One of the chief architects of the CIA’s harsh interrogation program said on Thursday he had to quit as leader of his Mormon church in 2012 amid controversy about his role in fighting terrorism.
No senior policymakers or CIA officials have been charged for the maltreatment of suspects, but at least for former Air Force psychologist Bruce Jessen there has been a repercussion at a local level for his part in the so-called “war on terror."
Jessen resigned as bishop of a Mormon congregation in Spokane, Washington after civil liberties and human rights activists criticized his professional past in the local newspaper.
“I just felt it would be unfair for me to bring that controversy to a lot of other people, so I decided to step down," Jessen told Reuters outside his home south of Spokane.
The CIA paid $80 million to a company run by Jessen and another former Air Force psychologist, James Mitchell, according to a U.S. Senate report released this week. The report said the pair recommended waterboarding, slaps to the face and mock burial for prisoners suspected of being terrorists.
The pair are referred to by pseudonyms in the report but intelligence sources have identified them by name. Mitchell said earlier this week the report was a “bunch of hooey." Jessen said a nondisclosure agreement prevented him from commenting.
“If we, as a people, are creating good men who do not understand that it is inherently wrong to torture even the worst offenders, then we are not doing a good job at creating good men. If we create men who understand that torture is wrong in the abstract, but when faced with the pressure of keeping a job, the greed of potential government largesse, the opportunity to justify revenge and torture in the name of national security, they fold and authorize it, we are not doing a good job at creating good men. This should not be a position for debate. I’m disgusted that it ever was," Crawford wrote in the post published Wednesday.
This says a great deal about the dogma of the Mormon Church BTW. I do remember yet another more secular institution that taught a blind respect for authority. They trained the children not to question the authority of the “State” in ridding themselves of the “menace of Zionism”. No skeptics or dissenters allowed.
Cap’t Jack
Forget their religion. These guys are Licensed Psychologists. They are required to agree, every year, to ethics designed by the American Psychological Association.
They are still licensed AFAIK. This falls on the APA and their individual state licensing boards. If these guys have not discredited the practice of Psychology, then I don’t know what it would take to do so.
Forget their religion. These guys are Licensed Psychologists. They are required to agree, every year, to ethics designed by the American Psychological Association.
They are still licensed AFAIK. This falls on the APA and their individual state licensing boards. If these guys have not discredited the practice of Psychology, then I don't know what it would take to do so.
According to the article, they're not members of the APA (which has called for them to be held accountable).
Forget their religion. These guys are Licensed Psychologists. They are required to agree, every year, to ethics designed by the American Psychological Association.
They are still licensed AFAIK. This falls on the APA and their individual state licensing boards. If these guys have not discredited the practice of Psychology, then I don't know what it would take to do so.
According to the article, they're not members of the APA (which has called for them to be held accountable).
I grew up in a Mormon family in Utah. I did actually notice a tendency for ethics to only be required when dealing with other members of the church. The outsiders were fair game, especially when it comes to making money. Mormons take the "we are god's chosen" to the extreme in this regard.
Forget their religion. These guys are Licensed Psychologists. They are required to agree, every year, to ethics designed by the American Psychological Association.
They are still licensed AFAIK. This falls on the APA and their individual state licensing boards. If these guys have not discredited the practice of Psychology, then I don't know what it would take to do so.
According to the article, they're not members of the APA (which has called for them to be held accountable).
They don't have to be members of the APA, but they have to agree to follow ethics designed by the APA, in order to annually maintain their state licensure.
Also, check this out:
"...In 2002, the American Psychological Association (APA) revised its code of ethics to allow practitioners to follow the “governing legal authority" in situations that seemed at odds with their duties as health professionals. Many argue that the revision, as well as a task force report in 2005 that affirmed that the code allowed psychologists to participate in national security interrogations, gave the Bush administration critical legal cover for torture..." (Quoted from "Psychologists Are Rethinking Their Cozy Relationship with Bush Torture Program" By Cora Currier, on the website, The//Intercept.)
2002. Hmm. Is it possible that there was collusion by the APA, in this revision of ethics, with the Bush Administration and the CIA?
Forget their religion. These guys are Licensed Psychologists. They are required to agree, every year, to ethics designed by the American Psychological Association.
They are still licensed AFAIK. This falls on the APA and their individual state licensing boards. If these guys have not discredited the practice of Psychology, then I don't know what it would take to do so.
According to the article, they're not members of the APA (which has called for them to be held accountable).
I grew up in a Mormon family in Utah. I did actually notice a tendency for ethics to only be required when dealing with other members of the church. The outsiders were fair game, especially when it comes to making money. Mormons take the "we are god's chosen" to the extreme in this regard.
Is there something in their (public or secret) doctrine that supports this stance?
Look, I’m all for trashing purveyors of mass delusions, as most religions are, including the Mormons, but the APA is a secular organization. Shouldn’t we, secularists, be even more concerned about that?
“...In 2002, the American Psychological Association (APA) revised its code of ethics to allow practitioners to follow the “governing legal authority" in situations that seemed at odds with their duties as health professionals. Many argue that the revision, as well as a task force report in 2005 that affirmed that the code allowed psychologists to participate in national security interrogations, gave the Bush administration critical legal cover for torture…" (Quoted from “Psychologists Are Rethinking Their Cozy Relationship with Bush Torture Program" By Cora Currier, on the website, The//Intercept.)
Yes they should be thoroughly investigated and the link to the CIA in relation to torture methods needs to be bought to light. I can't understand why the media isn't all over this and actively seeking a whistle blower in the APA. We need another Snowden here to fire up the mainstream media before Cheney and Rove sucessfully bury it in patriotic BS as Rove tried to do today on FAUX. John Stewart and John Oliver can't carry on alone and we're the only ones watching Bill Maher.
Cap't Jack
Forget their religion. These guys are Licensed Psychologists. They are required to agree, every year, to ethics designed by the American Psychological Association.
They are still licensed AFAIK. This falls on the APA and their individual state licensing boards. If these guys have not discredited the practice of Psychology, then I don't know what it would take to do so.
According to the article, they're not members of the APA (which has called for them to be held accountable).
I grew up in a Mormon family in Utah. I did actually notice a tendency for ethics to only be required when dealing with other members of the church. The outsiders were fair game, especially when it comes to making money. Mormons take the "we are god's chosen" to the extreme in this regard.
Is there something in their (public or secret) doctrine that supports this stance?
The doctrine would be the parts that set members above others as god's chosen. All religions have them. The tradition comes from the closed ecconomic system Utah mormons enforced in the 19th century. Outsiders were shut out and starved out. There were multiple examples of the remnants of this policy in the culture I grew up in. Granted, that is mostly incidental from my experience and that of many others I know. It could probably be researched in records, and I strongly suspect there would be correlation found.