"Of the 38,931 interrogations performed to date in Guantanamo, much of what is done is sitting down, having a cup of tea and a talk, not coercive tactics."

In an update on my previous post, I referred to this report. But I can't just leave it at that. Not after seeing the quote above, which came from-- surprise!-- Katherine Sherwood, a civilian interrogator with the Department of Defense.

The American Psychological Association will decide Sunday whether to condemn torture tactics and place a moratorium on members' involvement in interrogations at US military detention sites.

The decision, if taken, would move the world's largest professional organization of psychologists in line with similar resolutions by the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association and boost pressure on the US government's alleged torture of "war on terror" detainees.

Want to pressure the U.S. government? How about waterboarding them? After all, that's just an "enhanced interrogation" technique. And you could do it over tea.

APA council representatives at their annual meeting in San Francisco will vote on a pair of resolutions, one a condemnation of torture and another branding specific interrogation techniques unethical.

However...

Some within the professional psychology community believe they should be present in interrogation facilities to provide oversight and prevent abuses.

There's just one little glitcharoony. These sessions tend to get nasty.

APA members James Mitchell and Bruce Jensen, both of whom have worked with the CIA, were recently identified as torture trainers and are under investigation by the Senate Armed Services Commission.

In light of this discovery, some psychologists are calling for a complete industry withdrawal from interrogation facilities.

Some of these CIA psychologists need psychologists. And prison sentences.

At the heart of the debate is the imperative of the medical profession's Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm" and the ethical code of psychologists, which currently does not categorically bar involvement in coercive interrogations.

Let me see if I understand this. An omission in the ethical code of psychologists can be interpreted to mean that torture does no harm. Nothing unethical or irrational about that. Just ask our administration.