychologists: though I am 100% opposed to psychologists, doctors (or anyone else, for that matter) being involved in torture, it strikes me as ridiculous to say they should not be involved with the military or with intelligence agencies. If the issue is credibility, the ruling is counterproductive. How am I supposed trust psychologists, if they are afraid they are not able to act effectively and ethically in a military or intelligence gathering environment?
The truly sad part is not that partisan advocates for a policy had and have no shame at such practices but, rather, that their activities have become mainstream acceptable, so much so that even the Times, N.P.R., and P.B.S. accept it.
As to the psychologists: though I am 100% opposed to psychologists, doctors (or anyone else, for that matter) being involved in torture, it strikes me as ridiculous to say they should not be involved with the military or with intelligence agencies. If the issue is credibility, the ruling is counterproductive. How am I supposed trust psychologists, if they are afraid they are not able to act effectively and ethically in a military or intelligence gathering environment?
15
A shameful episode. Heads should role at APA but I'll bet they won't.
9
The APA is irrelevant.
The shame is caused by the criminal actions of our government.
The shame is caused by the criminal actions of our government.
4
You meant to say, but were afraid to say:
"The American Psychological Association voted overwhelmingly to approve a ban that would include TORTURE now conducted by the Obama administration.
"The American Psychological Association voted overwhelmingly to approve a ban that would include TORTURE now conducted by the Obama administration.
12
"the ban was needed to restore the organization’s reputation"
How about the ban was needed because it is the ethical thing to do.
How about the ban was needed because it is the ethical thing to do.
54
Politically correct? These are the same people that wanted to ban the bomb. No interrogation can ever be non coercive, otherwise it would not be effective. Let's see, the suitcase bomb is its way, just ask 'pretty please' and you will get the right answer. Delusional people like this will get us all killed.
8
The "suitcase bomb" scenario is a red herring. This situation only happens in the movies. In real life, the interrogator doesn't actually KNOW that there's a suitcase bomb on the way and people being tortured will just tell their torturer whatever they think he wants to hear. Only lovers of violence seriously believe (because they WANT to believe) that torture actually works. Torturers are simply sadists and those who support them are simply wannabe sadists. And by the way Coolhunter (you have no idea how revealing your adolescent handle is), "these people" are absolutely RIGHT to want to ban the bomb. It's interesting that apparently, you want to keep it.
6
You would think that psychologists, of all people, would realize that human nature makes it impossible to "ban the bomb".
1
"Let's see, the suitcase bomb is its way, just ask 'pretty please' and you will get the right answer."
How many suitcase bombs were successfully intercepted and neutralized as a result of the use of the kind of interrogation techniques that are at issue here? If the answer is 'zero,' perhaps you should re-examine the relevance of your "Where's the ticking bomb hidden?" scenario to reality.
How many suitcase bombs were successfully intercepted and neutralized as a result of the use of the kind of interrogation techniques that are at issue here? If the answer is 'zero,' perhaps you should re-examine the relevance of your "Where's the ticking bomb hidden?" scenario to reality.
2
The outrage is justified over what a few psychologist-interrogators did and a few enablers at APA did. This vote by the representatives of all the psychologists in the organization shows that they stand with the outraged. Resignations have taken place; ethics charges now need to be brought against those who were complicit.
35
Since participating in the torture programs is so blatant a violation of care APA ethical principles (respecting individuals, promoting growth, etc), and since most states have adopted APA Ethical Guidelines as laws which govern professional practice, I'm wondering how many psychologists, including APA board members, have had their licenses suspended. APA should name them.
43
Its not clear if the CIA psychologists were licensed in the first place.
The licensing is for clinical practice (treatment) and these rogues were providing an odd sort of "treatment". Probably they were practicing as "consultants" and usually "consultants" aren't required to be licensed.
The licensing is for clinical practice (treatment) and these rogues were providing an odd sort of "treatment". Probably they were practicing as "consultants" and usually "consultants" aren't required to be licensed.
2
APA left behind work-product, which will be used regardless of their ban. They participated in a program of torture, a program which is in clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment. A ban by this organization against that which they have done is a pretty clear signal that the perpetrators of one of the most grievous wrongs done by America should be brought to justice. This bell can't be unrung.
52