|
|
|
|
|
|
by wtbob
3884 days ago
|
|
|
> Work at detention settings operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution or international law (as deemed by specific U.N. authorities), including the Guantanamo Bay detention facility… Well, that begs the question of whether or not the Gitmo facility is unconstitutional or illegal (literally: it's a textbook pætitio principi). Never mind the fact that refusing to participate in legal, ethical interrogations intended to protect the lives of millions is itself a highly unethical act. That's exactly what this blanket policy prevents: it assumes that national-security interrogations can be neither legal nor ethical, when it's pretty obvious that they can be. |
|
|
Which is reasonable, interviews conducted for law enforcement purposes are not therapeutic in nature and are not for the benefit of the interviewee.
That said, the APA should roundly condemn and participate in holding past members to account for their participation in creating protocols that clearly violate principles of civilised war and ethical practice by offering expert testimony to that effect in both civil and criminal cases.
For instance the two men profiled in this report http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-tort... should see an APA expert witness explaining how far they had strayed from their obligations any time they face a lawsuit.