
New APA Policy Banning Psychologists from National Security Interrogations - mocookie
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/10/banning-psychologists-interrogations.aspx
======
hackuser
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 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.

~~~
maxerickson
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.

~~~
hackuser
> The only lever the APA has is to revoke membership of participants

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.

------
andreyf
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.

~~~
joesmo
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.

~~~
andreyf
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.

~~~
greglindahl
The definition of "torture" you're using isn't a good one.

Check out
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Definitions](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.

~~~
andreyf
Thanks for linking that. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

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.

------
wtbob
> 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 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.

~~~
Squarel
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

~~~
13thLetter
>No, it says that they cannot work at detention settings which are in
violation of the US constitution or international law.

Who makes that determination?

------
Dowwie
[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-violent-
mind/201502...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-violent-
mind/201502/the-psychology-torture)

------
jMyles
Only 14 years too late.

~~~
HelloMcFly
I'll take now over never.

~~~
pessimizer
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?

~~~
maxerickson
The government can just hire psychologists that don't give a shit about this
policy.

I think they can probably find them.

~~~
vinceguidry
If a psychologist is running the risk of losing his license to practice, why
would he cooperate?

~~~
briandear
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.

~~~
HelloMcFly
The value of an APA membership is primarily that it makes access to published
research affordable. If someone wasn't interested in accessing journal
content, or required to present at conferences requiring APA membership to
further their careers, I can't imagine why they'd pay to join.

