Comments on: Previous convictions

By: pepi

pepi — Mon, 10 May 2004 23:33:09 +0000

… another perfect instance of the mentality I’m referring to: http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/Week-of-Mon-20040503/030148.html

“They were just doing stupid kid things, pranks. And what the Iraqis do to our men and women are just? The rules of the Geneva Convention, do they apply to everybody or just us?” she asked.

Apparently, that’s the idea of “why such abuse occurs”. Where “why” is not a straightforward causal “why” referring to the circumstances that made it possible, but implies a whole concept of “the circumstances that justify, or excuse, or at the very least diminish it”. That, and there being a prison abuse scandal in Germany, of course. That’s highly relevant to the Taguba report. It’s funny, but not surprising, that the very people who go for that kind of excuses don’t see it’s a matter of mentality. A fish doesn’t know it’s in the water either.

By: pepi

pepi — Mon, 10 May 2004 23:17:19 +0000

Apologies to everyone for not keeping it shorter. Didn’t realize.

By: pepi

pepi — Mon, 10 May 2004 23:14:59 +0000

But sometimes they do; inevitably, sometimes they always will. Humanity is neither perfect nor perfectible. Of course, Elizabeth. But that’s like saying the sun will shine, life sometimes sucks, car engines sometimes fail, and computers sometimes crash no matter how well you keep them. It’s not an explanation for what went on in Abu Ghraib. Even in the best prison system that grants prisoners the fullest rights etc., things may get out of hand. Single guards or groups of them getting to live their own little action/porn movie. It can happen anywhere. Point is, where things work properly, those cases will be rare; the perpetrators caught as soon as possible and punished immediately; and those behaviours actively discouraged rather than encouraged. In Abu Ghraib, from the official report, it seems it was exactly the opposite. That kind of behaviour was encouraged for “interrogation” purposes. There was no monitoring. It took ages to report those tortures. And it is appearing clearer and clearer that there was a precise mentality supporting those acts. I just heard an interview to the father of one of the torturers. England’s boyfriend, I think. The dad goes all, “well he was forced… he was pressured to do that… he is a good boy… he only followed orders… they should be happy… he didn’t want to… he said he was seeing horrible things but he was forced… he even got told he was doing a great job…” then when they ask him, but what do you think of those photos, what did you feel seeing them? he forgets all the previous excuses and just blurts it out: “well! what do you think I felt when I saw the photos of those four Americans who were lynched by Iraqis??”. Eye for an eye. Is that supposed to be normal part of life too? Most importantly, normal part of military conduct? Or should we just accept all notions of there being laws that apply even in times and contexts of war and terrorism have gone to the dogs? Sorry for the digression. Back to your post. I never said anything to the effect of “blaming society for the crimes of individuals”. Of course the first direct responsibility is with those who did these things. But, as it’s becoming clearer from reports, it wasn’t just a handful of shitheads. And it’s being justified, partly or completely, by some people – like your Barbara Amiel quoted above, so, that’s what I’m referring to in terms of mentality that fosters this kind of shithead behaviour. Individual responsibility doesn’t exclude social influence – and viceversa. They’re both there. You reveal that if all of the guards respected human rights, guarded the dignity of others and always acted with a view to socialization and rehabilitation, there would be no abuse. Surely you see that this is circular? uh? I didn’t say “there would be no abuse”. There is always the possibility. But that respect of human rights and dignity and emphasis on rehabilitation is not the ideal but the norm, the basic requirements for any prison system worthy of a legitimate democratic countryn where legality as opposed to eye-for-eye revenge mentality is held in high regard. That’s that point. I can’t believe you so misread that. The platitudes you propose as a solution… Platitudes? Now human rights and dignity and the correctional part of the function of law enforcement… are synonim with “platitude”? What next, the Geneva Convention is a platitude too? I’m not suggesting any “solution” either. Just saying there are laws and they should be respected by those who enforce them in the first place. Excuse me if I don’t consider that a platitude. Fuck’s sake. …fail to confront the inevitably corruptive effect of power and the statistical certainty of deviance in a small minority of any sample population. Huh? Well your answer fails to confront the glaring fact that a bunch of prison guards ended up torturing their prisoners. The existence of deviance fails to explain torture in Abu Ghraib. The corruptive effect of power still fails to explain torture in Abu Ghraib. Unless you see torture as a justifiable response to deviance, that is, or a “normal” effect of the corruptive influence of power. Which makes as much sense as Amiel’s apology. There is no such thing as a society without crime So what? Again, how does that explain torture in Abu Ghraib? And you’re the one telling me about platitudes? please… and there is no such thing as a prison system without some degree or frequency of prisoner abuse Again, how does that explain prolonged, widespread, sistematic and until now completely covered-up use of torture in Abu Ghraib? Put it this way: given that there is no such thing as a perfect society with no crimes – violences rapes robberies murders etc. etc. etc., if neighbourhood (to keep it limited) A in a given city has a higher incidence of rapes and robberies than neighbourhood B, would you not say A is more violent, and would you not try and find out the reasons why, so that you can try and reduce that higher incidence? Or would you just say “well there’s no such thing as a perfect neighbourhood” and be content with that “explanation”? That’d be fatalistic. If anything happens just because it can happen and because nothing is perfect, well we might as well embrace anarchy. (I believe Germany is enjoying it own prison abuse scandal at the moment – just because you don’t hear about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen ;)). Yeah? what’s that, a variation of one of Murphy’s Laws? anything that goes wrong, there’s always something worse to bring up to make it seem better? And what’s the smiley there about? what’s so funny? And pardon the observation, Pepi, but you seem a little upset. That’s quite understandable; those awful, sickening images are seared into everyone’s minds. I’m not upset. I’m flabbergasted about this. Amazed. In disbelief. That it could happen at all – not in abstract, in general, human nature, blah blah, but in those precise circumstances, and to that extent and for so long and clearly, therefore, with such support from those who were supposed to control things but instead let them go so wild. I’m even more amazed at people who make apologies for that like Amiel. I’m amazed at what the torturers’ friends, dads, moms, sisters come out saying in defense of their darlings. I’m amazed at the incredible levels of blame-shifting. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. Indeed, there seems to be an almost unanimous agreement that these were disgusting crimes, that there is no excuse, that the perpetrators must be swiftly and severely punished and that heads must roll in the Pentagon. No one is arguing that this is “no big deal”. Oh yes indeedy, and not just Rush “it wasn’t torture, just a few pranks!” Limbaugh at that. And not just the “no big deal” but the torture-as-retribution-for-terrorism apology. I mean come on. Even Rumsfeld made it clear he was more worried by the pictures and their being given to the media than the tortures themselves. But if we seek truth — insight into the human condition — we must put aside emotionalism and objectively attempt to trace the problem to its source. Well sorry for repetition, Elizabeth, but I sure hope the concepts of: – human rights – the dignity of the human person, as recognised in strictly legal terms in the universal declaration of human rights, constitution, laws, etc. – conduct of the military – rules of war – Geneva Convention – US constitution itself, to boot… – provisional Iraqi goverment laws, if applicable – have I missed anything? … do not figure in your idea of “emotionalism” otherwise I sure don’t get what “objectively” means in your universe. Cos in this one, torture is objectively a crime. Got it? It is futile to attempt to design a system that will yield optimal humanity to prisoners if you do not first understand why abuse occurs in the first place. Last attempt here, I see you’re not even grasping the legal framework of this: 1) it is not futile, it is absolutely necessary – and required by laws – to enforce laws that apply to prisons, to guarantee they do not become torture chambers, ok? that’s what I meant. not just “optimal” but basic levels of legality exclude torture. I’m not talking fluffy ideals of happy prisons where everybody knits and reads Shakespeare and goes out jogging in fields with daisies twice a day. I’m talking basic human rights as acknowledged and considered valid and applicable by the US very legal system. What’s so hard to understand? 2) Doesn’t take a genius to understand why such abuse can spread to more than a few isolated nutters (who could exist even in the best of possible systems). It occurs in a magnitude larger than a few isolated fuckers when it is allowed and justified and covered up. Why else would anyone feel free to do that kind of thing in Iraq, right now, before elections, with tons of media there, political controversy already stronger than ever, if they didn’t have the guarantee they were allowed to do that and that no one would ever find out? Read the reports, Elizabeth, then read that Geneva Convention, as well as the UNDHR, and the Constitution. The only truths still to be ascertained is how far higher up was that guarantee coming from.

By: elizabeth

elizabeth — Mon, 10 May 2004 21:14:11 +0000

“Whereas, in prisons where fundamental rights are respected, dignity is preserved, and the emphasis is not just on punishment for the crime but social and indivudal rehabilitation, so that prisoners given a chance to find a purpose to their detention and the possibility to improve, things do not generally get out hand, and the principles of the law come out all the stronger for it.” You say that things “generally don’t get out of hand”, and of course, they don’t, generally. But sometimes they do; inevitably, sometimes they always will. Humanity is neither perfect nor perfectible. Thus we must do everything we possibly can to design a system that minimizes abuse, while acknowledging the limits of human nature. (Limiting, to the greatest degree possible, guards’ power over prisoners is the method I favor.) The societal “mentality” to which you attribute these crimes is indeed nothing less than a species of predictable human behavior. Blaming society for the crimes of the individual is a crass and superficial analysis of the problem. You reveal that if all of the guards respected human rights, guarded the dignity of others and always acted with a view to socialization and rehabilitation, there would be no abuse. Surely you see that this is circular? The platitudes you propose as a solution fail to confront the inevitably corruptive effect of power and the statistical certainty of deviance in a small minority of any sample population. There is no such thing as a society without crime and there is no such thing as a prison system without some degree or frequency of prisoner abuse (I believe Germany is enjoying it own prison abuse scandal at the moment – just because you don’t hear about it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen ;)). And pardon the observation, Pepi, but you seem a little upset. That’s quite understandable; those awful, sickening images are seared into everyone’s minds. Indeed, there seems to be an almost unanimous agreement that these were disgusting crimes, that there is no excuse, that the perpetrators must be swiftly and severely punished and that heads must roll in the Pentagon. No one is arguing that this is “no big deal”. But if we seek truth—insight into the human condition—we must put aside emotionalism and objectively attempt to trace the problem to its source. It is futile to attempt to design a system that will yield optimal humanity to prisoners if you do not first understand why abuse occurs in the first place.

By: pepi

pepi — Mon, 10 May 2004 21:12:18 +0000

… and just look what the Poor Man (and Josh Marshall) dug up: http://www.thepoorman.net/archives/002506.html I’d heard about that at the time, but had completely forgotten…

By: pepi

pepi — Mon, 10 May 2004 14:19:30 +0000

(sorry for multiple posts) berbert, I have to add I completely agree with you here: I find it hard to believe that crimes of this horrendous magnitude are perpetrated with any frequency in the US penal system due to the lack of a constant flow of evidence of this nature. Me too, also because those prisons do indeed get monitored much better than anything in Iraq currently is. I am sure there is nothing of that sort and magnitude going on. But there are still too many cases of abuses, too many for a democracy that is. However, I do think that the domestic system of incarceration (both as a method of punishment and of deterrence) is critically flawed from an ethical, as well as pragmatic, perspective, and that the terrible events at Abu Ghraib are simply a magnification of the US system at the hands of inexperienced (but otherwise “normal”) people. Exactly. I don’t think it’s a matter of inexperience though. I think it’s that they knew they could get away with it because, for one thing, in Abu Ghraib there were no American prisoners, and that’s already a big difference in the mentality of those bastards who committed the abuses there; secondly, there was no supervising of the kind that goes on, even imperfectly but still goes on, in the domestic US prison system. Instances of domestic prison abuse are well chronicled and we would do wrong to write them off for lacking the sensationalism and political overtones that the Iraqi events possess. Indeed. I don’t think there is a direct connection, but there surely is a common thread of mentalities that allow such abuses, whether of the kind of the full-scale torture, rape and murder that went on in Iraq, or of the mostly lesser kind that goes on in domestic prisons. And the existence of that common mentality is confirmed also by the apologists who rushed to explain how those torture cases weren’t such a big deal anyway…

By: pepi

pepi — Mon, 10 May 2004 14:09:54 +0000

b. berbert: that experiment was an experiment to study the psychological effects of such relationships, indeed, but the point is, it was an experiment, not the ordinary working conditions of a prison system governed by laws and conventions and monitored by higher authorities. That’s the point. Of course emprisonment is already a situation of punishment and deprivation. But it needn’t be a situation of cruelty. That’s a wholly different thing. In the experiment, people were let loose – and indeed it had to be stopped when things got out of hand, whereas in an effective judicial system, you’d a) make sure things do not get out of hand (by providing rules, laws, conventions that determine how guards should behave and what prisoner rights NOT to infrige) and b) if they occur, you sanction the guards who break those rules. With the highest severity. Because it’s totally incoherent to have a system of law enforcement where law enforcers get away with breaking laws. It feeds that abuse mentality that creates crimes in the first place. It becomes a vicious circle. Whereas, in prisons where fundamental rights are respected, dignity is preserved, and the emphasis is not just on punishment for the crime but social and indivudal rehabilitation, so that prisoners given a chance to find a purpose to their detention and the possibility to improve, things do not generally get out hand, and the principles of the law come out all the stronger for it. Sadly, it seems too many forget entirely about that social and education purpose of prisons in the first place. They only care about the punishing part, and equal punishing with abuse. That’s so counterproductive as well as barbaric, but of course it’s a very populist stance because it feeds the public desire for revenge – as opposed to justice. Sad sad sad. The saddest thing is that anyone should find excuses to give up on the principle that prisons – or, as they’re supposed to be, “_correctional_” institutions – can (must!) be places where all laws and rights are respected.

By: pepi

pepi — Mon, 10 May 2004 13:59:17 +0000

elizabeth, you write: Prisoner abuse is endemic to the institution of incarceration itself. How could it not be? Well sorry, but that’s a lot of nonsense – you don’t hear about that kind of abuses in most other countries with functioning democratic and judicial systems, which the US is supposed to have as well, or even be the best at. It’s absolutely not endemic and not inherent to a prison system per se. It only occurs when the mentality that fosters it is encouraged and tolerated. This is a matter of human rights, and human rights and basic legality can be respected even in a prison. Actually that’s where they most need to be respected otherwise what’s the point of having laws at all if they’re enforced by betraying them?? Prison is depriving one of freedom following a crime. It doesn’t imply depriving them of basic human dignity. So find another excuse cos that one is so not cutting it.

By: Alan

Alan — Mon, 10 May 2004 03:59:27 +0000

a magnification of the US system at the hands of inexperienced I think we have a research topic for some eager Social Sciences students: “Economics, mores and norms of local and international imprisonment”. Also expect a financial dividend and boost for the prison industry.

By: b. berbert

b. berbert — Mon, 10 May 2004 03:14:22 +0000

Alan: I certainly would, but am not convinced by their absence that systematic abuses do not exist here in the US as well. A few reasons for this: As Elizabeth notes, the “guards” at Abu Ghraib were (and, I’m afraid, still are), by and large, possessing of an entirely different type of training and experience than are your typical prison guards here in the US. While their naiveté certainly may have contributed to their actions in the first place, I think it also lead them into a false sense of security regarding their chances of getting caught. Professional guards in the US would be far more careful about this sort of thing, knowing their reality much better. Additionally, there is a tremendous amount of attention on Iraq right now; particularly on the way the US forces are conducting themselves and the administrations handling of affairs. This level of focus is likely to turn up even the smallest thing, not to mention something as egregious as this. Even considering these two factors (among others) though, I find it hard to believe that crimes of this horrendous magnitude are perpetrated with any frequency in the US penal system due to the lack of a constant flow of evidence of this nature. However, I do think that the domestic system of incarceration (both as a method of punishment and of deterrence) is critically flawed from an ethical, as well as pragmatic, perspective, and that the terrible events at Abu Ghraib are simply a magnification of the US system at the hands of inexperienced (but otherwise “normal”) people. Instances of domestic prison abuse are well chronicled and we would do wrong to write them off for lacking the sensationalism and political overtones that the Iraqi events possess.

By: Alan

Alan — Mon, 10 May 2004 01:37:05 +0000

B. Berbert: Your explanation would imply that you are more likely to get abuse photos out of the Iraqi prison than the US prison. …In 12 months in Iraq, say 100 disgusting photos from 1 prison of a few thousand people …In the last 30 years in the USA, with over a million prisoners held captive across the states…how many photos of abuse are there? I am not disagreeing with you, but even with your theory, would you not expect a bit more evidence of abuse in US prisons?

By: b. berbert

b. berbert — Mon, 10 May 2004 01:13:32 +0000

Finally found that citation for the Stanford Prison experiment, if anyone is interested. Philip Zimbardo has written quite a bit on this subject. Banks, Curtis; Craig Haney & Philip Zimbardo. “Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison”. International-Journal-of-Criminology-and-Penology. 1973 Feb; Vol 1(1): 69-97

By: Phill

Phill — Mon, 10 May 2004 00:10:25 +0000

Yee haqs been silenced as a condition of ‘exhoneration’ but that would not count at a Congressional inquiry or a genuine investigation into Gitmo. I don’t expect that to happen as long as Bush is in office, in fact I suspect that Bush will attempt to coverup by pardoning his staff same way that daddy did. In those circumstances I don’t think the GOP creeps in Congress would whip up the same support from their fascist supporters in the media if Kerry shipped everyone off to the ICC for trial. After all how could anyone claim that the US investigates and prosecutes war crimes if the war criminal in chief pardoned the culprits to protect himself? Think it through, the Bushies may end up in front of the criminal court they were so worried about.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Sun, 09 May 2004 23:17:57 +0000

B. Berbert: The crux of the problem, in my view, is that no matter how the system is designed (short of complete automation, which is not yet feasible), or how it is managed, there will always be times when a guard has physical custody of handcuffed and helpless prisoners. There is the constant threat of physical or mental coercion. Without evidence, allegations of abuse are unlikely to be believed and there may be fear of reprisals. (This is a problem that exists in prisons throughout the civilized world – if there are no public reports for a country then its government is covering up.) But it’s more than just the fact that that power is corruptive. The most egregious abuse seems to occur when guards collude. The tacit approval of a guard’s peers allows him to slough off the moral values of society and replace them with the new values of the peer group. There is a ratchet effect where guards gradually become capable of what was once would have been inconceivable (But Lynndie was always such a nice girl! . . .). If I had to guess, I would say that at Abu Graib something similar happened. These people were very young, ill trained for prison work and ill supervised; they were trained as soldiers. They were giving some ambiguous orders from interrogators (who may or may not have been following the chain of command) to do things like deprive the prisoners of sleep, clothes, cigarettes, make them exercise, treat them roughly and in general make them as uncomfortable as possible. And don’t forget, these particular prisoners were not mere criminals, they were enemy fighters wanted for questioning—people who had been killing American soldiers. In every war the enemy must be dehumanized, if not, then how could you ever kill them without regret? An enemy prisoner is a man whom you could have killed in battle, who could have killed you. Abuse and humiliation probably seem like small things when you play for those stakes (for example, note the extraordinary and horrific cruelty of the Japanese towards American POWs). A language barrier exacerbates this process. The pictures reveal that not only did the guards not fear getting caught, they had convinced themselves that they were doing was not immoral. In fact, some of the pictures seem to be posed: what was the independent purpose of the naked pyramid other than to take the picture? By their faces there seems to be a belief that forcing people to make gay porn is just a misdemeanor – and we haven’t yet seen the worst. The fellow who reported them was probably not a part of the corrupted peer group and reacted with the same horror that any of us would.

By: wcw

wcw — Sun, 09 May 2004 22:22:53 +0000

“an unfortunate part of the process”? I don’t know where to start with this. If you know anything about the US prison system, you know that abuse is sufficiently endemic that any moral obeserver should be appalled. What goes on in US prisons should shame a developed country. That it does not shame US observers indicates either that they are uninformed, condone abuse, or both.