I studied psychology at University of Washington in the mid to late 80s. I never gave any consideration to the weaponization of our science. We all bear a shared responsibility for disarming the psychic weapons our colleagues have been building.

I suggest we adopt the irreducible psyche as our fundamental unit, and stop treating it as a mere machine, susceptible to malicious hacking. Reductionism, for biological systems, died almost 9 years ago.

Humbled by the Genome’s Mysteries
Stephen Jay Gould
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/19/opinion/19GOUL.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=87803cb2bf829800&ex=1228971600
Feb 19, 2001
“I am no lover, or master, of sound bites or epitomes, but I began by telling my students that we were sharing a great day in the history of science and of human understanding in general….

“The implications of this finding cascade across several realms. The commercial effects will be obvious, as so much biotechnology, including the rush to patent genes, has assumed the old view that “fixing” an aberrant gene would cure a specific human ailment. The social meaning may finally liberate us from the simplistic and harmful idea, false for many other reasons as well, that each aspect of our being, either physical or behavioral, may be ascribed to the action of a particular gene ‘for’ the trait in question.

“But the deepest ramifications will be scientific or philosophical in the largest sense. From its late 17th century inception in modern form, science has strongly privileged the reductionist mode of thought that breaks overt complexity into constituent parts and then tries to explain the totality by the properties of these parts and simple interactions fully predictable from the parts. (‘Analysis’ literally means to dissolve into basic parts). The reductionist method works triumphantly for simple systems — predicting eclipses or the motion of planets (but not the histories of their complex surfaces), for example. But once again — and when will we ever learn? — we fell victim to hubris, as we imagined that, in discovering how to unlock some systems, we had found the key for the conquest of all natural phenomena. Will Parsifal ever learn that only humility (and a plurality of strategies for explanation) can locate the Holy Grail?

“The collapse of the doctrine of one gene for one protein, and one direction of causal flow from basic codes to elaborate totality, marks the failure of reductionism for the complex system that we call biology — and for two major reasons.

“First, the key to complexity is not more genes, but more combinations and interactions generated by fewer units of code — and many of these interactions (as emergent properties, to use the technical jargon) must be explained at the level of their appearance, for they cannot be predicted from the separate underlying parts alone. So organisms must be explained as organisms, and not as a summation of genes.

Second, the unique contingencies of history, not the laws of physics, set many properties of complex biological systems….

“We may best succeed in this effort if we can heed some memorable words spoken by that other great historical figure born on Feb. 12 — on the very same day as Darwin, in 1809. Abraham Lincoln, in his first Inaugural Address, urged us to heal division and seek unity by marshaling the “better angels of our nature” — yet another irreducible and emergent property of our historically unique mentality, but inherent and invokable all the same, even though not resident within, say, gene 26 on chromosome number 12.”

Look, if any one of these two hundred cracked open a history book since their undergrad days they would know that the “dark side” is not a policy of Cheney, Brennan, or Tenet. The dark side is not a “policy” at all. It’s one variable among many other ugly variables in the environmental system of war. The Bush administration, right or wrong, decided to play into it. They did not create the “dark side.”

Think about it. The Geneva conventions of 1864, 1906, 1929, the Geneva Red Cross Conventions 1949, among other bodies of international law concerning the conduct of war (not to mention international custom) all predated anyone in the outgoing administration. Why were they created? To reign in the dark side policies of an administration that didn’t exist yet? No. They were created to manage a problem that is ancient.

This letter, endorsed by a bunch of high minded academics seething in righteous indignation, misconstrues a pragmatic statement of a professional. To be concerned with legal justification of CIA operations and the protection of CIA officers carrying out orders indicates regard for their protection. This is pragmatic. Who in the hell would join the CIA if those protections were not in place? How would those operatives who now serve possibly be effective? “The appropriate Department of Justice review” is the legitimate process to ensure that the conduct of the CIA is both appropriate and prudent …and yes legal, which is not so far divorced from morality as the authors of this letter would lead us to believe.

I sense the concept of prudence is alien, if not anathema, to these 200. If it were not they would be more sober in their proclamations and more realistic in their expectations of government. The Bush administration is leaving but the war environment will remain, limiting options of the incoming administration. I hope that the high expectations of some will not become the detriment of our president elect when he finally takes the reigns of government.

When I read the uninformed comments made by the list of liberal psychologists, I can only think that they must be backing another candidate of their own chosing, and doing anything possibly to discredit or block other more qualified individuals.

This seems to be how politics works in our country today. Who cares about all of the facts – let’s just take partial facts, half-truths, and distortions, and float them in the meda to damage the people we do not want to succeed. Just look at how the media and left-wing liberals went after Hilary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin, and others during the Presidential campaign.

Also, President-Elect Obama should have shown more loyalty to John Brennan than to just accept his letter of withdrawal for the good of a smooth transition. John vigorously supported Senator Obama, and served as his chief Intelligence Advisor during the campaign. John’s advice and the information he supplied to Senator Obama quickly elevated the Senator’s knowledge, giving the perception that he was more of an expert on intelligence matters than in reality.

I guess, by the standards outlined by the 200 liberal, left-wing psychologists in their letter, anyone who worked for the CIA in the past 8 years should be disqualified from being CIA Director due to their association with the Bush Administration (whether they supported its policies or not). In the end, the post of CIA Director will be a political appointee with few real qualifications, but with political connections. Too bad.

As an network news analyst he objectively explains to the media what the types of torture are so then he’s labelled a conspirator by association with the agency that used it??

He encourages public debate, that’s more than any past CIA director would have said. It’s just a sad day for America when we forget the mission of people like Brennan is to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic. Lets get the public debate started people! Brennan’s the right man for the job.

The man briefed AlGore during the Clinton Administration and because he doesn’t show enough support for a war in Iraq to Cheney he gets removed in favor of someone pushing an administion adgenda! Wake up LIBS!!! He stood on principle and left the CIA because he was blocked for promotion by THE WHITE HOUSE for God sakes. How can you possibly equate that with support of Bush policies and torture? Anyone who had a career in CIA that rose through the ranks during our generation is labelled a Bush croney by you liberals.

Let’s not forget the mission of the CIA is to defend the USA and your sorry misinformed butts against the true evil that is out there in the world. What about the psychological impacts of 9/11 and televised beheadings by Islamic extremists? Perhaps we should use redention to send the 9/11 mastermind to NEW YORK CITY and let the public decide what constituites torture.

Brennan got screwed by the Bush administration for not being a puppet and he’s getting screwed again because some liberal nut jobs like your organization, Greenwald and the Atlantic (who never took the time of day to speak to him) blog cry and whine that he IS a puppet and likes to set fire to puppies and kittens.

The only thing that this did was force the best candidate for change out of the running.