* The message is clear: You can do these things, we'll let them slide at the time, and much later, too late to have any effect, we'll issue meaningless condemation and policy. Does anyone doubt that the next time a President or other authority in the US government faces this choice, they will disregard the APA completely and assume they will go along?
* There is no punishment for the perpetrators. These people planned and aided the commission of viscious, brutal crimes on a mass scale. They are sociopaths and should be in prison, the same place we put the Nazi's, rapists and mass murderers.
* There is no concern for the victims. There is absolutely no mention of them, inquiry into the effects on them, attempt to help them, or restitution. It confirms the government's effective position that, as "terrorists", they are sub-human and their rights and welfare can be disregarded.
So many people lacked the courage to stand up to the criminal and immoral acts of the US government at the time. It remains one of the most depressing (literally, de-moralizing) experiences of my life.
EDIT: I should add that the APA may have taken other actions that address my concerns. I reworded some of the above to address that possibility.
As far as I can tell, they aren't a licensing body, so that revocation wouldn't even stop someone from continuing to work in the field.
They have a voice and influence. They could push hard for these things; they could have pushed hard when they were happening. Certainly they have the resources to address my third point, about the welfare of the victims.
I wouldn't be surprised.
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.
If it is legal, ethical interrogation, then it is not in violation of the US Constitution, or international law
It even says they can provide general consultation on issues related to humane information gathering
Who makes that determination?
