As many of you may have heard, this morning the US Senate published a highly anticipated report on the Central Intelligence Agency, specifically the post-9/11 torture programs to aid in the fight against terrorism. The CIA is now under heavy criticism from leading politicians like our own Dianne Feinstein (Democratic Senator-California), as is former President George Bush who had denied the use of excessive torture during his presidency. Many of the CIA's actions are being labeled "un-American.
The 6,300 page report covers both the methods of torture that were applied to people who were deemed a "National security threat", as well as the efficiency of these techniques. Some of the torture tactics that were used in the post-9/11 "War on Terror" under the Bush administration (leaking into Obama's) include, but are not limited to, rectal hydration, sleep deprivation, verbal death threats, and waterboarding. More prisoners were subject to these methods of torture than previously admitted by the CIA.
The Senate investigation has concluded that the torture tactics in many cases proved to be ineffective in stopping terror threats and often the suspect fabricated information. That, however, didn't stop the CIA from telling both Congress and the White House that torture did in fact contribute to intelligence victories.
There is widespread criticism and many national politicians have labeled this process as "one of the darkest in American history".
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/10/world/senate-intelligence-committee-cia-torture-report.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/senate-cia-report_n_6270138.html
This reminded me of a Ted Talk we listened to in English about the Abu Ghraib prison abuse. Just after the war in Iraq began the US Army tortured detainees in the Abu Ghraib prison. It was discovered that they violated human rights with both physical and sexual abuse. These included torture, rape, sodomy, and murder. Prisoners were not given clothing, exposed to extreme temperatures, denied sleep, exposed to loud music and bright lights, and were often restrained in uncomfortable positions. When their actions were revealed in 2003 they received support from conservative media. The Bush Administration tried to play it off as an isolated incident but organizations like the Red Cross, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch proved that it was part of a greater trend in American overseas detention centers. In this instance the government removed 17 soldiers and officers from duty and convicted 11 soldiers who were put in prison and dishonorably discharged.
ReplyDeleteIts crazy to think what people will do if they are given authority and told to do whatever is necessary to get the information they need.
Concerning the Abu Ghraib incident, I recall that earlier in the year my English class talked about this, too, in relation to the novel East of Eden. We also read a few chapters from Philip Zimbardo's book The Lucifer Effect. Philip Zimbardo was the orchestrator of the infamous Stanford prison experiment. In Zimbardo's words, "the barrier between good and evil is permeable and nebulous". This means that everything is not so black and white. It is one's environment that plays a bigger part in one's actions than his or her inherent qualities. I agree with Zimbardo because incidents such as the Abu Ghraib abuses and the Stanford prison experiment, and possibly the CIA abuses, show that when "good" people are put into this environment with so much power and so little oversight, some or all of these supposedly good people will end up committing unimaginable atrocities. Like Donna said, the Bush Administration tried to downplay the Abu Ghraib incident, but Zimbardo argues that it was not just the work of a few "bad apples", but rather it was caused by the situation that gave them almost absolute power.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you guys think about these incidents and what they tell us about human nature? I think this is a really important topic to talk about, so I'd love to hear your opinions. Feel free to agree or disagree!
While I do agree with Donna's and Kathy's arguments, I also strongly believe that the 17 soldiers that were discharged and the 11 that were charged were not the real problem. Yes they were given authority, and as Zimbardo proved, that leads to cazy measures which resulted in this type of extreme situation. I think that the real problem lies in the CIA and the Military itself, and that the discharging of these soldiers was really just a desperate measure to prove denyment. The precedents that are set when it comes to torture are, in my opinion, crazy and unnecessary. The only reason those 17 soldiers were discharged was because the public knew about what had happened. I am willing to bet that there are dozens of other incidents of torture where the public knew nothing and therefore the government allowed these soldiers to continue their service with no investigation. I think that the real problem stems from the precedents we have set and the higher up authority that gives these soldiers the power, rather than the actual soldiers themselves.
ReplyDeleteAndreas, I absolutely agree with you on the problem of higher up authorities condoning such behavior. I didn't mention this in my earlier comment, but Zimbardo actually went on to say that this coverup was similar to what "police chiefs tell the media whenever police abuse of criminal suspects is revealed - blame the few rotten-apple-bad-cops --- to deflect the focus away from the norms and usual practices in the back rooms of police stations or the police department itself". He also wondered if Bush would not only get to the bottom of this incident, but also to the "top" of the scandal so that "we could see the full picture and not just its frame".
ReplyDeleteBasically, Zimbardo was saying the main problem was with the higher authorities allowing these abuses to continue, and perhaps even encouraging it. The lax oversight and overwhelming power given to the guards made it possible for such abuses to occur. Had there been more safeguards to prevent something like this, then perhaps this terrible incident would not have happened.
However, although the upper command played a huge part in allowing this to happen, I still think that the prison guards had a choice no matter the precedent, and the blame ultimately lies on them. Joe Darby went against the situation he was placed in and exposed the abuses at Abu Ghraib after being shown a CD filled with hundred of images and videos of the guards' abuses. This shows that although it would have been very difficult, the soldiers still could have refused to join in and abuse the prisoners.