English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

"If psychologists need to be present to keep detainees from being killed, then the only way for us to protest is to leave those situations."
APA leaders voted down a substitute motion that would have limited psychologists to "ameliorative psychological treatment of detainees that are deprived of adequate protection of human rights".
"Without the amendment that would call on our colleagues to not participate in these inhumane situations, it's all just words," said Bernice Lott, a member of the APA council of representatives.
Many within the APA believe that psychologists must remain present to act as safety officers.
"I just came here from Cuba," said APA council representative Colonel Larry James. "If we remove psychologists from Guantanamo, innocent people are going to die."
Beth Wiggins of the APA law division agreed.
"Walking away from these situations would make us passive bystanders," she said.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22274107-1702,00.html

2007-08-19 13:47:41 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

This story was covered in several papers - look it up or use the link I have provided or preferably both


I am purposely goin to avoid drawing a conclusion - which it would seem the article itself leads me twords -

What do you draw out of the article -

2007-08-19 13:49:27 · update #1

CHARITY G

What you are suggesting is hard for me to grasp -

A person or group of people dedicated to destruction - terror etc -

There are two ways to go about this and I want to do both -

1) We - what I can control the us part - Must remain the civilized one with the higher moral ground and the We part must apply to rules no matter what the enemy does -

2) We have to realize that there are a few people beyond reason dedicated to violence no matter what -

2007-08-19 14:28:58 · update #2

5 answers

It's something the world, not only Americans, but the world will have to come to terms with . . . What is the proper way to treat suspected terrorists? If you have reasonable suspicion that a group of people where planning to blow up Ontario where would Canada stop? What would be considered too much to save the lives of your citizens . . .? It's a legitimate question that needs to be answered by each country without the current round of Anti-American sentiment.

2007-08-19 14:22:17 · answer #1 · answered by CHARITY G 7 · 0 1

Please note this is the OPINION of the APA, a group of Psychologists. This is NOT a government agency. It is NOT a military group. It is also NOT experts on terrorists. In other words, an uninvolved group that makes a living psychoanalyzing other wishes to insist on psychoanalyzing even more people. Does the phrase CONFLICT OF INTEREST fight its way to the top of your head?

2007-08-19 14:33:30 · answer #2 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0 0

Another gold field for the ACLU. Another group of people that believe you can turn a rattle snake into a house pet if you are kind enough.

2007-08-19 14:04:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

They think alot of themselves dont they? If their that important maybe the should be with the frontline units so they can be there from the moment they take a prisoner. See if they insist on that.

2007-08-19 14:08:02 · answer #4 · answered by vladoviking 5 · 1 0

The camps of America and the camps of Hitler are looking similar -

2007-08-19 13:57:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers