Cold-Blooded for Christ 2007

C. David Jones

Junior Morality Research Project

Tragedy of Abu Ghraib

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment”(1) The torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, just outside of Baghdad, showed the world the inhumane treatment that United States military officials had been subjecting the captured Iraqis citizens to. No one knows when the torture of Iraqis prisoners began, but with the end of Combat action in June of 2003 came the opening of the prison for Iraqis inmates. What does this episode of abuse show the world about the United States? As a nation, the United States deplored itself with the torture of those prisoners. It proved many people’s stereotypes about how the United States thinks it can do whatever it wants and not pay the price. According to President Bush, it was our job to liberate and free the Iraqis from the evil reign of Saddam Hussein, but instead we took the people who we thought of as threats to the United States mission and we degraded, abused, and savaged their bodies, spirits, and minds. How can the government justify the action it took at Abu Ghraib? If it were only some rogue troops, then why didn’t the chain of command find out sooner? Why did the world have to be as surprised as the military when reports came out against this tragedy? If the United States is such an advanced nation, sending thousands of troops across two oceans and thousands of miles in order to liberate and free an oppressed people, then how could we let such a crude, inhumane thing happen to those people? With increased prejudice towards Arabs, American troops felt more hatred towards the Arab world for the actions of September 11^th and for the conflict in Afghanistan. With the tragedy of Abu Ghraib, American soldiers utilized their free will to terrorize and haunt Iraqis prisoners into giving falsified testimonies and confessions and also to psychologically defeat and demoralize Iraqis souls.

In 2003, President Bush went before Congress in his 2003 State of the Union Address and told the nation, “If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him” (2). For years, the United States had been gathering intelligence on the supposed Weapons of Destruction Saddam Hussein and his government had been trying to produce. According to the U.S. Government, “Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb” (3). The United States believed that Saddam Hussein had the power to produce and use nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons to show the power of Iraq and to harm others around the world. With this presumption, President Bush called on Congress to take action and allow United States the opportunity to liberate Iraq in order to bring down a powerful dictator.

In order to liberate Iraq, the United States gathered a coalition composed of: the United Kingdom, Australia, Denmark, Poland, and over forty other nations, forming a “coalition of the willing.”. On March 20, 2003, Coalition forces began their assault with the bombing of military strongholds in Iraq. Using special forces troops, the United States, along with the Kurds, were able to rid Saddam’s troops from the North. From the South, Coalition forces were able to sweep through Iraq, capturing Baghdad on April 24, 2003. When Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown, fell in late April, the invasion phase of the war concluded. On May 1, 2003, President Bush landed on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and gave his “Mission Accomplished” Address in which he proclaimed that all Iraqi Ground Forces were defeated and that the United States was now transitioning into a peacekeeping and transitional government phase.

With the end of the ground war in Iraq came a need for securing law and order in the region. For this, the United States Army named, “Janis Karpinski, an Army Reserve Brigadier General, Commander of the 800^th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq” (4). Abu Ghraib Prison, a prison formally used by Saddam Hussein as a place for, “torture, weekly executions, and vile conditions” (5), was cleaned and converted into a U.S. military complex for prisoners from the Iraqi War, specifically in from Baghdad. The prisoners who composed the population at Abu Ghraib were made up of three groups, “common criminals; Csecurity detainees suspected of crimes against the coalition, and a small number of suspected “high value” leaders of the insurgency against the coalition forces” (6). Conditions at Abu Ghraib were apparently up to standard and according to General Karpinski, “Living conditions are better in prison than at home. At one point we were concerned that they wouldn’t want to go home” (7). However, the turmoil and controversy surrounding Abu Ghraib prison was just about to begin.

The investigation of Abu Ghraib Prison officially began when Specialist Joseph Darby, Military Police, came across pictures and videos of army soldiers abusing and harassing prison detainees. With the photos at hand, Spec. Darby reported the atrocities to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. In addition to handing over the photos, Darby also gave sworn testimony against some of the soldiers reported on the videos and photos. Darby later told reporters that, “he felt very bad about it and thought it was wrong” (8).

With the investigation present, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior officer in Iraq, ordered Major General Antonio Taguba to open an inquiry into the abuse and scandal at Abu Ghraib Prison. The material of the Taguba Report claimed that,

Army regulations and the Geneva Convention were routinely violated, and in which much of the day to day

Management of the prisoners is invariable was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian

Contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by humiliation and torture, was the priority.

With this report, charges were brought against the troops present in the videos and in the photos. According to Frontline, “Seven Military Police Officers and two military intelligent soldiers were charged and found guilty under the military code of military justice: Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, Sergeant Jalal Davis, Specialist Jeremy Divits, Specialist Megan Ambuhl, Specialist Charles Graner, Specialist Sabrina Harman, Private Lyndie England, Specialist Armin Cruz, and Specialist Roman Krol” (9). These were some of the first war crimes brought against United States Soldiers in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. With these charges, questions were brought out to the world of how the United States conducts its interrogations. According to the Taguba Report, the Army reported, “The soldiers were poorly prepared and untrained, prior to deployment, at the mobilization site, upon arrival in the Iraqi theater, and throughout the mission” (10). The troops present at Abu Ghraib were not trained to be prison guards or security personnel, but to be soldiers. With their lack of training, they were not familiar with proper techniques on how to subdue or control the prisoners.

In addition to the lack of training, there was the presence of Military Intelligence at Abu Ghraib. According to Global Policy Forum, “Suspects in the war on Terror are not susceptible to the Geneva Convention because they are not a party to international treaties of war” (11). With this precedent, Intelligence was able to gather and interrogate suspects however they saw fit. According to a letter written by Staff Sergeant Frederick, he reported:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

Influenced by Military Intelligence, the enflamed soldiers used tactics that were outlawed in the United States Military Code of Conduct.

With the tragedy of Abu Ghraib, American soldiers utilized their free will to terrorize and haunt Iraqis prisoners into giving falsified testimonies and confessions and also to psychologically defeat and demoralize Iraqis souls. From the Tragedy of Abu Ghraib, the United States was humiliated as a world leader with images that depict our soldiers, who convey our goodwill and sense of freedom and patriotism, as ruthless tyrants and aggressors who terrorized and disgraced hundreds of Iraqis prisoners. What was the morality of the soldiers as they performed those hideous acts? From their perspective, maybe they believed they were helping with the interrogations by putting them under horrid standards of living. Maybe with their lack of training, the soldiers were conveying their own emotions and attitudes about the war on the prisoners. Whatever the cause, they made a conscientious decision that resulted in the mental scarring of thousands of Iraqi lives. The Abu Ghraib Tragedy shows that soldiers, who the American Public put their trust in, carried out heinous crimes in their positions of power and responsibility. This tragedy helped to shed the light on American tactics and strategy during the war on terrorism. As Major General Taguba reflects on his mission to investigate Abu Ghraib, “I’m the guy who blew the whistle, and the Army will pay the price for my integrity” (12).

As I was researching Abu Ghraib, I came across the the works of Fernando Botero, who came up with inspirational and graphic images of the Abu Ghraib Tragedy. For Your Enjoyment

Tragedy of Abu Ghraib

60 Minutes Exclusive: Abu Ghraib

Frontline Interview:Who's to Blame for Abu Ghraib?

Artist's Interpretation of Abu Ghraib

Time Article: Fernando Botero

Works Cited