11–20 of 29 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take now over never.
They're not helping torture anyone right now due to a lack of demand, so it doesn't matter what their policy is. If they're needed again, they can quietly repeal or carve massive semantic exceptions to this e.g. is it an interrogation or an interview?
I think they can probably find them.
By itself, this accomplishes nothing but giving themselves moral cover. It's just words; there are no consequences. Consider: * The message is clear: You can do these things, we'll let them slide at the time, and much later, too late to have any effect, we'll issue meaningless condemation and policy. Does anyone doubt that the next time a President or other authority in the US government faces this choice, they will…
The only lever the APA has is to revoke membership of participants, that won't stop the government and it won't stop many individuals from participating. As far as I can tell, they aren't a licensing body, so that revocation wouldn't even stop someone from continuing to work in the field.
They have a voice and influence. They could push hard for these things; they could have pushed hard when they were happening. Certainly they have the resources to address my third point, about the welfare of the victims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not helping torture anyone right now due to a lack of demand, so it doesn't matter what their policy is. If they're needed again, they can quietly repeal or carve massive semantic exceptions to this e.g. is it an interrogation or an interview?
The government can just hire psychologists that don't give a shit about this policy. I think they can probably find them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government can just hire psychologists that don't give a shit about this policy. I think they can probably find them.
If a psychologist is running the risk of losing his license to practice, why would he cooperate?
As to reasons why they might anyway, they believe the interrogation is worthwhile, a sense of duty to country, money, etc (I'm not saying those are reasons I agree with, I'm saying they are reasons someone might use to justify participation to themselves).
It's curious to see Guantanamo Bay mentioned by name. I wonder if one of the reasons we're having trouble closing it is because the psychological health of the inmates has deteriorated to a state which so obviously violates ethical guidelines on prisoner treatment and perhaps even human experimentation.
You think the authorities tortured these people so bad that their only recourse is to wait for them to die / kill them all before closing to hide the evidence? I wouldn't be surprised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government can just hire psychologists that don't give a shit about this policy. I think they can probably find them.
If a psychologist is running the risk of losing his license to practice, why would he cooperate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government can just hire psychologists that don't give a shit about this policy. I think they can probably find them.
If a psychologist is running the risk of losing his license to practice, why would he cooperate?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a psychologist is running the risk of losing his license to practice, why would he cooperate?
The APA is a meaningless organization. They have zero authority over licensing. They also aren't the only professional psychological organization. APA membership carries with it no particular value; clients don't care about APA membership, they care about licensing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take now over never.
They're not helping torture anyone right now due to a lack of demand, so it doesn't matter what their policy is. If they're needed again, they can quietly repeal or carve massive semantic exceptions to this e.g. is it an interrogation or an interview?
Relevant name for the comment, by the way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think the authorities tortured these people so bad that their only recourse is to wait for them to die / kill them all before closing to hide the evidence? I wouldn't be surprised.
I wouldn't use the word "torture", as there is a big distinction between the work psychiatrists at Guantanamo did and physical torture, even if the two overlapped (e.g. drown the person and then revive them for some psychological objective). I can imagine how the physical techniques used in "enhanced interrogation" might actually not be the most morally abhorrent ones.