The Abu Ghraib Controversy
Source: Jasbir K. Puar, ‘On Torture: Abu Ghraib’ Radical History Review, Issue 93 (2005), p. 20
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Abu Ghraib
Abu
Ghraib was one of Saddam Hussein’s most infamous torture chambers, now under
the control of the United States Armed Forces.
Abu Ghraib was the prison where interrogation took place, as part of the
‘War on Terror’.
In
2003, as part of a ‘spot check’ of the gaol, The Red Cross observed the
isolation wing of the prison, and saw the various methods used in order to gain
information and compliance from the prisoners.
The Red Cross saw that prisoners were subjected to empty concrete cells
in total darkness, with no clothing or bedding for their comfort or
health. When officials were asked for an
explanation of these activities, they replied that it was part of the process[1]. Later on, an army officer who had served in
Iraq stated that rather than address these concerns regarding prisoner abuse,
the Army instead tried to limit the amount of spot inspections on the gaol,
stating that they should make appointments when they wished to visit.
In
2004, the first photos detailing the treatment of Iraqi prisoners were released
on CBS TV’s 60 Minutes II[2].
[1] Mark Danner (2004) ‘Torture and
Death’ Abu Ghraib: the politics of
torture, California: North Atlantic Books, p. 11
[2] ‘Senate Report Update’ 60 Minutes II, 2004, http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4674645n&tag=mncol;lst;5 (Accessed: 05/06/2012)
Legal findings regarding Abu Ghraib and the official response
When
the images surfaced, President George W. Bush was quoted as saying “Their [the
prisoners] treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people.” None of the high ranked White House
officials, or the President talked of the abuses as ‘torture’ instead calling
them ‘abuse’ or ‘humiliation’[1].
Source: Michael Niman, 'Strange Fruit in Abu Ghraib: the privatisation of Torture', The Humanist, 2004, vol. 64(4), p. 23
In
addition to this, there were those who defended the actions of the soldiers
from a ‘this is war’ standpoint. Rush
Limbaugh, a radio show host infamously stated that the soldiers did what they
did as an ‘emotional release’.
“…I’m talking about people having a
good time, these people. You ever hear
of emotional release?”[2]
In
the report written by Antonio M. Taguba, the 800th Military Police
Brigade was investigated. A list was
provided of what ‘abuses’ were common in the prison. The table below lists them.
Source: The Taguba Report, http://www.npr.org/iraq/2004/prison_abuse_report.pdf (Accessed 05/06/2012).
The
report
calls these abuses, ‘sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses’. This highlights the illegality of the
techniques these American soldiers used to interrogate Iraqi prisoners. Some of these abuses were present in the
images that were released such as the Iraqi prisoner being led by a soldier
with a dog leash and collar. Others have
not been seen. In Australia, there has
been very little mention of the instances of abuse of the female prisoners and
there was minimal mention of the photographs in which soldiers give the ‘thumbs
up’ sign to the camera over the deceased body of the Iraqi prisoner below them. Puar (2005) states that there was no
reporting on female rape, was because it was neither ‘news nor
photograph-worthy’[3].
In
the following years, those responsible at the ‘on the ground’ level of the
abuse of Iraqi prisoners were disciplined.
They included staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick II, Specialist Charles A.
Graner, Sergeant Javal Davis, Specialist Megan Ambuhl, Specialist Sabrina
Harmna and Jeremy Sivits. However, there has been minimal investigation into the high ranked officials within the armed forces at Abu Ghraib.
What is Torture? And how does Abu Ghraib stand up?
In
her article ‘Regarding the Torture of Others’, Susan Sontag quotes the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment to which the United States is
a signatory.
The Convention
states that torture is,
In
addition to this, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 state that,
Not
only do these quotes highlight that the abuses of Iraqi Prisoners in Abu Ghraib
were in fact torture, but it also highlights the flaw in Alan Dershowitz’s
argument in which he states that a ‘ticking time bomb’ argument could justify
the use of torture, as a method of choosing the lesser evil[1]. He uses the example of the suffering of one
‘insurgent’ to save the lives of many innocent people from an imminent threat[2].
However,
there is also the practice of rendition.
Arimatsu (2005) defines rendition as the ‘the transfer of someone
suspected of committing a serious terrorism-related offence, to a foreign state
that has a record of subjecting prisoners to torture and cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment.’ This is where the
line of torture gets further blurred.
The United States Government has come under fire previously for using
gaols and their staff from countries where torture is almost guaranteed in
response to the ‘international’ fight against terrorism[3]. While the United States Government considers
themselves not directly responsible
for these instances of torture, should they be held accountable? And if they are already engaging in this
activities, is it such a leap to consider that the high level officials in the
military and in the White House were well aware of the torture in Abu Ghraib?
Source: Mark Danner (2004) ‘Torture and Death’ Abu Ghraib: the politics of torture, California: North Atlantic Books, p. viii
[1] John T. Parry, ‘Torture Warrants and
the Rule of Law’, Albany Law Review 2007,
p. 885
[2] Alan Dershowitz, ‘Is There a
Torturous Road to Justice?’, Los Angeles
Times, Nov. 8th 2001, http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/08/local/me-1494 (Accessed: 05/06/2012)
[3] Louise, Arimatsu, ‘International
Law, Torture and the Transfer of Suspects’, The
World Today, Vol. 61(11) 2005, p.17
Susan Sontag - 'Regarding the Torture of Others'
As
has been mentioned before, Susan Sontag, in her paper ‘Regarding the Torture of
Others’ raises the concern not that a few people thought that these actions
were appropriate, but the concern regarding whether these actions were
systemised or condoned.
Sontag
highlights that in 2002 the United States Government made any members or
supporters of Al Qaeda were considered criminals, and therefore they were not
protected by the Geneva Conventions – something that Donald Rumsfeld, the then
Secretary of defence pointed out. She
compares the images of the abuse to the photos of lynching in the late 19th
Century and the early 20th Century.
The images are similar in that the both portray the suffering of people
considered beneath the inflictors of the abuse.
Both show the perpetrators as smiling, content, proud characters, and
are considered ‘trophy pieces’.
Finally,
Sontag challenges Bush’s statement that the torture these prisoners suffered
was not in the nature of Americans. She
simplifies the process to that of having fun as these images were intended to
be sent to others and ‘enjoyed’ as a sense of entertainment. She uses examples of violent video games that
mimic war. This teaching that war is
fun, and anything must be done in order to win, has, in Sontag’s words
heightened the ‘delight taken in violence’[1].
Monday, 4 June 2012
Abu Ghraib, the Media and the Government
When
the images of abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib surfaced, the
initial response of the media was outrage.
However, there have been elements that have not been reported on. For example, not all of the photos are
available to the everyday citizen, and many of the photos that have been
released, only involve male prisoners, and very little is mentioned regarding
the treatment of female and child prisoners.
There has also been a huge amount of media on each of the soldiers who were in the photos, as many considered these 'just the actions of a few'. One of these is the film 'Standard Operating Procedure'
There
is also no mention that the United States Government hires contractors in order
to interrogate these suspects. As
mentioned before, the Government considers insurgent suspects as criminals and
therefore they no longer treated under the Geneva conventions. In addition to this, by using people that are
external to the Government to interrogate prisoners, these contractors are not
bound by the Geneva Conventions either[1]. If both these actions were considered, it
seems hard to believe that the United States Government in no way intended on
using torture on the Iraqi prisoners and it was, in fact just the acts of a few
bad apples.
Source: policalcartoons.com
Additionally,
in the Australian media, there was little reporting regarding the opinions of
those who had been mistreated, and the opinions of those who had worked within
the gaol at the time. For example,
certain coalition military officers have states that they estimate “between 70
and 90 percent of the persons deprived of their liberty in Iraq had been
arrested by mistake[2].” This highlights an entirely different level
of concern for the chain of command in Iraq and Afghanistan. Somehow, people are being arrested with no
evidence that they are in fact guilty of anything, or worthy of suspect.
When
considering the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, there should be more
thought for what isn’t shown in the
media rather than what is. After all,
the media has their own motives inspired by the bottom line and entertainment
values of their product.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)