|
"Where Were the
Officers?"
By Gordon Paisley
23-Jan-2005
Early last year, the
prison abuse scandal at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison captured the
headlines of many western newspapers. As the news unfolded, horrible
abuses of prisons were illustrated through the damning 'souvenir' photos
taken by and of the abusers themselves with large smiles and looks of
smug superiority. One particularly disturbing photo showed a guard with
an ear-to-ear grin flashing a 'thumbs-up' next to a dead prisoner.
The world responded with outrage and now those
responsible are being tried and convicted in the military court system.
During the peak of the reporting — when it was
still daily news — a friend of mine, who is a former Army officer and
West Point Graduate, made some interesting remarks. His primary question
was, "where are the officers? Why is it that everyone who has been
arrested so far is an enlisted person? Why are they not holding the
officers accountable?" At first, I allowed myself to be distracted
by these comments. He went on to make the point that, "how could
anyone expect a reservist unit with nominal training to go to Iraq and
properly run a prison?"
I'll tell you — it's because the failures here were
not in terms of administrivia — the scandal wasn't because
someone didn't use the right forms or because they exceeded some
textbook-suggested boundaries — they were morally abhorrent. It does
not require training to know that using police dogs to threaten
prisoners or humiliating prisoners by forcing them to strip and pile on
the floor and commit/simulate sexual acts is simply and without
qualification morally wrong.
It doesn't take a class to know what is justifiably
rough or austere treatment for prisoners and what is torture. Clearly,
the enjoyment demonstrated on the faces of the guards — or even the
fact that they decided to take photographs of what they were doing —
is sufficient grounds to demonstrate that they were going well beyond
the limits of moral behavior.
As has been done many times since Nuremberg, these
soldiers used the vain defense of, "I was only following
orders." As we all know, that defense was not successful at
Nuremberg and it wasn't successful in the Abu Ghraib cases. Good.
Frankly, the Nazis who used the "orders" defense probably had
a genuine fear of death had they not complied. Yet our moral code, as
displayed in the Nuremberg convictions reflected that they had a higher
moral code to answer to regardless of the threat. All the more important
then, for Americans in the 21st century, to be resolute as these
soldiers knew that non-compliance with any illegal orders would
certainly not result in a summary execution by their superiors. Whether
or not they were ordered — and regardless of the details they may have
been given if they were — these soldiers all knew they were doing
something morally wrong, and their failure to acknowledge it should be a
wake-up call to us all.
|
