I just saw the BBC broadcast (link is to print story; click on “Video” to watch the broadcast) on the abuse of prisoners by a few U.S. soldiers. The soldiers who carried out such degrading treatment are a disgrace and have tarnished the reputations of the U.S. military and of the U.S. itself. They deserve whatever punishment can be meted out under law.
The fact that they are being prosecuted is not evidence against what I had written below, but evidence for it:
“I should point out, as well, that the U.S. armed forces and their allies (the British, the Poles, the Italians, the Bulgarians, the Australians, the Danes, the Estonians, and all the rest) are perhaps the most law-governed military force ever fielded. The careful attention to matters of military law and the great efforts to limit harm to noncombatants are truly remarkable in the history of modern warfare. To point that out is not to justify the initiation of the war (it would be absurd to justify a foolish war because it was waged within legal and moral constraints), but it should be understood and acknowledged.”
Monitoring and controlling the behavior of large numbers of people is difricult, which is why the military spends so much time on training, team-building, instruction, and protocols. When that fails, they resort to law. It obviously failed in the case of those who carried out the degradation of prisoners, but the punishments they’re likely to get will make the message much more clear to anyone else who might think that that sort of behavior would be appropriate.
It’s a general truth that law-governed institutions often appear in the media in a worse light than those that are lawless, precisely because cases of bad behavior are brought to light under the former and not under the latter. Just as reporters covering China are now reporting on industrial accidents more and thereby giving the impression that Chinese working conditions are worse than they were under communism (because under communism there were no statistics and no coverage regarding such accidents, so it is implicitly assumed that they didn’t happen), lawless military regimes don’t document abusive behavior or prosecute it, so there’s no evidence that it happened.
I’m sure you’ll disagree, but I think the behavior of the soldiers was completely normal under the circumstances.
Just think about what happened with the Stanford Prison Experiment in ’71. Ordinary young men (selected at random and screened for no history of drug use or mental illness) turned into complete monsters when put in positions of authority over “prisoners.”
Let’s put the blame where it belongs. Brass is responsible for not implementing measures to compensate for this type of behavior, not the soldiers.
I’m not sure I do disagree. I didn’t say that such behavior was abnormal; I said it was a disgrace. Normal procedures failed, which is why the system must now resort to legal punishment. The soldiers who carried out the abuse should be punished and the procedures that failed should be reexamined. But it’s not clear that the chain of command, above those who were aware of the behavior, should be punished. Remember that no procedure can stop all bad behavior. It’s not clear that this is an indictment of the whole system, just as finding a dishonest judge and convicting him (or her) is not an indictment of the rule of law, but its vindication. Normal steps to ensure honest behavior failed, so you go to the next step, which is legal punishment.
As a disclaimer, I agree with this post.
But the soldiers at the Boston Massacre deserved a zealous legal defense, and these soldiers do as well.
If I were the soldiers’ attorney, I would argue first that these soldiers had been witness to dozens, if not hundreds, of their friends’ deaths at the hands of these people. Second, there could be an element of intelligence gathering inherent in the treatment. Third, when in the heat of battle, it must be terribly difficult to restrain oneself. Fourth, (because the jury will likely be comprised of fellow soldiers), if humiliation is the worst of the treatment, then in the “totality of the circumstances” it isn’t that bad. Further, it is a stretch to say that these prisoners deserve the protection of the very rule of law that they are trying to thwart.
Are any of these affirmative defenses? Certainly not. But they might be mitigating factors, and those of us without combat experience might keep them in mind.
You believe that “normal procedures failed” and the system must now resort to legal punishment. What were those procedures? One of the soldiers involved said that “We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things… like rules and regulations.” He went on to say that he wasn’t even given a copy of Geneva Convention regulations until after he was charged.
Military leadership should have **assumed** this kind of thing would likely happen in the absence of strong mechanisms to prevent it. It was **their** failure. and they should assume culpability.
It’s starting to look like the failure went a step or two above the soldiers who carried out the illegal humiliation of prisoners. Someone was supposed to be supervising them. So in that respect P.J. is certainly right. On the other hand, do you have to be handed the text of the Geneva Conventions to know that you shouldn’t force light sticks into the anuses of prisoners? Or degrade and humiliate them by posing them in sexual positions and photographing them? I think that the answers to those questions are easy. The answer to the the question of how high up the chain responsibility should be carried is not so easy, and will require a judicial process.
Greg is also right to insist on a presumption of innocence in individual cases and due process of law.
The publicity about these abuses will be used to attack the U.S. and to inflame world opinion. It is a law-governed society — and a law-governed military — that allows that to happen.
No offense, but you are both nuts.
Those guys were cowards. When caught, a coward will first claim ignorance and stupidity, then try to blame someone else. Exactly what these soldiers are trying to do.
They were not simpletons placed inside an experiment to deduce whatever the researcher was trying to prove. They had orders and they failed to follow them. EVERY member of EVERY branch of the military has 11 General Orders to memorize in boot camp. These are drilled into your head until it hurts ‘ both physically and mentally. I still remember them – 18 years after boot camp:
1. To take charge of this post and all government property in view.
2. To walk my post in a military manner, keeping always on the alert and observing everything which takes place within sight or hearing.
3. To report all violations of orders I am instructed to enforce.
4. To repeat all calls from posts more distant from the guard house than my own.
5. To quit my post only when properly relieved.
6. To receive, obey, and pass on to the sentry who relieves me, all orders from the Commanding Officer, the Officer of the Day, and all officers and non-commissioned officers.
7. To talk to no one except in the line of duty.
8. To give the alarm in case of fire or disorder.
9. To call the Chief of the Day in any case not covered by instructions.
10. To salute all officers and all colors and standards not cased.
11. To be especially watchful at night and, during the time for challenging, to challenge all persons on or near my post, and to allow no one to pass without proper authority.
Those soldiers failed in every way possible. They failed as NCOs, to maintain basic standards of military order and discipline, they failed as soldiers to follow the General Orders, they failed as human beings, to afford even the slightest bit of dignity and respect to those placed under their care.
I am quite certain that I don’t need Geneva Convention training to know that attaching electrodes to a prisoner is wrong. I don’t think the Geneva Convention specifically mentions ‘naked human pyramids’ anywhere. I doubt the writers/signers of the convention even considered making a rule against forcing prisoners to perform oral sex on each other.
It’s hard to see how the “no offense…” disclaimer stops the remark being offensive. Regardless, Chris doesn’t even seem to indicate any disagreement with me or P.J. Chris received extensive training that stuck with him. In his case, it made the proper impression. It evidently didn’t stick with the soldiers who tormented and humiliated their prisoners. What was needed and lacking was the supervision to ensure that proper procedures were followed. And what seems to be necessary now is proper punishment for failing to act in the appropriate manner.
Tom,
The “no offense” is my clumsy way of trying to tell two people that are obviously way smarter than me that I think they are off base. I’m not the most eloquent man…actually, I’m pretty much a central Pennsylvania hick. So, if I did offend you, I apologize. If I offend you in the future, please, cut me some slack. My lack of eloquence does not indicate an intent to offend. After six years in the Navy, if I want to offend someone, trust me, I’ve got the vocabulary to do it.
Now, the point I was trying to make:
I don’t think you can hold the chain of command responsible in this case. Those general orders are meant to ensure that in the case of insufficient supervision, there is a basic set of rules to be followed.
The military is rife with opportunity for insufficient supervision. I was in that position personally on several occasions. This isn’t a training issue, it isn’t a supervision issue, it isn’t a failure of command. It is a group of sick, sadistic, twisted individuals acting in a lawless manner because they thought they could get away with it. The fact that the pictures even exist tells me they were doing it for fun.
You can’t hold other people responsible when someone’s personal morals break down. What we can complain about is the fact that it wasn’t discovered in a timely manner. But that is hardly a punishable offense. Bad management and poor performance of duty, but not something to send a commander to jail for.
As for the presumption of innocence, it doesn’t really exist in the military. I freely gave up many of my constitutional rights when I entered the service. So did they. The military is dictatorial and commanders have vast discretion in passing out charges and punishments. Court Martial is actually a way of passing the buck and giving someone a chance to explain themselves. The military is being nice in this case. A general could hold a non-judicial punishment hearing and within an hour take all rank, rating, pay for a period of time and incarcerate each of them for a period of time too. I don’t know the exact numbers, as the amount of leeway is based upon rank, but a general could put the hurt on them in a big way.
Drum head trials are an effective means of command and control in the field.
Chris-
There’s a pretty significant amount of penal literature from the last 30 years or so that would lead any reasonable person to **EXPECT** this outcome given the parameters of the situation.
Watch the Stanford Prison Experiment video and you’ll see what I mean. You can order a copy here:
http://www.prisonexp.org/
Chris — no offense taken.
I find myself taking roughly the middle ground between P.J. and Chris. With Chris, I’m appalled that anyone could think that the behavior we’ve seen documented in photos was appropriate. But I also know that people can do really awful things when they have power over others and that rules, procedures, and proper supervision help to prevent that. That doesn’t absolve the soldiers of their own responsibility, but it means that the people who were supervising them also failed in fulfilling their responsibilites. Punishment in accordance with rules of procedure and proportional justice is merited. In addition to being a shocking abuse of power, the behavior we’ve seen documented has caused immeasurable damage to the prospects of an orderly transition in Iraq and has put the lives of coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians at great risk.
Great interview on CNN today about this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/03/ritz.cnna/
I remind all of you in eye shot of this comment, that America was founded on abuse. America was founded on abuse to the people who they are abusing right now. People on the African continent. Americans are and have always been jealous of the continent that God put these people on. They are jealous that all that human and natural resources were not put on the white contients. they are jealous that they have to take every thing they need to survive from the dark contients of the world. they hate God for not giving them the beatiful non-aging skin, the gold mines, the diamond mines, the oil reserves under each step of Africa feet, and so they take it out on the so call third world, when in reality those people are the first world, they were here first and they after all the murdering amd slaughtering of them they will be the last man standing, in this world and the next world before God, because that is how God meant it to be. Ameica abused the blacks and still is, I can fill up a dictionary with just the sick abuse i as one person researched on white people abusing helpless people. I know if it was all written down in one book it would atake a good reader 2 to 3 years to read it all. and so the saga continues white people always abusing the helpless and calling them terrorists if they try and defend themselves. remember runaway slaves were terrorists once too. Martin L.King was a terrorist, the list goes on and on. but i am waiting on God to bring justice and when Jesus returns with those ten thousand angels and that burning two edge sword,all abused people will see victory. I for one just wish God would blow America and all these greedy whites into enough tiny bits to cover ten thousand gallaxies!!
The thing is people have a sick nature to abuse anyone. That is why abusive people need to seek help because is unnatural to want to abuse, even when in a fight aganist someone. The need to abuse originated with satan the devil and the bible says he is in all of us, this is why blacks are found in instances to abuse too, not just whites. It is wrong for some to put only whites in a catagory of a sick and abusive DNA when the bible says the whole world is laying in the hands of the wicked one.