Pros And Cons Of Isolationists

679 Words3 Pages

A question has risen up about whether or not psychologists should be involved in interrogations of suspected terrorists. This question didn’t come out of nowhere but came when psychologists were involved in the interrogations of suspected terrorists at Guantanoma, Abu Ghraib, and psychologists that participated in the CIA and Pentagon’s harsh interrogation programs. These programs involved “torture” and interrogation techniques, which were only not called torture due to the government saying health providers, were overseeing what was being done. Many wonder if this constitutes a violation of APA policy and ethics, or if this makes sure interrogations are legal, ethical, safe, and effective. Eventually the APA and AMA allowed psychologists and physicians …show more content…

Nadine J Kaslow who is the president of the American Psychological Association, said in a letter to the New York Times “There is no place in the field of psychology for people who are not respectful of human dignity and committed to human rights.” In order to be involved in an interrogation then they should be respectful of human dignity and committed to human rights. Psychologists should be there only in order to see if someone seems dangerous, hiding something, or something that will help them lead to finding out the truth and protecting the country. Guidelines should be stated and what is acceptable and unacceptable should be clearly stated when professionals work with the military. APA passed an anti-torture policy called Policy Related to Psychologists' Work in National Security Settings and Reaffirmation of the APA Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This policy outlines several