Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

So I have to say that I was throughly horrified by this documentary. It's one thing to read about things like this in the news and another to hear the people involved talk about it. One of the things that was most chilling was how little remorse some of the guards actually felt. I mean, I definitely agree that they were pawns who were used as scapegoats for a situation that was created by higher level officials, but on some level it seems that they still don't understand the gravity of their actions. The one woman kept speaking about feeling "uncomfortable" and this choice of words just seemed discordant with what occurred.

Overall this film paints a pretty damning picture that shows that the administration knew that torture was occurring in this jail. While it may be technically true that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not order the exact types of techniques used by the guards (and even that is hard to believe given the exactness of the methods and the similarity to techniques used in other wars), it is obvious that if you encourage some kinds of torture, others become more accepted. In addition, having untrained guards facilitate these techniques makes the administration culpable for neglect, if not fully responsible for what occurred there. Again, this just highlights the overall lack of planning that went into the Iraq war.

This film is applicable to class because it highlights to ease with which people are influenced by their situation and normative cues. Once the other guards saw Graner being thanked for his service, they felt that this was the military condoning their actions. This is similar in the Stanford Prison experiment. No one kept the guards in check, so they continued to treat the prisoners badly. Sometimes when I was reading the webpage I was unsure if the author (who I assume was a graduate student working with the project) was overseeing the project or a guard himself. He talked about the "jail" as if it were real and clearly fell into a role himself. It is amazing that so many people, including parents, priests, lawyers, police and other students just went along with this experiment as long as they did! I mean, these people just volunteered for what they thought was a simple experiment and were subjected to psychological torture and no one seemed to find a flaw with this! It wasn't until the PhD graduate spoke up that the experiment ended (from what Dr. C said in class I was under the impression that one of the guards had spoken out, but in actuality it was an outsider visiting the experiment).

I think this experiment, and Abu Ghraib, have extreme implications for those of us who want to create policy. On the ground, it means that people can't always be considered rational actors. Policy makers must take group mentality and group dynamics into consideration when attempting to ameliorate harm. Clearly having strong oversight and a review board are important for any kind of prison system. Also, the soldiers in Abu Ghraid consistently said that they had no idea what they rules were, so it is clear that these need to be more accessible. Having said that, it doesn't seem as if the military has any incentive to do this. The insular system where troops are tried by military tribunals means that the military isn't beholden to outside rules. Even the "amnesty boxes" that were placed out in Abu Ghraib after the picture scandal erupted speaks to this atmosphere of protecting one's own (I would have liked to have known more details about what these boxes were). As the one soldier said, no one would have done anything if pictures weren't involved.

On the other hand, this mentality speaks to the in-group perspective of both militaries and governments as well. Foreign citizens are seen as "others" who are not to be trusted. Because of the location of their birth, they are seen as less than us, and their lives are automatically not as important. Differences are magnified for political gain and nationalism blinds us to the similarities we all share as humans. I'm not quite sure how policy can change as long as this mentality remains pervasive in both politics and the military.

One final note...I found this article interesting in light of the documentary and the Stanford experiment. Apparently people in California were more likely to cut down their energy consumption if they knew how much they used in reference to their neighbors. Also, the usage of smiley faces and sad faces could nudge them to use more or less electricity. While I don't agree with the article's absurd suggestion of global warming jewelry, the idea that people can be motivated to save energy if faced with a norm of conservation can be highly useful for policy makers attempting to reduce individuals carbon footprint.