21–29 of 29 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If a psychologist is running the risk of losing his license to practice, why would he cooperate?
Firstly, not all psychologists are men. Secondly, not all psychologists are American.
> Work at detention settings operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law (as deemed by specific U.N. authorities), including the Guantanamo Bay detention facility… Well, that begs the question of whether or not the Gitmo facility is unconstitutional or illegal (literally: it's a textbook pætitio principi ). Never mind the fact that refusing to participate in legal, ethical interrogations inte…
Which is reasonable, interviews conducted for law enforcement purposes are not therapeutic in nature and are not for the benefit of the interviewee.
That said, the APA should roundly condemn and participate in holding past members to account for their participation in creating protocols that clearly violate principles of civilised war and ethical practice by offering expert testimony to that effect in both civil and criminal cases.
For instance the two men profiled in this report http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-tort... should see an APA expert witness explaining how far they had strayed from their obligations any time they face a lawsuit.
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.
> Work at detention settings operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law (as deemed by specific U.N. authorities), including the Guantanamo Bay detention facility… Well, that begs the question of whether or not the Gitmo facility is unconstitutional or illegal (literally: it's a textbook pætitio principi ). Never mind the fact that refusing to participate in legal, ethical interrogations inte…
If it is legal, ethical interrogation, then it is not in violation of the US Constitution, or international law
It even says they can provide general consultation on issues related to humane information gathering
> Work at detention settings operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law (as deemed by specific U.N. authorities), including the Guantanamo Bay detention facility… Well, that begs the question of whether or not the Gitmo facility is unconstitutional or illegal (literally: it's a textbook pætitio principi ). Never mind the fact that refusing to participate in legal, ethical interrogations inte…
No, it says that they cannot work at detention settings which are in violation of the US constitution or international law. If it is legal, ethical interrogation, then it is not in violation of the US Constitution, or international law It even says they can provide general consultation on issues related to humane information gathering
Who makes that determination?
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.
Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Definitions
The UN Convention Against Torture, the first example in that section, doesn't make the distinction you're making.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, not all psychologists are men. Secondly, not all psychologists are American.
I don't understand the second point. Do you think USG would turn to foreign psychologists for interrogation assistance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the second point. Do you think USG would turn to foreign psychologists for interrogation assistance?
Absolutely. They have repeatedly turned to nationals from other countries to inflict cruelty upon detainees; why do you suppose they'd exclude psychologists in particular?
I don't think that portions of services we are already providing, we'd contract, not just to some other American company, but to extra-national contractors, for tasks more complicated than manning customer-service-type posts, like mess halls. It's not the American way. When the service gets complicated, such as for maintenance of complicated military hardware, the government prefers to hire American contractors that use American workers, even specifying nationality in the contracts. It's a cultural thing.
Americans just don't trust foreign nationals. I could never see them trusting foreign psychologists, it flies in the face of everything I could ever consider to be "American".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The definition of "torture" you're using isn't a good one. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Definitions The UN Convention Against Torture, the first example in that section, doesn't make the distinction you're making.
While some of the things done to Guantanamo detainees qualify as "torture" under the UN definition (e.g. waterboarding), I can imagine a smart and determined psychiatrist working around that definition of torture and yet leaving a person in a psychological state which makes clear the immense immorality of their work.
In other words, there exists a set of "enhanced interrogations" that are not technically torture (in the way that waterboarding is), but that are still morally abhorrent and would likely be prohibited if revealed.