They won’t condone abuse or torture:
The American Psychological Association ruled Sunday that psychologists can no longer be associated with several interrogation techniques that have been used against terrorism detainees at U.S. facilities because the methods are immoral, psychologically damaging and counterproductive in eliciting useful information.
Psychologists who witness interrogators using mock executions, simulated drowning, sexual and religious humiliation, stress positions or sleep deprivation are required to intervene to stop such abuse, to report the activities to superiors and to report the involvement of any other psychologists in such activities to the association. It could then strip those professionals of their membership.
On the heels of the APA deciding to make the Baby Jesus cry by no longer diagnosing homosexuality as a sin disorder, I think it is safe to conclude that all psychologists are French.
APA- APPEASEMENT PLEASES ALLAH!
*** Update ***
More traitorous ‘experts’:
The world these experts see today is one that continues to grow more threatening. Fully 91 percent say the world is becoming more dangerous for Americans and the United States, up 10 percentage points since February. Eighty-four percent do not believe the United States is winning the war on terror, an increase of 9 percentage points from six months ago. More than 80 percent expect a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade, a result that is more or less unchanged from one year ago.
On the positive side, many of the key agencies charged with ensuring the United States’ national security appear to be getting better at their job. Six of nine agencies, including the Departments of State and Defense, scored above average on the experts’ scale of 0 to 10. One year ago, only one agency scored above average. The National Security Agency fared the best, with an average ranking of 6.6. Many of the policies that these agencies pursue, however, did not fare as well. Nearly every foreign policy of the U.S. government—from domestic surveillance activities and the detention of terrorist suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to U.S. energy policies and efforts in the Middle East peace process—was sharply criticized by the experts. More than 6 in 10 experts, for instance, believe U.S. energy policies are negatively affecting the country’s national security. The experts were similarly critical of the cia’s rendition of terrorist suspects to countries known to torture prisoners and the Pentagon’s policy of trying detainees before military tribunals.
Clearly we need to round up some of these experts before all is truly lost.
Nikki
While I applaud this decision, it is still too bad they didn’t come to it much sooner than they have.
Jake
Two questions spring to mind: What techniques are psychs allowed to witness?
And is this an admission that interrogators are engaging in torture? I’m sure the fRightWingNoizeMachine will inform us momentarily.
daveinboca
As an Arabist FSO ret’d, I got this crock of shit in my e-mail this morning, looked at it, noted that there was no real list of “non-partisan experts,” remembered that William Dobson is an ultra-left Newsweak agitpreppie, and dismissed the poll as just more rubbish from the Soros wing of the infra-red left [the Euro-Commie type]. The Carnegie Endowment runs FP, and it has gone downhill fast since Bill Maynes left the Mging Editor job. I’m sure any “experts” Dobson had included Sandy Berglar and Madeleine Albwrong. And Ray McGovern from the ret’d “Intelligence Community.”
I think Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bremer eff-ed up big-time, but the surge is working, no matter what anonymous “non-partisan experts” polled by an ultra-left rag might say. I believe Petraeus, not a bunch of anonymous farts.
Paul L.
However now “homophobia” is now a disorder.
Should Bias be a Mental Illness?
Can we use the APA favorite solution for their patents and dope up the terrorist on Luvox, Ritalin, Prozac, Zoloft, etc?
John Cole
Daveinboca,
I was interested in your comments, so I decided to check your blog out. The very top post starts with:
“Leftist hypocrisy is excoriated by Mark Steyn”
I stopped reading.
jenniebee
I like the way he thinks that calling Madeline Albright “Albwrong” is some kind of argument.
I’m also fond of the “the surge is working” statement, especially when it’s never followed up with the specifics of what “working” means.
When this whole debacle started, back in the Mission Accomplished days, I commented on another board that the real test of “winning” was that you win if you get to decide when you can stop fighting and on what terms. Anybody here have a clue about what conditions the situation in Iraq has to meet for us to win and go home? I’ve tried to figure that out, but as far as I can tell, that’s Top Secret information. After all, if the terrists knew that, say, three months of total cease-fire would have us packing our bags and heading home, they might do just that to get rid of us, and then they’d win in a double super secret mojo move. And we can’t have that. No siree.
ImJohnGalt
“Winning” generally requires a set of predetermined outcomes before the game starts, one outcome of which is “winning”, one of which is “losing”, and one of which is customarily called “a draw”, also known as “soccer”, or “futbol”.
That not a single right-tard can point to a point before the invasion at which these outcomes were identified pretty much precludes them from ever using the word.
Zifnab
When the alternative seems to be killing 100 US soldiers and hemoraging $10 billion dollars every month, I say you might be on to something Paul.
Xenos
Since Petraeus has not made any official statements conluding the Surge has succeeded, you may be a bit premature to conclude that you agree with him.
And since when do Generals go setting policy, anyway? Politicians should not be shirking their jobs with this ruse, whether the politicians are in the White House, Congress, or Foggy Bottom. If you really were a FSO for this country you would understand that.
ThymeZone
Well, silent homophobia is one thing, but overt gay-bashing is certainly aberrant behavior.
It’s bigotry, at best. You should be very proud, standing up for people who try to ply bigotry into politcal capital for themselves. You’re a gay basher, right? Otherwise, why would you pimp for gay bashers?
ThymeZone
Indeed. Let the generals present their facts, but let the American people decide if the action is succeeding.
I think the latter, or I should say, preventing the latter, is what the coming theatrics are going to be all about.
VidaLoca
There will also be a lot of effort invested in prevention of the former.
Jake
That’s one of the wonderful things about the intertubes. You can find any crazy-ass shit in there.
The Other Andrew
Killing brown people to make a culturally-insecure demographic feel tough = surge is working.
Paul L.
I do not know you tell me. Max Blumenthal is on your side.
The Weekly Standard’s Reliable Sources: Male Prostitute Matt Sanchez and Web Weirdo “Throbert McGee”
But wait your excuse will be that Max is just implying Matt Sanchez is gay not “overt gay-bashing”.
ThymeZone
Excuses are unnecessary when the facts are on my side.
You pimp for gay bashers. Case closed.
Wilfred
After years of reading this blog can anyone tell me what the fuck Paul L. is actually (or ever) on about? Thank you.
jake
I’d say he’s on about four lines of meth/day.
jake
What my computer is on remains a mystery.
rachel
No. But you can usually just scroll on by without missing anything substantive.
Paul L.
Generally I am about bashing the left and liberals. I particularly enjoy pointing out hypocrisy on the left.
i.e.
John Kerry/Bill Clinton calling for higher taxes and using every tax shelter they can find to avoid paying tax.
Or Al Gore and his carbon footprint crater.
I am naturally this way.
Maybe you would recommend I take Luvox, Ritalin, Prozac, Zoloft, etc to set my mind right Soviet Style. or would you just go with the Rosemary Kennedy solution.
ThymeZone
No, the hell you say! And all this time we thought it was about ideas, making America better, advancing sensible policies, responsible conservatism.
But it was just about throwing rocks at the people passing by? Cozying up to lunatics and bigots and liars and damned fools, all for sport?
You have dashed the dreams of a lot of people, Paul. We believed in you, we thought you were somebody.
Xenos
Such weak hypocrisy, too, that they propose one policy, yet, while another policy remains in force they seek to maximize their position within that policy. Shit, sounds like rational action, much like most libertarians insist they be allowed to pursue.
Pasul L., et al are not just sophists, but intellectual vizigoths.
Jake
Dude, I was trying to give you an excuse for being a serial jackalope abuser. Oh well.
However, you can rest assured (or you’ll be disappointed to know) I strongly disagree with the use of meds simply to keep people in line or make them play nice. Legal and ethical considerations aside, it’s not medically necessary. Being a tedious ass isn’t a mental illness.
Davis X. Machina
Anybody here have a clue about what conditions the situation in Iraq has to meet for us to win and go home?
Democrats in Senate 6
Whether to fight it, when to fight it, how to fight it, whom to send to fight it, whether to end it, when to end it — all based on calculation of party-political advantage.
Iraq — not so much a ‘war’ as the world’s most expensive campaign commercial, or the political version of Munchausen’s-by-proxy.
Davis X. Machina
[let’s try that again. The preview shows greater-than and less-thans ok, but not the actual post…]
Anybody here have a clue about what conditions the situation in Iraq has to meet for us to win and go home?
Not until the institutional Democratic party gets Mulroney’d.
US War aims in Iraq:
Democrats in Senate: less than 30
Democrats in House: less than 150
Democratically controlled statehouses: less than 20
Democratic governors: less than 22
Reliable ‘conservative’ Supreme Court Justices: greater than 6
Whether to fight it, when to fight it, how to fight it, whom to send to fight it, whether to end it, when to end it — all based on calculation of party-political advantage.
Iraq — not so much a ‘war’ as the world’s most expensive campaign commercial, or the political version of Munchausen’s-by-proxy.