The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal : Sources Of Obedience

In “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak informs the reader of the situation United States guards caused against Iraqi detainees. Under Bush’s presidency, United States soldiers brought physical abuse and humiliation upon the Abu Ghraib Prison. Szegedy-Maszak briefly analyzes the situation and compares the abuse to further scientific experiments in which test obedience. One of the experiments was the topic of another article titled, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” written by Philip G. Zimbardo. In his work, Zimbardo discusses the experiment he held at Stanford University. A group of male students from the university were paid to participate in an experiment held in a mock prison. Half of the group

It is an unfortunate fact that thousands of military soldiers, both combat and noncombat veterans, find their way into America’s prison and jail systems. Of these incarcerated veterans, nearly half fought in the Vietnam War (Bronson, et. al.). Andrew Brannan was no exception to this. A decorated Vietnam veteran who suffered from severe post-traumatic-stress disorder and bipolar disorder, Brannan was sentenced to Georgia’s death row for the murder of police officer Kyle Dinkheller. The implications of the trials that followed and Brannan’s ultimate demise extend beyond the sleepy southern town of Jackson; rather, they suggest a broken and corrupted legal justice system that is in desperate need of improvement, with underlying themes of place,

citizens, but it was the researchers afterwards that contributed the most startling idea. Zimbardo, the same man who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment, said in an interview with the New York Times, “Prisons tend to be brutal and abusive places unless great effort is made to control the guards’ base impulses. It’s not that we put bad apples in a good barrel. We put good apples in a bad barrel. The barrel corrupts anything that it touches” (Swhwartz, 2004 p. 2). A professor of Law at Loyola University, Marcy Strauss, studies criminal procedure and wrote a forty-two page manuscript on the lessons that should be discussed beyond news articles. Strauss said of Abu Ghraib, “Undoubtedly, these factors [poor training of guards, poor oversight and horrendous conditions] played a major role in facilitating the abuse. Correcting these conditions is imperative. But, to end the introspection there would be a mistake” (Strauss, 2005 p.9). The idea that people could be malignant under specific circumstances has been proven by Milgrams’ studies and this idea is now apparent in real life. Thus, the concern for prisons, as pointed out by both Zimbardo and Strauss, cannot simply be that the guards or correctional officers do not abuse people in the future. The issue is that the maltreatment and indignity in Abu Ghraib was a result of the poor foundation of the U.S. correctional system (Strauss,

During the Iraq war that between 2003 and 2006, the united states army committed a series of human rights violations against prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison near Bagdad. The violations included murder, sexual and physical abuse, rape, torturer, sodomy, humiliating and dehumanizing prisoners. In 2004 the abuse that was carried out was exposed by the publication of images that were taken by the soldiers that carried out the violations. This paper will be looking at what social psychology can teach us about what happened at Abu Ghraib.

In this paper I will illustrate how the lessons learned from the Stanford Experiment apply to understanding the dynamics of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. The Stanford Experiment demonstrates how social influence can persuade one’s behavior and shape their conformity. The experiment and the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib exemplify the power of authority by utilizing their positions and uniforms to control and overrule the prisoners.

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.

She begins recounting the notorious details, how innocent college students labeled prisoners and guards displayed psychological abuse after only six days of confinement, and makes reference to Stanley Milgram’s obedience study and Abu Ghraib, where similar maltreatment, perceived or real, was conducted on civilians by civilians. She addresses and refutes the accepted belief that the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could become a tyrant when given or instructed by a source of authority. Instead, she suggests that Zimbardo’s inquiry points toward but does not land on one exact conclusion. She explains the influence of the setting, the presentation of the roles, Zimbardo’s participation, and perhaps a sense of expectation felt, all of which can be reflected in the shocking behavior of a few guards. She argues that it should not have been so shocking. Konnikova discredits the neutrality of Zimbardo’s experiment by insisting that people who would respond to an ad for a psychological study of prison life were not “normal” people. However, with her diction and choice of evidence she displaces the study's culpability in a way that ultimately blurs and undermines her claim.

A true war story is rather difficult, if not impossible, to share when it goes beyond one’s imagination. Regarding such a story, one morally sound aspect about it is that it lacks morality or meaning to it. Extracting facts from a true war story is a daunting task because what seems to happen is what actually occurs. In what is to follow, I will tell one awful true war story.

The war in Iraq began in March of 2003. During this war personnel of the United States Army and the Central Intelligence Agency committed a chain of human rights violations. This was against prisoners in the Abu Ghraib Prison, which was in Iraq. These violations included torture, sodomy, sexual and physical abuse, rape, and murder. The abuse captured public attention and was widespread. The incidents received widespread condemnation both within the United States and abroad, because of the photographs and publication of the abuse by the news in April of 2004. Meanwhile, the soldiers received support from some conservative media within the United States.

Chapter 15 is about Abu Ghraib, where the Iraqi prisoners were tortured, raped, abused and murdered by the US Army personnel and the Central Intelligence Agency. The president at that time was Mr. George W. Bush. This came into light in 2003 when they were published, along with the horrendous pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners being tortured. What was more shocking, was to see the pictures of few US army personnel taking pictures with a dead prisoner and a group of naked prisoners. Is this the way the leaders we trust behave?

The use of enhanced interrogation techniques was not effective in eliciting good information. The majority, if not all, of those interned at Abu Ghraib were men without affiliation with the group(s) that the United States government was trying to ascertain information about. In a later investigation into the use of torture as a method of interrogation by the US government, especially waterboarding, results showed that torture was a) not a moral or ethical means of obtaining information, and b) was not effective in obtaining said

In our ever-transparent world where our actions as a nation are continuously scrutinized, it is exceptionally important that we begin to strengthen our group mentality when it comes to international relations. As a powerful and resourceful nation, we have a lot to offer the international community. Instead of embarking on our own humanitarian missions, we could be more effective by strengthening institutions like the United Nations or the International Monetary Fund. The United States seems to particularly enjoy acting from a position of perceived moral superiority; even after the egregious human rights violations that took place at Abu Ghraib (Walt, S, 2011). The United States has also refused to sign a human rights treaty since 2002, despite condemning other countries for violations of human rights (Human Rights Library). According

The events at Abu Ghraib prison are largely due to group think. The guards at the Abu Ghraib prison were coercively persuaded to conduct torture. At first they just stood guard outside the torture cells then they stood guard inside the torture cells. And finally they helped carry out acts of torture. They only did so after they saw others like them carry out such an act. This is basically the definition of group

and Unlawful Military Detention in Rwanda.” This report documents unlawful detentions in military camps and “widespread and systematic torture by the military”(“Rwanda Detention”). Cases were found where judges and prosecutors ignored complaints from current and former detainees about their ill-treatments. Ida Sawyer, director at Human Rights Watch stated, “Impunity for unlawful detention and the systematic use of torture has lead many victims to give up all hope for justice” (qtd. “Rwanda Detention”). Research proves that Rwandan military forces can use torture whenever and however they please. This is a violation of Rwandan and international law, which prohibits

For a long time citizens have always respected the soldiers who stand to protect the nation, but none care about how they do it or the psychological traumas they go through. After the Iraq War several disturbing photos were released to the public. People who were distraught like Susan Sontag spoke up and demanded an explanation for the events that took place in Abu Ghraib prison. Many have questioned why no punishment was given to the perpetrators, but were disappointed when no direct answer was given. Sontag tries to make a connection between the photos the military and their leaders, and what they portray about the American society in her piece Regarding The Torture Of Others. She displays acts of the military and their leaders showing justification in their act of torture to enemies outside the United States. The act of generalizing a nation by an event in its history is not effective and weakens her argument. This even has shaken the nation’s image to the world, creating a different interpretation about America and its citizens, which might not be accurate.