Valtin on APA revised torture ban
March 3rd, 2008
Blogger Valtin is even more critical of the new APA resolution than were Brad Olson and myself. Valtin summarizes the issue thus:
The issue boils down to this: Are psychologists involved in interrogations of detainees at Guantanamo, CIA prisons, and other theater of war prison sites? Yes. Are these sites in violation of basic human rights laws and treaties? Yes. Have psychologists been implicated in torture of prisoners, and training other personnel in such torture? Yes. Does APA have an ethics policy in place that allows military psychologists to follow orders, regardless of ethical demands? Yes. Has anyone in the 50 plus year history of psychologist participation in mind control and interrogation research ever been held responsible for unethical practices? No. Has any military psychologist, or for that matter any health professional, been held responsible for torture-related activities since 9/11? No.
Entry Filed under: APA, CIA, Guantanamo, Interrogation, Law, Psychological Torture, Psychology, SERE, Torture
3 Comments
1. Valtin | March 4th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Thank you for the coverage.
2. Steven Miles on APA revis&hellip | March 19th, 2008 at 9:38 am
[...] the American Psychological Association revision of its 2007 resolution against torture, and blogger Valtin’s comments on the change: Valtin is correct. The February 22 APA statement entirely conforms to current US [...]
3. Arrigo-DeBatto: An Intell&hellip | March 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
[...] other comments on the February revision , see those by Brad Olson and myself; those by Valtin; and those by Steven Miles that I posted this [...]