Good news for terrorists -- psychologists are now banned from terrorist interrogations

[Blackrook]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/u...Next&moduleDetail=undefined&pgtype=Multimedia

With one swift blow, the American Psychologists Association has barred psychologists from participating in national security interrogations.

Good news though. Psychologists can still participate in criminal non-terrorist investigations.

This is interesting how this will play out.

 

[Blackrook]

This is the equivalent of the ABA passing a rule that lawyers could no longer participate in prosecution against terrorists.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is not the slightest bit surprising.

It's the same idea as to why the AMA won't let doctors take part in capital punishment.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is the equivalent of the ABA passing a rule that lawyers could no longer participate in prosecution against terrorists.

No, it's really not.

 

[Blackrook]

This is the equivalent of the ABA passing a rule that lawyers could no longer participate in prosecution against terrorists.

No, it's really not.

Yes it is. It's a professional organization shutting down legitimate business for members of a profession. I expect a lawsuit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is the equivalent of the ABA passing a rule that lawyers could no longer participate in prosecution against terrorists.

No, it's really not.

Yes it is. It's a professional organization shutting down legitimate business for members of a profession. I expect a lawsuit.

According to the APA, assisting in interrogations that are not covered by Bill of rights protections is not a "legitimate business" - and they're the ones who get to make that determination, not you.

On what grounds do you expect someone to sue?

 

[Sunni Man]

A terrorist's worst fear has always been having to confront a psychologist.

No doubt they are greatly relived. ......

 

[Blackrook]

They will hire foreign psychologists who are not bound by the APA. This accomplishes nothing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They will hire foreign psychologists who are not bound by the APA. This accomplishes nothing.

Then why does it bother you so much?

 

[Blackrook]

They will hire foreign psychologists who are not bound by the APA. This accomplishes nothing.

Then why does it bother you so much?

Because it proves that the APA is a chicken-shit professional organization that will bend to pressure from leftists.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

They will hire foreign psychologists who are not bound by the APA. This accomplishes nothing.

Then why does it bother you so much?

Because it proves that the APA is a chicken-shit professional organization that will bend to pressure from leftists.

So you're just butthurt that they dare to have an opinion that you disagree with.

 

[Blackrook]

They will hire foreign psychologists who are not bound by the APA. This accomplishes nothing.

Then why does it bother you so much?

Because it proves that the APA is a chicken-shit professional organization that will bend to pressure from leftists.

So you're just butthurt that they dare to have an opinion that you disagree with.

You sound like a man who knows what it is to be butthurt. Was it consensual, or were you forced against your will?

 

[FA_Q2]

This is not the slightest bit surprising.

It's the same idea as to why the AMA won't let doctors take part in capital punishment.

Why?

I would think that a psychologist would not only be ideal in a proper interrogation but would be the absolute best as far as a human rights standpoint. They are ideally suited to getting information WITHOUT harming the inmate in any way.

What, EXACTLY, would be the purpose behind such a ruling?

 

[FA_Q2]

This is the equivalent of the ABA passing a rule that lawyers could no longer participate in prosecution against terrorists.

No, it's really not.

Yes it is. It's a professional organization shutting down legitimate business for members of a profession. I expect a lawsuit.

According to the APA, assisting in interrogations that are not covered by Bill of rights protections is not a "legitimate business" - and they're the ones who get to make that determination, not you.

On what grounds do you expect someone to sue?

Neither are they to be honest.

What makes you think the government cares? Interrogations are typically high security positions anyway. There is noting, as far as I know, that would stop the government from simply ignoring the ruling all together.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is the equivalent of the ABA passing a rule that lawyers could no longer participate in prosecution against terrorists.

No, it's really not.

Yes it is. It's a professional organization shutting down legitimate business for members of a profession. I expect a lawsuit.

According to the APA, assisting in interrogations that are not covered by Bill of rights protections is not a "legitimate business" - and they're the ones who get to make that determination, not you.

On what grounds do you expect someone to sue?

Neither are they to be honest.

What makes you think the government cares? Interrogations are typically high security positions anyway. There is noting, as far as I know, that would stop the government from simply ignoring the ruling all together.

The APA ruling doesn't affect the government in any way.

It only affects APA members, who now can face an ethics issue if they work on "national security" interrogations.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is not the slightest bit surprising.

It's the same idea as to why the AMA won't let doctors take part in capital punishment.

Why?

I would think that a psychologist would not only be ideal in a proper interrogation but would be the absolute best as far as a human rights standpoint. They are ideally suited to getting information WITHOUT harming the inmate in any way.

What, EXACTLY, would be the purpose behind such a ruling?

The APA has ethical concerns about their members using their professional skills to coerce information from "suspects" who have no habeas corpus protections.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is the equivalent of the ABA passing a rule that lawyers could no longer participate in prosecution against terrorists.

No, it's really not.

Yes it is. It's a professional organization shutting down legitimate business for members of a profession. I expect a lawsuit.

According to the APA, assisting in interrogations that are not covered by Bill of rights protections is not a "legitimate business" - and they're the ones who get to make that determination, not you.

On what grounds do you expect someone to sue?

Neither are they to be honest.

What makes you think the government cares? Interrogations are typically high security positions anyway. There is noting, as far as I know, that would stop the government from simply ignoring the ruling all together.

The APA ruling doesn't affect the government in any way.

It only affects APA members, who now can face an ethics issue if they work on "national security" interrogations.

Again, they face nothing considering that such things tend to be classified and can simply remain that way if the government so chooses.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is not the slightest bit surprising.

It's the same idea as to why the AMA won't let doctors take part in capital punishment.

Why?

I would think that a psychologist would not only be ideal in a proper interrogation but would be the absolute best as far as a human rights standpoint. They are ideally suited to getting information WITHOUT harming the inmate in any way.

What, EXACTLY, would be the purpose behind such a ruling?

The APA has ethical concerns about their members using their professional skills to coerce information from "suspects" who have no habeas corpus protections.

And that line of thought is childish in my opinion.

Basically, they kicking the ball back to the government and untrained interrogators putting those people at a higher risk of being mistreated. The lofty road might look nice and clean as long as you ignore the consequences...