Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal - Term Paper Example

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal has led to a serious global controversy concerning the ethical implications of physically, mentally, and emotionally abusing the prisoners at the hands of the U.S. military army. After summarizing the Abu Ghraib prison scandal case, the problem with regards to chain of command between the U.S. president and the rest of the U.S. military army together with the legal and ethical conflicts will be tackled in detail. Since the U.S. president has executive power in terms of dictating how the U.S. military army should treat the detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison cell in Iraq, it is difficult to legally punish the U.S. military officials and other parties who are directly and indirectly involved in the Abu Ghraib case. Despite the unethical treatment over the Abu Ghraib detainees, the U.S. court of justice is left with no other choice but to grant absolute immunity to the accused individuals. Table of Contents Abstract ………………………………………………………………………….. 2 Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………… 3 I. Problem Statement ……………………………………………………….. 4 II. Brief Introduction ……………………...…………………………………. 4 III. Summary of the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal Case ……………………….. 4 IV. Ethical and Legal Issues behind the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal ………… 6 V. Discussion ………………………………………………………………… 11 VI. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 12 VII. Future Recommendations …………………………………………………. 12 References ………………………………………………………………………… 14 - 15 Purpose Statement In relation to the controversial issues between ethics and the legal processes in the Abu Ghraib case, the conflicting issues between the U.S. military’s chain of command and the executive power vested on the U.S. president in ruling the U.S. military will be tackled in detail. Going through this study will enable the readers to have a better understanding of why it is difficult to legally punish people who are behind the physical, mental, and sexual abuse of detainees. Brief Introduction In this study, a summary of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal will first be described followed by tackling issues regarding the legal and ethical issues behind the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Eventually, things that I would have done if I am in Abu Ghraib, including the rationale and ethical concerns behind my perceived actions, will be provided in detail. Summary of the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal Case Physical evidences composed of 279 photos and 19 related videos revealed that the Abu Ghraib prison scandal is a serious case that involves cruel physical and psychological abuse such as torture, sodomy, and homicide on prisoners (Benjamin 2009; Scherer and Benjamin 2006). Sexual abuse and humiliation, such as forcing the prisoners to masturbate in public or walk around the correctional facility of Baghdad in Iraq naked, were seen on photos and videos gathered by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division (CID) (Benjamin 2009; Hersh 2007). Several reports revealed that the Abu Ghraib prison scandal was committed by the U.S. military personnel together with other government agencies (OGA) (Benjamin 2009; Hersh 2007; Scherer and Benjamin 2006). Although roughly 44 photos were submitted to the ACLU’s ongoing lawsuit, Benjamin (2009) reported the possibility that some of the photos and videos which could have served as a concrete evidence that the prisoners held as detainee at the Baghdad correctional facility are facing serious physical, psychological, and sexual abuse are kept a secret. America is claiming that it was some of the low-ranking soldiers who committed the cruel acts on detainees (Hersh 2007). Despite America’s claim that it was the low-ranking soldiers who were directly involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, it is still possible that some of these sensitive physical evidences are being kept a secret in order to protect America from being accused of torturing the prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Aiming to reveal the truth behind the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, many government investigations were conducted regarding the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq. In line with this, Retired Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba was exclusively investigated by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command (Benjamin 2009; Hersh 2007). Aside from admitting that he personally saw the Abu Ghraib abuse photos that President Obama is trying to hide, Taguba also reported that he agreed to support the president’s decision to stop the spreading of these photos because of his fear that the safety of the U.S. troops would be threatened (Benjamin 2009). Although there were some people who were describing the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as purely an act of abuse, Taguba revealed that it was torture since he personally saw one of the detainees lying on a wet floor naked, with handcuffs, and with something inserted in his rectum; he also described an act of sexual humiliation of a father with his son who happened to be both prisoners and “a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee” (Hersh 2007). Despite the sensitive issues seen on the video, this particular evidence was kept away from the public audiences, including the court, as concrete physical evidence. In relation to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, a report was also made that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) personnel named Mark Swanner who investigated Manadel al-Jamadi – an Iraqi detainee in Swanner’s custody who died at the hands of the CIA personnel during the investigation process did not report the incident based on what exactly happened to al-Jamadi (Scherer and Benjamin 2006; Hettena 2005; Mayer 2005). Instead of reporting that al-Jamadi was tortured by the CIA personnel during the process of interrogation and the polygraph test, the CIA personnel placed the dead body overnight in a shower room and on a stretcher with I.V. line the next day to avoid facing criminal charges for the death of al-Jamadi (Scherer and Benjamin 2006). Ethical and Legal Issues behind the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal Ethics is the study of the moral duty or conduct of each individual. Considering human actions and the use of reasoning, ethics determine whether a human action is either good or bad. Therefore, moral issues behind ethics should be used as a guide in our personal behavior and conduct (Margalit 2003, p. 37). When judging whether a human action is morally good or bad, conscience plays a significant factor; it enables us to act out good deeds and avoid those that are evil. On the other hand, law is an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good by one who has legitimate authority. In relation to ethics, the authoritative order or the constitutional law behind the treatment of the prisoners and detainees has to be just, honest, and useful to a certain degree of permanency. There is a combined legal and ethical issue behind the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The conflict between Iraq and the United States in relation to the 9/11 bombing incident is a global incident. Similar to the case of Harley v. Schuylkill County et al. (1979) wherein Harley was dragged from his cell and subjected to physical abuse because of his refusal to “stand check”, it remains a fact that the Abu Ghraib prisoners were being tortured and sexually humiliated within the boundaries of the Baghdad correctional facility. This brings up a lot of ethical concerns in relation to human and constitutional rights. In relation to political misjudgments, unjust priorities, and misuse of legal measures, the question as to whether or not the use of torture on Iraqi detainees is justified arises as a result of the post-9/11 incident (Frontline 2005). Under any given situation or circumstances, it is illegal and improper to abuse prisoners physically since such action violates the prisoners’ federal constitutional rights (Harley v. Schuylkill County et al. 1979). The public’s knowledge of the US military staff’s and official’s misbehavior and inappropriate use of their authority within the Abu Ghraib prison cell brings up a long list of ethical issues and inappropriate legal measures. Although the law on prisoners should aim at providing each prisoner and detainee equal justice and fair treatment, some of the US military officials and staff are mistreating the Iraqi prisoners and detainees possibly as a result of their anger and frustration behind the 9/11 bombing incident. Since there are some US military officials and staff who generalized the Iraqi people as terrorists, it becomes a common question whether or not it is ethically and legally justifiable to torture a terrorist? Considering the chain in command among the US military army, who should be made accountable for sexually humiliating and torturing the detainees at the Baghdad correctional facility? As defined by Rosenbloom (2003, p. 3) in her book entitled “Administrative Law for Public Managers: Essentials of Public Policy and Administration”; administrative law is “a body of constitutional provisions, statutes, court decisions, executive orders, and other official directives that: (1) regulate the procedures agencies use in making rules and policies, (2) control the exercise of authority to enforce laws and regulations, and (3) govern the extent to which the administration is open to public scrutiny (i.e. transparency)”. In other words, the U.S. constitution of a nation should be established efficiently, effectively, frugally, and with accurate accountability combined with other basic ethical values such as trustworthiness, honesty, and integrity (Gawthrop 1998, p. 3). In general, the military officials and individuals with authoritative power such as the case of the president have the tendency to over-use their authoritative power in a wrong way. This makes some of them able to inflict physical, mental, and emotional harm to other people. Since the president of the United States has the legal power to control the actions of the military officials and staff, it is very difficult to maintain transparency which is one of the main purposes of the administrative law (Rosenbloom, Administrative Law for Public Managers: Essentials of Public Policy and Administration 2003, p. 3). For this reason, a fair, effective, and efficient legal action should be made to anyone who will be proven misusing their authority over the prison cell detainees. Physical evidences are strictly required by the court to be presented when mitigating a legal case. Therefore, it is unethical to hide physical evidence that can be used in making a person or group of individuals become accountable for their own misbehavior and violation of the law. During the interview with Taguba, he admitted that he personally saw the Abu Ghraib abuse photos that President Obama is now trying to hide (Benjamin 2009; Hersh 2007). He also admitted that he agreed to support the president’s decision to stop the spread of these photos in order to protect the safety of the U.S. troops in Iraq (Benjamin 2009). Considering the ethical principle that the end of an action does not justify the means, Taguba’s decision to cooperate with President Obama for the sake of protecting the safety of the U.S. troops in Iraq is not a sufficient grounds to justify the need to keep the photos as physical evidences behind the act of torturing and abusing detainees inside the prison cell. Taking the statement of Taguba into consideration, it is safe to conclude that there is a thin line that separate the act of hiding concrete evidences which can be use as solid evidence in giving the prisoners who suffered from the arms of the U.S. military personnel justice and the effort of trying to protect the entire nation from possible terrorism. In any cases, giving justice to detainees who suffered physically, psychologically, and sexually should be prioritized in relation to the prison cell law. Taguba’s decision to support hiding the photos makes him an accessory to the crime. Regardless of Taguba’s personal reason for supporting the hiding of these physical evidences, it remains a fact that all detainees at the prison cell who suffered from serious physical and psychological abuse and those individuals who died because of the harsh treatment and torture should be given justice since their human right to live has been violated by the officials who are in-charge of the interrogation process at the prison cell. Likewise, the act of torturing another person strongly violates the principle of beneficence and non-maleficence which aims to encourage people to do what is good and avoid doing harm. The case of al-Jamadi is a good example wherein the prison cell law is weak in terms of providing justice to the victims of torture and maltreatment inside the prison cell. As common knowledge, the death of al-Jamadi was due to torture. Based on the report done by a forensic investigator, al-Jamadi suffered from asphyxiation since a plastic bag that was covered on the face of al-Jamadi made it difficult for him to breathe (Mayer 2005). In line with this, the case of al-Jamadi was classified as homicide (Hettena 2005). A homicide case would normally result out of unnatural causes of death. It means that the cause of a person’s death is due to force and is intentional. The legal problem behind this particular case is that the CIA personnel who had to face a homicide case were eventually given immunity (Mayer 2005). Since there are multiple individuals who should be made accountable for the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, Romzek and Dubnick (1987) explained that it is possible for conflicting expectations regarding whose legitimate concerns will be chosen out of making multiple and diverse group of individuals can be accountable for the crime to occur. In most cases, ethics and legal issues behind a particular case goes hand-in-hand. Since the US follows hierarchical accountability when it comes to its legal system, it is very difficult to ensure that ethical issues in Abu Ghraib prison cell will be resolved. There are problems with integrating the federal administration into a democratic constitutional government in terms of the conflict between the federal judiciary and the Congress especially when it comes to strengthening and shaping its constitutional values (Piotrowski and Rosenbloom 2002; Rosenbloom 2000). Since the executive power is vested on the president of the United States (Rourke 1993), ex-President Bush was in-charge of dictating what the military should do or how they should treat detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. In line with this, Strasser (2004) explained that ex-President Bush had the legal right to allow the military army to inflict harm and humiliating treatment among the Iraqi prisoners. This was the main reason why the incidence and degree of torture within the Abu Ghraib prisoners increases. Despite the seriousness of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, ex-President Bush even rewarded the US military soldiers with words of praise, work promotion and awards such as medals (Bollyn 2004). Because of the conflict of interest between the president and the law, it was very difficult to hold the military and non-military officials who were directly and indirectly responsible for the cruel treatment of the detainees accountable for mistreating the Iraqi prisoners. Since the president was the one who dictated a “special function” among the U.S. military soldiers who were assigned to interrogate the Iraqi detainees, BG Kapinski and her staff were not made responsible despite the fact that they had neglected their duty to make sure that the lower ranking officials and soldiers diligently followed the rules and law in terms of the proper way of interrogating and treating detainees (Taguba 2004). It simply means that in these people, who were supposed to be held liable for this unethical action, were protected from the said liability (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) 1982). Discussion If I am in Abu Ghraib as an official interrogator, I would refrain from torturing the detainees because of the possibility that the informants could have provided a false statement regarding the accusations set on the detainee. I strongly believe that fair treatment and justice should be given to each detainee who was detained at the Abu Ghraib prison cell. Therefore, I would not tolerate inflicting physical and psychological harm to detainees. Because of high rate of false statement made by informants, I find it unjustifiable to torture detainees inside the prison cell because of the fact that almost 95% of the detainees are innocent of the crime they had been accused of (Nowacki 2006). Given that most of the detainees in the prison cell have their own family members to take care of, it is unfair and unethical to make detainees lose their lives criminal acts they had never committed. Following the chain of command is part of being a member of the U.S. military group. However, each individual still have the option to choose between doing actions that are considered morally good or evil. Even though ex-President Bush had given the U.S. military army the authority to inflict pain onto the Iraqi prisoners, I strongly believe that those people who were given authority to rule over the Iraqi prisoners have the freedom to choose what they consider morally right from wrong. Therefore, following the chain of command should not be the basis of whether to grant a military official the benefit of absolute immunity. Conclusion The case of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal involves conflicting expectations regarding whose legitimate concerns will be chosen out of making multiple and diverse groups of individuals accountable for the crime to occur (Romzek and Dubnick 1987). In most cases, the ethics and legal issues behind a particular case should go hand-in-hand. Since the US follows hierarchical accountability when it comes to its legal system, it is very difficult to ensure that the ethical issues in Abu Ghraib prison cell will be resolved. Whether an action is ethical or not, the U.S. president holds the executive power to dictate over the U.S. military troops. Because of the weak hierarchical and legal accountability in the United States, it is difficult to make the U.S. military and government officials and staff who are directly and indirectly involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal liable for their cruel actions against the detainees. This explains why the interrogator(s) of al-Jamadi, Taguba for being accessory to the crime, and BG Kapinski and her staff were not made responsible despite the fact that they were somehow directly or indirectly involved in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Future Recommendations Since the executive power is vested on the U.S. president, significant changes in the constitutional law regarding the limitations behind the use of the presidential power should be included in the U.S. law. This will prevent future incidence wherein the U.S. president would misuse their legal power to inflict harm to other people. Thus, cases wherein the president and other government and non-government officials would decrease in terms of violating the human rights and federal constitutional rights of the prisoners in Iraq. *** End *** References Benjamin, Mark. Taguba denies hes seen abuse photos suppressed by Obama. The general told a U.K. paper about images he saw investigating Abu Ghraib -- not photos Obama wants kept secret. May 30, 2009. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/30/taguba/ (accessed June 17, 2010). Bollyn, Christopher. Who is Behind the Abuse at Abu Ghraib? May 6, 2004. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1784 (accessed June 18, 2010). "Frontline." Is Torture Ever Justified? October 18, 2005. Baghdad correctional facility (accessed June 18, 2010). Gawthrop, L.C. Public Service and Democracy: Ethical Imperatives for the 21st Century. U.S.: Seven Bridges Press, LLC, 1998. Harley v. Schuylkill County et al. 476 F.Supp. 191 (United States District Court, August 23, 1979). Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982). No. 80-945 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 24, 1982). Hersh, Seymour M. "The New Yorker." The Generals Report. How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties. June 25, 2007. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh?printable=true (accessed June 17, 2010). Hettena, Seth. "MSNBC." Reports detail Abu Ghraib prison death; was it torture? Iraqi had been suspended by his handcuffed wrists, guards tell investigators. February 17, 2005. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6988054/ (accessed June 17, 2010). Margalit. 2003. Mayer, Jane. "The New Yorker." A Deadly Interrogation. Can the CIA Legally Kill a Prisoner? November 14, 2005. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/14/051114fa_fact (accessed June 17, 2010). Nowacki, Michael. "Frontline." Frontline Discussion. October 18, 2006. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/talk/ (accessed June 18, 2010). Piotrowski, Suzanne J., and David H. Rosenbloom. "Nonmission-Based Values in Results-Oriented Public Management: The Case of Freedom of Information." Public Administration Review, 2002: Vol. 62, No. 6, pp. 643-657. Romzek, Barbara, and Melvin Dubnick. "Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Challenger Tragedy." Public Administration Review, 1987: Vol. 47, pp. 227-238. Rosenbloom, David H. Administrative Law for Public Managers: Essentials of Public Policy and Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2003. Rosenbloom, David H. "Retrofitting the Administrative State to the Constitution: Congress and the Judiciarys Twentieth-Century Progress." Public Administration Review, 2000: Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 39-46. Rourke, Francis E. "The 1993 John Gaus Lecture: Whose Buraucracy Is This, Anyway? Congress, the President and the Public Administration." PS: Political Science & Politics, 1993: pp. 687-691. Scherer, Michael, and Mark Benjamin. Chapter 5: Abu Ghraib: "Other government agencies". March 14, 2006. http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/chapter_5/index.html (accessed June 16, 2010). Strasser, Steven. The Abu Ghraib Investigations. NY: Public Affairs, 2004. Taguba, A. Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade. 2004. http//www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse.report.pdf (accessed June 18, 2010). Read More