I think this came up at the APA in San Francisco. Zimbardo was quite outspoken about the complacency of APA in these important matters. In one example he gave he spoke of a committee made up of military officers responsible for recommending policy on psychological issues. He questioned whether or not they might be biased. There were pickets out side of the Moscone center with signs, handouts and verbally shaming those going in for not banning torture. In the Zimbardo talk, the moderator, A past president of APA (I think from Temple University) said a committee was meeting at the conference to discuss how APA might be restructured to more closely reflect the views on the membership. He implied there was a financial implication in APA's stand based on government grants.
So it goes, just like Kurt said it did. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Wildblood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sat 9/1/2007 3:07 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] [Fwd: "Psychologists and the Torture Question" by Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)] I think that Jim had some good questions and I have thought about this since the first APsyA made its statement last year. I am not a member of the APA or APS. I am licensed as an HSPP by the state of Indiana and as an Applied Psychologist by the Commonwealth of Virginia. If I were the kind of person that were likely to condone severe forms of questioning/torture to get information from those who have designated by the administration, what would keep me from doing it? Obviously the APA has no power over me so why should I care what they say. (Note that I said "If i were the kind of...). Personally, I believe that what our government is doing is against international law, the Geneva Convention, and probably a half-dozen additional international agreements and that is all that should be said on that matter. People of conscience would not participate. BW On 1 Sep 2007, at 10:00, Jim Clark wrote: > Hi > > I am no expert by any means on this issue, but do have a few > questions. > 1. With respect to the AMA ban > > Surely there must be many MDs working in these facilities? Has the > AMA actually taken steps to remove the license of anyone or are > such bans primarily symbolic? I read somewhere, perhaps > incorrectly, that the AMA ban did not identify use of drugs as a > means of torture. Is this correct? Does it considerably weaken > the AMA ban? > 2. With respect to Psychology > Do psychologists perhaps work in other settings that might be > impacted by a ban? For example, do some prisons use isolation as a > means of punishment or even to protect inmates from abuse? Would > the resolution apply to such settings? If not, why not? > 3. Military psychologists > Psychologists must work in many capacities that ultimately have a > negative impact on people. Are there not psychologists involved in > the development of weapons systems, the training of soldiers to > kill, and so on? Do their actions violate the "do no harm" ethic? > If not, why not? And what about psychologists involvement when the > state is arguably the aggressor in a conflict? > 4. War or non-war? > A fundamental question for me is whether acts of terrorism are > equivalent to "declarations of war" by a state. But then it is not > clear whether acts are held to a higher standard in times of war or > non-war? > > Dr. Bob Wildblood 711 Rivereview Dr. Kokomo, IN 46901-7025 765-776-1727 [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower "The time is always right to do what is right." Martin Luther King, Jr. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1775 "We are what we pretend to be, so we better be careful what we pretend to be." Kurt Vonnegut --- ---
<<winmail.dat>>
