I’ve just been over to “Electrolite, where Patrick Nielsen Hayden”:http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolite/archives/005158.html#005158 has posted “this stunning excerpt from the New York Times”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/08/national/08PRIS.html?ex=1399348800 :
bq. … the man who directed the reopening of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq last year and trained the guards there resigned under pressure as director of the Utah Department of Corrections in 1997 after an inmate died while shackled to a restraining chair for 16 hours. The inmate, who suffered from schizophrenia, was kept naked the whole time.
bq. The Utah official, Lane McCotter, later became an executive of a private prison company, one of whose jails was under investigation by the Justice Department when he was sent to Iraq as part of a team of prison officials, judges, prosecutors and police chiefs picked by Attorney General John Ashcroft to rebuild the country’s criminal justice system.
The article is full of other examples of routine abuse in US prisons, for example:
bq. In Arizona, male inmates at the Maricopa County jail in Phoenix are made to wear women’s pink underwear as a form of humiliation. At Virginia’s Wallens Ridge maximum security prison, new inmates have reported being forced to wear black hoods, in theory to keep them from spitting on guards, and said they were often beaten and cursed at by guards and made to crawl. … [S]ome of the worst abuses have occurred in Texas, [where] guards were allowing inmate gang leaders to buy and sell other inmates as slaves for sex.
{ 34 comments }
Bob 05.08.04 at 1:15 pm
For more details on this story, see: http://www.sltrib.com/2004/May/05082004/utah/164593.asp
justin @ RSR 05.08.04 at 3:50 pm
Click here for a picture of McCotter giving a tour to Paul Wolfowitz
I should note that lawsuits against prison facilities are very common… not necessarily an aberration… but the evidence does warrant further investigation. Surely McCotter’s job was a difficult one and the allegations are merely conjecture.. let’s not hang the guy on this.
But there his a history there… see my post.
norbizness 05.08.04 at 5:15 pm
A somewhat related story (lack of oversight) about a military lawyer and member of Congress who was ready to serve as operational counsel for the unit directly involved with the abuse:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2895101.php
Mario 05.08.04 at 5:50 pm
Pentagon Rejected Lawyer As Prison Adviser
Buyer, a strong supporter of the Iraq (news – web sites) war and a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves, had volunteered to go to Iraq shortly after the invasion in March 2003.
In a telephone interview Friday with The Associated Press, Buyer said military officials all the way up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff had approved his assignment to the 800th Military Police Brigade, which has handled Iraqi prisoners of war since the beginning of the conflict.
Pentagon personnel officials and Brownlee rejected the assignment, saying the Army could fill the requirement another way. Brownlee also wrote to Buyer that his high-profile status could bring danger to the troops around him.
Buyer said he objected to David Chu, the Pentagon’s personnel chief, and Charles Abell, Chu’s deputy.
“I expressed the importance of having a (lawyer) at the camp,” Buyer said. “You have to ask, when you had a qualified officer, and the civilian leaders, Dr. Chu and the secretary of the Army, said no, who did you send in his place?”
Mario 05.08.04 at 5:52 pm
A lawyer would have acted, in essence, as a cop. They didn’t want any cops around. Criminals usually don’t.
Willie Mink 05.08.04 at 6:04 pm
Yes, good! Thank you for posting this Chris. America needs to take a good look at what it’s washed under the house into the septic tank, both here and abroad. The drains are backing up and the stench is becoming strong enough that we can’t keep blaming it on the dog–we’re seeing the enemy, but will we recognize him as us?
Rumsfeld repeatedly warned us that “worse is yet to come,” and apparently, that means more graphic pics and videos of rapes, beatings, maybe murder too, our first national snuff film. What will it do to the American psyche? (It’s easier to gather what it will do to those outside of America, further confirming most misgivings, disgust, and worse with the blithe, blundering abuses of American hegemony.)
I’m really wondering, will the attention to these closeted abuses have an effect on the social fabric, the zeitgeist, the habitus, the interpellation machine? Will it be a good effect (or set of effects) or a bad one? Will we become, for instance, more desensitized and accepting of violence and cruelty and racism and religious supremacy, or will we edge closer to the opposite, becoming better, kinder people, people less likely to cheer on neo-conservative arrogance, pride, and willfullness?
Sorry, big questions, but I sincerely wonder, and I’m asking here because I know of it as a place where big brains lurk.
Phill 05.08.04 at 6:37 pm
You have to wonder what the army was trying to cover up at Guantanamo. Letsee, an army chaplain is arrested for having ‘classified information’ on his computer about the prison. We already know from the reports of the released UK prisoners that the Guantanamo prisoners have been subjected to the same types of torture.
My strong suspicion is that Guantanamo will turn out to have been a cover up.
This whole episode reminds me of the claims made by David Irving that Hitler did not know of or order the Holocaust. At the time this was pretty much ridiculed. I know Irving is and was a NAZI sympathizer, but…
…one has to wonder just what Bush knew about all this and what his role was. The fish stinks from the head down.
I think that Bush set the tone for the torture. He strutted arround doing his macho tough guy act.He was not merely indifferent to the possibility that his extra-constitutional policies at Gitmo and in the US might result in abuse, he was contemptuous of the mere suggestion.
Bush is not Hitler, but thanks to him we can now understand something of what went on in Germany.
Perhaps one of the national networks would do the country a favor and following the Sinclair/Koppel example pre-empt the GOP conference this year to show Triumph of the Will
Lance Boyle 05.08.04 at 7:55 pm
That particular fish may stink but it’s hard to tell, given the state of the aquarium.
The idea that so many otherwise sensible minds keep clinging to, that Bush is responsible for any of this, appeals to the coward in all of us.
Because then we can get rid of the problem in November, with a sweep of the electoral hand.
like clicking the remote or the mouse. Click. Bush is gone, and all is right with the world again. Click. Cheney’s gone. Click. Rumsfeld. Ridge. Ashcroft. Rice. Wolfowitz. Rove. Perle. Click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click-click. Hey! What the…
The alternate reality. The one where Bush is a sock-puppet for the real bad guys, who have Kerry by the scrotal-analogue, too.
That one nobody wants to go into.
Because an election, no matter how enlightened, isn’t going to fix things in that world. The one where Negroponte was chosen to go to Iraq. The one where Abu Ghraib was run that way on purpose.
The one we live in.
old maltese 05.08.04 at 11:02 pm
The article mentions Maricopa County.
The people of Maricopa County (metro Phoenix) love Sheriff Joe Arpaio. (Well, not all of them.) He’s ex-Army and ex-DEA. He’s a legend for his jailing policies, in particular. Flamboyant but just, is the story.
Elizabeth 05.08.04 at 11:51 pm
Prisoner abuse is endemic to the institution of incarceration itself. How could it not be? Any time one man is given complete dominion over another there will always be some who cannot resist the temptation to abuse that power. This isn’t a sign of a culture of evil in our prisons; abuse will continue to exist as long as the institution exists. To hope to stamp it out with some politician’s brilliant plan strikes me as a little naive. There’s a limit to what can be done short of outright abolition.
The difference with the Abu Graib outrage is that, judging from their hidiously grinning faces, the guards didn’t seem to fear detection. This appears to be attributable to chaos along the chain of command and confusion about the acceptable treatment of enemy fighters. There is no evidence that the Army told the guards to make gay porn with the prisoners. I will defer judgment of the larger system until I find out exactly what was going on. We’ll find out soon enough.
Dick Durata 05.09.04 at 12:08 am
phill, your suspicians are a lot like mine. What was the ‘pornography’ on Yee’s computer? Perhaps similar to that in the 60 Minute photos? A British ex-GITMO prisoner stated in the Mirror that hookers were brought in to torment the more religious of the prisoners. This was under the leadership of the new head of Abu Ghraib, Gen. Miller.
Yee spent months in solitary, and is probably disinclined to speak up, despite his exoneration. I suspect he wanted to expose what was going on, and was charged by military justice with trumped up espionage charges to shut him up.
That this is implies corruption at the highest levels should come as no surprise, the creation of the gulag has been ordered from the top, its goals and MO likewise.
b. berbert 05.09.04 at 12:58 am
In line with Elizabeth’s post, there was an experiment (at Stanford, I believe) some years back where volunteers were assigned to either a “prisoner” group or a “guard” group, and were told to act out their roles, ie prisoners were under complete command of guards, confined to “cells”, etc. I believe it was set to run for something like three weeks, but was cut short by the researchers after only a few days because of the cruelties cropping on the part of the guards. Entrance interviews detected nothing abnormally sadistic (on the part of “guards”) or submissive (“prisoners”) but the subjects adopted these qualities to a person once the experiment began. I’m having trouble finding a citation for the experiment, but it’s around here somewhere.
At any rate, I’m not sure if this makes a statement about (1) prisons in general or (2) the US social conception of what a prison should be. Would prisons be more humane if there was less direct power exercised by the guards over the prisoners? Does rearranging power structures to give one person an “absolute” power over another predispose the actor in power towards cruelty, and if so, what rationality is there in wanton cruelty towards other people?
Alan 05.09.04 at 1:04 am
The implication of the article is that the state of the prison in Iraq is a reflection of prison conditions in the USA.
Does anyone have any photographs of prison guards in US prisons pulling prisoners by leads? What about piles of semi-naked prisoners? How about photos of naked American prisoners touching each other’s genitals?
How about naked hooded prisoners accompanied by grinning thumbs-up prison guards? Where are these photographs?
lago 05.09.04 at 2:28 am
I don’t remember prisoners having to wear women’s underwear in Maricopa County. They did institute the “pink boxer” policy for male inmates, but the rules of torture don’t extend to color preference, as far as I know. (Perhaps the NYT is reproducing gender stereotypes for fun and profit?)
If I remember correctly, the county saved tens of thousands of dollars after the switch, as it became easy to see if released prisoners were walking off in their own underwear or the prison-issued kit. Theft prevention, you see.
b. berbert 05.09.04 at 4:35 am
Alan – (Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but to follow your point along a little further) The probability, and more importantly the perception of the probability, of getting caught performing this type of action is significantly higher among guard personel in US prisons than it is among Army reservists in the same capacity in Iraq. Reservists that have been removed from their normal social context, their family, friends, and business, etc. have far fewer social networks to exert positive pressure on them, indeed, the network that they find themselves in (that of a company of army personel) may even exert powerful negative pressures, viz. multiple soldiers engaging in torture. (NB: This is hardly meant as an apology for actions that are clearly indefensible. I’m just trying to clarify what I see as some of the social structures that these actions, and the concurrent recording of these actions, took place in). This does not mean that abuses could not occur here in the US, but it does suggest that the perpetrators would be much more careful to not leave evidence. We should, then, differentiate between the photographs and the actions that they depict. Remember, these atrocities would have occured in Iraq even if they had not been so candidly, and horribly, chronicled.
one of the big brains 05.09.04 at 7:56 am
Sometimes I think that this old world
Is one big prison yard
Some of us are prisoners
Some of us are guards
— Bob Dylan
Contrary to what the President says, this is NOT just a few low-level rogues. And contrary to what the left says, this is NOT just a few more rogues higher up. This will not give people a false impression of America, because THIS IS AMERICA. It’s not ALL that America is, it’s just one aspect — but it’s a true and real aspect.
Yes its an aspect that many of us would want to supress and root out, but that many others would want to encourage — not overtly, but as the natural result of a tough-guy attitude. And the latter faction is in power now.
USA = Mordor. Get used to it.
As far as what this will do the country… my guess is some polarization. Most people will stand by the military no matter what they do. I recall that Lt. Calley was a public hero to most Americans, by a large percentage. Thos of us who are shamed and appalled will be alienated from those of us who are not.
I mean, you can have a conversation with someone about taxes or education policy or about the decision to invade Iraq, or even to a certain extent about abortion. But what can you say to someone to thinks that this sort of stuff is OK and that these people are heroes? Very polarizing.
PS — Hmmmm, good point about what exactly was on Yee’s computer, was it material like this. Guess we’ll never know.
ryuge 05.09.04 at 3:16 pm
The underwear worn by prisoners in Maricopa County Jail in AZ are men’s boxers, and they are indeed pink. The intensity of the “humiliation” seems a bit overstated in light of the fact that these pink boxers are a big selling novelty item outside the prison.
t 05.09.04 at 6:27 pm
dick durata–yee has in fact been forbidden to speak out as a condition of his exoneration, so we won’t be hearing anything from him.
Thomas 05.09.04 at 8:27 pm
This whole thread is largely irrelevant. Of course there are abuses in US prisons–as has been said, that’s an unfortunate part of the process, and must always be countered. (That is, we, don’t live in a perfect world, so bad things will happen when we give control over others to certain individuals, but we must always work to counter that and protect the prisoners.)
But there’s no evidence that the McCotter advised at all on the management of the military prison or on the standards of treatment there. Do not forget that there is a standard Iraqi prison, full of common Iraqi prisoners, that is run side-by-side with the cellblock that was home to these abuses. The abuses didn’t occur in the area that one would expect McCotter to have provided advice to.
And there’s no evidence that the Pentagon’s disinclination to send a Republican Congressman to war has anything to do with wanting to implement illegal policies of abuse and torture. That’s just ridiculous.
And so is almost all of the rest of this.
wcw 05.09.04 at 10:22 pm
“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.
Elizabeth 05.09.04 at 11:17 pm
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.
Phill 05.10.04 at 12:10 am
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.
b. berbert 05.10.04 at 1:13 am
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
Alan 05.10.04 at 1:37 am
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?
b. berbert 05.10.04 at 3:14 am
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.
Alan 05.10.04 at 3:59 am
_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_.
pepi 05.10.04 at 1:59 pm
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.
pepi 05.10.04 at 2:09 pm
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.
pepi 05.10.04 at 2:19 pm
(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 “normalâ€) 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…
pepi 05.10.04 at 9:12 pm
… 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…
elizabeth 05.10.04 at 9:14 pm
“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.
pepi 05.10.04 at 11:14 pm
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 dealâ€.
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.
pepi 05.10.04 at 11:17 pm
Apologies to everyone for not keeping it shorter. Didn’t realize.
pepi 05.10.04 at 11:33 pm
… another perfect instance of the mentality I’m referring to:
http://www.xent.com/pipermail/fork/Week-of-Mon-20040503/030148.html
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.
Comments on this entry are closed.