On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:16:32 -0700, Louis Schmier wrote: >Some of you were quick to quote the current APA president's denial >of the morality of psychologists' assistance in tough, albeit torturous, >interrogation techniques, but wasn't it stated APA policy in 2005--that >might have been developed by a rigged panel--that psychologists participating >in terror-related interrogations are fulfilling "a valuable and ethical role >to >assist in protecting our nation, other nations, and innocent civilians >from harm" that was later to be the center of a vigorous dispute at the >2006 annual conference?
A couple of points: (1) I'm not really sure that it is clear what you are asking about. I'll defer to people with more knowledge about the events but I believe that APA's position was that psychologists could not engage in torture but could serve in a secondary role (i.e., observer, providing aid in emergencies, etc.). Is this what you're referring to? (2) I know it's a drag to cite references when making statements about historical and other events, but it would help to provide context for your comments. For example, are you possibly referring to the following documents: (A) The APA 2005 report on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) which lays out the APA position which would later be disputed (and which you seem to quote): http://www.apa.org/releases/PENSTaskForceReportFinal.pdf Note that the first major statement in the report is (page 4): |1. Psychologists do not engage in, direct, support, facilitate, or offer |training in torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The |Task Force endorses the 1986 Resolution Against Torture of the |American Psychological Association Council of Representatives, 3 and |the 1985 Joint Resolution Against Torture of the American Psychological |Association and the American Psychiatric Association.4 (Principle A, |Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, and Ethical Standard 3.04, Avoiding |Harm) The Task Force emphasizes that the Board of Directors' charge |did not include an investigative or adjudicatory role and so the Task Force |does not render any judgment concerning events that may or may not have |occurred in national security-related settings. The Task Force nonetheless |feels that an absolute statement against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or |degrading treatment is appropriate. (B) Articles that appeared on www.salon.com such as the following: June 29, 2006, "Torture teachers" which follows up on Jane Mayer's allegations that torture was being used through the SERE program (now known to have been developed by psychologists) and helped to establish that these techniques were being employed both in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/29/torture/print.html July 26, 2006, "Psychological Warfare" which describes the "revolt" within the APA about the potential interpretation of the PENS report. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/26/interrogation/print.html August 04, 2006, "Psychologists groups still rocked by torture debate" which reports about the situation prior to the 2006 APA convention in New Orleans. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/04/apa/print.html Perhaps you can clarify what it is you are asking about? -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
