Eidelson, Roy.““No Cause for Action” Revisiting the Ethics Case of Dr.John Leso.

” Journal of Social

and Political Psychology,vol.3,no.1,2008,https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.479.

Accessed 16 Oct. 2019.

This academic article, written by the psychiatrist and winner of the Anthony J. Marsella Prize Commented [SN1]: All text after the first line of the
citation should be under the hanging indent.
for the Psychology of Peace and Social Justice Roy Eidelson, goes into great detail Commented [SN2]: Make sure that all text is in Times
New Roman 12 pt. font.
concerning the malpractice suit against the psychiatrist Dr. John Leso regarding Commented [SN3]: Consider moving this out of the
summary section and to the evaluation section. I think
this is explaining the authors credibility.
interrogation tactics used during the questioning of suspected terrorist Mohammed al-
Commented [SN4]: Who is Dr. John Leso and what
did he do wrong? Consider giving more background
Qahtani. Eidelson begins his paper with an in depth history of the relationship between info about him when first mentioned, you do a great job
of this below.
the American Psychological Association and the American government. During this he Commented [SN5]: Consider rewording to “Eidelson
begins this academic article………
also makes the reader aware of the laws regarding malpractice in the field of psychology Commented [SN6]: Consider replacing this with “He
then references several……
and how the definition of said malpractice has been manipulated to allow psychiatrist to

aid in interrogations since the terror event that occurred on September 9th 2001. He

makes the laws very clear in the beginning to make sure the reader is acutely aware that Commented [SN7]: Consider rewording to “He
explains the laws clearly in the beginning”….. Right
now it reads as if he created the laws himself.
he believes that Dr. John Leso did in fact violate the “do no harm’’ section of the

physicians code of conduct despite the new definitions of malpractice that have been

developed since the “war on terror” was declared. It is only After Edileson provides the Commented [SN8]: Should this be capitalized?

reader with a knowledge base that he goes into the official complaint filed against Dr.

John Leso. Dr. Leso was hired as head of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team

(BSCT) to aid in the development of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo bay. He

and his fellow BSCT member, psychiatrist Paul Burney, co-authored the “Counter Commented [SN9]: What is Paul’s Credibility?
Consider adding in a little more information about him.
Resistance Strategy Memorandum.”in October of 2002 reccomending physically and

psychologically abusive interrogation tactics including but not limited to: sleep

deprivation, daily 20 hour interrogations, food restriction, exposure, as well as many

others. The tactics outlined in the memo were expanded upon during the interrogation
sessions and lead to sexual abuse and humliation. It is confirmed in by interrogation laws Commented [SN10]: Interrogation logs? Or It was
confirmed by a court of law?
that a BSCT member was present for all interrogation sessions including those led by

Dr.John Leso. After the detailing of the transgressions committed by Dr. John Leso, Commented [SN11]: Exactly what unlawful tactics did
he use?
Eidelson discussed that handling of the malpractice complaint by the ethics board and

military authorities. He also explains the ethical standards held by The American

Psychological Association and how these standards were disregarded when handling the Commented [SN12]: What are the ethical standards?

complaint filed against Dr.Leso. The author explains that the “no cause for action”

argument made by the American psychological Association is misconstrued and ignores

the guideline they set themselves and justifies it based on the definitions of torture set by

military authorities. While author Roy Eidelson makes it clear that he believes the

American Psychological Association was wrong to not take action against Dr. John Leso

his work is well informed and his evidence does not share his bias. The paper uses Commented [SN13]: The academic article includes…

evidence used in the actual case that was built against Dr.Leso and establishes what

violations of the ethics code are defined as and how the evidence clearly shows that said

ethics codes were violated. This source is clearly academic and meant to be read by

individuals who are members of the psychological science community it i easily

understandable and will be useful when formulating my eportfolio. Commented [SN14]: How do you specifically plan to
use the information provided by this source.
This annotation gives me a pretty good idea of what the source covers. Overall you have
a strong summary section. However, I think you need to incorporate a more thorough
evaluation section. I like how you briefly evaluated a few things throughout the
annotation, but you need to start a section that gives details about the authors credibility
and background. It is also important to provide background information on the
company/organization that published this source. I think it would be of your best interest
to review the document entitled “Guidelines for Evaluating Any and All Source
Materials” on Canvas. I would also recommend checking your citation to make sure you
have spaces where you need them. I found the legal aspects of your topic/source
interesting. Have you thought about searching for the court reports on this scenario?
From my understanding this claim was handled in court at some point. When looking for
additional sources (not for the annotated bibliography), it might be useful to have
information handy on exactly how this was ruled in a court of law and what the official
offences/charges were.

Make sure to include a title page and compare your work to an MLA formatting guide.