[I noticed that this was not posted last week. Fortunately, I had it saved]
(I always assumed being at Stanford resembled something like this.)
Stanford is not a war in Iraq. The differences are easily identified. However, generalizing a bit helps. The lesson appears to be akin to "character roles are good for establishing the ground rules, but roles are easily co-opted unless a director molds and shapes the performance." However, at Stanford, the researches could have easily stepped in at any time and simply said, "these are peers and this is an experiment." Little shots of reality often have great impact as anyone who has bickered with a class project group member could attest.
Abu Ghraib appears to have been a headless chicken. When soldiers are expected to only follow orders, with minimal reflection, what do they do when leadership fails to give orders or reign in unwanted behavior? Graner was given commendation of sorts on the "intelligence" he produced from interrogations, much as the Stanford guards were encouraged to enforce humility in the prisoners.
What really strikes me though, is the thought that any Colonel could have changed the priorities from information to humanity. When information is obtained at the expense of the humanity of all individuals involved, perhaps the info isn't worth the effort. When the inhumanity became int'l news, the priorities changed rapidly (maybe?). As my mother has told me, "don't do anything you wouldn't want your wife to know about."
The situation in Abu Ghraib (AG) was perhaps more psychologically intense than a sterile lab in California, but soldiers are trained to act as professionals. Part of that means following orders, ensuring the safety of your peers, and upholding the ideals of one's homeland. Unfortunately, popular sentiment may actually have been on Graner's side, until the public had a chance to reflect and reconsider.
Policy choices for avoiding AG-like events in the future? 1) explicitly make the chain of command responsible for failures to maintain discipline and obedience, especially when a war crime has occurred where the superior should have known of the actions. 2) Ensure that soldiers are protected by whistleblowing acts for grave crimes. Give an incentive of money or promotion or a medal for those who inform superiors, whether or not superiors act on the info.
That's all for now.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Not okay.
Torture is. I can accept it, without agreeing with the act. But, what I can't accept is the thought that this only confirms what we expected all along. That is, we all knew they were torturing prisoners in Gitmo and probably at prison facilities in Iraq. BUT, it needn't have been this way. We should not accept torture. And we should not give our military or OUR administration the ability to get away with it. "We are protecting you, " goes the line. At what point do we protect ourselves? That's why they support the NRA, right?
No, my real argument is this: people who do wrong are guilty of the crime. People who know about the crime and impede the discovery of it are guilty of obstruction of justice. People who agree to commit a crime are guilty of conspiracy. People who deny the crime after it occurs simply rob us of a learning experience and the ability to effectively change behavior. Thus, this last set are more directly responsible for the continuation or repetition of the crime, long after the original behavior has ceased. What is not okay, is that torture has not been made "not okay."
No, my real argument is this: people who do wrong are guilty of the crime. People who know about the crime and impede the discovery of it are guilty of obstruction of justice. People who agree to commit a crime are guilty of conspiracy. People who deny the crime after it occurs simply rob us of a learning experience and the ability to effectively change behavior. Thus, this last set are more directly responsible for the continuation or repetition of the crime, long after the original behavior has ceased. What is not okay, is that torture has not been made "not okay."
Im(m|p)ugnity
A new "documentary is due late in April, "Standard Operating Procedure". It is another look, perhaps dramatized, of Abu Grhaib. It looks as if it rehashes some of the interviews with the PFCs who were there.
Nevermind the new, however, let's talk about Ghosts. Spc. Sabrina Harman, although convicted for her role, was obtained the photographic evidence that culminated in trials and "justice." The question remains, however, is where are all the other photos? As disturbing as the entire matter may be, the really horrible aspect is that most of the military members present might actually have had or seen photos/videos of torture. And then... poof, the pictures get deleted and lost.
Recent evidence of the CIA destruction of torture videos in Gitmo, with evidence that the military willfully destroyed evidence that would incriminate soldiers, suggests that the name of the new movie, "Standard Operating Procedure" may not be too far off the mark. When can we nail people for this aspect alone? 'Sure, the evidence is gone, but we know there was evidence, so we've got you on destruction of evidence.' This is the grave crime, is it not? That someone did wrong, we can accept and get over with some simple punishments, but that they did wrong, knew they did wrong, and then refused to accept the wrong, and tried to avoid punishment - it seems more damning , especially when the image of the U.S. is so marred in the process. If we are so lawful a country, and yet we accept that some people can escape punitive justice by simply denying the crime, doesn't that impugn all of us?
Nevermind the new, however, let's talk about Ghosts. Spc. Sabrina Harman, although convicted for her role, was obtained the photographic evidence that culminated in trials and "justice." The question remains, however, is where are all the other photos? As disturbing as the entire matter may be, the really horrible aspect is that most of the military members present might actually have had or seen photos/videos of torture. And then... poof, the pictures get deleted and lost.
Recent evidence of the CIA destruction of torture videos in Gitmo, with evidence that the military willfully destroyed evidence that would incriminate soldiers, suggests that the name of the new movie, "Standard Operating Procedure" may not be too far off the mark. When can we nail people for this aspect alone? 'Sure, the evidence is gone, but we know there was evidence, so we've got you on destruction of evidence.' This is the grave crime, is it not? That someone did wrong, we can accept and get over with some simple punishments, but that they did wrong, knew they did wrong, and then refused to accept the wrong, and tried to avoid punishment - it seems more damning , especially when the image of the U.S. is so marred in the process. If we are so lawful a country, and yet we accept that some people can escape punitive justice by simply denying the crime, doesn't that impugn all of us?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
