Doctors were compelled by military and CIA to harm detainees, report says


People were mistreated in Gitmo???


Luckily all of these doctors were Americans because no true American doctors could do something like that.

Now for the weather.

compelled? forced? how? Was there violence threatened? how to you force someone to perform a procedure?
Ok we all know the military has some scum working for it - especially in the housing of enemies of the state. But for a medical doctor to abandon his oath…


Just following orders…


Exactly. It’s funny, I seem to recall that defence being used a while ago in similar circumstances. It wasn’t very effective then.

What makes these people (or their superiors) any different?

The people with guns and spies and blackmail and torture devices who are holding captives without trial tell you to do something. Do you honestly think you can say no without risking your neck in some way? Can you get away with dissent in the face of that kind of ruthlessness? Are you willing to bet your life on it?

Basically, you have to be pretty darn devoted to the hypocratic oath to potentially risk your own life for the sake of someone you don’t know from another part of the world who is, to the public eye, a “terrorist”. And even if you do get away with refusing, odds are very good they’ll just get someone else to take your place. It’s a pretty shitty position to find yourself in.

If we were talking about the SS instead of the CIA, would we be more forgiving of the doctors for not resisting against coercion? Would we be more willing to realize the danger they would face in doing so, and consequently forgive them their unwillingness to defy the secret police?


[quote=“dacree, post:4, topic:13494”]
compelled? forced? how?[/quote]
Institutional coercion. See: Milgram, Stanford Prison, Stockholm.

We all like to think we’d be fine, upstanding individuals, and the one who’d say “no!” but the sad fact of the matter is that we look up to and admire people like Snowden in large part because they are so rare.


I… still don’t get it. You’re telling me that these doctors complained about the things they were told to do to other human beings, and the response from their superiors was “that standard of ‘do no harm’ doesn’t apply here”? At least, that’s what it sounds like from my admittedly thin skimming of the report. That doesn’t sound like “compulsion” to me. Nor does it appear to let anyone - doctors, attendants, bureaucrats, or senior officials - off the hook for committing straight-up crimes against humanity. The people that did this are vile, despicable dirtbags who can not ever be trusted to do the right thing. Never. Name them and shame them, one and all.

Name them and shame them.


Reminds me of stories about life in Siberian gulags… e.g. Grey is the Color of Hope.

They’re doing just fine on that one, but it’s spelled `hypocritic.’


Well, it’s not called the “Nuremburg Defense” for nothing.


Milgram has a nasty habit of not being replicable and the findings are very much in question.
Standford was about being given power and abusing that power. Those without power (the prisoners) rebelled.
Stockholm is about traumatic bonding. I doubt we can apply that here.

So an analyst can resist this coercion but a doctor cannot? I don’t buy that for a second.

I saw nothing to indicate the doctors felt their lives were in danger or that they were in any way coerced.

These are all excuses and poor ones at that.

compelled? forced? how? Was there violence threatened? how to you force someone to perform a procedure?

lets go right the source for this one

Those are poor takedowns of perfectly valid possible explanations.

To justify that degree of invalidation, I have to imagine you were there. So, you tell us how.

Because it happened, no matter how you argue it, no matter how entirely you eviscerate the theories others pose, WE DID THAT.


OK, but we have to assume anyone with a medical degree is an adult and adults don’t think in those terms. Only children and GW do that.

Stop speaking for the group

How so? Each one is a simple retort to a poorly strung together list of places and experiments. If there is a flaw in the reasoning, point it out.

Yeah… no. Just because I am a citizen of a country does not make me responsible for the criminal activity of a few people with tiny amounts of power.

Those who committed these criminal acts are responsible, not the nation as a whole.


You voted in the people in power, or by dint of not voting allowed them to take power.

Funny how people are willing to blame others, but not take any blame themselves…


When I say “we have to assume” I am employing a linguistic device to denote a collective readership here. I am not implying membership or figurehead status.

Or, to approach your reproach another way, are the readers of this blog to assume people with medical degrees are children or adults? My guess is that the readership will generally assume that they are adults. Is that non-specific enough or do you have more pedantry?