
American Psychological Association Bolstered C.I.A. Torture Program - mpnagle
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/us/report-says-american-psychological-association-collaborated-on-torture-justification.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
======
Someone1234
People who were legally in the US, were literally picked up off of American
streets, blindfolded, put into secret CIA aircraft, flown to Egypt, Jordan,
Morocco, and Uzbekistan, and then tortured [0].

Yet not a single person has gone to jail over this. The CIA hasn't been
reformed structurally, and no additional oversights have been added. In fact
the only difference between then and now is we have a different administration
in the White House who are just choosing not to continue it...

Does this not disturb anyone? Isn't this exactly the type of stuff people used
to joke about the USSR/KGB doing? Since when did the US constitution only
apply to citizens and not residence?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#21st_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#21st_century)

~~~
maxerickson
That Wikipedia article lists 1 person who was deported from US territory
(prior to their clearing border control, so they were not legally in the
country).

Are you getting the "Hundreds of people who were legally in the US" from some
other resource?

I guess people won't really change their views on the practice just depending
on whether it occurs in the US or not, but I also don't see any reason to add
noise to the discussion.

~~~
xnull2guest
Do we have a proper source? We really shouldn't go on any number mentioned in
Wikipedia unless it is comprehensive and well sourced.

Following news over the past few years, just by the number of mentions in the
media over that time, the distinct impression I have it that it is more than
one.

This article, from 2005 says that hundreds of people have been taken (from the
streets) since a couple years prior.
([http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-27-ci...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-27-cia-
renditions_x.htm))

~~~
maxerickson
The parent comment was very specific about saying "legally in the US" and
"American streets".

This is simply not the case, there are not hundreds of extraordinary
renditions that started with a kidnapping on US soil.

But sure, let's all get outraged about a blatant misunderstanding of reality,
instead of discussing the still outrageous reality.

~~~
xnull6guest
I agree we shouldn't get into a huff about what isn't reality - in fact I
called for real data.

I don't personally see much of a non-legal distinction between geolocations.

We probably should have a little outrage at torture and rendition programs,
though we should probably have some realism too.

~~~
maxerickson
Just some realism? What harm is done by asking people to accurately describe
the program?

If OP had bothered to understand the actual nature of the rendition programs
and understand why the legal distinction matters, they would have an answer to
their question about no one being in jail. That is, under current US law, it
is not illegal for the CIA to kidnap people in other countries.

So the interesting discussion, the one about whether the US should be engaging
in these activities (it should not), ends up getting overshadowed by the
stupid sideshow about accuracy. But pushing back on the inaccuracy is
necessary, imagine if we had to respectfully discuss the coming Martian
invasion every time someone managed to stick that into the top comment in a
thread.

~~~
xnull6guest
This appeals to me, but I think at this point we are preaching to ourselves.

Re: realism. Some outrage is a nice way to temper realism with civility. If we
temper it instead with only a pragmatic calculus or some Randian or Social
Darwinism there's a chance we can delude ourselves into a fascism, jingoism or
militarism. I prefer to play tit-for-tat - lead with the pillow, reply to
sticks with hammers. But if in pursuit of the pragmatic we abandon the ideals,
we're going to optimize the 'wrong' objective. In other words - the outrage is
a way to call for the US to recognize inalienable rights (which mean that no
nationality, nor any government, gives them to you), to pursue fair trails,
and to be accountable for mistakes, and to perform justice through a court
system where it can be seen for the good thing it is. It is not outrage for
outrage's sake.

~~~
maxerickson
I think it is a fine thing to be outraged about the US kidnapping people, it
is pretty outrageous. I've used "kidnap" repeatedly to hint at that, rather
than sticking to "extraordinary rendition".

I think it is really stupid to be outraged that the CIA is kidnapping people
off of the street _in the US_ , because they are not doing that.

I feel like I am repeating myself, but from what I can tell from your reply
here, you don't seem to see what I am getting at.

~~~
xnull6guest
No, I don't think I am.

The CIA definitely has taken people from the US - even innocent ones - not
necessarily 'from the streets'. It has also targeted and killed US citizens
without trials.

I think it is being informed by these facts along with similar feelings
towards the CIA's 'kidnapping' and 'manslaughtering' of innocent non-citizens,
that is repugnant to those with the palate for more civil tone and direction
of real defense and intelligence objectives.

------
sixQuarks
There are so many of us that are sick and tired of reading this kind of stuff
and knowing that no one will be held accountable. The general population is so
apathetic, it's hard to gain any traction.

What can we do? Seriously? Can we start a kickstarter to raise funds, to hire
lawyers or whatever is needed to make sure people are sent to jail over this?
What can we do that will make an impact, without relying on the ignorant
mainstream public? There's got to be something

~~~
skwirl
You vote. If you don't like the way other people are voting, change their
minds. If you can't change their minds then you lost fairly.

Throwing people in jail over things that were repeatedly ruled legal and done
in good faith is not something that we do in the United States, and is not a
can of worms you want to open.

The unfortunate truth is that the great majority of Americans are NOT
ignorant. They are aware that we were torturing people. Most of them either
support what happened or just don't really care that much about it. If that
bothers you, try to change it.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
but what do you do if you disagree with the US as a foreigner in a moderate
country?

unfortunately the only option you have left is to decide not to visit the US
ever (regardless if you have friends living there). because the risk you face
by traveling to the US and getting questioned for why you posted which tweets
is simply not worth it. anyone who disagrees as a foreigner with US policy has
been made automatically a suspect by US legislation. Your mentality is black
and white and your system is Orwellian. Sorry.

~~~
skwirl
You and I face that risk whenever we travel abroad no matter what country we
are from or travelling to. I have never imagined that I have the same
protection as citizens whenever I have traveled abroad. We are in large part
protected by diplomatic relationships between our home country and the country
we are travelling to, as well as our host country's desire to maintain a
positive reputation for tourism and business.

If you're really afraid, don't come here. But your absence won't even be
noticed because your fears are not truly shared by many, or they would have
stopped coming a decade ago.

------
pnut
The Bush years made me so ill, I had to stop following the news in order to
maintain my health. A generational low point for western society.

~~~
atom-morgan
What makes me ill is people who think it was exclusive to Bush's term.

~~~
imglorp
I think Bush had the audacity to push through extraordinary measures
initially. He was responsible for a number of Bill of Rights attacks: Habeas
Corpus, search and seizure, 1A, Gitmo, and this whole rendition thing. The
author of the Patriot act has since come forward and indicated he had no
intention of having it abused in scope as we're seeing. PA was not intended to
quash dissent nor pursue common criminals.

Obama ran on a platform of repealing PA and restoring the Bill of Rights. Of
course, he did a quiet 180 on the issue shortly after entering office and has
since issued more secret executive orders than any other president. It makes
one wonder what happens to Presidents after they're sworn in. Does someone
read them in on the facts of life? Or are they simply always dirtbags whose
principles are for sale?

~~~
atom-morgan
> It makes one wonder what happens to Presidents after they're sworn in. Does
> someone read them in on the facts of life? Or are they simply always
> dirtbags whose principles are for sale?

This is precisely why I had someone recently tell me they'd like to see Ron
Paul get elected. He's someone who has been relatively consistent on his views
throughout his career as a politician - often to his detriment. They said if
he got elected and also did the 180, it'd surely be the nail in the coffin on
the "facts of life" reading you mentioned being a reality.

~~~
theorique
_They said if he got elected and also did the 180, it 'd surely be the nail in
the coffin on the "facts of life" reading you mentioned being a reality._

You mean that he would have been corrupted? Or that there were secret truths
that Presidents have access to that change their actions from what they claim
in advance that they would do 'as President'.

~~~
atom-morgan
Neither. They were implying that in the case of a 180 the President is a
puppet.

------
cryoshon
This is a pretty sick example of institutions being corrupted by the power of
the government.

Where are the prosecutions of the APA? Where are the disbarments? Where are
the war crimes trials for the Bush regime?

This stuff is done in our names without our consent, and we have an ethical
obligation to act out and speak out.

~~~
olefoo
We may not be able to move the DOJ on prosecuting Addington, Wu and the other
architects of the torture program.

But the APA has an ethics committee

[http://www.apa.org/about/governance/bdcmte/ethics-
committee....](http://www.apa.org/about/governance/bdcmte/ethics-
committee.aspx)

If the notion of American doctors aiding and abetting torture strikes you as a
matter that that the APA should discipline it's members over. Contact the
ethics committee.

The staff liaison's email is sbehnke@apa.org

------
hackuser
Related:

 _The head of a body that advises U.S. terrorism interrogators on ethics on
Thursday called for a special prosecutor to probe how the abuse of captured
militants during the Bush administration 's "war on terror" was allowed to
happen._

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-usa-torture-
idU...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-usa-torture-
idUSKBN0NL2T720150430)

------
randomname2
I guess this shows how deeply corrupt the leadership of the APA is?
Realistically how would they say no to this?

~~~
cryoshon
Easy: document saying no, then go public with the fact that the government
tried to pervert its medical apparatus into supporting the torture programs.

Boom, credibility of the USG's medical agencies goes to shit overnight, and
you're inoculated from further manipulation.

------
Bud
This headline should not have been edited to remove the words "Report Says",
which make it clear that this story is not the contention of the NY Times
itself and not based on their own investigating reporting, but is rather a
contention from someone else's report.

------
zeidrich
There are statements about legality, about outrage, about who should be
punished, about the corruption of organizations.

That's not interesting to me. I'm not happy about it, but I'm actually more
disappointed.

The thing is, something like the APA should, more than anyone, know how
ineffective torture would be for getting the kind of information that they
were looking to find.

The problem with torture, aside from the fact that it's hurtful, is that it is
ineffective. We know this. We've studied it, we've already got a lot of data.
The APA is supposed to be the professionals in this field that should be able
to say that we shouldn't be torturing people.

It's like you find out there was a group of doctors that are contracted to
create a virus to wipe out a segment of the population, and the doctors
deliver something that causes extreme itchiness and the inability to control
your bowels. It doesn't kill anyone, it just makes your city smell like shit
and causes these people targeted to be angry and uncomfortable.

It's still heinous, and immoral. But not only that, it's ineffective and
worthless. I mean, the torture argument comes up and there's always defenders
that say "desperate times call for desperate measures". But the thing is, it
doesn't matter how desperate you are, torture doesn't lead to good results, no
matter how angry you are, no matter how bad you want it to.

The thing is, I can understand if people in the military might not know this,
or believe it. But the thing is, the APA is supposed to represent an
organization that understands our minds. They SHOULD know this. So more than
just "Oh they did a heinous thing" I am thinking "Oh, they did an idiotic
thing, AND it was heinous!"

I mean, if they were to do some horrific torturous mind control stuff, and
because of that we got information that led to the safe return of troops
abroad and a swift victory over the enemy, then I'd still be angry that they
were willing to do horrible things to get that victory. But I'd respect their
ability. In the same way that I think a nuclear bomb is a horrific weapon that
should have never been used on a civilian population, but I think that the
people who built it were really good at what they do.

But it's like asking for a nuclear weapon, and getting something that
detonates and makes the city and surrounding countryside stink for years but
doesn't harm anyone. I mean, it's detestable that they'd be working to try to
murder massive numbers of civilians. But even more than that, it's awful that
they failed so badly at it, and obviously never really knew what they were
doing to start with. They didn't accomplish their goals, and just made people
angry.

------
dba7dba
delete

~~~
v64
Pearl Harbor was an attack by the Japanese military on orders from the
Japanese government. The 9/11 attacks were not perpetrated by a government or
nation. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabian nationals. By your
logic, why was there no military action against Saudi Arabia?

~~~
Spooky23
The grandparent shouldn't have deleted the comment. It highlights a nuance
that isn't often explored while ruffling some feathers.

So, why didn't we go nuke Saudi Arabia? A: It would not have accomplished
anything. Morality is absent from the decision making process when it comes to
warfare. If killing a million Saudis were the answer, they'd be dead.

Technology has made it possible (or necessary) for non nation-state actors to
levy something very similar to war against nation-states.

In the case of a nation-state in the industrial and post-industrial age, the
approach is straightforward -- you engage the enemy in the field AND destroy
his ability to make war. The US Civil War was the dress-rehearsal for this,
and WW1 explored the limits of what could be done before the innovations of
the 20th century were fully baked.

Today, you can't have total war, because tools exist to permanently execute a
total war -- nuclear weapons. So we fight in the fringes by arming various
individuals and engaging in an evolved form of guerrilla warfare.

I think that history will conclude that the last decade and a half has been a
process of the ultimate, seemingly omni-potent superpower figuring out how to
scale down its war machine down as low as the individual actor.

