The APA's current policy is sound. It is helping to protect the national security of this country through improved intelligence about the future actions of an all too real enemy. This is an enemy not only of the United States, but to all who value their personal liberty, especially freedom of thought.

Psychologists ought not fall into the all too common mistake of making an idol of their profession. They are citizens of the United States first. Without the ring of defense provided by our military, there would be few opportunities for open, objective research, or any other activity that requires an atimosphere of relative calm and personal security. We too often forget this. Therefore, to contribute their skills toward the very foundation of the security upon which they depend, psychologists should not only tolerate such participation with the military, they should consider such service an honor.

Thank you, I stand corrected on which "APA" is involving itself in the matter of military interrogations.

As to the balance of your comments, I suppose I should observe that the "Atheist Left" loves to pin all opposition to the normalization of homosexuality on the "Christian Right." What a red herring. My own opposition to the normalization of homosexuality has nothing to do with Leviticus, or any other biblical text. My oppostion is based on the notion that there isn't a bit of good science to prove that homosexuality is anything other than a psychiatric abnormality. There was never any new science, no breakthrough studies, no advances in psychiatric understanding, that led to the change in the DSM in 1973. Before 1973, fully 90% or more of practicing psychiatrists considered homosexuality a mental disease or disorder. That doesn't mean that they hated those patients. They probably had profound professional concern and care for those patients.

The fact that 90% of that same group now thinks that homosexuality is no longer a disease or disorder is therefore less than convincing. I'd guess that vast majorities of psychologists and psychiatrists voted for Kerry. And oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom. And, perhaps, choose white wine over scotch. Those are all opinions, none of which are based on psychological or neurological science. Just like the change to the DSM in '73.

Back to the main point; I am just glad that when it comes to the conduct of war, we turn to the graduates of West Point, not NYU.

"Straightman" wrote: "The thing I like about this story is that it exposes the essentially political nature of the APA. This is the same organization that "voted" to amend the DSM so as to end the longstanding classification of homosexuality as a mental disease..."

Wrong APA, "Straightman." The article was about the American Psychological Association. The American Psychiatric Association voted in 1973 to remove homosexuality from the DSM.

The Christian Right argues that this action was political, because it was subject to a vote of the membership, but this distorts history. In 1973, a scientific committee of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) determined that homosexuality did not meet the APA's definition of a mental disorder, and the Board of Trustees agreed. Conservatives petitioned to overturn this decision by a vote of the membership. The membership of the APA then voted to reject the conservative petition. The vote of the membership only happened because conservatives were trying to overrule the findings of a scientific committee.

Today, the vast majority of mental health professionals believe that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. However, the Christian Right continues to push the fiction that the opposite is true, for political gain. In the Christian Right literature, the two APAs are often mixed up, either out of the ignorance of the authors, or assuming the ignorance of the audience. In any event, the Christian Right never allows the facts get in the way of a good sound bite.

>>As a medical professional the psychologists role is to help and heal their patients according to the tenets of their profession... It would change his hypocratic oath into plain hypocricy. Did the APA consider this fact in their decision to please the administration?<<

I do not agree with the APA's position. However, psychologists are not medical professionals. They are doctors of philosophy, and though some are caregivers (usually clinical psychologists) others solely conduct research, or, as a previous poster mentioned, conduct forensic activities such as assessing people for suitability to stand trial, or profiling criminals. Psychologists do not take a Hippocratic oath.

However, drawing the distinction between caregiving psychologists and the rest of them is an attempt to sidestep moral responsibility. Just because a psychologist "merely" conducts research on human behavior does not mean that s/he can ethically harm people. In fact, there are many safeguards in place to protect all human subjects of research.

Thanks to Salon for providing an opportunity in my probably overly-educated life to apply the critial thinking skills I've been learning as a doctoral student in psychology.

As much as I enjoy most of Salon's writers and appreciate the provocative subject matter Salon frequently focuses on, reading this article about APA and then reading the letters that followed served to highlight what has become (and perhaps has always been) a big problem with American thinking styles: we depend too much on the media for our "truths" and fail to go to original sources.

Like many readers of this article, as I read about APA's apparent sanctioning of psychological torture by its members, I was upset and confused because this flies in the face of everything I've been taught about the ethical obligations of psychologists. Then, I read the letters posted in response to this article, and among the occassional letters from blockheads who tend to use Salon as a forum for their inexplicable vitriol, I saw some eloquently-penned letters of concern from psychologists, students of psychology, and from those not in my profession. Next, I went to APA's website and read the actual report of the Task Force on psychology's role in national security. It didn't take long and wasn't hard to find. (If you're interested, go to www.apa.org.) After investing about the same amount of time it took me to read Salon's article, I feel like I now have a more accurate view of APA's position, and I'm sorry to say that from this new perspective, the Salon story seems sensationalized, overly critical, and inaccurate.

But then, perhaps that is not so terribe. Perhaps one part of the media's role is to inflame our passions so that we care enough to do something. Only why do we tend to think that "doing something" means forming a lightening-strike opinion? Why are we so uncomfortable with saying, "I don't know yet. I need more information"? Why do we tend to stop at the end of the reporter's version of the story when it is so easy, in this information age, to broaden our own perspectives?

I would argue that all readers -- but particularly psychologists and students of psychology invested in this profession -- should invest some time digging a little deeper into this issue, if only to develop ourselves as critical thinkers so that we can move beyond being upset and confused to being well informed.