One thing that keeps bothering me is the argument about whether or not the handful of "bad eggs" are the only ones responsible for the abuses at Abu-Ghraib. Thousands of images have surfaced, but that does not mean that thousands were abused (I'm trying to say "abused" instead of "tortured" as I'm really trying to be calm while I discuss this) since some of the victims could have been in multiple pictures. It also doesn't necessarily mean that others were directly involved in the abuses (unless the images include more authority figures than the handful being prosecuted). However, I think that the circumstances don't allow for a credible defense of the idea that that handful is solely responsible for everything that happened.
Let me present different scenarios. I doubt that any of these are accurate and that the truth is somewhere between these extremes. However, I cannot imagine a scenario which does not lead to the conclusion that others share responsibility.
First, imagine that the handful are the sole perpetrators of this abuse. They acted on their own, without the knowledge or approval of anyone else. They were so arrogant that they photographed or videoed every single abusive action that they perpetrated, documentary evidence which the authorities have now somehow acquired. These abusers repeatedly pulled prisoners away from where prying eyes could see, abused their victims while carefully documenting the abuses for their own later enjoyment, and then returned the prisoners to their routine incarcerations.
The unlikely possibility that the abusers were so incredibly clever that they were able to carry out these abuses without being detected beggars the imagination. Research has shown that when people are put into captor/captive relationships there is a very strong tendancy for the guards to become extremely authoritarian and the prisoners to become uncooperative. To believe that the abusers responded in a predictable way when unobserved while maintaining a proper, professional appearance at other times just doesn't make sense.
Furthermore, why would anyone think that the images that have surfaced constitute the totality of abuses? For the sake of this hypothetical scenario I suggested that the abusers recorded all of their abuses so that we can believe that we are fully aware of the extent of the abuse and that we have fully resolved it. This is so unlikely as to be laughable.
For this to have gone undetected for so many months, especially with organizations like the IRC and Amnesty International reporting that abuse was taking place, is an indication that the administrators of Abu-Ghraib were negligent in their duty for allowing such unmonitored activities and for not responding when complaints were voiced. This is the minimum culpability I can imagine for those in authority over the guards and prisoners at Abu-Ghraib, and it is so far fetched that it is only in this context of conjecture that I can even talk about this possibility.
Let us imagine a second scenario. Again, in this set up we have every single act of abuse documented. However, this time this documentation was not done out of a perverse desire for recording gleeful abuse. Instead, in this scenario the abuses are documented because of strict guidelines about who should be abused, how the abuse should be done, and the need for careful documentation to demonstrate that the abuse was carried out according to the rules.
In the best case of this scenario we can imagine that at all other times the prisoners were treated appropriately and it was only during "abcess" (instead of recreational recess time, this would be abusive abcess time) that any abuse occurred. Again, the likelyhood of this scenario is extremely slim. I think it has a greater chance of actually happening in some situation than the first scenario I presented because it at least provides a rationale for the extensive documentation and has the advantage of assuring that only authorized abuse occurred, with no tolerance for freelance abuse. This possibility also helps to explain how so many images were so quickly assembled for presentation before Congress once investigations were begun.
However, with this scenario the culpability of the prison authorities rises dramatically. Not only were they aware of the abuse (again, in this hypothetical scenario), they approved and directed the abuse. I very much doubt that this scenario reflects the reality of Abu-Ghraib, but I present it in an attempt to demonstrate a possible way that this abusive situation could be considered as fully understood with little likelyhood that there were abuses which have gone undetected.
I think that the likeliest scenario is somewhere in between the two extremes I have presented. I suspect that the abuse is much more widespread than the documented abuses as shown in the images which have been found. I suspect that many more people were involved. I suspect that these abuses were part of an overall environment where the prisoners were rarely accorded any respect or consideration. I suspect that the abuse was at least tolerated by at least some of the administrators of the prison. I imagine there were some in the administrative structure who were genuinely ignorant of the abuses taking place, but I think that the entire administration is guilty of negligence in their oversite at a minimum, ranging on up to complicity in an organized campaign of abuse.
I take no joy in this analysis. I believe this is one of the likely consequences of going to war. The abuses suffered by the prisoners and the psychological damage suffered by the guards by participating in the abuse will have ramifications for years to come, in the personal lives of those involved at least and likely in the larger context of the military, governments, and the global community.
Posted by JoKeR at June 16, 2004 12:17 PM | TrackBack