The APA Admits it Worked with the DOD to Support Torture, Bans Future Participation

Forums: Dod, Apa, Torture
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Here is a fascinating read about a group of six psychologists that fought for ten years to prove that the American Psychological Association colluded with the Defense Department to issue guidelines that would allow psychologists to participate in torture. After slamming, defaming and ignoring the dissidents failed to work, the leadership sponsored an investigation into the charges and it turns out the dissidents were right on the money. Today, the APA’s governing Council of Representatives overwhelmingly backed banning psychologists from taking part in national security interrogations.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 2,712 • Replies: 23

[+5] - engineer - 08/10/2015The point is that they were working in their profession as psychologists to facilitate torture. That is what the APA finally came out against. It took a dedicated group of dissidents who were...

@engineer,

Great win! too bad it took a decade.

0 Replies

@engineer,

These guys are my heroes, willing to take on the establishment for what they believed was right in spite of the people they upset. And refusing to shut up until they were heard.

It is great when the work of trolls leads to positive change.

0 Replies

The fact that it happened, and that it took all of these years for this group to admit what it did and to also say that it was wrong is yet another proof of how far of the rails the elite are....and also obviously that they are not to be trusted.

EDIT: We also need to look at this as more proof that our systems do not work. all of these years after the fact getting the truth and a promise to not sin again is no more a win than is freeing after 15 years in prison an innocent citizen. Working was not being behind bars, not falsely being judged guilty, in the first place. and the sooner the wrong is made right the better.

THis was an almost complete failure of america.

0 Replies

Is it wrong for psychologists (and psychiatrists?) to help the government interrogate probable terrorists?

I can see an argument that torture is wrong, but that argument would be the same regardless of the presence of a mental health expert.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Is it wrong for psychologists (and psychiatrists?) to help the government interrogate probable terrorists?

Yes Oralloy, it is wrong.

Psychologists are working in a healing profession. Their job is to help their patients. To use their knowledge to specifically harm, abuse or manipulate the people in their care directly contradicts their mission. (Notice the key phrase is "people in their care".)

The Hippocratic oath has been around for a long time.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Yes Oralloy, it is wrong.

Psychologists are working in a healing profession. Their job is to help their patients. To use their knowledge to specifically harm, abuse or manipulate the people in their care directly contradicts their mission. (Notice the key phrase is "people in their care".)

The Hippocratic oath has been around for a long time.

I don't see it (again presuming there is no torture involved).

Is it considered harmful for the police to interrogate suspects?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Psychologists, like doctors, have a special responsibility. That is what the Hippocratic oath is about. A healer is responsible to take care of the person in their care

Police are not in a healing profession. When you are in the custody of a police officer, you don't expect him to be looking out for your best interests.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

When you are in the custody of a police officer, you don't expect him to be looking out for your best interests.

Maybe you dont but I do,,,,I always expect the state to look out for the greater good AND for my best interests. If I am ever harmed or neglected by the state then it has done wrong unless it has a good cause, such as the pursuit of justice.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Psychologists, like doctors, have a special responsibility. That is what the Hippocratic oath is about. A healer is responsible to take care of the person in their care
Police are not in a healing profession. When you are in the custody of a police officer, you don't expect him to be looking out for your best interests.

Why can't a psychologist (and let's include psychiatrists too) be in a non-healing profession? Why can't they choose to be police officers?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

The point is that they were working in their profession as psychologists to facilitate torture. That is what the APA finally came out against. It took a dedicated group of dissidents who were attacked for their position for years, but it finally happened.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

The point is that they were working in their profession as psychologists to facilitate torture. That is what the APA finally came out against. It took a dedicated group of dissidents who were attacked for their position for years, but it finally happened.

It appears to me that they are banning participation in all interrogations, not just the ones that involve torture.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I dont see why a doctor needs to be in the interrogation to take care of his patient, and the doctor should not be telling the state how far the abuse can go before it reaches what ever line the state is willing to go.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I dont see why a doctor needs to be in the interrogation to take care of his patient, and the doctor should not be telling the state how far the abuse can go before it reaches what ever line the state is willing to go.

A doctor that is helping the state conduct an interrogation will not have a patient (at least not within the bounds of the interrogation).

I am presuming interrogations that are being conducted without any abuse.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If there is no abuse then there is no need for a doc, and doctors cant do their work once they work for abusers. Trust of the patient is required.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

If there is no abuse then there is no need for a doc,

A doctor can use their skills to extract information better than a non-doctor can.

hawkeye10 wrote:

and doctors cant do their work once they work for abusers. Trust of the patient is required.

In a police interrogation there are no patients, just suspects.

I am only referring to non-abusive interrogations.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Let's say a police officer was investigating you, would you go to him for medical advice (or advice of any kind)? Police officers aren't doctors, and they shouldn't be. When I am being interrogated, I understand that the police officer is not on my side and does not have my best interests at heart.

Likewise doctors shouldn't be police officers. For a doctor to do his or her job, she needs you trust. Doctors don't investigate crimes or make try to get you to incriminate yourself. When I am a patient, I trust that the doctor is on my side and has my best interest at heart.

Doctors and police officers both have jobs to do. But they are very different types of jobs that should be kept separate.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Let's say a police officer was investigating you, would you go to him for medical advice (or advice of any kind)?

No, but if the police officer were a trained psychiatrist he or she might be able to conduct a better interrogation.

maxdancona wrote:

Police officers aren't doctors, and they shouldn't be.

Having interrogations conducted by trained psychiatrists might give the police a lot more information (and of better quality) than what they now get from interrogations.

maxdancona wrote:

When I am being interrogated, I understand that the police officer is not on my side and does not have my best interests at heart.

Why should that preclude the police officer from being a trained psychiatrist?

maxdancona wrote:

Likewise doctors shouldn't be police officers.

Interrogations done by trained psychiatrists might make for much better results.

maxdancona wrote:

For a doctor to do his or her job, she needs you trust.

Not if their job is conducting police interrogations.

maxdancona wrote:

Doctors don't investigate crimes or try to get you to incriminate yourself.

A trained psychiatrist would probably be good at that job.

maxdancona wrote:

When I am a patient, I trust that the doctor is on my side and has my best interest at heart.

When you are being interrogated by the police, you aren't a patient, even if your interrogator has had training as a psychiatrist.

maxdancona wrote:

Doctors and police officers both have jobs to do. But they are very different types of jobs that should be kept separate.

I see no reason why we shouldn't let trained psychiatrists work for police departments.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

There is a big difference between "trained" psychiatrist and "licensed" psychiatrist. Once you start interrogating people you are acting against your profession.

Pick a side. That is what the APA seems to be saying.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There is a big difference between "trained" psychiatrist and "licensed" psychiatrist. Once you start interrogating people you are acting against your profession.
Pick a side. That is what the APA seems to be saying.

I don't perceive the acting against their profession.

0 Replies

Forums
» The APA Admits it Worked with the DOD to Support Torture, Bans Future Participation

Read Discussion
Reply to All

The APA Admits it Worked with the DOD to Support Torture, Bans Future Participation

Quick Links

My Account

able2know