Values and Ethics at Abu Ghraib
Would you be able to stand up against your superiors, coworkers and friends to uphold your values and ethics? Or would you be like the many soldiers guarding Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq who lost their careers as a result of their poor ethical decisions? The Abu Ghraib prison scandal put many people’s values and ethics to the test. The outcome, career success was influenced by values and ethics displayed through the choices of those involved. The chain of command was not prosecuted, but the soldier who attempted to bring the situation to the attention of his superiors was ostracized and threatened by his friends and coworkers. So how did this situation come to be, who is to blame, and were the punishments of all involved justified?
Located approximately 20 kilometers west of Baghdad, Abu Ghraib was the largest and most notorious prison in Iraq (CBS, 2007). It covers 280 acres, has a perimeter of about two and a half miles and is made up of five individual compounds, each possessing guard towers and very high walls. Under Saddam Hussein’s rule, countless numbers of Iraqis were tortured and executed in Abu Ghraib. After the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, the prison at Abu Ghraib was stripped of doors, windows, and bricks by looters. Within months, coalition forces mended and cleaned the prison compound. They added toilets, showers, and even a medical center. However, the living conditions at Abu Ghraib continued to suffer. Detainment cells measured 12-feet x 12-feet (Hersh, 2004). “150 inmates were crammed into cells designed for 24” (Martin, 2003, para. 5). These cells have been described as more of human holding pits than prison cells (Hersh, 2004).
On January 14, 2004, Specialist Joseph Darby, a soldier from the 372nd Military Police Company, handed the Criminal Investigations Division (CID) at Abu Ghraib an envelope containing an anonymous letter and a disk (CBS, 2007). Darby said the envelope was left in his office and that he was told to give it to CID. This disk contained the famous torture pictures of Abu Ghraib (Cooper, 2006). On that day, depicted by 279 photos and 19 videos, the horrible, unethical decisions of numerous soldiers were brought to light (Salon Staff, 2010).
As CID would come to discover, the disk had not been left in Darby’s office. He had been given these pictures by Corporal Charles Graner, of the 372nd Military Police Company (Cooper, 2006). Darby had obtained the pictures after approaching Graner, the unit’s camera buff, in hopes of finding scenic pictures of Iraq to send home. He found the scenic pictures he was hoping for along with pictures of naked Iraqis stacked in a pyramid, on leashes, performing sexual acts, and of military working dogs snarling at the feet of detainees. When Darby viewed the disks handed over by Graner, he knew something had to be done. Darby said, in an interview with CBS (2006, p. 2), "I've always had a moral sense of right and wrong. And I knew that you know, friends or not, it had to stop.” The following day the US Army launched an investigation; Darby requested to remain anonymous (Salon Staff, 2010).
John F. Kennedy once said, “A man does what he must, in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers, and pressures, and that is the basis of all human morality.” Darby did what he had to do; he is a man of values. For the first month of the investigation, the suspects remained at the prison. They continued to have access to their weapons, the facility, and to Darby. He feared for his life, feared that someone would find out. He knew that some people would not understand; they would think he was a rat and want to deal with him. Darby told CBS (2006), "I slept in a room by myself. And anybody could come in in the middle of the night. You walk in the door, you hang a left, and then come in and cut my throat.” Every night for that month, he slept with his pistol hidden under his pillow, hammer cocked—ready for anything (Cooper, 2006). Darby remained anonymous until his role was released by The New Yorker on May 10, 2004.
Joseph Darby hails from Cumberland, MD, a small military town of that believes Darby betrayed his fellow soldiers. “The Commander of the local VFW post in Cumberland, MD, Colin Engelback, told 60 Minutes what people were calling Darby. ‘He was a rat. He was a traitor. He let his unit down. He let his fellow soldiers down and the U.S. military, basically he was no good’” (Cooper, 2006, para. 2). Darby was the one man who stood up and took action. He made choices that went with his values and ethics. After his name was released to the public, the Army removed Darby from Iraq for his protection. However, he was not allowed to return to his home. The Army determined that the threat in his town was too imminent for him to return. Darby and his wife would spend the next six months with 24-hour protection from armed bodyguards (Cooper, 2006).
The people Darby feared include the convicted soldiers of 372nd Military Police Company (Nasaw, 2009). Of these soldiers, Corporal Charles Graner, who remains in prison serving a 10-year sentence for the abuse, was described as the ringleader (Associated Press, 2005). Among the others convicted were Private Lynndie England, Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, Sergeant Javal Davis, Specialist Megan Ambuhl, Specialist Sabrina Harman, Specialist Armin Cruz, and Private Jeremy Sivits. These eight men and women, along with others, had a choice. A decision was made by each of the soldiers involved to follow an ethical choice to treat the prisoners as humans, or to degrade, punish, harm and even kill those they were in charge of. They chose the latter. Accordingly, their careers suffered severely and in many cases, their careers were ended.
As the saying goes, A picture is worth a thousand words,” and the pictures certainly do tell it all. The looks on the faces of military members standing behind naked Iraqis stacked like wood, giving the camera a “thumbs up” with a big smile while detainees masturbate in the background, and numerous other photos, shows the immense lack of regard for ethical behavior. The evidence supports that these men and women had no values. They defend their actions, stating that they were “just following orders.” Could they be ordered to jump from a bridge? I hardly think so. Abuse, torture, assault, murder; how long before someone would have drawn the line had it not been for Joseph Darby?
Not to excuse the actions of the prison guards, but rather to explore the depth and source of the poison that spread though this prison in the form of torture, the order-issuing officials must be scrutinized. In the wake of 9/11, President George W. Bush was advised by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that he could decide whether Geneva Conventions apply to Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees stating that it was a “new kind of war” (CBS, 2007). Rear Admiral Michael Lohr, judge advocate general for U.S. Navy advises on the legal analysis of the situation, “I recommend that we consider asking decision-makers directly: is this the ‘right thing’ for U.S. military personnel?” Bush, ignoring the ethical recommendations of the JAG, signs the memorandum on February 7, 2002. Al Qaeda and Taliban detainees are now non-lawful combatants versus POWs and are not protected under the Geneva Convention (CBS, 2007).
In December 2002, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld signed the memorandum dated November 27, 2002 allowing the use of stress positions, nakedness, dogs and 20-hour interrogations at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (CBS, 2007). “The same practices were later adopted at Abu Ghraib, at least in part at the direct instigation of Gen. Miller” (Washington Post, 2005, para. 4). Major General Geoffrey Miller was the commanding officer at Guantanamo Bay. He went to visit Abu Ghraib and was told, according to Colonel Janis Karpinski in an interview with Democracy Now, to “Gitmo-tize” the operation at Abu Ghraib (Democracy Now, 2005). His recommendation was to have guards subordinate to intelligence officials conducting interrogations. He said that they should handle prisoners in a way that “sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of (them)” (USA Today, 2005). According to the Military Police (MP), MIs instructed them to play loud music, keep detainees awake, and put them in stress positions. Graner said during his sentencing phase, “A lieutenant in his unit told him: ‘If (military intelligence) asks you to do this, it needs to be done. They’re in charge, follow their orders.’” (Associated Press, 2005, para. 7).
Leadership could not provide clear guidelines, policies, or procedures for these young soldiers, leaving the MPs to figure it out and to listen to what the MIs were telling them to do (Hersh, 2004). The fact that no clear chain of command existed at Abu Ghraib made it difficult for these soldiers to know who to listen to (Jones, 2008). Regardless, they committed foul acts against numerous detainees. When asked why, most said that they were just following orders. That is what the military teaches soldiers, to follow orders; that is the defense of the convicted. However, there is a difference between following orders and torturing detainees. As Friedrich Kellner said, “Every person has the choice between Good and Evil. Choose Good, and stand against those who would choose Evil.” More than nine soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company chose evil by partaking in unethical behavior that ultimately ruined their careers.
Major General Antonio M. Taguba, who wrote the 53-page investigation report, concluded that “the failures of the Army prison system were devastating” (Hersh, 2004, para. 5). However, this is not only a failure of the system; this is a failure of professional ethics and values and it cost people their careers and any chance at professional success. Indeed the policies signed by President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld were flexible, open for interpretation you could say and the Chain of Command was virtually inexistent, but that is no excuse for the actions of these young men and women. As the men and women prosecuted for the abuse at Abu Ghraib witnessed, and as America has seen by the decreased support for the war on terror, without values and ethics there can be no true success.