Slashdot Mirror
American Psychological Association Hit With New Torture Allegations
sciencehabit writes: Did the American Psychological Association (APA) collude with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to enable the torture of detainees in the War on Terror? The answer won't be known until June, when an independent investigation is due to conclude. But at least one thing was made clear in a report from an independent group of psychologists based on e-mail exchanges between APA and CIA officials from 2003 to 2006: The world's largest professional organization for psychologists has maintained a surprisingly cozy relationship with the defense and intelligence community.
They may have used the APA style guide. That's been torturing people for a long time.
Never seeing another shrink again as a sign of my protest.
Breathing is a pyschological illness. That explains all the nut jobs around me.
It really isn't surprising that the defense and intelligence communities would interact with the APA or at least with some group of psychologists. The defense and intelligence communities would have a vested interest in training their own members in how to deal with torture and interrogations in case they are ever captured. And unfortunately its hard to study and practice those defensive techniques without also learning how to actually conduct those techniques on your own detainees. The nature and tone of the discussions is somewhat relevant though - did they approach the APA asking how best to torture someone to get info, or did they go in asking for defensive techniques and training for their own agents?
I know nothing about the relationship between the APA and the CIA/FBI/TSA/NSA/GOP here, so it may all be terrible. But: there are reasons to cooperate with a body that might misuse your work that do not involve encouraging them to misuse it. One example might be if the advise offered was on how to get answers out of someone without torturing them.
One community that would, presumably, be very good at the whole knowing how to "Get information out of people without torturing them" would be psychologists (well, at least 43% of the time ;-)).
Yes, I may be wrong here. But the truth is I'd rather wait until this report is published, than leap to assumptions.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It would be like them going to the AMA and asking what's the most effective way to cut someone up.
Doctors are meant to heal not inflict damage. It's attitudes like yours that does the most damage to society.
The ones who major in Psychology are typically the ones who need it.
Ok. great. Next we're going to learn that we really have an alien overload and that the 50's are making a resurgence.
What on earth are you talking about? It's a "wingnut" position that the professional organization for psychologists probably shouldn't be advising the government on torture techniques? Please explain your logic.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
It's truth seeking therapy.
"Surprisingly cozy relationship" my ass. This is what real work is like, you advise people who do things. The fact that you don't like them after the fact is an irrelevancy.
You wave your bias way too openly to be taken seriously. Then again, this is pretty much the wingnut witch hunt site nowadays. Sanity is not easily to be found.
When i was serving in the Greek special forces (as a conscript*) we had this "what to do and what you will suffer if you are taken prisoners by the enemy" training, which in reality, if the roles were changed, could be used as a "what to do to the enemy if you take them prisoners and want them to give info" - i am sure (and know for a fact actualy) that among the psychologists helping directly/indirectly with this training existed many who opposed any (physical/psychological) turture.
I understand already that Slashdot is a place where you always have to defend your sanity from the libtarded summaries...
* officers, not only from S.F., had a much harder training.
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
The CIA would beat detainees with hardcover copies of outdated DSMs. And then make them read them.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
...is asking them for an opinion really meaningful?
Donald Ewen Cameron says "GET OFF ME LAWN!"
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
This has been going on for a long time - although it was not called "torture", but "research".
Here in Canada, the CIA funded Dr. Ewan Cameron's "psychic driving" experiments under the MKULTRA program.
Dr. Cameron was also the head of both the American and World Psychiatric associations.
"Patients" were given treatments such as electroshock, LSD, drug-induced comas, etc., although many of the patients were there for anxiety or depression and did not consent to these types of treatments. Cameron essentially turned his patients into vegetables who suffered from amnesia and forgot how to talk or dress themselves. Some did not remember family members and forgot how to use the bathroom by themselves.
Many of the surviving victims were eventually given small financial settlements, and the Canadian government and CIA were essentially absolved of any wrong doing as a result.
The Fifth Estate productions produced an excellent movie based on Dr. Cameron and his experiments, entitled The Sleep Room".
You can watch it online here.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Real doctors take an oath to do no harm with the knowledge they've been granted. I guess that's why the CIA went with psychologists.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
:) xx
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
DO we blame plier manufacturers for their roles in torture? What is the difference between a physical tool and a psychological one?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
The APA has been collaborating with the military for a long time.
I suspect the first large scale collaboration between the APA and the military started with Robert Yerkes back in World War I. Back then the controversy was eugenics (more specifically to justify the popular idea of the mental inferiority of and second wave European immigrants and African Americans).
Apparently, this time it was to attempt to assess enhanced torture methods in use for "safety, efficacy, and health impacts".
Somehow, it never seems to go well when these two organizations start cooperating...
The fact that nobody went to jail for US waterboarding is disturbing.
The US had used allegations of waterboarding against Japanese decision makers in the post WWII war-crimes trials to sentence them. Although, it should be noted that it was typically one of multiple torture allegations.
http://www.politifact.com/virg...
We are filthy hypocrites. Somebody(s) should be locked up a good long time.
Table-ized A.I.
It is a matter of ethics, not political ideology (though I do loathe the neocons and whatever the Democrats have been turning into in the last 40 years). Torture doesn't work, the CIA should know this. They tortured anyway. Why? Because they were permitted/encouraged to do so. There may be a somewhat blurry line between interrogation and torture, but that line was very clearly crossed numerous times and those who performed, allowed, and authorised it should be made to face criminal charges. If you're not angry about crimes by your government, well, that's your conscience to deal with, not mine. I don't think it's reasonable to just shrug your arms and say, "what can you do?"
is your definition of that due to your political positions or is it a moral absolute?
Actually, it's pretty easy to decide if something is a moral absolute or not: If it's OK for everyone to do it then you can, if it's not OK for everyone to do it, then you Kant.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
You see, you sounded rational until you said the following: "...how to break a hardened terrorist in a shorter amount of time without inflicting lasting harm ..."
So many things wrong with this it's difficult to know where to start. In no particular order, and with no statements as to completeness:
1). Physicians swear an oath that is normally summarized as, "First of all, do no harm." There's a reason why medicine keeps it's distance from outfits like the Three Letter Agencies, who employ both a flexible morality, and lately, a flexible conformance to the law. It's called the Hippocratic Oath, look it up;
2). Any reference to "breaking" a person. Your casual use of this word suggests you have dehumanized your subject and lost your moral compass;
3). These are hardened terrorists correct? How do you know that, exactly? The gold standard that exists, and exists for a reason, is convicted in an open court of law. The evidence is weighed by people who aren't invested in the outcome of the trial. The accused gets to see all the evidence, their accusers, and gets legal representation. The state must prove it's case. Quite simply, no kangaroo courts, no trial by the whims of a monarch, no summary convictions, and especially no indefinite jailing without charge or recourse;
4). And here's where the crap really hits the fan. All interrogations are prior to any trial. Interrogations are, by their nature, investigations to find out what happened. So you've admitted that you want to "break" someone during their interrogation, which means their status as a "hardened terrorist" isn't known to you. In your mind you've convicted them already. Or perhaps you really just don't care either way?
Interrogations don't have to be coercive. Quality interrogators, the ones with a moral compass and real professionalism, would never do that. They simply talk to their subjects. Some general knowledge of psychology is helpful but you certainly don't have to be a registered clinician. Lots of police interrogators are very effective and their careers never took them into medicine.
lol, greece. Your military still has the mentality of a '70s tinpot dictatorship and you'd roll over in 5 minutes if attacked. Your opinion is irrelevant.
And your opinion is worth .... ?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
There are certain disorders that cause potential patients to shy away from mental health providers. Any hint of scandal will result in numerous people with serious disorders to avoid seeking help. That sets the stage for serious consequences. And it can be an indirect excuse. For example people who suffer from manic depression are notorious for finding excuse not to be effectively medicated. They are willing to take medications but any medication that starts to lessen their mania will be rejected and often the health care provider is avoided as well. People who deal with paranoia will claim the the case worker is in league with their fantasy enemies. All in all any thing that lowers the perception of the value of mental health care is actually causal to avoidance of treatment.
As to ethics, I'd like that explained.
As to torture not working, it depends on what you mean. Simply hurting someone until they tell you what you want to know does not work. This has been known for thousands of years actually.
However, interrogation often uses things that look like torture but have a different objective.
Lets go over this systematically.
The two things an interrogator has to deal with is people that won't talk to him and people that lie. Those are the two things you need to eliminate to do your job properly.
Now, a gifted interrogator can tell a lie when he hears it. He just knows.. However, an educated interrogator can cover for his lack of super human abilities by simply making his opponent dumber. There are various ways of doing this. Lying is actually very hard. it is one of the hardest things we do all the time. It involves creating an articial reality in your mind and simulating various answers that you judge in series to be believable and then choosing amongst them, and then emoting to your interrogator as if that lie is the truth. It is much easier to tell the truth.
Interrogators exploit this difference. You can do various things. Alcohol for example was a common trick at one point. You get your subject a bit drunk and their lies become easier to spot. You can do other things such as causing emotional durress. This is where interrogation is often confused with torture. The point of interrogation is to extract information. The point of torture is to hurt people as some kind of punishment. In any case, an interrogator can cause emotional distress through sleep deprivation, hurting them so they get scared, or doing other things that cause a heightened emotional state.
The point of that is to make you stupid... not hurt you. Waterboarding for example was developed as a means to scare a subject. The panic reaction is exploited to render the subject temporarily less intelligent and that makes it harder for them to lie convincingly.
Whatever you think of the morality, this process does work quite well. The interrogator in a police station uses the same methods within the law. Again, his two main problems are getting someone to talk and then detecting lies. Police and military interrogators cannot force someone to talk. You have to make them WANT to talk. And you do that in various ways.
Drugs were quite popular as an interrogation tool during the Cold War. sodium pentathol for example made it into the movies as a favorite truth drug of the spy world. Do you know how it works? It makes you drunk. It doesn't make you talk any more than booze does. It just makes you dopey and stupid. LSD was used as well.. again it creates a heightened emotional state. Imagine scaring someone that is on LSD. Everything exaggerated.
So there you go. I assure you, it works. Now if you want to claim it is immoral or something, that is another matter and we can talk about that. But claiming interrogation doesn't work is silly.
Torture doesn't work as an interrogation method because it doesn't include the analysis and psychology of a proper interrogation. However, Torture does work if you want to hurt people and that's all you want. And interrogation works if you want to interrogate.
But neither interrogation nor torture are especially effective at accomplishing the opposing goal.
it is an odd logical transposition you've laid at my feet. I'm not sure how to take it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
1. And yet marines are taught where to stab a knife to cause the most harm. Where do you think they learned that? At some point, some battle hardened army surgeon provided his medical opinion for a hand to hand combat training manual.
Pretending that this hasn't been going on since always is naive.
That oath you're talking about goes back to ancient times. Do you think that the doctors in the triage tents of the Roman legion wouldn't be happy to tell a Centurion how best to kill a man?
Your interpretation of the doctor's oath is not uncommon but it is not the classical interpretation of it. You are to do no harm to your patient in a doctor patient relationship so as to preserve the trust and respect of the medical profession.
The doctor's oath is a practical oath and not a religious one. It is also there so that doctors don't confuse experimentation with medicine. When most people sit down to get helped by a doctor they assume the doctor will first do no harm. However, if the you have an incurable disease and will try anything, many patients ask for the doctors to try ANYTHING.
This is where medical researchers come in and if they have approval, they can attempt unproven medical treatments on the theory that the fellow is going to die anyway so they might as well give something a try. And of course he must give consent for that.
Now lets compare this situation to the interrogation room. There is no doctor patient relationship between the psychologist and the terrorist. The terrorist doesn't need to trust the psychologist. There is no practical reason for the oath besides you misunderstanding of why the Oath exists and your dogmatic adherence to it.
The doctor is actually properly in the employ of the DoD in that situation... not the terrorist. And furthermore he is there as a researcher. And just as medical researchers will vivisect rats and cut apart human fetuses... well this fellow in the room is a test subject.
And it gets better because psychologists desperately need test subjects. They're not able to get them anywhere else. So, this actually offers them an avenue to conduct real science. You can't for example break the mind of a college student to study psychology. It is unethical. You can't do it to death row inmates because that is seen as unethical. You can't do it to extremely insane people that will never be able to lead normal lives again unless they are cured because that is considered unethical.
They can't actually preform science in most cases. But then here comes the CIA... and they say... do what you need to do, just get us the information.
You might think this all ghoulish and evil but think of it scientifically. How can you learn if you aren't allowed to take anything apart? And here we are... the CIA offering to let psychologists take a mind apart... psychologically strip them down and play with the core components. Evil? Debatable. We are talking about terrorists here. The information extracted from them could save lives or even tip the fate of nations from barbarism into modernity... possibly saving millions from short savage lives. And of course, learning something about the mind could mean new EFFECTIVE treatments for psychological disorders which could advance human knowledge.
So you see... the morality on the issue is quite cloudy.
2. As to breaking someone and losing my moral compass... I am not dehumanizing them actually. I just have a different concept of what being human means than you. If fully regard their humanity. And I would do it anyway.
You suggest I don't have empathy, but I do actually. I am extremely empathetic. Painfully so on occasion. But you are correct that I do not sympathize with the terrorist. I know he is a human. I know he is in pain and suffering from fear etc. I know it and I feel it. It gives me no pleasure. To the contrary, his suffering causes me to suffer as well. I do it anyway because I need the information.
Ironically it is you that are dehumanizing me. You are suggesting that
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The notion that interrogation has no value is asinine. I'm going to just stop there because it was so stupid I don't know where to go from here.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
First, your belief that the oath to do no harm stops doctors from providing assistance to the military is adorable. Doctors are broadly consulted all the time to figure out how to do harm. At most you might have to offer them a little bit of a bonus. But really most of the doctors you'd query for something like that are going to be open to the idea. Your notion that doctors all belong to some sort of holy religious order is laughable.
Second, the knowledge to kill being offered is quite anatomically specific and shows deep medical knowledge. Knowledge about nerve clusters, pressure points, blood vessels, etc. You want to think this didn't come out of the medical field? Okay. You can believe the moon is made out of cheese if you want. But the medical community helps the military just like EVERYONE FUCKING ELSE.
Are the engineers bad people because they build tanks and submarines and cruise missiles? Nope. And neither are the doctors that bend their knowledge to the same tasks.
The point of "do no harm" is to preserve doctor patient trust.
Lets back out a bit so you can grasp how fucking clueless you are here. Remember the LSD and sodium pentothal drugs that the military was using in the 60s? How do you think the CIA got their hands on those drugs? And how do you think they even became aware of them? They offered grants for research. Sometimes just for theoretical papers where a doctor would theorize the best way to do something given current technology.
And the CIA would order those compounds from the relevant pharma companies and do what they do.
I regret to inform you, that you're a fucking clueless muppet. *shrugs*
By all means, get mad... *yawn*
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.