Is it the End of the Abu Ghraib Scandal?

In the end both Charles Graner and Lynndie England served prison terms. While Lynndie only served eighteen months, Graner  served a prison term of  six and a half years. Lynndie, who became pregnant while at Abu Ghraib, now has a child by Charles Graner. Graner, however, married fellow soldier at Abu Ghraib, Megan Ambuhl.

Charles Graner has a long history of abusing other human beings. Reports of razor blades placed in friends’ food, beating his ex-wife, and beating prisoners in a US facility seem to be his MO. His ability to induce someone like Lynndie to abuse the prisoners at Abu Ghraib is not uncommon. Graner is a likely candidate for a particular placement by his superiors to Abu Ghraib precisely because of his sociopathic past actions. If Rumsfeld and Miller wanted such interrogation tactics to begin, they would need willing soldiers besides the compliant sorts of Lynndie England. They needed a ring leader, who was not particularly conscientious of what constitutes human dignity and goodness. 

Factor in that war is hell and they were placed in a facility that previously implemented hellish torture on prisoners rounded up under orders of Saddam Hussein and the factor of absent leadership to reel in such chaotic behavior, one has the makings of a madhouse. Close proximity of the prisoners and guards without relief or guidance exasperated the situation. A complete objectification and utilitarian sadistic mindset may exist in Graner, except for the statement he apparently made about his beginning trepidation when first encountering the abuse. Lynndie, psychologically, does not have the strong desire for power but does have the capacity for being seduced into acts, maybe she otherwise, if left to her own devices, would not have done. No one knows for sure. Having been imprisoned themselves, was justice served?

Neither may be able to find employment in the near future. They both have records and both are internationally known. There are those “others” that were involved in a more high ranking level who are either lucratively employed or enjoying life long pensions from federal monies.(the tax paying citizen).

The scandal continues and will continue as long as we are willing, as voting citizens, to allow our government, our private contractors, and law system to continue on their merry way down some other insidious path without moral direction. We have set the path to allow Rome to burn with only a few diligently standing by with buckets of water.

Senate Armed Services Committee Report on the Treatment of Detainees

The Senate Armed Services Committee Report on the Treatment of Detainees did not come out until 2008; five years after the abuses at Abu Ghraib occurred. The report was assembled by the Armed Services Committee, which held an eighteen month investigation of Abu Ghraib and those involved who promoted the abuse. This Senate committee has legislative oversight and is a powerhouse itself. Carl Levin, democratic senator from Michigan, headed the inquiry.

One particular discovery made during the investigations was the use of SERE techniques. SERE stands for Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape. It was a training series for US soldiers to undergo in case they were captured by an enemy and became prisoners of war (POW). It is interesting to note that there was a psychologist present during the trainings for US soldiers who might take the form of teaching to a psychological internal level.  

"During SERE training, U.S. troops --- in a controlled environment with great protections and caution --- are exposed to harsh techniques such as stress positions, forced nudity, use of fear, sleep deprivation, and until recently, the waterboard. The SERE techniques were never intended to be used against detainees in U.S. custody.” 

SERE was first used by US interrogators at Guantanamo where prisoners, who were suspected of terroristic acts,  were subjected to SERE procedures. These interrogative techniques were cruel according to General Alberto Mora and needed to cease immediately. He thought they had but Rumsfeld secretly sent memos and promoted SERE usage on suspected terrorists, although the report states that other divisions in the military clearly had concerns with this measure and were concerned that it would violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 

Rumsfeld and Miller were actually the ones to promote SERE procedures to be used on Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib. Cheney, Bush, and Sanchez tooted the use of more useful interrogation techniques, even going as far, as to call the Geneva Convention “quaint”. However, Levin found out from a senior intelligence officer in Afghanistan that such procedures are counterproductive and do not produce more information, but less. Because al Qaeda has been told to expect torture, they are more apt at not revealing pertinent intel. The abuse which occurred at Abu Ghraib angered fellow Islamists and numbers in the taliban increased to fight the Americans.

The Messenger Remains the Unsung Hero

Major General Antonio Taguba was assigned to investigate Abu Ghraib in Iraq by General Sanchez. He also visited two other prisons housing suspected terrorists in Iraq. Only Abu Ghraib was listed as a facility abusing prisoners to such an extent that Taguba would claim the MP’s within the prison showed: “Lack of discipline, no training whatsoever and a lack of leadership presence.” 

The messenger is rarely ever praised. Most of the time he is ignored, humiliated, or exiled.(Plato’s cave)  Taguba's mindset of morality became a light for those encased in the hell of Abu Ghraib. Some leaders and congressional listeners would crawl out of the Miller slime invested hole and stand strong with Taguba during the investigation. Will he remain an unsung hero, whose voice still is championing for the underdog even in retirement? Probably so. 

Those who do the right thing for the right reason do not need the pat on the back from the like’s of Rumsfeld, Miller, or administrations. They hold to core principles that promote the dignity of the human person and lift up those that cannot speak for themselves. This was the American soldier the world respected and admired at one time. WWll saw GI’s giving out chocolate bars to German prisoners. A human connection was still present even in times of war. Those GI’s saw Dachau and Auschwitz and still treated the enemy with some semblance of sane compassion. 

Taguba reached several conclusions in his investigation. All lead to the fact that Rumsfeld, Bush, Miller, Krapinski, and the MI’s all played a major role in the eventual degradation at Abu Ghraib. All but Krapinski wanted enhanced techniques of interrogation. All were negligent in their duty to uphold the Geneva Convention articles. All needed to be held responsible if the soldiers were to be held responsible for their parts in this grotesque play. Krapinski most assuredly was derelict in her role as the leader in charge of the functioning of the prison. Miller, Yoo, Rumsfeld, Sanchez, Bush, and the MI’s all led America down a very slippery slope into an abyss that we may never come out of again. Janis Krapinski was not there to see what was going on, nor was she present to make sure her troops were being trained properly. Her escapism and negligence warranted more than a reduction in rank.

An Animalistic Domain

Sargeant Joseph Darby wanted photographs of the sites and experiences of his tour of duty in Iraq. Specialist Charles Graner gave him his camera to obtain some photos. What Darby discovered on Graner’s camera shocked him enough to report his findings. The media obtained the photos and Darby’s name was mentioned by none other than Rumsfeld on the airwaves. Eventually, the soldiers participating in acts appearing in the photos would unknowingly see themselves on TV as part of a news story.

Throughout the world, people were horrified and understandably, hatred toward the United States increased in the middle east. The pictures told a story and it was a story of sadistic US soldiers forcing people in positions and actions that were clearly inhumane. Having said that, one wonders where they conjured up the ideas of such abuse. The practice of placing the detainee on a box with a hood over his head was born in Brazil. Apparently, it was a common practice among interrogators around the world. It does appear that someone would have had to tell the MP’s about this method of torture.

One could say that it most assuredly became an animalistic domain where soldiers obeyed orders that were anything but credible, reasonable, and sane. Solzhenitsyn tells the story of men in the Gulag who were snitching on each other in order to obtain an extra piece of bread. He conveys that it could have been him but it wasn’t. But he asserts clearly that he recognizes that same type of unbridled element of evil existed deep within himself. Darby stayed within humanitarian bounds of decency. Would Graner have done the same if he was not asked to treat the prisoners a certain way? Or was he prone to act out in a manner unbecoming of a soldier?

Riots Don’t Just Happen

The word "abuse" can have different definitions for different people.  Maybe an individual defines abuse to be as simple as ignoring someone, while someone else thinks abuse starts when someone hits you with a closed fist. Couple that with procedures on how to define prison abuse for inmates and you have a very complex situation. The moral question of what constitutes human dignity comes into play, as does the law of the land and its cultural understanding of human nature.

The United States has ultimately been a nation that seeks to define justice according to Christian norms. Past documents reveal a tendency toward embracing a just war philosophy and promoting the idea that life is sacred. Other nations have had similar ideals and cooperation between countries to ensure that prisoners of war were treated humanely progressed. This is a noble endeavor and one that must be discussed each generation to prevent human nature’s collapse into the abyss of utilitarian methods of handling situations that involve human beings.

We have all heard about the abuses at Abu Ghraib and are aware of the pictures that were circulated across the globe. But even the food the prisoners were eating was unsanitary and contained bug and animal parts. The fact that they were not fed enough food is not common knowledge. Blame for what went on in Abu Ghraib must not be contained to just the Military Intelligence agencies, but also to American leaders and private corporations, such as: Titan, CACI, and American Service Center(the food provider).

The point is this: There was not just one reason for the riot at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003. Although, the food alone would inspire anyone to to protest. ESPECIALLY, if a prisoner knew that in another cell, his wife and children were eating the same ingredients, which ASC dared to refer to as actual food for people. Other reasons are also obvious: inhumane treatment consisting of forced nakedness, beatings, prolonged periods of standing, loud noise, and hanging them in awkward positions. 

How the soldiers’ minds let this happen is not a new question. Man has always struggled with his “other side”. So at the end of the prison riot, the soldiers escalated their degrading behavior toward the prisoners. Beatings, dragging naked prisoners and putting them in sexual positions awarded Cpl Charles Graner a commendation. Those that did complain about the abuses to their superiors were basically told to ignore it. The beatings may have killed one Iraqi man and seriously injured others. It happened, it is still happening, and man will continue to defile himself and others under certain conditions unless he fights the war within himself.

New Bosses

The military police that were assigned to Janis Karpinski never obtained any pertinent information from the detainees. Because of the lack of intel gathered, the MP’s were put under the Military Intelligence. New orders were given to the MP’s to use sleep cycle disruptions, loud noises and music, standing naked, and showering with a female present again and again. These occurrences became common place within the Abu Ghraib prison.

Detainees were constantly put in humiliating situations, which was supposed to trigger them to give information that would lead to terroristic activity in and around Iraq. Only 15 to 20% would give information.

The MP’s did not want to participate in this type of interrogation but felt they had no choice in the matter. They did act in a manner unbecoming of the United States Armed Forces.

Methods of Interrogation Masterminded by Miller and Rumsfeld

Major General Geoffrey Miller approved techniques to extract information from prisoners at Guantanamo that may have been inhumane and against the rules of war. Was that okay?

             If terroristic action is a different bird all together, is it wrong to increase the methods of interrogation to obtain information that may prevent bombings and save lives? This question was open-ended until photos appeared in the press from Abu Ghraib. 

Not enough information was being gathered from the Military Police in Iraq to please Rumsfeld so  Miller was sent there to turn around the unsatisfactory results. Investigations now reveal that Gen. Miller, along with Commander Richardo Sanchez, pushed for sleep deprivation, standing for long hours on a box, fierce intimidation using dogs, sexual humiliation, separation from family, lights fluctuations, noise, and physical abuse to extract information for the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Even Rumsfeld thought that standing for four hours was not enough because he, himself, stood for longer periods. 

The soldiers obeyed the orders and Abu Ghraib became to many Americans, a place of shame. Previously, news medias showed the American viewer a soldier carrying a child through the streets to safety, which brought pride and joy to the hearts of those watching thousands of miles a way. The US was saving lives, feeding thousands, and helping the Iraqi people set up a democratic society. Underneath the folds, however, a very different scenario was taking place inside US military run prisons in Iraq. Men, women, and children were being held and detained based on loose intel. The men were abused daily, without hope of returning home or seeing loved ones. Accounts of the abuse broke to unbelieving ears and eyes in the US.  

Hard-Site Lock Down for Women and Children

High security sections at Abu Ghraib contained the women and children. They were in a section called Tier 1B. Detainees who were considered terrorists were also in hard sites, as well as, those labeled as insane. These men were kept in Tier 1A.

Why Abu Ghraib only had 300 MP’s to guard over 6,000 prisoners is a question that begs answering. If the CIA and the White House wanted to extract intel from the detainees, why did it appear as if this particular prison was not a priority? Why were back-ups and extra security forces not sent?

If up to 80% of the detainees appeared to have no ties with any terrorist organization; why were they kept at the prison and why did the US government continue down this absurd path? The questions begin to accumulate as 2003 progresses in Iraq.

MP’s Begin Tour of Duty in a Hell Hole

The 372nd military police were trained to support combat operations not to run a prison. To train them as prison guards at Abu Ghraib, they were told to put their weapons away and learn prison operations. Illogically, they were told training would take ninety days or less. There was not a time when the MP’s would feel safe, as the facility was constantly bombed.

They encountered a dreadful smell of a mixture of human excretions, sweat, and trash
With 130 degrees of desert, the men and women guarding the prisoners walked into a surreal situation that was a living nightmare. The MP’s saw Saddam Hussein’s torture areas, which included holes in the floor for hanging men, incinerators for burning bodies, and dogs digging up dead bodies.

In July-August of 2003 the prisoner population at Abu Ghraib went from 1,000 prisoners to 6,000, with only less than 300 military police guarding. Resources were not given in a timely frame, nor was there a logical plan for supporting and maintaining the prison in a productive manner.

                       

                           House Raids in Iraq
                          American troops enter Iraq only to find an insurgency against them.

Answer: Get them before they get you.
Sounds good except for one thing; just about everyone becomes the enemy.
It is true that in some sections of Iraq the citizens did have firepower and would shoot as US troops as they were leaving a house. This was not the norm, however.

A counterinsurgency began in response to the bombings on US vehicles and facilities. Snipers were also a problem for the troops. One way to potentially curtail the unrest was to squash rebellion and put fear into the terrorists by invading homes and humiliating the men of the house.

Most soldiers would report fear and worry on the faces of the Iraqi families whose homes they entered. The men were usually separated from the women during the raids. Sometimes, if the right documentation was not presented, or a man did not live there, or was suspected of anything suspicious, they would be taken away with hoods over their heads and driven to a detention center or a prison. At one point, young men would be rounded up just because they looked like potential fighters.

The citizens grew to abhor the presence of American troops. Insurgency increased. The Iraqi's were bewildered, afraid, and angry now. It was not a good way to “help” the Iraqi’s set up the idea of democracy in a country already riddled with destruction and abuse.

The American soldier was fast becoming part of the nightmare, rather than the solution.

Torture Redefined

War has an effect on man that is comparably anogolous at times to base animal behavior. That isn’t to say that one does not see the very best displayed in some men during extreme conditions during war times. The United States, however, does not have that history to flaunt when it came to torture techniques at Abu Ghraib.

Soldiers of low ranks in the United States are trained to obey on command, immediately, without comment. They are told, and sometimes with good reason, that their delay in carrying out orders may cost lives. So when orders are given to degrade detained Iraqi men that go against one’s moral code, one might stop and reconsider those orders. In most cases the US military men and women did not hesitate very long before carrying out the inhumane ill treatment of the prisoners. Also confusing their situation were CIA and privately contracted officials giving orders in Abu Ghraib to the lower ranking military. 

Where did these orders originate from? We can trace them to lawyers. Justice Department Office of Legal Defense lawyers, such as John Yoo and Jay Bybee, would find loopholes in the UN Convention Against Torture documents and implement memos to redefine techniques needed to specifically deal with a new threat: “The War on Terror”. By contorting the rules against torture, agreed to by many countries, Yoo was able to actualize a method of extracting information from detainees that was endorsed by Alberto Gonzales, Rumsfeld, and finally Bush. These men got what they wanted from Yoo; a thumbs up to disregard the “quaint” documents of the UN’s protection for prisoners of war. 

Yoo, Gonzales, and Rumsfeld’s approved “enhanced” torture techniques that would find heated criticism from people across the globe. Colin Powell, for one, declared that the memos inciting severe torture violated the Geneva Convention. Alberta Mora, Naval lawyer within the Defense Department, would also try to interject the reasoning that Yoo had overstepped legal and ethical moral boundaries.

 Pretending that somehow we are on a totally new playing field when it comes to the dignity of the person did not fly well with many, especially when pictures of torture came to light form Abu Ghraib. 

Applying the Geneva Conventions to Terrorists

The Geneva Conventions are essentially treaties stating that prisoners of war are to be treated humanely. If opposing military personnel are ill or hurt, the soldier is to receive treatment.  Countries agree to these treaties and are seen as binding in times of war and peace.

In 2003, during the war in Iraq, the US military found it increasingly difficult to identify the “bad guy”. He did not wear a military uniform. He did bomb at will, ambush American soldiers, and carry out sniper raids. How was the US to handle such warfare tactics when one is not sure who is carrying out the consistent and deadly acts?

John Yoo, assistant to the attorney general, wrote a set of torture procedures that were to be considered adaptable and useful for interrogation. Depriving the prisoner of sleep, using dogs to scare the prisoner, putting him in stressful positions; all were considered acceptable means to obtain information. He saw the 9/11 attack as an act of war.

The Bush Administration approved the use of torture and insisted on its continued use to secure information and curtail the insurgency. Ultimately, the Geneva Conventions were seen as a legitimate treaty compilation but one that did not apply to the war in Iraq of 2003.

Start date: November 7, 2012
First written post: November 8, 2012

Perspective on the Iraq War of 2003

Particularly, events before, during, and after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Abu Ghraib is a city northwest of Baghdad, Iraq. In Abu Ghraib, a prison exists with the same name, which once taken over by the United States military, also became known as the Baghdad Central Confinement Facility. Previously, Saddam Hussein had used it to house prisoners, which reportedly, were abused and tortured. Unfortunately, this was also done by the US military when they took over the site. What possessed our soldiers to participate in such heinous crimes against humanity? How was it possible that leadership was decrepit enough to declare ignorance of the situation or state that backup was not forthcoming of such abuse in a prison housing 5000 detainees? And were changes made to secure the facility, and yet retain interrogation techniques, which could lead to pertinent information toward the capture of terrorists after the scandal broke?

Prior to public knowledge of any facility named Abu Ghraib, and almost immediately upon the start of the Iraq war, insurgency began against the US troops in Iraq. Many muslim factions, especially the Sunni's did not want American troops on middle eastern soil. Obviously, the Baathists would resist the the US, along with Iraqi’s who saw their homes and land changing daily.

Military troops from the US and Great Britain would find erratic local governance and their handpicked choice for a leader did nothing to inspire in uniting the people under this new leader handpicked by Cheney and Rumsfeld. No one in Iraq, however, wanted him as their leader.

Insufficient relief for the citizens of Iraq, terroristic activity, and increased looting started to weigh heavily on the US leaders already involved in a badly organized effort to remake Iraq into the Americana image.