What do you do when an ethical dilemma arises within another ethical dilemma? Recently, Dr. James E. Mitchell from Texas was punished and could potentially lose his license for helping to design “torture programs for terror suspects imprisoned in Guantanamo” while using improper techniques and lying about his background. According to accusers, “Dr. Mitchell misrepresented his qualifications to the CIA and placed ‘his own career and financial aspirations above the safety of others’ while designing a ‘torture regime’ with a ‘complete lack of scientific base.’” He likewise is linked to a case involving the post-Sept eleventh CIA interrogation methods “that are currently under a criminal torture investigation by the Department of Justice.” Such crimes involve his primary participation in using firm questioning of terror suspects using “sexual humiliation and the drowning technique called waterboarding.” All his actions do not reflect what is allowed or sanctioned by the American Psychological Association nor the Texas licensing board and both have claimed that such torture techniques are illegal and would never be allowed.
And so the elephant in the room remains. It is clear that what Dr. James E Mitchell has done is quite unethical and furthermore, illegal, but how can one attest to the fact that the United States keeps does indeed keep people hostage and is constantly brainstorming methods of interrogation. Is it right for the United States to keep these prisoners hostage? Is that not torture in itself? And now how are we to compensate for what Dr. Mitchell has organized and done? It is strange to think that his fibs have gone unnoticed especially since he has been so integral in assisting the government with such issues. One would think that the government would be very aware of all its employees and representatives. Perhaps and hopefully this will spark some initiative in the government to begin a more careful screening process of all its employees and representatives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/us/14ttlawsuit.html?_r=1&ref=health
1 comment:
It is difficult and perhaps a little bit painful to imagine how someone could "misrepresent" himself to the CIA without the CIA catching on. As you say, though, that is beside the point; the real question here is, why is our government brainstorming methods of torture in the first place? I agree with you that the government of a free nation should not consider infringing on the rights of those it holds behind its bars, but I do not agree with you when you say "Is it right for the United States to keep these prisoners hostage? Is that not torture in itself?" Imprisonment is a fact of life in a nation under siege from within and without, and must not be contested. Today, in Congress, representatives have the gall to contest the facts that CO2 is polluting our atmosphere and that the ice caps are melting. The provision of a consequence for those people who decide to infringe on the freedoms of our society and other societies like ours is very logical, and we should not consider giving those in Washington another seemingly obvious fact to meaninglessly oppose.
Post a Comment