A psychoanalysis of the APA's decision to surrender the War on Terror

The American Psychological Association, whose members in the past have cooperated in evaluating terrorists in interrogations, now is passing a policy that will ban members from participating further.

The board of the American Psychological Association plans to recommend a tough ethics policy that would prohibit psychologists from involvement in all national security interrogations, potentially creating a new obstacle to the Obama administration’s efforts to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects outside of the traditional criminal justice system.  The board’s proposal would make it a violation of the association’s ethical policies for psychologists to play a role in national security interrogations involving any military or intelligence personnel, even the noncoercive interrogations now conducted by the Obama administration. 

Whatever happened to patriotism?  These psychologists are cowards of the worst kind.  They expect others to fight the War on Terror and keep them safe, without having to make any contribution of their own.  They feel that participating in interrogations would lower themselves.  They ignore the fact that these are interrogations of terrorists, interrogations that could save civilian lives.

I think psychologists still do not understand the War on Terror, as many liberals don't.  They view this as a traditional war and feel that those captured are entitled to Geneva Convention rights.  But because the terrorists don't follow the Geneva Conventions themselves, and because they target civilians, these rights are not available to them (or shouldn't be).

If terrorists aren't interrogated, civilians could die.  It is delusional and out of touch with reality to think otherwise.  I think it is this delusion that we don't have to fight a war on terror that drives the APA's decision.

Furthermore, I think the APA is disassociating itself from the American cause, even forgetting perhaps that it has the word "American" in its name.  (I am sure once they realize it, they will change the name.)  It is us versus them, but the problem is that the APA doesn't identify with "us."

Weirdly, it also seems the APA has a certain empathy when it comes to terrorists, but a certain autism when it comes to relating to the victim of terrorism, and an inability to see the connection between the two.  The APA views terrorism just like the weather, something that just happens that is not connected to any actions of the people (talking pre-global warming here, of course).

The APA psychologists feel that when they participate in interrogations, their profession is being used as a weapon.  They seem to feel that interrogations of terrorists are an invalid form of self-defense.  Do you think their inability to relate to the victims of terrorism, and their delusion that this isn't an ordinary war, constitutes a mass psychosis that is in any way treatable?

This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com