Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:36PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-about-the-Hippocratic-oath? dept.

The leading American professional group for psychologists secretly worked with the Bush administration to help justify the post-9/11 US detainee torture program, according to a watchdog analysis [PDF] released on Thursday.

The report, written by six leading health professionals and human rights activists, is the first to examine the alleged complicity of the American Psychological Association (APA) in the “enhanced interrogation” program.

Based on an analysis of more than 600 newly disclosed emails, the report found that the APA coordinated with Bush-era government officials – namely in the CIA, White House and Department of Defense – to help ethically justify the interrogation policy in 2004 and 2005, when the program came under increased scrutiny for prisoner abuse by US military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

A series of clandestine meetings with US officials led to the creation of “an APA ethics policy in national security interrogations which comported with then-classified legal guidance authorizing the CIA torture program,” the report’s authors found.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/30/psychologists-bush-officials-torture-program

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:47PM

    by Whoever (4524) on Sunday May 03 2015, @06:47PM (#178190) Journal

    Any medical professional who colluded in the process of deliberately inducing discomfort to individuals, whether you want to call it torture or not, should be struck off. They have violated the most basic tenets of their profession and do not deserve to remain a member of that profession. Any professional: including those who were there to "protect" the subjects of the torture.

    As for whether the "enhanced interrogation techniques" should be considered torture or not: the Spanish Inquisition used several of the same techniques and described those techniques as torture.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:37PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:37PM (#178204)

      But these are psychologists, PhDs, not MDs, those are psychiatrists and they are bound by professional ethics to operate in the best interests of their patient, which kind of rules out torture. And it was basically two guys looking for defense contracts, hella lot more money than teaching Intro Psych! And, they might be psychopaths. The American Psychological Association is going to tear itself apart over this. More consequences of the Bush administration for higher education in America!

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:48PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:48PM (#178207)

        Mod this AC up. Psychologists have been at the bottom of intellectual totem pole, but they apparently managed to sink even lower.

      • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:49PM

        by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:49PM (#178217)

        It sounds like that does not apply in this case either since they were not actually their patients.

        What you are suggesting is deregistering someone for advising on how one might proceed in a procedure they will not be involved in on people who they will have nothing to do with.

        Morally reprehensible, yes. Breech of doctor-patient relationship...no.

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:36PM (#178233)

          It sounds like that does not apply in this case either since they were not actually their patients.

          Yes,very interesting, but even more damning. If you are giving medical or psychological advice on the treatment of a person, and that person is not your patient, then they are your victim.

          • (Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:14PM

            by Mr Big in the Pants (4956) on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:14PM (#178270)

            So what is the difference between them or any other run of the mill sociopath working with the CIA??

            Chosen profession? Is that it?

            It most certainly is not hypocrisy...

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:35PM (#178232)

        They recently did a study, repeating 100 psychological tests.
        Psychology: Only 39 Percent Reproducibility [nature.com]

        -- gewg_

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @10:43PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @10:43PM (#178249)

        Are psychologists not governed by a code of ethics?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:04PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:04PM (#178263)

          Are psychologists not governed by a code of ethics?

          Your generic academic professional ethics, and probably the International Conventions on Human experimentation, the International Convention Against Torture, things like that. But as many have been pointing out, psychology is an academic discipline, not a profession like psychiatry.

    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:43PM

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:43PM (#178216)

      can we please allow moderation to >5 - like Ars?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ThG on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:04PM

    by ThG (4568) on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:04PM (#178196)

    "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

    The same can be said here.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:26PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:26PM (#178201)

      Only one loud-mouth was actually willing to try it himself. [thinkprogress.org]
      He changed his mind almost immediately.

    • (Score: 2) by arslan on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:10PM

      by arslan (3462) on Sunday May 03 2015, @11:10PM (#178267)

      "Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."
      The same can be said here.

      I suspect Bush won't know the difference between being tortured or asked a serious question..

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @07:41PM (#178205)

    They are breaking this amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment [cornell.edu]

    and this one https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt8_user.html#amdt8_hd4 [cornell.edu]

    And the interpretations
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt8_user.html#amdt8_hd10 [cornell.edu]

    The gov has long been playing games with 'combatant' to basically skirt the intent of the laws.

    I am starting to think it may be time to re-write the bill of rights. Not to undo or remove what is there. But to make it explicitly clear what each part is. We have made a grievous error in the wording. We smashed a 20-30 things into 10. It makes it unclear and wishywashy what the meaning and intent is. Unfortunatly we have had 200 years of people playing with word meanings and twisting it around. Where something like my computer != my papers. While technically true, breaks the meaning as there was no such thing as a 'computer'. When clearly if the founders had these tools would have been typing massive amounts of stuff upon. We have people taking the very wording of the constitution to subvert the reasons for it. That reason is limited government. I dont mean that as in 'small government' but limited in its authority over us.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday May 04 2015, @03:50AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @03:50AM (#178310) Journal

      I am starting to think it may be time to re-write the bill of rights.

      Because adding a "this time we mean it" clause will be just as ignorable as everything that gets ignored.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday May 04 2015, @01:21PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday May 04 2015, @01:21PM (#178473) Journal

        The "this time we mean it" clause is not written, but enacted by citizens hanging the politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, and power brokers in Washington DC. That's about the most definitive "we mean it" thing you can do.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @08:51PM (#178218)

    The Third Reich did this too...

    Thought experiment. You are a German living in 1930s Germany. When do you leave and why?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:07PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:07PM (#178221)

      Better thought experiment: You are an American living in 21st century America. You can't afford to leave, and even if you could, you have nowhere else to go. What to do?

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:40PM (#178235)

        you have nowhere else to go

        A writer whose work I like disagrees. [google.com]
        Not a panacea, but better.

        You can't afford to leave

        Now, there's a lot of truth in that.
        She's a physician.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:48PM (#178236)

          "There's a place you can go, and all you need to get there is lots of money!"

          You're an asshole, gewg.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:22AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:22AM (#178281)

            I also know a guy who mustered out of the military and overstayed his visa in Oz.
            He was as poor as a churchmouse.
            He had a job at a sheep station in the Outback for many months and loved it.

            If he had a skill that was in high demand, maybe they would have just extended his visa instead of tossing him out.
            I understand that there are countries in northern Europe which have a liberal attitude toward employable (but not necessarily affluent) people.

            Your broad assertion does not extrapolate to all cases.
            ...and my previous sample of 1 was not meant to represent all cases.
            I think everyone here is aware that having wealth tends to make life easier.

            -- gewg_

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Monday May 04 2015, @01:38AM

            by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday May 04 2015, @01:38AM (#178295)

            gewg might be an asshole, but you're wrong A/C.
            It really doesn't cost that much to come to New Zealand. You're buying a one way ticket, and when you get here, you're very welcome.
            Our Government has an odd attitude to immigrants, and from what I understand the process for getting a work visa can be long winded, but I can tell you that the locals will be very friendly, the culture is similar enough that you will fit right in.
            You will need to learn to spell asshole arsehole though.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 04 2015, @10:03AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Monday May 04 2015, @10:03AM (#178403) Homepage
        My granddad left Germany in the early 30s (the exact details of him even being German originally were hidden from my parent's generation).
        My g/f left the US while she was a student with no savings.

        So both are possible.

        And from personal experience, I can attest that it's perfectly possible to permanently leave the UK too.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:12PM (#178223)

    Psychologists are not medical doctors. They are frauds who wish they were doctors. It's an psychological condition called "being a psychologist." Sometimes they even hope that if they wish really, really hard that they can convince actual psychiatrists to prescribe drugs, because psychologists can't do that.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:29PM (#178229)

      Psychologists have a lot more training in psychology than psychiatrists do. A PhD psychologist has 8-10 years of psychology classes. A psychiatrist is someone who went to med school and took a handful of psych classes. Who's the fraud? Many psychiatrists just want to shove drugs into their patients, regardless of what they need. I'd take a psychologist any day over a psychiatrist.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 03 2015, @09:35PM (#178231)

        It must take a lot of training to fail med school, settle for psychology, and try to get revenge by sending clients to psychiatrist after psychiatrist in a vain attempt to get prescription drugs prescribed.

      • (Score: 2) by TGV on Monday May 04 2015, @06:11AM

        by TGV (2838) on Monday May 04 2015, @06:11AM (#178335)

        > A psychiatrist is someone who went to med school and took a handful of psych classes.

        True. It also explains why so many of them want to solve all problems by shoving pills, or why another group still believe in psycho-analysis. Most have as much understanding of science and psychology as the average GP. But where your GP gets his/her knowledge updated regularly by, psychiatrists seem to be locked in very conservative circles that certainly won't listen to something as common as psychology.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:19AM (#178372)

        Personally, I'd take neither, because both are likely to be pseudoscientists. The social 'sciences' are an absolute joke.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday May 04 2015, @11:43AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 04 2015, @11:43AM (#178429) Journal

        I'd take a psychologist any day over a psychiatrist.

        Deal. How do you want it: intravenous solution or oral administration?

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:41PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @12:41PM (#178455)

          I'll have some oral please

      • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday May 04 2015, @02:02PM

        by cafebabe (894) on Monday May 04 2015, @02:02PM (#178496) Journal

        Psychologists have a lot more training in psychology than psychiatrists do.

        Quack Type 1 has more training in Quackery Type 1 than Quack Type 2.

        --
        1702845791×2
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @08:33PM (#178742)

          Psychologists have a lot more training in psychology than psychiatrists do.

          Quack Type 1 has more training in Quackery Type 1 than Quack Type 2.

          Because neuroscience and pharmacology are nothing but quackery. Psychology is an extremely big field and deals with everything involving the brain, nerves, the mind, behavior, drugs and how they affect the mind and behavior, and much, much more. That's all just quackery with no real science or evidence backing it though, right?

    • (Score: 1) by Bogsnoticus on Monday May 04 2015, @03:53AM

      by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Monday May 04 2015, @03:53AM (#178311)

      How many Freudian psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?

      Two. One to screw in the bulb, the other to hold the cock mother ladder!

      --
      Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:46AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 04 2015, @04:46AM (#178317)

        How many Freudian psychiatrists

        Ha, ha. But do you know that one of the things that happened to psychoanalysis in United States is that they were required to be psychiatrists, holding a Medical degree? And as I am sure your therapist has told you, there is this thing called "resistance". The more you reject a particular psychological explanation of your disorder, the more likely it is true. I feel we are on the edge of a great breakthrough on your relation with your mother, or ladders. Wait a minute, let me get out the electrodes and fire up the ol' "Truthinator".