Ethics Violation in Abu Ghraib
The word ethics spans an adage of definitions advanced by various scholars in the world. Right from the days of Emmanuel Kant and other notable Geek philosophers, the term ethics has been accorded with the treatment or the study of the moral right or wrong of human actions. It is in this trajectory that this paper tries to establish the moral wrong or right that is advanced by the American soldiers in the Iraqi Abu Ghraib Prison, also called Baghdad correction facility. The paper tries to establish the various ethics and human rights violation in the prison and the process of retrieving information from the captives in disarmament process after Saddam Hussein’s defeat in Iraq. The paper also adopts a critical view in terms of the question, by questioning the actions being taken by the members. Theoretical perspectives are discussed in response to the scenario tortures done by both US army personnel and US government Agencies.
Situational Audit
In March, 2003 the then president of USA, George Bush began a military action against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. This followed after the Security Council passed a resolution of disarming Iraq of Nuclear Weapons. The war lasted eight years, ending in the era of president Obama on December 15th, 2011. However, the first four years of the war in Iraq, led by US, saw blatant violation of rights of prisoners as opposed to the expected peace. President Hussein was caught and tried, but there was still strife in the region. The conflict was between Sunni and Shia groups, and a new clique of Al-Qaeda in Iraq fighting Americans. These hostile groups forced US soldiers to stay in Iraq to oversee a peaceful transition of transfer of Iraq government to the locals. Therefore, according to Nguyen (2011), between 2003 and 2006 prisoners caught were subjected to all manner of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse. These acts were mainly recorded in Abu Ghraib Prison in Baghdad the capital of Iraq. Adams, Balfour and Reed (2006), highlight two major accounts of proof that sparked an outrage in the world. First, was the death of Manadel al-jamadi, who died after interrogation and torture by US personnel. Torture included physical beatings and stappado hanging (Adams et al., 2006). The death at first was covered by US military as a homicide. Secondly, there was photographic evidence of rape taking place in the facility. Furthermore, a former detainee told reporters and investigators that while in prison he head an Iraqi boy screaming from being raped by an army translator (Adams et al., 2006). The incident happened while a woman was taking photos, hence an extreme violation of human rights.
The situation overview of the country is, therefore, a deliberate inclusion in the research so as to give us a back leaning into understanding the regimes of the US activity in the country. Adams et al. (2006) observe that the determination of ethics and basic human rights in the military capacity of the US soldiers lies enshrine in the constitution of the country, whereby every American soldier is vested with the power of protecting life and engaging in honesty, and peaceful safeguarding the integrity of the people. Their responsibility is, therefore, to safeguard the lives of the innocent civilians as they carry out their national mandate in providing security. However, as much as this is the situation, the pictures released by an anonymous source (assuming the state for security purposes) on the CBS news magazine 60 Minutes II in April 2004 revealed a shaming face on the US military actions (Adams et al., 2006). While the US has the power to protect the ingenuity and the upholding of human rights, the leaked information was met by numerous protests and criticism from various parts of the world. Graham (2005) observes that the US got a slap in the face for its military mismanagement and the disregard to the rule of law and the Geneva Convention.
The 60 minute story in the CBS news channel revealed US military soldiers gleefully torturing naked captives with wired up cables. The blatant to the disregard of the rule of law and the imposition of torture on innocent civilians in the Abu Ghraib prison has been met with various protests from various human rights activists, and people and groups from various parts of the world. To Graham (2005), the torture of people in the region in search of the al-Qaeda, Sunni, and Shia groups was unjustified, since not every Muslim in the capital city had a hand in the terrorist attacks, in the US. On the contrary, Graham (2005) argues that, the definition of torture under the Bybee US memo signed by General Jay Bybee in the context of the then president George Bush is the action of implicit infliction of pain and inhuman maltreatment when it is only intended to cause harm. This he argues that torture cannot be justified to be torture if it is not intended to cause harm. The implication of the infamous memo had a long effect on the military action in the country. Most of the prisoners who were captured were not treated as prisoners of war but rather combatants who were cornered in time of military execution (Holmes & Perron, 2007). This, therefore, meant that under, the US laws and the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties they were not liable to proper treatment under the protection of the seminal propositions that safeguard the treatment of prisoners of war (Adams et al., 2006). This had long reaching effects in the treatment of the captives.
The definition of torture, therefore, lacked the basic inclusion of the fact that it is a barbaric and aggressive maltreatment that is employed on prisoners in the need to press out the information (Holmes & Perron, 2007). The US military officials employed various methods in realizing their needs of the time. Holmes & Perron (2007) report that there was use of sleep deprivation by medical practitioners, prolonged isolation, painful body positions, feigned suffocation and beatings. Torture cannot be quantified in terms of the use of force when it is only geared towards inflicting pain. Torture is torture; therefore, the military’s justification that the methods employed in search of critical information to help their operations in the course of war is unjustified and uncalled. Most people do not view this as a way of or form in which then insurgents would be impelled to produce information. It is seen as cover up for the atrocities that they imposed on the captives and to some extent to some civilians in the Abu Ghraib prison.
Reports by numerous human rights activists have document ted that the soldier were involved in case of torture through the induction of lack of sleep for days. The captives were also isolated for long hours under beatings and abuse of the religious symbols in the country. The definition of the freedom of worship and the realization of the religious leaning of the detainees were infringed and blatantly disregarded. Holmes & Perron (2007) hold that to some extent, soldiers induced the self-suffocation of the criminals through gas masks and water jars. This method of pressing out information from the captives is in itself a torture to the hundreds of captives that were frequently caught in the fight between the new Al-Qaeda, the Sunni, the Shia, and the US soldiers. The use of beatings, suffocation and the poking of the private parts of naked bodies is a blatant disregard to the human rights violation (Maugh, 2004). The definition of torture cannot go beyond the exclusivities of the spirited attack on the bodily harm of the individuals who were cornered by the American soldiers. Greg et al. (2004) claims that the imposition of the bodily harm by use of various objects like knives, screwdrivers, electricity to partially electrocute captives were some of the methods that have been used by the American soldiers. They ensured that captives shell out the information that was vital in overtaking and subsequently overthrowing leaders in the conflicting groups in the city. However, as much as the process of bringing security to the ordinary American citizen necessitated the move by the American government, the methods used by the military exposed the insensitive part of the American government. Therefore, we cannot just mall over it, and simply watch without voicing the need for the re-observation of integrity and human values in service to our country.
Medical practitioners’ participation in torture
Abu Ghraib prison is at the centre of Baghdad, Iraq, which experienced a lot of human abuses during the fight against Saddam Hussein administration. There have been various documentaries into the inquest where the members of the American soldiers are portrayed as the sole initiator of the brutal torture mechanisms. One of the professions often described with angelic terms, especially in times of hue and cry is the medical profession. In the Hippocratic Oath, the doctor’s behaviour is protected and restricted towards the safeguarding of life and the protection of its sanctity. However, during the military offensive in Iraq, the doctors and other medical practitioners have been tainted as to have participated in the process of torturing the insurgent captives (Nguyen, 2011). One of the various methods that have been constantly been used in the torture process is the neglect of patients and the use of the pain infusing medical supplements (Adams et al., 2006). Cases of doctors ignoring the patients and avoiding treatment of the insurgents have been widespread since the start of the war. This is contrary to the medical professional ethics, where the doctor is meant to save lives, even in the extremist conditions. This resulted to numerous abuses of power by the US military who have been accused of inappropriate use of power. Doctors have also been accused of failure to undertake a medical examination as required under the medical profession and also in some cases directly participated through the doctoring of the causes of death. In one incidence reported by Nguyen (2011), Maj. General Abed Hamed in Iraq, is reported to have died of suffocation after the interrogation team tied him on his sleeping bag and a guard sat on his chest. This is blatant disregard to the ethics and the values that are enshrined in the ethos and the values of service in the US and international treaties like the Geneva Convention. Serious reports have been reported of doctors colluding with soldiers to state the cause of death as natural of something else, while it is the soldiers who have tortured the victims till death. This is, therefore, a gross violation of the human rights and an act that operates outside the precincts of proper military action as envisioned in the constitution.
Of great value to note is the medical neglect by some of the medical staff in the prison. Adams et al. (2006) note that the medical doctors and nurses in the region failed to carry out their duties correctly and, therefore, contributed towards the torture of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib detention prison. The definition of ethics and violations of human rights are thus exemplified fully under this aspersion. This is because the doctors failed to determine what was wrong from what was right. The decision on moral value by the members is questioned following the standards that the medical profession is enshrined. To all medical practitioners the sanctity of life is supposed to be the uttermost care for the members entrusted with the lives of the member. When the actions of the doctors go contrary to the requirements of the medical profession, then one is right to assume that the action taken by member is an informed decision (Maugh, 2004). One cannot, therefore, claim that they were impelled to act outside their capacity. The choice is consciously made, thereby laying bare the atrocity and the violation of ethics in the handling of the prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison.
Nguyen (2011) questions the integrity of the US military expertise by citing that, most of the commanders who initiated the atrocities, witnessed in the US army combat, have been promoted to various ranks in the service of the country. Others are given honorary treatments while their effects have left injustice and bodily scars on most of the captives and the country at large. The medical practitioners are alleged to have used methods like sexual provocation and stress induction of the culprits (Adams et al., 2006). Sexual harassment has been worldly been castigated as a barbaric method of torture as it goes against the human rights and hinders the prevalence of human dignity and life. There have been cases of such injustice inflicted on the members who were captured or caught during the fight. The methods used in the different detention camps in the Abu Ghraib and the Guantanamo bay prisons defer from form to another. While the torture and the violation of ethics in the region may take different angulations, one of the key factors that come out is the utter cognizance of the fact that whichever the method advanced, it involved the disregard and putrefaction of human rights and the denial of justice (Holmes & Perron, 2007). Therefore, the US army should have known better that the use of the various methods to acquire information from the people was a direct violation of the people’s rights hence placing it in the wrong side of the moral fabrics of the society. The actions have left skeletons and morsels human rue of those who were tortured.
Conclusion
The right to decide is a basic human quality that is deeply enshrined in the conscience of the human mind. One’s decision to undertake a certain thing or action is often occasioned by their own will and wish to do it. The gross human rights violations in the Abu Ghraib detention prison by the US government cannot be justified, or defended by the definition used by the Byree memo in depriving prisoners better treatment when under interrogation. Instead, the decisions taken by the commanders and the soldiers in torturing the prisoners, beating and the inducement of stress in a bid to draw information from them was a blatant disregard to the rule of law and ethical codes. It deserves to be condemned with the might it deserves.
References
Adams, G. B., Balfour, D. L., & Reed, G. E. (2006). Abu Ghraib, administrative evil and moral inversion: The value of "putting cruelty first". Public Administration Review, 66(5), 680-693. http://search.proquest.com/docview/197178218?accountid=45049
Graham, D. E. (2005). The treatment and interrogation of prisoners of war and detainees [dagger]. Georgetown Journal of International Law, 37(1), 61-93. http://search.proquest.com/docview/205921105?accountid=45049
Greg Jaffe and Carla Anne Robbins in Washington, and Roger Thurow,in Zurich. (2004, May 10). The Abu Ghraib fallout: Prisoner abuse could undercut U.S. credibility; prison pictures bolster belief that America has set itself above the law in terror war. Wall Street Journal, pp. A.10-A.10. http://search.proquest.com/docview/398897098?accountid=45049
Holmes, D., & Perron,A. (2007). Violating ethics: unlawful combatants, national security and health professionals. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598252
Maugh, T.H, (2004). Ethics Violations by Medical Staff at Abu Ghraib Alleged. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2004/aug/20/world/fg-doctors20
Nguyen, J. T. (2011). UN: Human rights violations, violence continue in Iraq. McClatchy - Tribune Business News, pp. n/a. http://search.proquest.com/docview/881632520?accountid=45049
UNITED STATES: Abuse of prisoners is landmark setback. (2004). United Kingdom: http://search.proquest.com/docview/192439612?accountid=45049
