Mike Palij has managed to turn nearly completely inside out the intent of my previous message. My point was not to assert that activities like waterboarding do not constitute torture. My point was that his (and my) assessment that they do is neither here nor there. If there is a legal argument still underway as to whether they constitute torture, then the APA's saying that it condemns "torture" leaves open a loophole (intentionally, I suspect) in the APA's policy so that psychologists who were involved in the CIA's actions can respond "I don't believe I participated in torture. I guess that we'll just have to wait until the court cases (if there ever are any) are decided in these matters." Frankly, this matter is so hot a political potato that I do not have much confidence in US courts (if these matters ever, indeed, come before them) adjudicating them clearly and correctly. Indeed, I suspect that if, say, the Supreme Court were rule that these were cases of torture indictable under current criminal law (which it never would with its current composition), this would probably lead to a constitutional crisis in the US the likes of which we haven't seen since the Civil War. (If you thought that slanging "activist judges" was an effective political tactic of the right before, wait until these folks can claim that the court has attacked the powers of the executive branch directly.) Further, I doubt that the Obama (or any other) administration will ever find the political will to bring these matters before the courts because to do so would completely overwhelm, politically, everything else they are trying to accomplish. Thus, if the APA meant what it seemed to say, then it would have identified specific actions that it bans, not just use the currently contested term "torture."
As for the Bush administration not knowing that the SERE techniques it decided to use were invented in the 1950s specifically to simulate torture techniques that the Chinese and Koreans were thought to be using, again Mike seems to have misread my intent. I was not offering it as a defense of the Bush administration (along the lines of "Oops! The just didn't know.") On the contrary, it shows just how ignorantly (indeed *ironically* so) and foolishly they behaved in this matter. A little simple historical homework would have shown them that *they themselves* (in as much as the US gov't over time constitutes a "self") once regarded these very actions not only as forms of torture, but as torture by an enemy who was, at the time, regarded (however racist the assessment might have been) as being *diabolically* evil, immoral, and brutal. "Teach your children well..." Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 [email protected] http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ "Censorship is the strongest drive in human nature; sex is a weak second." - Phil Kerby, former editor of the /Los Angeles Times/ ========================== Mike Palij wrote: > NOTE: this my third post of the day, so no more from me until the > morrow. Let the cheering commence! ;-) > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 06:36:23 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: > >> Mike Palij wrote: >> >>> Moral/ethical relativists can have a chuckle at such absurd absolute >>> rules (I'm sure that they will be able to provide situations where >>> torture is perfectly acceptable). >>> > > >> Well-known moral relativists such as, say, George Bush and Dick >> Cheney, no doubt. :-) >> > > Oh no, they are moral absolutists. But they just show that some > moral principles (e.g., "Might Make Right") are pretty screwed up. > > >> Bray's memo, far from being definitive, equivocates by repeatedly >> using the term "torture." Why is this an equivocation? Because the >> people who authorized and used the techniques in question argue >> that they do not, legally, constitute torture. >> > > Hmmm, if I say that science is a religion and if it is taught in public > schools, then creation science *HAS* to be taught in order to provide > a balanced religious perspective and not to promote a particular > religion (i.e., science). Some may find such a position absurd but > others might find it a useful argument at the next school board meeting > (after all, isn't science just a bunch of beliefs like any other religion? > who needs science anyway?). > > I feel the same way about equivocating on torture: waterboarding > a person six times a day for 30 days is difficult to classify as > "non-torture". > > >> Whether or not you (or I) personally agree >> with this assessment, the use of this term still opens the way for >> psychologists who have participated in these interrogations to respond >> that they have not violated the APA's "never-torture" policy. >> > > No doubt. There probably are psychologists who feel that having sex > with one's students or therapy clients is a good thing ("it promotes > the process") regardless of what the APA has to say about dual > relationships. Unfortunately, since torture is against U.S. and > international law, one really should get appropriate legal advice > from one's lawyer before engaging in what might be considered > a (war) crime. > > >> All previous APA missives in this matter have equivocated in precisely >> the same way. The devil is always in the details. >> > > See "duck": walks, quacks, tastes like duck l'orange, etc. > > >> Perhaps more interesting than Bray's carefully crafted missive, is >> the New York Times article that, in all probability, gave rise to it: >> The Bush Cabinet, including the CIA, did not know that the SERE >> tactics they decided to use in Guantanamo and elsewhere had been >> developed by the US military decades ago explicitly to simulate the >> torture tactics they thought were being used by the Chinese and the >> Koreans. >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all >> >> > > We surely live in interesting times, with revelations coming every day. > Why, it's almost too much to keep up with. Nonetheless, the consider > the U.S. Senate Armed Service report which just released its report on > when the planning for the use of torture began. Quoting from a Salon > article on this report: > > |Bush officials said they only tortured terrorists after they wouldn't talk. > |New evidence shows they planned torture soon after 9/11 -- and used > |it to find links between al-Qaida and Saddam. > http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/04/22/benjamin/ > > Further into the article: > > |The report details how abusive interrogations began. "In December 2001," > |the report says, "the DOD General Counsel's office contacted the Joint > |Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA) headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, > |for information about detainee 'exploitation.'" > | > |To set up the torture program, the Department of Defense and the CIA > |reverse engineered something called SERE training, which was conducted > |by the JPRA. Based on Cold War communist techniques used to force false > | confessions, in SERE school elite U.S. troops undergo stress positions, > |isolation, hooding, slapping, sleep deprivation and, until recently, > waterboarding > |to simulate illegal tactics they might face if captured by an enemy who > violated > |the Geneva Conventions. > | > |In either December 2001 or January 2002, two psychologists affiliated with > |the SERE program, James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, developed the first > |written proposal for reverse engineering the training for use on al-Qaida > |suspects. Their paper made its way to the Joint Staff. (Salon first zeroed > in > |on the pair in a June 2007 article.) The military also then began > discussions > |at that time about using the ideas at Guantánamo. > | > |In early March 2002, Jessen began two-week, "ad-hoc 'crash'" courses for > |training government interrogators slated for Guantánamo. The courses > therefore > |began before the allegedly uncooperative Zubaydah was ever captured, and > |Zubaydah was the first allegedly high-level al-Qaida operative in U.S. > custody > |after 9/11. > > The report itself is available at the following website: > http://armed-services.senate.gov/Publications/Detainee%20Report%20Final_April%2022%202009.pdf > > So, when did the Bush administration "not know" about the torture > program? NOTE: the dates above pre-date the legal memos > establishing the legal argument for distinguishing between torture > and enhanced interrogation. But if these memos came after planning > for the torture program was underway.... > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > > > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
