Emails Archives In the Open Source
Controversy has surrounded intimations that U.S. interrogators had availed themselves of psychological research about how extreme techniques of interrogation might be withstood. The research was, in effect, reverse engineered for the opposite purpose. [Timeline] Because U.S> psychologists are members of The American Psychological Association (APA) and the APA has a code of ethics, when the intimations evolved to become probable suspicions about, at least, military psychologists breaking the code of ethics to ’cause harm,’ the APA became embroiled in a huge scandal.
Now and then I’ve checked into this story. On May 8th, a large chunk of emails were leaked. The emails reflect part of the archive of an internal APA task force, (Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security; PEN). [APA FAQ on interrogation]
The task force’s work, soon to be framed by the inadequacy of a 2006 resolution, led up to:
In September 2008, APA’s members passed a resolution stating that psychologists may not work in settings where “persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the U.S. Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights.” The resolution became official APA policy in February 2009. (Wikipedia)
However, between 2005-2008 the APA was embroiled in controversy, much of it having to do with the constituency of professional psychologists who have vested (and lucrative) interests in defense and security affairs. This led to lots of political maneuvering vis a vis the leadership of the APA>
On May 9th, the email archive from May 2005-2006 of the task force was leaked.
Ahhhh. This is of interest with respect to Netdynam’s portfolio. The first substantial email is on page 7 of the leaked compendium. On page 15, Olivia Morehead-Slaughter writes:
And, as the saying goes, they’re off to the races.
For Netdynam a good case about the circumstances for re-deployment of archives.
Now and then I’ve checked into this story. On May 8th, a large chunk of emails were leaked. The emails reflect part of the archive of an internal APA task force, (Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security; PEN). [APA FAQ on interrogation]
The task force’s work, soon to be framed by the inadequacy of a 2006 resolution, led up to:
In September 2008, APA’s members passed a resolution stating that psychologists may not work in settings where “persons are held outside of, or in violation of, either International Law (e.g., the UN Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions) or the U.S. Constitution (where appropriate), unless they are working directly for the persons being detained or for an independent third party working to protect human rights.” The resolution became official APA policy in February 2009. (Wikipedia)
However, between 2005-2008 the APA was embroiled in controversy, much of it having to do with the constituency of professional psychologists who have vested (and lucrative) interests in defense and security affairs. This led to lots of political maneuvering vis a vis the leadership of the APA>
On May 9th, the email archive from May 2005-2006 of the task force was leaked.
Ahhhh. This is of interest with respect to Netdynam’s portfolio. The first substantial email is on page 7 of the leaked compendium. On page 15, Olivia Morehead-Slaughter writes:
1) Who is the client? 2)To whom do we have ethical obligations? It is notable that the answers to these 2 questions may not be the same.
And, as the saying goes, they’re off to the races.
For Netdynam a good case about the circumstances for re-deployment of archives.
