5 ms·

If true, could doctors loose their medical license for participating in something like this?

by lukejduncan 13y ago

freehunter 13y ago
More than that, they could be tried as war criminals.
- jeremyjh 13y ago
  No, you have to be on the losing side of a war to be a war criminal.
  - theorique 13y ago
    Your comment may be intended ironically, but it's more or less true. Some lower-level staff may get hung out to dry (e.g. Abu Ghraib) but if you were a senior-level commander or official, why would you finger one of your peers, when he probably has similar dirt on you? Better that everyone keeps his mouth shut.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      As another example: Henry Wirz was tried, convicted, and executed for running Camp Sumter (the POW camp near Andersonville, Georgia). As far as I know, nobody was ever tried for what happened at Elmira Prison. Elmira Prison had a 25% mortality rate, Camp Sumter had a mortality rate of 29%. Guess which one was run by the victors. However merely being on the losing side isn't sufficient; you have to be on the conquered side. The US was by reasonable accounts on the losing side of the Vietnam War, but war crime trials were never held for the people that really deserved it because although the US lost, they were no conquered. Saddam was on the losing side of the Gulf War, but he did not see trial for his crimes until he was well and truly conquered many years later.
      - theorique 13y ago
        Good distinction between losing and conquered. The Vietnam war was not a war of survival for the US, nor did it take place in US territory. Psychologically, it was certainly a blow, but in the chess game of geopolitical strategy, it was more on the level of losing a knight or bishop, certainly not losing a queen or the entire game.
bradleyjg 13y ago
From the report: "As of the publication of this report, state licensing and disciplinary boards in Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, new York, Ohio, and Texas have received—and dismissed—complaints against health professionals for alleged mistreatment of detainees at Guantánamo and secret CIA detention centers. To the knowledge of the Task Force, none of these complaints has led to a formal hearing that then led to a decision holding the individual to account. Many of the complaints were dismissed on procedural grounds. The boards rarely explained the bases for these decisions, but together they suggest an unwillingness of state licensing bodies to address complaints of misconduct within national security agencies or a belief by the boards that they are unable to pursue them. They also reveal procedural and substantive deficiencies in the way state boards approach discipline of health professionals alleged to have been complicit in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These practices and procedures contribute to a lack of disciplinary accountability for unethical acts of severe harm on detainees."

If true, could doctors loose their medical license for participating in something like this?

freehunter 13y ago

More than that, they could be tried as war criminals.

jeremyjh 13y ago
No, you have to be on the losing side of a war to be a war criminal.
- theorique 13y ago
  Your comment may be intended ironically, but it's more or less true. Some lower-level staff may get hung out to dry (e.g. Abu Ghraib) but if you were a senior-level commander or official, why would you finger one of your peers, when he probably has similar dirt on you? Better that everyone keeps his mouth shut.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    As another example: Henry Wirz was tried, convicted, and executed for running Camp Sumter (the POW camp near Andersonville, Georgia). As far as I know, nobody was ever tried for what happened at Elmira Prison. Elmira Prison had a 25% mortality rate, Camp Sumter had a mortality rate of 29%. Guess which one was run by the victors. However merely being on the losing side isn't sufficient; you have to be on the conquered side. The US was by reasonable accounts on the losing side of the Vietnam War, but war crime trials were never held for the people that really deserved it because although the US lost, they were no conquered. Saddam was on the losing side of the Gulf War, but he did not see trial for his crimes until he was well and truly conquered many years later.
    - theorique 13y ago
      Good distinction between losing and conquered. The Vietnam war was not a war of survival for the US, nor did it take place in US territory. Psychologically, it was certainly a blow, but in the chess game of geopolitical strategy, it was more on the level of losing a knight or bishop, certainly not losing a queen or the entire game.

bradleyjg 13y ago

From the report: "As of the publication of this report, state licensing and disciplinary boards in Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, new York, Ohio, and Texas have received—and dismissed—complaints against health professionals for alleged mistreatment of detainees at Guantánamo and secret CIA detention centers. To the knowledge of the Task Force, none of these complaints has led to a formal hearing that then led to a decision holding the individual to account. Many of the complaints were dismissed on procedural grounds. The boards rarely explained the bases for these decisions, but together they suggest an unwillingness of state licensing bodies to address complaints of misconduct within national security agencies or a belief by the boards that they are unable to pursue them. They also reveal procedural and substantive deficiencies in the way state boards approach discipline of health professionals alleged to have been complicit in torture or other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. These practices and procedures contribute to a lack of disciplinary accountability for unethical acts of severe harm on detainees."