Report finds that psychologists shielded U.S. torture program. How was this not a serious breach of medical ethics?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:40:59 -0400

The Central Intelligence Agency’s health professionals repeatedly criticized the agency’s post-Sept. 11 interrogation program, but their protests were rebuffed by prominent outside psychologists who lent credibility to the program, according to a new report.

The 542-page report, which examines the involvement of the nation’s psychologists and their largest professional organization, the American Psychological Association, with the harsh interrogation programs of the Bush era, raises repeated questions about the collaboration between psychologists and officials at both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/11/us/psychologists-shielded-us-torture-program-report-finds.html?ref=todayspaper

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 11:44 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:44:17 -0400

The American Psychological Association (APA) is a historic and well respected organization within our country. It is a shame that certain leaders are of the association are being implicated in this way, but at the same time I don't have a hard time believing the interactions described in the article. I think that it is important to note the programs they are said to have shielded were a matter of national security at the time, so not something that you would talk about over dinner. With that being said, what would have been the catalyst for APA members to say it was more important to keep the information close hold or to share it with the masses. I think the decision came down to personal feeling regarding the safety of our nation compared to the ethical issues APA members had with interrogation techniques. What would you have done if you were involved? Would you have thought the interrogation techniques were torture at the time?

Great article and post!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 11 at 2015 11:44 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:44:43 -0400

Monday morning quarterbacking is always easier than playing in the game.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jul 11 at 2015 11:51 AM

COL Ted Mc — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 11:51:47 -0400

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad - Gunny; When you are dealing with the "Social Sciences" - as when you are dealing with "The Law" - if you want an opinion "You pays your money and you gets your opinion". That is why the term "legal opinion" (as in "We had a legal opinion that said that it was legal for us to execute him before trial and that pouring boiling lead down his throat as a means of execution did not constitute 'cruel and unusual punishment'.") has become such a laughing stock.

After all, the buck has to stop someplace and if there are two differing groups and you can only take one course of action SOMEONE has to make the "executive decision" which of the two groups [the one that says it is OK to do what you want to do or the one that says that it is NOT OK to do what you want to do] to ignore.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 11 at 2015 12:53 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 12:53:18 -0400

Something interesting from the APA..
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/10/zimbardo.aspx

Zimbardo re-examines his landmark Stanford prison study

Dr. Zimbardo talks about his Heroic Imagination Project, what he would change about the Stanford Prison Experiment and who he’d like to see play him in the upcoming feature film on the historic study.

Response by SPC David S. made Jul 11 at 2015 2:58 PM

SPC David S. — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 14:58:02 -0400

Interrogation techniques, including, among other things, "coercive counterintelligence interrogation of resistant sources" have been around for a very long time - KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual - 1963. The relationships the DOD, CIA and others have had with the psychiatric and psychology communities have also existed for many year and are also well known as well as their relationships with many academic institutions. I think to often we kid ourselves of the true nature of the games that we play. You can't just apply ethics to war where you want. I find this very hypocritical being that we have used the threat of nuclear weapons as a deterrent for many years - this practice is clearly psychological warfare. I find it odd that no one seems to care about the ethics revolving around the threat of killing millions in a nuclear strike yet if you support water boarding and sleep deprivation your instantly labeled an asshole. To often I find ourselves trying to make war bearable -

Response by PO3 David Fries made Aug 7 at 2015 6:48 AM

PO3 David Fries — Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:48:08 -0400

I have always been of two minds on "enhanced interrogation ". I believe that we have to be prepared to do whatever it takes to protect our country. However, if if any method is not working, then it needs to be reevaluated.

Response by SP5 Joel McDargh made Oct 28 at 2015 11:54 PM

SP5 Joel McDargh — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 23:54:03 -0400

No way can one play a game of chess without knowing the rules. Same applies to war. Interrogation techniques are an inherent part of the rules of war. Without this being made available the "game" is lost. Going to put us in a combat situation, then give us the means to win.