Coalition for an Ethical Psychology (CEP) has issued a press release on the eve of the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), currently underway in San Diego, California. CEP announces that it has sent a letter (PDF) to Carol Goodheart, current APA president, charging the APA with "its own complicity in supporting and empowering psychologists" in the development, research, supervision and/or implementation of interrogation torture abuses during the Bush years.
The CEP press release states:
This complicity includes APA involvement in the cases of three psychologists – James Mitchell, John Leso, and Larry James – against whom ethics complaints have recently been filed with state licensing boards. APA complicity goes back to 2002 when the association amended its ethics code in a way that protected psychologists involved in government sponsored torture.
The Coalition is calling for an independent, impartial, outside investigation to study the APA’s collusion in the U.S. torture program. The Coalition also calls upon the APA to write letters in support of state ethics complaints against APA members Larry James and John Leso, and to initiate an APA ethics investigation of Larry James. The Coalition further insists that the association fully implement the member-passed referendum withdrawing psychologists from sites in violation of or outside of international law, specifically including Guantánamo and Bagram Air Base.
APA’s Letter in the James Mitchell Complaint
On June 30, the American Psychological Association (APA) wrote a letter (PDF) to the Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists. By APA’s own account, it was an unusual intervention into a licensing board complaint against former Air Force/SERE psychologist and CIA contractor, James Mitchell, who has been identified as involved in the abusive interrogation and torture of supposed Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah in the spring and summer of 2002. The U.S. government has since dropped its assertion that Mr. Zubaydah was even a member of Al Qaeda, though he remains imprisoned as a "high-value detainee" at Guantanamo Bay.
The complaint against Mitchell was filed on June 16, 2010, and is signed by Texas psychologist Jim L.H. Cox. Attorneys Dicky Grigg and Joseph Margulies are also signatories to the document.
While the APA gives the impression that it is interested about intervening in a licensing complaint against Mitchell — the Complaint (PDF) cites Mitchell with violations of rules regarding competency, improper sexual conduct, exploitation of authority, research without informed consent, and more — an examination of APA’s letter and the context of their intervention suggests that APA’s action is disingenuous at best, and more likely, a continuation of APA’s attempt to rewrite the history of their own participation in the torture scandal.
According to their letter, APA was writing to the Texas State Board to describe how "its Ethical Principles for Psychologists and Code of Conduct as well as relevant Association policies, apply to facts set forth in the [Mitchell] Complaint." Even so, the APA states it will not comment on any of the facts submitted in the Complaint, explaining they will limit their "information sharing… to APA policies on torture" only. According to APA, it is the Board’s responsibility to adjudicate the matter according to its own procedures, including the responsibility to "consider Dr. Mitchell’s explanation."
Meanwhile, APA spokeswoman Rhea Farberman described the letter to an AP reporter as an unprecedented action for APA, which was compelled "to act" by the seriousness of the allegations. The subsequent AP story was widely reported, usually with a headline that explained the APA wanted Mitchell stripped of his license to practice psychology. Yet a close reading of the letter demonstrates that APA was essentially concerned by how "the allegations regarding Dr. Mitchell’s conduct… [and] the scope of misperception and harm regarding the public’s understanding of the profession of psychology" (emphasis added). In other words, the APA was mostly concerned about the image of professional psychology, and not by the fact the U.S. government had used psychologists to develop and implement experiments into the torture of prisoners.
An APA President on the Board of Mitchell’s Company
There are many different ways in which the APA’s letter is disingenuous. The CEP letter (PDF) to APA President Goodman goes into some detail on these. Perhaps the most immediately apparent is the way APA disappears the association of one of its own leading members with Mitchell’s activities. The letter never mentions, and the AP story by Andrew Welsh-Huggins never alludes to the fact that former APA President Joseph Matarazzo was a "governing member" of James Mitchell’s company, Mitchell-Jessen and Associates. Even more, Dr. Matarazzo was reported by New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer to be "on the CIA’s professional-standards board at the exact time when psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were developing an interrogation program for the CIA, based on the US military’s SERE training program."
When APA was confronted in August 2007 with the evidence surrounding the links between Dr. Matarazzo and Mitchell-Jessen, Rhea Farberman, APA’s director of public affairs, released a statement that said Dr. Matarazzo had "no active role in APA governance [since he was APA president 18 years previously] but has been actively involved in the American Psychological Foundation (APF), the charitable giving arm of APA. Dr. Matarazzo currently holds no governance positions in either APA or APF." Farberman also stated that APA member Matarazzo’s "professional activities are outside and independent of any role he has played within APA and APF… We have no direct knowledge about the business dealing of Mitchell’s and Jessen’s company; however, APA’s position is clear — torture or other forms of cruel or inhuman treatment are always unethical."
Despite ample reporting on the activities of Mitchell and his associates at the time, APA had no problem disregarding even the associations of one of its own active members, while once again repeating its mantra that it was on the record as being against torture. At the time, few took APA to task for its hypocrisy.
The Fate of the Leso Complaint
In a final twist of irony regarding the APA’s letter on Mitchell, a complaint against registered APA member Major John Leso, filed by the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) last month, was dismissed, as announced in a July 28 letter from the Director of the New York Office of Professional Discipline, Louis J. Catone, to Kathy Roberts of CJA. CJA is expected to appeal that decision.
APA has not chimed in on the Leso case, despite the fact Leso is an APA member. He was also a prime figure in the propagation of the highly experimental interrogation "Battle Lab" at Guantanamo. From the CJA complaint:
Dr. Leso led the first Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) at the United States Naval Station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (Guantánamo or GTMO) from June 2002 to January 2003. While at Guantánamo, Dr. Leso co-authored an interrogation policy memorandum that incorporated illegal techniques adapted from methods used by the Chinese and North Korean governments against U.S. prisoners of war. He recommended a series of increasingly psychologically and physically abusive interrogation techniques to be applied against detainees held by the United States. Many of the techniques and conditions that Dr. Leso helped put in place were applied to suspected al-Qaeda member Mohammed al Qahtani under Dr. Leso’s direct supervision, as well as to other men and boys held at Guantánamo.
Despite the self-evident participation as a "behavioral consultant" psychologist at the torture interrogations of al Qahtani — an interrogation labeled torture by no less than Judge Susan Crawford, the then-Convening Authority at Guantanamo — Catone, a former Democratic Party District Attorney in upstate New York, uses twisted logic to maintain that "Leso’s conduct did not constitute the practice of psychology," which he only defines as helping people.
I find no basis for investigating your complaint because it does not appear that any of the conduct complained of constitutes the practice of psychology as understood in the State of New York…. If Dr. Leso’s conduct did not constitute the practice of psychology, then he cannot be guilty of practicing the profession of psychology with gross negligence, with gross incompetence, etc., and he cannot be guilty of engaging in conduct "in the practice of the profession" evidencing moral unfitness to practice.
Redolent of the pettifogging apologia that DoJ maven David Margolis applied in clearing attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee from criminal misconduct in the writing of the August 2002 torture memos, Catone would have us believe that unless the action of a psychologist fit the category of the profession’s activities in New York legal code, then it cannot be misconduct. By this logic, no crime or unethical behavior could be misconduct, since misconduct is not part of the legally defined professional activities. This will be welcome news to psychologists who have been charged with sleeping with their clients, since having sex with patients is patently not part of a psychologist’s legally defined practice!
APA has never weighed in on the Leso complaint, and it is silent now in the wake of this immoral action by the New York authorities. The APA remains committed to its program of promoting "national security psychology". Their letter to the Texas Board on the Mitchell complaint may represent some second thoughts among some members of the APA hierarchy about their general position regarding enthusiastic support for the military and intelligence agencies, and their program of being major players in the expansion of national security and military activities in the wake of 9/11. But I wouldn’t count on it. Instead, it more likely represents a cynical ploy by APA to cover itself in case there is a possible indictment of James Mitchell coming out of the John Durham DoJ investigation, which many reports have indicated is wrapping up its work.
Correction: The letter to APA President Carol Goodheart and the press release for same was originally reported in this story as originating from Psychologists for an Ethical APA. The actual authors, as corrected, are Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. I regret any confusion from this error.



59 Comments

I notice that the “Related Posts” box has a number of previous articles I’ve written on APA and their relation to the torture program. Interested readers are invited to pursue them.
Kudos to the PEAPA. I hope this letter gets taken seriously at the APA meeting.
This is so important — experts in psychology really hold the keys to understanding what torture is, how it manipulates its targets, and its long term consequences. The split in the psychological community is more than symbolic with respect to the political battles that surround torture; the discourse you’re having right now has the power to steer hearts and minds, and change the path of humanity.
I wish you all at PEAPA success in raising consciousness at the APA. I think a lot of folks at the APA still don’t get it.
And thanks, as always, for everything you do, Jeff.
I wish PEAPA success, too. Many members, however, like myself, have left the APA. My resignation letter was “open” and was published at AlterNet.
About the part where you write about steering hearts and minds, and changing the path of humanity, I certainly hope that will be the case. Thanks.
Your resignation letter is actually a useful document for those of us who want to understand the issues better. Thanks for linking — I hope others read it again.
And they named names! Now for the AMA to come clean: name the names, let the state licensing boards do the rest.
Good information and news from Jeff.
I agree the American Psychiatric Association and the AMA also need to make the right moves toward disciplining those of the medical professions involved. The publication in last week’s JAMA of collaboration is a beginning
The psychologists, who are not medical professionals subject to AMA ethics, as this article indicates, seem to be a bit ahead in addressing this..
I might suggest the title drop the final word, “interrogations”; torture is but that.
I might also invite Obama supporters to note why said gentleman has been quite so quiet on the American use of torture, against both domestic and international law, and the Geneva Conventions (may they rest in peace, and serve as an example for a future, respected framework).
Slightly OT Jeff. I read your report on the history of CIA/medical collaboration in egregious h human rights abuses. Great article. It points out so well how appropriate medical research can be some so contaminated by covert government intelligence agency motivations as to make the two indiscernible from each other
Great article.
This one as well; they both deserve the widest possible readership, so people know what some trusted physicians are up to: http://www.truth-out.org/the-hidden-tragedy-cias-experiments-children62208
Fantastic! Now that the heat of the moment is passed, could it be that some are reconsidering their support for torture? Could justice be around the corner?
First we have gay marriage upheld as a fundamental right and now this. I could almost have faith in our legal system again if these things keep happening.
Let’s hope this is a real awakening and not some cover your ass moment as described– “Instead, it more likely represents a cynical ploy by APA to cover itself in case their is a possible indictment of James Mitchell coming out of the John Durham DoJ investigation, which many reports have indicated is wrapping up its work.”
While Jeff is probably right with that last comment, I’m going to delude myself into thinking this is the beginning of some very good developments in the field of justice. I need a break from all the cynicism and a little hope now and then is a good thing.
What does a patriotic American scientist do when the government comes to him/her and says “We need your help to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.” ?
What do you do?
In today’s political climate, I would have to pass because I would be unable to believe anything they said.
What about on Dec. 8, 1941.?
If they asked me to torture someone either mentally or physically, the answer would be no.
My point is that when a government develops a systemic policy of promoting human rights crimes, there will be those who will carry them out. I do agree with the Nuremberg principle of individual accountability but that cannot be relied on to prevent the crimes.
btw The Nazi doctors were convicted not on the basis of the cruelty or results of their experimentation but on the basis the victims were not informed that they were subjects of experimentation.
Sorry. Things really have gone this far downhill. The truth hurts.
Now maybe some of you guys will look at the presentation Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth made supporting a new investigation into what happened 9/11/01?
http://www.ae911truth.org/
A patriotic American scientist begs anybody in the position to make decision that will listen to him not to torture! Not to commit war crimes.
Beg them not to ruin this countries reputation in the eyes of the world.
Thank you, Jeff.
Can’t convey how much I appreciate your efforts to expose behavior inimical to the proper mission of those who supposedly represent a dicipline devoted to unmanipulated and whole humanity, to sanity, and to reason.
The APA is a “front” for “interests” opposed to all three of those honorable things, as you and I have long agreed. As clearly damning evidence is made more widely available, many people, around the world, will come to see and understand “what” has been done, you allow them to understand “how” and “why” these things have been done, leading to determing for “whom”, ultimately, these other, dishonorable and despicable “things” were ordered and done.
Minor detail: In your last sentence, “their” should be “there”.
DW
That is just what many of us have been doing for years.
To Hell with what the world thinks of us.
Torture misuse of medical experimentataion, design of nuclear weapons. and all are morally wrong. That is the basis on which many of us are protesting the actions of our government and fallen colleagues
Well said.
A few of us have been beaten over the head with the whole “evil” thing too much. What’s “morally wrong” gets real flexible when it’s time to start handing out prison sentences after the vault is empty and the bloody mess has been mopped up.
Effective governance can only be accomplished through written laws. Everyone that steals and tortures needs to go to jail. Not just the ones who were “morally wrong.”
Aunt Toby is upstairs!
Yo! Putin! You might want to pay a little bit of attention to the Pavlovsk Bank!
You have obviously missed and misconstured the meaning in all I have posted..
Nice! That’s a thinker. Depending on how it was put, a convincing argument could be made. Hell, the whole country, minus a few of us, were lead blindly into Iraq. I could understand the argument that these are not monsters but what about the advice they gave? That is taking it one more step and the question gets harder.
Yes. You have captured my meaning. It is so very complicated, especially for the individual. I do believe, no matter the purity of motivation, that those committing crimes against humanity (a vague term in itself) become corrupted in so doing. I really think the structure of the government and transparency are our best defenses.
I would like to believe I would refuse to collaborate, and have in some less dramatic challenges to my professional ethics, but I accept my human frailty and that of other, especially as individuals confronted by the power and majesty of government or belief system.
That said, I do defend myself and those of us protesting from moral outrage. It is really the only power that minorities have.
I think I’ll do a repost of this for The Seminal, as the article has had outstanding interest, and not everyone will see this link, or catch it at Truthout (though there have been over 1500 Facebook postings thus far).
I’ve just got word from someone at the APA convention that these matters are not being discussed there. I’m not sure if this also means among participants, or only in the sessions. I remember the 2007 convention I attended. While the sessions on psychologists and torture and interrogations were attended by upwards of three hundred people, standing room only, elsewhere, you’d never know anything was going on. The vast majority of psychologists (and I stood my time leafleting them, so I have some idea) seemed uninterested. I didn’t take that to mean they supported the APA’s position necessarily — remember, a member-initiated petition to ban psychologists from Gitmo and like sites was passed, and then largely ignored by the leadership — simply that they were, like the vast majority of Americans who aren’t psychologists, a kind of inert mass, not politically involved, heads down like ostriches.
I keep thinking, to we even deserve to have liberties if we won’t fight for them. The very existence of torture in our society is an indictment the society, and emblematic of the other evils attendant to it: the evisceration of the education system, the mass incarceration rate, the fear displayed by large-scale gun ownership, the gigantic inequalities, the prejudice and xenophobia.
I think my last comment was a little obtuse.
Sign me up! I would feel proud if the government came to me and asked for my expertise to save thousands of lives and to protect the constitution. It wouldn’t be until I was actually in the room with a human being who was being tortured with my methods that I think it would actually dawn on me what a horrible thing I had done. Brainwashing is a very powerful thing and patriotism is an emotionally charged state. I think I could be manipulated into thinking I was doing the right thing if lied to about how bad the bad guys were and shown photos of stuff they allegedly did.
But I have to come back to the whole planning of the torture–especially advice on stuff that was criminally prosecuted in the Nuremberg trials. Wouldn’t you have an “ah ha!” moment at that point? I guess you could reasonably claim ignorance. Who ever heard of waterboarding before Bush came into office?
Great question! I would love to be on that jury.
And yes, I’m with you on the moral outrage thing. Everything is so black and white here on my perch.
Deserve them or not. We will lose them if we don’t fight for them.
We are a curious species; so powerful and so weak.
I agree that degree of intimacy with the victims is a huge factor. I find it fascinating in the history of the Manhattan project it was not until the bombs were readied and tested that Oppenheimer and some sympathetic with him raised a protest at actually dropping them on people.
Indeed. :-)
We need a people emotionally demanding our government behave by common standards “morally;” And laws dispassionately framed and applied.
Feast your eyes on masaccio’s latest, upstairs!
Saturday Art: The Temptation of Adam and Eve by Othon Friesz
What do you do? You stand on your ethics. I remember how ethics was taught in my graduate school, and that was none too well. These larger scale issues were never discussed, e.g., the ethics of building an atomic bomb, the ethics of participating in government research that might lead to the deaths or manipulation of others in the name of “national defense.”
Where this kind of thing did get discussed — in private — was in the private emails (later released in PDF form) of the listserv for APA’s Psychological Ethics and National Security Task Force. I suggest readers peruse how psychologists, albeit mostly military psychologists, talk about these matters among themselves. I’ve written about the latter more than once, and at Firedoglake here.
I can only speak as a psychiatrist and one time cancer researcher.. The ethical standards in medicine have much longer history then the psychologists.
As to psychiatry we did have as part of our training a significant amount of teaching and discussion of ethics as applied to psychiatric patients. Freud wrote extensively on ethics and of course others have followed. But by far most if no t all was focused on the Dr. Patient paradigm and did affirm loyalty as being to the individual patient.
In doing cancer research I was testing extremely toxic and dangerous drugs on NCI grants and there was extensive oversight as to ethics both at my institution and via the NCI. I do not know what I would have done had the CIA come to me and asked for my results. I would hope then I would do as today, tell them to take a hike.
At the same time the people at Oak Ridge were doing the dose ranging studies on children claiming it to be treatment. I am certain a number of my colleagues knew of this. I did not. (I did know the last researcher at Tuskeeegee)
Articles and commentaries appear intermittently in our professional journals and yes there is discussion among some of us. I do think we must be more vigorous as the material emerges. But most of the chatter is about the conflicts of interest with insurance and pharmaceutical companies.
Wow! That is disturbing stuff.
And by the President of the American Psychological Association no less!
What was that … some sort of military psychological assassin squad? ~~~Edited in Moderation~~~
Great work Jeff. I really appreciate you opening my eyes to this.
I wonder why he added
What a bunch of cowards.
~~~ModNote: If we could please not go there, it would be appreciated.~~~
I should say I am out of the mainstream of medicine now. My personal efforts are via various peace organizations etc.
My writing is getting so bad this evening I think I will off to bed.
I can only hope I can sleep. I feel such collective guilt.
Nicely said.
Dear Mod, I’m not sure what brought your attention. I suppose the use of a certain exaggerated term maybe?
In any case, I thought I would explain these words, “who will often remain unaware of the psychologists’ involvement.” The writer, former APA president Gerald Koocher, who also wrote a textbook on psychological ethics, was speaking of psychologists who work for an agency, or more specifically, the government. These psychologists are working essentially as analysts or consultants. The examples in the PENS discussion were the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit and the Squillacote case, and the NCIS and the Daniel King interrogation. I’ve written about the latter here at Firedoglake.
In reading original documents, like the emails from the PENS listserv, we must remember that they are written not-for-the-record, and often not carefully, like we all write emails (or comments!), and we cannot know what degree of exaggeration or seriousness is involved. That’s why one must look at a great deal of evidence before we draw conclusions. Still, Koocher’s remarks are startling to read, but to more fully understand them, I think one would have to read the entire discussion there, and also follow-up with a study of the Squillacote and King/Gelles cases. I’ve helped out with the latter in a number of articles, for example here and here.
In the latter link, and FDL article entitled “Ethical Interrogations or Torture with a Pretty Name? New Documents Expose Fake ‘Rapport’ Schemes” I report much more deeply than most on the ethical issues as they are presented in journals by top level psychologists discussing national security issues. The article I closely examine in this essay is by Michael Gelles and Charles Ewing in the Hawthorn Press book, From Terrorism: Strategies for Intervention, and entitled “Ethical Concerns in Forensic Consultation Regarding National Safety and Security”.
I think this would be a better instance of the actual position of some in the APA, and the de facto position of that organization as long as it maintains an ethics code that allows, for instance, for the suspension of the need for informed consent in research if an organizational or governmental authority will allow such a waiver, i.e. APA Ethics Code 8.05.
Thanks Jeff and also to the PEAPA for this brave stand. You are all heroes.
We consult our own conscience. We do not take the word of the government as truth without a healthy degree of scientific skepticism, knowing our government’s record of lying about war, security, and foreign affairs. We recognize torture for what it is and know that it is never acceptable, or even useful. Never, no matter what anyone in government says about it. We don’t hate government, as conservatives do, we just don’t support everything it does or believe everything it says.
Thanks, but please note my correction. I wrongly sourced the letter to Goodheart and the press release to PEAPA, and not to CEP, the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology. They are not really rival groups, and there’s overlap between them, but the correct attribution should obviously be made.
I’ve noted the correction in the diary itself.
Sometimes you just need pictures.
I remember when the Iranians were kidnapped from the embassy by the marines over the protestations of the Iraqis. When they finally released them months later, they were taken to Qatar and some pictures of their injuries were released. The most vivid memory for me was of one of the men who could hardly walk; his feet had been drilled with an electric drill and he was covered with bruises.
If I hadn’t seen for myself what they did, I could have denied it.
I know what they did to me.
First I was illegally spied on, and then I was tortured (if you want to know why Americans are angry, it is because I was a girl scout leader, I was tortured, and I blogged the Whole Damn Thing. )
I just sent a link of this article to one of my ‘torture managers’ – my husband’s psychologist – last night.
I am accusing her of conspiracy to torture me because of my religion at the behest of our government. My torture included a whole lot of psychological torture but also a brutal rape technique that I needed surgery after to even be able to walk again.
I think I have a really good case so I’m careful not to pursue it. I know if I pursue it,
I WILL BE MURDERED.
You know what? I am REALLY GLAD you feel guilty about it.
You should.
Due to the dangerous nature of my politics, my husband wants a divorce.
The people he works with want to rape the earth, my Native American religion is against that, so the simple solution to the threat I posed to their fracking and nuclear work was easily mitigated with a few brutal rapes.
I called him, instead of putting me in his voice mail, he made it a conference call. He was on the line to his psychologist and they were talking about me. She was lying to him about what to expect from me and spinning me as crazy. I know it is a conspiracy to commit torture for my religion because she was saying the same kind of crap as the other psychologist who ruined my reputation with him. I was horribly slandered, and brutally raped.
No one has stepped forward to accept responsibility for that. Apparently as soon as I announced my religion, I lost ALL my civil rights – or, we non-christians have no rights, psychologist take them all away from us.
She has replaced me in his trust and gets lots of money for it. I told her I was going to expose her as the whore she is, the only question is when.
Good for you CEP.
The APA should know better.
These are serious allegations. You should take them to your state licensing board. In most states these operate as part of the Secretary of State Office. All of the state boards have investigative and disciplinary powers in issues relating to actions between psychologists and patients. I am sure you can find information by going to your state government’s web site or by telephone.
Please note I am not now, nor have I ever been a practicing psychologist.
You know your truth. You have your facts firmly planted in your morality. You practice the 4 noble truths of Buddha and you do what works. The root of all evil is inflexibility of thought. When emotion comes to play it often cements the solutions in fear. If we don’t start making flexible thinking a goal of all education…we are doomed. Flexible thought requires that we question, that we look at things from different angles, that we argue the consequences both good and bad, that we look for polarities in our position. In the early days of the Bush Regime…long talks with colleagues determined that of all the characteristics of human thought rigid closed thinking was the one most likely to lead a culture down the path of Hitler effect.
You make a strong case for autonomy of conscience. And I strongly believe in the imperatives that places on each of us. This was of course affirmed at the Nuremberg trials that were spawned by WWII. (for the first time? I am not certain)
In an ideal world that would suffice to prevent these crimes. There would be no wars if all would refuse to be soldiers. But in this time in this world we see it is not sufficient because some people continue to be willing soldiers.
I think it is essential that those of conscience press demands that the public institutions, government, professional organizations, churches etc. purporting to represent them assume and promote polices and ethical standards that oppose crimes against humanity, even when ordered by superiors.
I find it appalling that the psychologists via the APA and the AMA both set aside imperatives to do no harm in the service of government programs purporting to be in the interest of the greater good. The American Psychiatric Association has a statement of ethics that is firm but has waffled in other communications. We need them all to reverse these positions.
But most of all we need to press our government to cease practices that are inhumane and thus not call upon caregivers to betray their trust.
Thank you so much for telling me what step to take next. That was exactly what I needed to know.
Naturally the professionals involved don’t share that sort of information with me. I have had to approach the whole thing as an investigative reporter. What you find out doing that is that the people who are supposed to help you, are mostly actually in on the torture and cover up. It is a fully closed loop, I seriously doubt the state licensing board will have any sympathy for me either, but then, there is only one way to find out.
I really do appreciate talking to you here, I hope my anger and frustration over the whole thing is understandable and wasn’t taken too personally. Anyway, if I did upset you, I hope you will accept my apology. Thanks.
You could simply realize that history repeats itself and choose to say, “No thanks.”
From my #51
Bizarre and ignorant comment!
We humans are all the same no matter where we live, the passport we carry. the language we speak, the color of our skin, and our religious or non-religious beliefs. We are a community and we are who we are based on our relationship to the world human community. When someone diminishes himself or herself, we are all diminished.
Perhaps you meant to say that whether or not conduct in any given situation is ethical depends on whether it violates a set of ethical rules?
What the hell were you thinking?
My previous comment may have been a little harsh, for which I apologize. I’ve since read through to the end of the thread and I have a better idea where you’re coming from. I generally with what you said, except for the single remark that I focused on that I now believe was your way of brushing aside what you regarded to be an irrelevant remark.
Moral questions concern all humans.
Shame on the APA for refusing to take responsibility for what it has failed to do.
The only question of interest remaining as regards the APA, and this only of interest to psychologists, perhaps, is whether or not they believe what they say, i.e., the question of false consciousness, or if they are as cynical and purposeful as I often suppose. Their contention that they are actually against torture, while facilitating the same (Appendix M interrogations at Gitmo, for instance) or covering for the actions of the torturers (JPRA, Leso, James, etc.), makes their complicity a matter of political and practical importance.
Jeff, bravo! Yet another fantastic and important report. Thanks for continuing to shine a light on these crimes and for everything you are doing and have done in trying to force accountability.