Hard to know what to make of
href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3499544">this.
The American Psychological Association considered a proposal
to ban participation in military interrogations.
Specifically, APA members would have been prohibited from
assisting in interrogations "in which detainees are deprived of
adequate protection of their human rights."
The APA national meeting is being held in San Fransisco this year.
In a session 19 August 2007, they chose not to ban
all participation. Instead, they adopted a substitute motion.
href="http://www.apa.org/governance/resolutions/notorture0807.html">Substitute
Motion #3 reaffirms their opposition to torture.
However, it stops short of the restrictive measures that
href="http://www.ethicalapa.com/">some
href="http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/letter-2007-08-06.html">medical
href="http://www.just-international.org/article.cfm?newsid=20002416">and
humanitarian
groups
had called for.
As it is, the language is pretty strong. My guess is that when you come down to talking about human rights, this can be a difficult call, legally, psychologically, or morally, when you consider that you are talking about prisoners. The motion as worded allows the psychologist to have his own mind about this.
Torture on the other hand, is pretty strongly condemned, as it should be, and it's good that they didn't allow for Presidential discretion about what constitutes torture.
So once again, I think the media made more out of this than there is -- perhaps they didn't actually read the motion (or understand it).
It was s strongly worded resolution as you say. I hoped for a total repudiation.