5 ms·

> Work at detention settings operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law (as deemed by specific U.N. authorities), including the Guanta

by wtbob 11y ago

> Work at detention settings operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law (as deemed by specific U.N. authorities), including the Guantanamo Bay detention facility… Well, that begs the question of whether or not the Gitmo facility is unconstitutional or illegal (literally: it's a textbook pætitio principi). Never mind the fact that refusing to participate in legal, ethical interrogations intended to protect the lives of millions is itself a highly unethical act. That's exactly what this blanket policy prevents: it assumes that national-security interrogations can be neither legal nor ethical, when it's pretty obvious that they can be.

olefoo 11y ago
I read it as saying that there is no ethical way for a _Psychologist_ to participate in a law enforcement interview as an interrogator. Which is reasonable, interviews conducted for law enforcement purposes are not therapeutic in nature and are not for the benefit of the interviewee. That said, the APA should roundly condemn and participate in holding past members to account for their participation in creating protocols that clearly violate principles of civilised war and ethical practice by offering expert testimony to that effect in both civil and criminal cases. For instance the two men profiled in this report http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-torture-psychologists-20141214-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-tort... should see an APA expert witness explaining how far they had strayed from their obligations any time they face a lawsuit.
Squarel 11y ago
No, it says that they cannot work at detention settings which are in violation of the US constitution or international law. If it is legal, ethical interrogation, then it is not in violation of the US Constitution, or international law It even says they can provide general consultation on issues related to humane information gathering
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  >No, it says that they cannot work at detention settings which are in violation of the US constitution or international law. Who makes that determination?

by wtbob 11y ago

olefoo 11y ago

I read it as saying that there is no ethical way for a _Psychologist_ to participate in a law enforcement interview as an interrogator. Which is reasonable, interviews conducted for law enforcement purposes are not therapeutic in nature and are not for the benefit of the interviewee. That said, the APA should roundly condemn and participate in holding past members to account for their participation in creating protocols that clearly violate principles of civilised war and ethical practice by offering expert testimony to that effect in both civil and criminal cases. For instance the two men profiled in this report http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-torture-psychologists-20141214-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-tort... should see an APA expert witness explaining how far they had strayed from their obligations any time they face a lawsuit.

Squarel 11y ago

No, it says that they cannot work at detention settings which are in violation of the US constitution or international law. If it is legal, ethical interrogation, then it is not in violation of the US Constitution, or international law It even says they can provide general consultation on issues related to humane information gathering

13thLetter 11y ago
>No, it says that they cannot work at detention settings which are in violation of the US constitution or international law. Who makes that determination?