News Stories That Changed the World

The organization of the essay is impressive. The introduction is effective in grasping the audiences’ attention. Mae begins the essay by giving information about the topic. She states that “[i]n 2004, when the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib became known, many Americans became concerned that the government was using torture as part of its interrogation of war-on-terror detainees.” This quote makes readers want to read further into the essay, and it also shows how the topic of essay is

The Abu Ghraib torture scandal left a large blemish on the occupation of Iraq and George Bush’s War on terror. As stories of the torture happening in the Abu Ghraib prison began circulating, American citizens had trouble comprehending the acts of evil their soldiers had committed on Iraqis. Some began to see a correlation between Abu Ghraib and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the guards in both situations were brutal to their captives, distinct differences lay in the severity of their actions. Abu Ghraib’s guards were much more vicious to their captives, and this can be attributed to the prejudices the guards felt against their captors, the environment, and the lack of training, compounded with a lack of accountability in the leadership.

The subsequent case study, prepared by James P. Pfiffner, Torture and Public Policy, (2010) analyzes the torture and abuse of war prisoners by United States military personnel in Abu Ghraib, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, following photographs of the abuse spread around the world in the fall of 2003. Pfiffner points out that the United States Military, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfield, and President George W. Bush assumed a role in the events leading up to the exploitation, even though it has never been corroborated that President Bush or Secretary of State Rumsfield directly condoned the abuse.

The United States citizens have been wrestling with the question of, whether their government intelligence agencies should be prohibited from using torture to gather information. According to Michael Ignatieff, this is the hardest case of what he describes as ‘lesser evil ethics’—a political ethics predicated on the idea that in emergencies leaders must choose between different evils Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture was viewed by most American’s as only actions that brutal dictators would employ on their citizens, to keep order within their country. However, this all changed when in May 2004, The New Yorker released photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The disturbing pictures were released on the internet showing bodies of naked Iraqis piled onto each other, others showed Iraqis being tortured and humiliated. There was a huge up roar, which caused the President at the time George W. Bush to publicly apologize, and threaten the job of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Soon after, the CIA Conformed the use of waterboarding on three Al-Qaida suspects in 2002 and 2003, which further annihilated the topic. Since these reports, torture has been in the forefront of national politics, and the public opinion has been struggling to commit on whether torture is right or wrong.

"I asked several people, several times, where I could find a copy of the standard operating procedures, or even rules and regulations,’ says Frederick. ‘And nobody would ever provide me with any or let me know where they were. The only thing they would do is just give me a pat on the back and say everything will be all right" (60 Minutes, Abuse at Abu Ghraib) This is Sergeant Chip Frederick, one of the soldiers that has been convicted of conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and indecent acts. He served 8 years in military prison, in Washington D.C. Even though Sgt. Frederick plead guilty, he claimed that no one involved in the scandal was properly trained, and did not know the standard Geneva Conventions. “We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my

Guantanamo Bay in Cuba houses some of the most dangerous people. The people being held have ranged in committing various crimes. What makes Guantanamo Bay well known is how the time period a detainee has spent in prison without a trial. While in prison for an extensive period of time, a detainee is bound to receive discipline for not following the guards. There are often a variety of different methods that the guards use to teach discipline to the detainees. All who follow Guantanamo Bay as institution often criticizes the measures taken. What makes Guantanamo Bay an ironic place to start this journey is because Guantanamo Bay is at the center of attention to a very important, controversial law passed in 2006. The controversial law was

The author, Melissa Mae, explains the issue, along with the opposing sides, clearly. Mae begins the essay by introducing the issue. She says the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib gained attention around 2004. Americans became concerned when they found out the government was using torture and were extremely upset about it. She states that people believed torture was being used as a part of the government’s “interrogation of war-on-terror detainees.” Though she tells the readers what the issue is, she never fully explains it. She only tells us that the essays she wrote about were written around the time the debate was heating up. A positive trait about this essay is that she stated the issue in the first paragraph.

A new congressional report was released last week detailing the controversial CIA torture program during the years following the September 11 attacks on the twin towers. The report detailed several despicable ways detainees were treated at various CIA black sites, detainees endured waterboarding, sleep deprivation, confinements, rectal feeding and death from hypothermia. The most despicable aspect of the report was that psychiatrists, psychologist, and some physicians originated some of the torture techniques used by the CIA.

They saw every Iraqi, Pakistani, Iranian or Saudi as a terrorist and a threat to their country. All were subject to a negative judgement without cause or trial. With the benefit of a passage of time we have learned that these feelings were misdirected and wrong. It was as though certain people, those of a different race and nationally, were robbed of their human rights and cast in the role of criminals solely because of their culture and the acts of groups they likely did not know. In the calm aftermath and a chance to reflect on this behaviour some American officials admitted that Abu Ghraib was the functional equivalent of the 9/11 attack, only committed this time by the United States (Greenberg 2005: 98).

In her essay “Cluster Fuck” Linda Williams discusses Errol Morris’s documentary Standard Operating Procedure. She believes that Standard Operating Procedure should receive more “scrutiny” for its investigation of the frame. She discusses how images of death and torture are framed by the people who take them and how they are then publicly received as the truth. Williams argues that Standard Operating Procedure asks the audience to question their visual interpretation and investigate the framing of the visual culture of war. By investigating the investigation into the actions that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison and the system in place to punish such acts Williams argues that Standard Operating Procedure reframes and contextualizes these forced

Speier writes, “brutal actions have fueled hatred abroad and provided potent imagery for terrorist propaganda” (3). Following this assertion, Speier did not fully justify how these “brutal actions,” which she only mentioned to be the force feeding of detainees that were on hunger strike, have created such emotions abroad (2). She also left the readers wondering how these actions are propaganda for terrorist. Although Speier does mention that dressing the journalist in the orange jumpsuit evokes Guantanamo’s imagery of the detainees, she does not develop the argument thoroughly (3). The lack of support impedes her purpose of making the readers appeal to fear, and instead makes them question in depth why she made such statement to begin with. Furthermore, Speier manages to poorly back up a quote from the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, which states, “[Guantanamo is] a ‘recruiting symbol’ for terrorist and jihadist,” which he saw as “the heart of the concern for Guantanamo’s continued existence” (3). Although Adm. Mullen has credibility on the topic because of his position, providing an underdeveloped example on how Guantanamo is actually used as a symbol to recruit terrorist makes her source’s credibility crumble as well as her whole

During the war in Iraq of 2004, CBS covered a story on 60 minutes that exposed the crude behavior of prison guards in Abu Ghraib prison. CBS exhibit photos of the Iraqi prisoners in a rather unsettling matter, such as being naked with bag over their heads, other where there was electric wire attached to their bodies, and some who were forced to perform sexual acts. A number of Americans were alarmed by our American soldiers. However, what makes this incident even more irksome is 30 years before the Abu Ghraib prison incident the same events played out in Stanford University. Both parties were many years apart causing the Abu Ghraib prison guards to most likely be unaware of the Stanford University study. Which causes one to question to rise:

On May 9, 2005, Michael Isikoff and John Barry, two seasoned reporters for Newsweek, published a story about the interrogations and imprisonment of suspected terrorists in the aftermath of the Al Qaeda attacks on September 11, 2001 that left Americans in shock and mourning for the many lives that were lost. The suspected terrorists were detained in what became a controversial military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Isikoff and Barry described the culturally insensitive interrogation methods that were conducted at Guantanamo Bay by the American military. They described the soldiers desecrating the Koran, the Moslem holy book, which they placed on toilets and even one time flushed down the toilet. The information for this story was

Guantanamo Bay, though started with good intentions, only highlights America’s negative side. Marine Major General Michael Lehnert, who played a significant role in the opening of Guantanamo, has drastically changed his opinion and said that it, “Validates every negative perception of the U.S.” (Sutton 1). One example of this occurred in 2006, when President Bush justified the use of “physical coercion” (torture) during interrogations (Fetini 1). Some of these torture methods include isolation, beatings, sleep deprivation, and general abuse. Other tactics such as disrespect for Islamic symbols or sexual provocation are used to encourage stress in detainees (Bloche 1). These immoral methods led to an international outcry. It was later remarked that the Cuban territory upon which Guantanamo is located is being used as a “concentration camp” of sorts (Fetini 1). Guantanamo and its unethical values are being recognized by nations around the world, displaying America in a bad light.

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states