Posted on 08/30/2007 5:34:12 AM PDT by SJackson
The American Psychological Association has become the latest professional medical group to undermine Homeland Security efforts on leftist grounds.
The American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association have already barred their members from any role in interrogations at Guantanamo Bay. Some left-wing doctors even demand military doctors stop force-feeding detainees attempting to commit suicide. In spite of the fact that a doctor’s duty to protect a suicidal person against himself, it is more important that the suicidal Islamists be allowed to die in order to bring negative publicity on Guantanamo.
The American Psychological Association (APA) convention in San Francisco, August 20 voted to threaten psychologists with loss of their license to practice if they participate, directly or indirectly, in a variety of activities it deems torture. However, the resolution includes overly broad categories that effectively ban APA members from assisting their nation to combat the terrorist threat. Practices that could cause psychologists to be forced out of their profession include “cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology…forced nakedness, stress positions, the use of dogs to threaten or intimidate…slapping, shaking, exposure to extreme heat or cold, threats of harm or death, isolation, sensory deprivation, over stimulation and sleep deprivation.” Notice the resolution’s sandwiching technique, interspersing genuine acts of torture such as rape, induced hypothermia, and physical assault with faux torture that is “humiliating” or causes “mental stress.” In addition to barring members from participation in non-torture, it is designed to inoculate the resolution against criticism: the APA can charge those who oppose this resolution favor rape.
The resolution is no symbolic gesture. APA spokesperson Rhea Farberman explained that an APA member who violates the torture resolution could be expelled from the Washington-based organization, and this could lead to the loss of the professional's state license to practice.
Psychologists and psychiatrists employed by the Department of Defense play a key role in designing techniques to extract information from detainees. This motion prevents them from assisting anti-terrorist measures, at the expense of their livelihood.
However, the APA is keeping its foot in the door. As Farberman explained, “We want to stay engaged in the discussion about appropriate and effective interrogation techniques.” However, it appears the APA really wants to expose instances of “torture” in the international media. The resolution directs: “all psychologists with information relevant to the use of any method of interrogation constituting torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment [and remember, this includes “mental stress” – Ed.] have an ethical responsibility to inform their superiors of such knowledge, to inform the relevant office of inspector generals when appropriate, and to cooperate fully with all oversight activities, including hearings by the United States Congress…for the purpose of ensuring that no individual in the custody of the United States is subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment….” Those who violate this resolution could lose their licenses.
As with any dishonest exercise, the APA resolution is full of unintended irony. Sensory deprivation is commonly used in psychological studies and is even suggested as a treatment for claustrophobia and some addictions – but a psychologist who designs methods to use it to extract information about future attacks on American targets could lose his license. Psychologists have prescribed Ritalin to more than five million American schoolchildren, but they threaten to yank the license of any psychologist who directly, or indirectly, participates in or designs an interrogation involving “the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances for the purpose of eliciting information.”
Employing a good-cop/bad-cop technique, the APA resolution prevailed over an even more stringent resolution put forward by the misnamed “Psychologists for an Ethical APA.” Their resolution would have simply barred all psychologists from any type of participation in anything related to Guantanamo or other facilities where detainees are held. The resolution was passed under pressure from organized leftists within its ranks. APA representatives crafted the statement as protesters donned hoods and orange jumpsuits, one standing in the center of the auditorium. (There was no indication that the protesters suffered any psychological trauma from wearing the hoods.)
The Ethical APA website is crudely decorated with photos of shackled fascist Guantanamo detainees in orange jumpsuits kneeling on the ground as American guards stand watch. This treatment, recognizable at any prison, is supposed to be an ethical lapse when applied to illegal combatants who are subject absolutely no protection and no rights under the Third Geneva Convention Part 1 because they meet none of the requirements of Article 4:1:2.
“Ethical APA” leader Stephen Soldz unwittingly explains how he came to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome: “Like many in my generation, I grew up in the anti-Vietnam war and other social justice movements of the 1960's.”
Nearly 40 years later America is still paying the price exacted by the Destructive Generation.
What do you expect from a bunch leftwing nuts. The loons are definitely running the asylum.
These boards and professional associations imposing their policy preference on everybody else is absolute horse manure.
The American Psychological Association does not grant licenses, nor can it revoke them. Licenses are granted by State Boards of Psychology-—which are not affiliated with the APA.
They're a bit vague on the relationship:
The resolution is no symbolic gesture. APA spokesperson Rhea Farberman explained that an APA member who violates the torture resolution could be expelled from the Washington-based organization, and this could lead to the loss of the professional's state license to practice.
It's unclear to me how much influence, if any, that expulsion from the APA would have on state licensing boards.
They could file a complaint, that's it. The rest is up to the Board, and the licensee would/could put forth a vigorous defense, just as in a court of law. If the data do not support the complaint, it's dismissed.
They could file a complaint, that's it. The rest is up to the Board, and the licensee would/could put forth a vigorous defense, just as in a court of law. If the data do not support the complaint, it's dismissed.
Thanks for the information. I was totally clueless on how things work between the state licensing boards and the APA. I suppose the degree of validity that the board would apply to the complaint would depend heavily on its level of agreement with the APA policy.
Tha APA has no ability to conduct investigations, interview witnesses, collect evidence, assure legal safeguards, etc., etc. The APA is like the Teamsters, or the Screen Actors Guild, or any other very large body with diverse interests among its members. Whereas the State boards are more like prosecutors' offices with investigators, etc. APA does set forth broad policy statements from time to time, but does not dictate to the State Boards regarding their activities. The APA could vanish tomorrow and it would mean nothing to the State Boards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.