New APA Policy Banning Psychologists from National Security Interrogations

New APA Policy Banning Psychologists from National Security Interrogations
apa.org

* 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 disregard the APA completely and assume they will go along?

* There is no punishment for the perpetrators. These people planned and aided the commission of viscious, brutal crimes on a mass scale. They are sociopaths and should be in prison, the same place we put the Nazi's, rapists and mass murderers.

* There is no concern for the victims. There is absolutely no mention of them, inquiry into the effects on them, attempt to help them, or restitution. It confirms the government's effective position that, as "terrorists", they are sub-human and their rights and welfare can be disregarded.

So many people lacked the courage to stand up to the criminal and immoral acts of the US government at the time. It remains one of the most depressing (literally, de-moralizing) experiences of my life.

EDIT: I should add that the APA may have taken other actions that address my concerns. I reworded some of the above to address that possibility.

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 intended to protect the lives of millions is itself a highly unethical act. That's exactly what this blanket policy prevents: it assumes that national-security interrogations can be neither legal nor ethical, when it's pretty obvious that they can be.