« Harry Reid Smackdown - who got slapped? | kgb999's Blog | Idaho Spring Reflections: Republican Disillusionment, Human Rights, Aryan "Resurgence" and a bit of poetry. »
Can a psychologist be "disbarred"???
So I was browsing the newly released "Inquiry Into The Treatment Of Detainees In US Custody" and I came across this paragraph in the executive summary:
Anyhow ... DemocracyNow apparently knew this would be a germane subject and did a broadcast on the guys earlier today (with transcript). I can't actually make it through the whole thing it's pissing me off so much. It's is worth the watch/read if you can stomach it.
This bugs me more than Bybee being a judge. Aren't psychologists bound by some sort of code or something??? How can these people be allowed to call themselves doctors when they used their knowledge to destroy minds?
Update:
OK, as usual I've got it backwards. I guess psychiatrists are the technical doctors? Can't keep the Optometrist vs Ophthalmologist thing correct either. But here's an interesting tidbit from the DemocracyNow interview regarding the American Psychological Association by Salon's Mark Benjamin(The CIA's Torture Teachers) ,
Someone somewhere has some 'splainin to do dammit.
On April 16, 2002, Dr. Bruce Jessen, the senior SERE psychologist at JPRA, circulated a draft exploitation plan to JPRA Commander Colonel Randy Mouhon and other senior officials at the agency. The contents of that plan remain classified but Dr. Jessen's initiative is indicative ofthe interest of JPRA's senior leadership in expanding the agency's role.I did a quick Google and found out a couple of interesting things about this guy and his partner, James Mitchell. To make a long story short - they literally reverse engineered the techniques that were used in the SERE program and then started a consulting firm up here in Spokane and charged the government top dollar to train interrogators how best to implement these techniques on detainees.
Anyhow ... DemocracyNow apparently knew this would be a germane subject and did a broadcast on the guys earlier today (with transcript). I can't actually make it through the whole thing it's pissing me off so much. It's is worth the watch/read if you can stomach it.
This bugs me more than Bybee being a judge. Aren't psychologists bound by some sort of code or something??? How can these people be allowed to call themselves doctors when they used their knowledge to destroy minds?
Update:
OK, as usual I've got it backwards. I guess psychiatrists are the technical doctors? Can't keep the Optometrist vs Ophthalmologist thing correct either. But here's an interesting tidbit from the DemocracyNow interview regarding the American Psychological Association by Salon's Mark Benjamin(The CIA's Torture Teachers) ,
Reader's Digest version is that I think it's safe to say that the psychologists have been traditionally very, very close to the military. You know, they've been working with the military and the CIA for years and are closer than, say, psychiatrists and other doctors. I think it's fair to say that the APA, the psychologists, as opposed to psychiatrists and doctors, have been much more willing since September 11th to play ball, essentially, to not remove themselves from interrogations as doctors and psychiatrists did, to continue to participate.
.
And I think that's reflected in the way Mitchell and Jessen, you know, were so important here. I think the psychologists saw a way to be players at the table, and that was reflected in their association, in the APA. And the APA essentially allowed their--you know, wrote rules, year after year after year, that would allow the continued participation of psychologists in these brutal interrogations. And now that these memos have come out, I think it's really clear how important the government saw those psychologists were, in having them in the room or watching on video or designing the program or carrying it out.
Someone somewhere has some 'splainin to do dammit.
Advertisement
Psychologists are licensed if you want to "practice" psychology. Problem is that the people who have been harmed have to be the ones to lodge complaints.
Now these guys may not be "licensed." But they sure as heck should go to jail. There is nothing worse than doing harm. Not if you're in a health care profession.
M.D. are docs. But so are Ph.D.'s. I know it's confusing.
But imagine how this is going to set back the profession of psychology! Imagine how people are going to mistrust psychologists - all because these folks used psychological information to HARM human persons!!!!
Yes, you should be outraged!
If someone is in that state, try to find out of these folks are licensed. See if you can somehow lodge a licensing board complaint against them.
These folks and their malpracticing professional opinions were at the heart of this whole despicable torture program!
April 22, 2009 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm about 30 miles away from the airbase (where they do the SERE stuff), it's technically across the river in WA. Thinking about it, I imagine they aren't "practicing" in the traditional sense. I'd be pretty surprised if the CIA requires a state license. I do know that there were some protests by psych students a while back.
I'm wondering about the consulting firm Mitchell Jessen & Associates. It sort of sounds like they are still going strong. What are they doing for the DoD now they don't use the reverse engineered torture stuff? I'd like to see any government contracts with the company terminated at the very least.
April 22, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter if the CIA requires it. If the person has one, get it yanked! Wherever they might have a license!
April 22, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am going to an ethics conference for psychologists on Friday. And I bet the whole group of us will be discussing this problem! It's not on the agenda. But it has to become the agenda!
April 22, 2009 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you a member of the APA? I'm sort of curious what your sense on Mark Benjamin's characterization is - it seemed pretty damning. The interview mentions a 2007 failed attempt by "dissident" psychologists to ban members participating in coercive interrogations, that would seem to support Benjamin's assertion.
Anyhow, if anything interesting on this front happens at the conference - please consider posting on it.
April 22, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've dejoined.
April 22, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was a member long enough to cast my vote as CT Voter explains below.
But did not renew my membership this year - for a variety of reasons.
I'm in the National Register. Licensed. And insured. (at this point I'm mostly retired though)
April 22, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Thera, if it would be appropriate I hope you will write a diary about the ethics conference, I'd be curious to read it.
April 22, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRT the APA:
The membership voted, in September 2008, to discontinue its participation in the torture proceedings.
Coverage of APA vote
The vote was 58% to stop involvement, 42% to continue.
It took years, but it happened.
Oh, and psychiatrists can prescribe druges. We psychologists can't. Yet.
April 22, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Turns out we can't prescribe them, or spell, either.
That would be drugs.
April 22, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scary though that 42% leaned the way they did. Does this mean that there is a significant chance that your average psychologist is a torture supporter, or just the opinion of those who felt strongly enough about the issue to vote.
Can anybody provide more of an inside story?
Sounds like a great study could be made along the lines of 'Prevalence of anti-social tendencies among mental health care providers'.
April 22, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it did happen. But it happened against the unanimous opposition of the APA leadership.
They claimed, over and over again that "psychologists keep interrogations safe, legal, ethical, and effective." We now know from the OLC memos that they kept interrogations "safe, legal, and ethical", by acting as safety officers, deciding just how much abuse a detainee could take. They keep them "effective" by suggesting SERE-based techniques.
In fall 2008, the membership overrode the wishes of the entire APA leadership by passing a referendum pulling psychologists out of detention centers in violation of international law. President Bray opposed the referendum and did all he could to undermine it. He had to be forced to implement it.
This statement is the first time that the APA leadership has ever criticized US interrogations policies (as opposed to vacuous statements that "psychologists don't torture.")
Meanwhile, the APA tells us that Mitchell and Jessen, the chief CIA torture psychologists, are not members, so they are helpless. But why did they invite Mitchell and Jessen, after their role in the Zubaydah torture, to a joint 2003 APA-CIA workshop on The Science of Deception where such things as the use of drugs in interrogations and the use of sensory overload to break people down were discussed?
When the APA appointed an "ethics" task force on the issue in 2005, the appointed 6 out of 10 military and CIA psychologists, five with experiences in interrogations at Guantanamo, the black sites, and Afghanistan to formulate the policy. They then refused to divulge the membership to the APA membership or the press. Large portions of their report were taken straight from the military's instructions to the Behavioral Science Consultation Teams at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere. This was long after the press had published numerous stories on psychologists helping abuses at these sites.
April 24, 2009 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the more detailed description.
I wasn't aware of how intimately the APA had ennabled the Bush torture policies.
I dropped my membership after the vote. (Don't misunderstand: I vote to discontinue the involvement. But I was appalled that the organization resisted for so long taking this action, and decided APA wouldn't get any more money from me. Which wasn't a difficult decision: the dues are outrageous, in my opinion).
April 24, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink