On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:56:42 -0700, Louis Schmier wrote: >Mike, putting on my "devil's advocate" shirt, what if such psychologists, >APA members or not, honestly perceive what we may call "torture" as >"tough interrogation?"
I would say that such a psychologist has not been properly trained in understanding the Geneva conventions and how to apply them. Of particular relevance are the following articles from the conventions: |Part II |Article 13 |Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful |act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously |endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, |and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. |In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation |or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified |by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned |and carried out in his interest. | |Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly |against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. | |Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. | |Article 14 |Prisoners of war are entitled in all circumstances to respect for their persons |and their honour. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex |and shall in all cases benefit by treatment as favourable as that granted to men. |Prisoners of war shall retain the full civil capacity which they enjoyed at the |time of their capture. The Detaining Power may not restrict the exercise, |either within or without its own territory, of the rights such capacity confers |except in so far as the captivity requires. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm There are other ethical and legal criteria to use as well and if a psychologist has any doubts, they should seek appropriate independent review of the actions that they are being ordered to participate in. However, there probably are different types of psychologists: (1) the "Bruno Batta" types (the "Duty without Conflict" type, see: http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html ) who don't question what they're doing, assume someone in a higher pay grade knows what they're doing (afterall, they *are* in a higher pag grade). With no interest in critically analyzing what they are doing or doing a moral analysis of their actions or even whether there is a valid scientific basis for what they are doing (who needs science?). These types might actually sincerely and honestly believe in what they are doing (whether is it defined as torture or "enhance interrogation" is merely a matter of labeling). Although I find sincerity and honesty to be virtues, I do believe that they can be oriented toward bad and evil activities. A Nazi concentration camp guard who sincerely believes in the inferiority of other "races" and wants to achieve the goal of cleansing society of such undesirables is still one pretty f'ed up individual in my estimation. (2) the "Careerist", that is, they know what they are doing is wrong or questionable but they figure that this is what they have to do in order to be "successful" in some sense. Perhaps they believe in what they are doing (self-deception can be a wonderful coping mechanism) or don't really care: they are focused on promotion and getting ahead in their career, by any means necessary. (3) the "Good Soldier", that is, a person who want to do the right and decent thing but also wants to conform and not shake the boat. Whether such a psychologist actually buys the argument that enhanced interrogation is torture or not probably depends on how honest one is with themselves. A person may convince themselves that they are not torturing a person and sincerely believe this though this might be a response to cognitive dissonance. A person might also come to the conclusion that what they are doing is really torture (it might become difficult to think otherwise if you a waterboarding some guy six times a day). It shouldn't be surprising to find that such a person may find it difficult to continue in such a role and either request to be transferred or, sadly, commit suicide. Some of this is covered in the following blog which some might want to read: http://www.truthout.org/article/ann-wright-torture-geneva-conventions-and-school-americas To summarize, a sincere belief in something probably has little to do with whether that thing is right or wrong, true or false (apologies to the Bayesians). Having a good lawyer who can provide advice on speed dial is always a good idea. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
