On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:44:39 -0500, Jim Clark wrote: > Just some brief observations.
Ditto. > Yes, it is a shame that not everyone participates in a "democratic" > procedure but from the outset it is clear to everyone that regardless > of how many participate, everyone agrees to accept the results. > Believe me, I'd would have preferred a President Gore to a > President Bush but rules are rules. > > JC: > "Ruies are rules" ... now there's a rule to live by! Well, I guess that not everyone is as ready to start a revolution as you appear to be. Or as ready to make a pointless statement. > JC: > Sorry, I do not believe that the Stanford Prison Experiment, including >some "John Wayne" character, is an adequate model for the behavior >of professional psychologists. Are you kidding me? Or do you really need to have the singificance of the SPE explained to you? One of the key differences between the situation in the SPE and regular prisons is that in real prisons there are supposed to be rules that govern the behaviors of guards and other people in charge which is supposed to prevent them from abusing their power over prisoners. The SPE shows what happens when such rules are vaguely stated, when oversight by supervisors is limited or nonexistent (indeed, where abuse of prisoners is acknowledged with a wink and a nod), and administrators indicate that abusive treatment will not only be tolerated but encouraged. I really have to ask, have you seen either "Quiet Rage" or "Human Behavior Experiments"? It would help if we have a common frame of reference since I really don't see the basis for your comments. >Is this your impression of psychologists, like my wife, who work >in prison settings? Again, I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly you're talking about. Given I know nothing about your wife but that she probably works under the same legal restrictions that other prison personnel operate under (or do prisoners do not have legal rights in Canada?), I imagine that her behavior is within the bounds of such restrictions. However, if she leaves every morning for work with an electric cattle prod, you might consider asking exactly why and how she uses it in her work. >>Of course, those who really cannot tell or do not care about ethics, >>are unlikely to be influenced by this prohibition. > > In which case, organizations involved in licencing and policing such > individuals might be appropriately influenced by knowing that torture > is not condoned by the professional organization that such individuals > might below to and treat/punish such individuals accordingly. > > JC: > That is not what the resolution was. The resolution made it inappropriate >to work at all in such environments. Is there really any doubt in licensing >bodies that torture is an inappropriate practice for psychologists? For folks following this discussion, the full pettition is available at the following website along with links to pro/con statments and rebuttals: http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/work-settings.html As for where psychologists may work, the following is a relevant quote from the pro statement: |In settings that fail to meet basic standards of international law, it is |unrealistic to rely on psychologists to challenge their superiors, report |on violations, and protect abused detainees. We know, from decades |of psychological research, that good people do bad things in bad situations. |Psychologists are no less vulnerable to "behavioral drift" than others, |particularly when subject to the chain of command in the closed |environment of a geographically isolated detention center. | |We do believe that psychologists working independently, and outside |of the institution's chain of command, can and should be available to |detainees, through NGOs such as the International Committee of the |Red Cross. In abusive settings, clinicians working in the chain of |command cannot know whether they are helping detainees recover |only to return them to more abusive interrogations; and detainees cannot |gauge whether the information being gathered by the clinician will be |used against them-as has been documented on several occasions. |Instead, the proposed referendum policy places psychology and |psychologists squarely on the side of the most vulnerable. | |Some APA psychologists have argued that the presence of psychologists |in these settings protects the detainee from abuse. Yet, in the six years |since captives began arriving at Guantanamo, there have been few |documented cases of psychologists speaking up on the behalf of detainees. |There is significant evidence of many more cases of silence. While we |commend anyone who has acted heroically, a reliance on individual |heroism is an unsound basis for policy. | |We stress that the referendum does not exclude any psychologist from |working in any settings where international law and human rights are |fundamentally upheld. Imperfect as our U.S. domestic justice system |may be, people held within the present system have basic legal protections, |including the right to know the charges against them, meet with an attorney, |receive family visits and, most importantly, to be free of torture. This is in |sharp contrast to the individuals gathered up and illegally taken to CIA |blacksites. For the past 60 years, international law has held professionals |responsible for upholding basic human rights. This referendum would thus |protect psychologists from risk of future prosecutions. | |Footnote 7: [7] It is understood that military clinical psychologists |would still be available to provide treatment for military personnel. So, psychologists can work in settings that obey the standards of international law, that is, that prohibit torture. I strongly question whether any psychologist or any decent person would want to work in a place where torture is sanctioned (but, clearly, some folks appear to have no problem doing so; I suspect these people will be the focus of future research in order to understand such "John Wayne" [as represented in the SPE] behavior). From the above, I believe it is clear that psychologists can even work in a place like Gitmo but only in providing treatment to the military and to detainees outside of the interrogation situation. I am open to correction by anyone who knows the intended interpretation of these passages. Nonetheless, though one can imagine that people in command, under current regulations, would demand that psychologists do both (i.e., assist in interrogations AND provide services to military personnel) or transfer out. As for the question "Is there really any doubt in licensing bodies that torture is an inappropriate practice for psychologists?", I'd appreciate specific cases that licensing boards have reviewed and decided to remove the licensing of psychologists who were found to have engaged in torture. >> Also, although Ph.D.s might feel superior to M.D.s, I believe that we >> should realize that we might not behave differently from them in >> situations involving torture. Consider: > http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6304 > > JC: > I was struck by the final paragraph: "As well as calling for a full > investigation >of policies that led to detainee abuses, the group has drawn up a list of >guidelines for medical professionals in organisations - including the military >or prison service - that call for doctors to report any abuse they see and >to refuse to participate in interrogations, torture, or the misuse of >patients' >confidential medical records." > > This strikes me as a very appropriate response, but it is a far cry from >banning MDs from working in such settings. Similarly here: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731205425.htm Perhaps you should be a little clearer in what you mean by "working in such settings", that is, assist in interrogations or continue to work in non-interrogation roles in locations where torture might be practiced, as implied in the APA petition. > JC: > I guess I had assumed that a professional psychologist trained in valid >questioning techniques based on psychological literature would be more >knowledgeable, just as I assume that a professional psychologist trained >in appropriate questioning techniques is likely to avoid many of the problems >raised in the literature on memory by techniques used historically by applied >practitioners. I don't know who you think conducts interrogations but it's not psychologists. The armed forces have individuals for this. In the U.S. Army, they are now called "Human Intelligence Collectors" and the job specs are available at: http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/mos/intelligence/97e.html NOTE: that the minimum education requirement is "high school graduate or equivalent". As for teaching relevance, perhaps it would be useful for students to view and code the 24,000 videotapes made of the interrogations made at Gitmo. Info about these are available at: http://tinyurl.com/32at69 and http://www.atlargely.com/2008/02/24000-gitmo-int.html and http://law.shu.edu/news/captured_tape_2708_with_appendix.pdf *smacks forehead* I forgot! Sorry, scratch that, the U.S. Department of Defense denies the existence of these tapes. I guess we'll have to wait to see these tapes, that is, unless someone applies the lessons learned from the Nixon audiotapes. -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
