There are statements about legality, about outrage, about who should be punished, about the corruption of organizations.<p>That's not interesting to me. I'm not happy about it, but I'm actually more disappointed.<p>The thing is, something like the APA should, more than anyone, know how ineffective torture would be for getting the kind of information that they were looking to find.<p>The problem with torture, aside from the fact that it's hurtful, is that it is ineffective. We know this. We've studied it, we've already got a lot of data. The APA is supposed to be the professionals in this field that should be able to say that we shouldn't be torturing people.<p>It's like you find out there was a group of doctors that are contracted to create a virus to wipe out a segment of the population, and the doctors deliver something that causes extreme itchiness and the inability to control your bowels. It doesn't kill anyone, it just makes your city smell like shit and causes these people targeted to be angry and uncomfortable.<p>It's still heinous, and immoral. But not only that, it's ineffective and worthless. I mean, the torture argument comes up and there's always defenders that say "desperate times call for desperate measures". But the thing is, it doesn't matter how desperate you are, torture doesn't lead to good results, no matter how angry you are, no matter how bad you want it to.<p>The thing is, I can understand if people in the military might not know this, or believe it. But the thing is, the APA is supposed to represent an organization that understands our minds. They SHOULD know this. So more than just "Oh they did a heinous thing" I am thinking "Oh, they did an idiotic thing, AND it was heinous!"<p>I mean, if they were to do some horrific torturous mind control stuff, and because of that we got information that led to the safe return of troops abroad and a swift victory over the enemy, then I'd still be angry that they were willing to do horrible things to get that victory. But I'd respect their ability. In the same way that I think a nuclear bomb is a horrific weapon that should have never been used on a civilian population, but I think that the people who built it were really good at what they do.<p>But it's like asking for a nuclear weapon, and getting something that detonates and makes the city and surrounding countryside stink for years but doesn't harm anyone. I mean, it's detestable that they'd be working to try to murder massive numbers of civilians. But even more than that, it's awful that they failed so badly at it, and obviously never really knew what they were doing to start with. They didn't accomplish their goals, and just made people angry.