Sunday, November 4, 2007

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

Ok, so this blogging stuff is slightly more than what I bargained for. Besides the fact that my original goals of posting something useful at least once a week is in ruins (more like once a month), I find I don't have barely enough time to thoroughly research a topic and put it up. What with school and work and life, its hard enough trying to keep myself motivated!

But, last week an opportunity came up that I had to write about. I mean literally, I HAD to write about it for my Sociology class. :) Not that I wasn't interested in the first place, but what better than a grade to force you to write about something interesting and very relevant? I edited the previous post (which was pretty much a rant about the topic); here's the more polished version:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TONY LAGOURANI EVENT (NOVEMBER 1ST, 2007)

Tony Lagourani, a young man who was recruited to Iraq in 2004 as an interrogator, gave some sociological insight into the abuse perpetrated by the soldiers in Iraq, particularly in Abu Ghuraib. His book, “An Army Interrogator’s Dark Journey in Iraq,” discusses his experience.

He arrived in Iraq during 2004, before any of the Abu Ghuraib scandals. Before he went to Iraq, he said, he and other interrogators had recieved "cultural training" -- from a man who had never even met an Arab or a Muslim. This was supposed to help them understand the people they would be interrogating. They were taught out of a book authored by an Israeli (government?) official which pretty much listed "Arabs as lying, cheating, driven by violence, and in every way different from 'normal' people." It even went on to say, and these are the speakers' words, "they have a different grip on reality... they are very violent." To sum up, it was a book which was trying to justify Israel's continued occupation and violence in Palestine and other Arab countries, geared towards a Western audience. This was thier cultural training. This is the mindset they had going to Iraq.

Further, Lagourani went on to say, that when he arrived in Iraq, they were given very vague instructions on how to interrogate the prisoners -- highly unusual because in the Army, as everyone knows, you are told what to do from Day 1: how to walk, talk, dress, act, how to carry out the most minute of duties. The army is not a place where one is told to "Be creative," there are rules for everything and the good soldier follows those rules out to perfection. Yet, in Iraq, the orders given from the generals were vague, 'make them talk'. They were told to use, and I quote, "stress positions, temperature (hypothermia), military dogs, sleep deprivation waterboarding [forceful drowning]" etc. to make them talk, and were not told what NOT to do; (there was a host of other things he mentioned, but this is merely what I scribbled down).

These forms of torture went on for days, if not weeks. “We were aware,” Lagourani said, “that these forms of torture violated the Geneva Convention for treatment of Prisoners of War, but our generals told us that these prisoners were not even covered under the Geneva Convention, that in fact, a new class had been created for them, ‘Enemy Combatants’.” Thus, he said, "we followed orders."

I lost track of the number of times Lagourani repeated this phrase: "we followed orders" or "we were ordered to do so" -- which is essentially the basic premise of Milgram's Experiment of 1961: that rational, normal, 'good,' people will continue to obey authority against their better moral conscience. This is a classic example where Milgram's experiment was proven to be right. Lagourani, and many other soldiers' claim was always, "we followed orders." They were conditioned since the first day in the military that to be a successful soldier, one would unquestionably obey authority.It's also an example of Zimbardo's Prison Experiment of 1971; that when given an unprecedented amount of power, even the most 'good' people will become corrupt and abuse that power. Because the soldiers guarding the prisoners at Abu Ghuraib had such power, and because the rules given to them on how to treat the prisoners were very vague, many soldiers misused their power and abused the prisoners.

Lagourani gives an example that supports this idea: He [Lagourani] was guarding a prisoner who had stolen a can of Benzene oil (the type to fuel heaters/stoves with). The prisoner had nothing to do with the war, nothing to do with terrorism. It was 3am in the morning, he [Lagourani] was sleep deprived (though obviously not as much the prisoners, whom were kept awake for weeks on end), and sick of being constantly under attack. He wanted to take his stress out on someone whom he could have complete dominance and control over.... Since there was no one else around [to stop him], Lagourani said, "I thought, you know what, screw it. I'm goanna beat the hell out of this guy." At this point, his moral consciousness caught up with him. Although he did not go through with the actual act, this example proves Zimbardo’s premise right – that even though Lagourani was, generally speaking, a good person, when put under stressful conditions and given extraordinary power, he was willing to abuse that power.

And finally, the Abu Ghuraib discussion also raised questions of deviances and norms. Was it, in fact, a deviant act for the few soldiers (according to the media, Lagourani stated otherwise) to abuse the prisoners? Or is it completely normal when everyone else, or the vast majority of soldiers, were committing the same act? To answer these questions, one has to look at the defenitions of a norm to define deviance. The two types of norms -- normal and normative --cover both these circumstances. Statistically (if we are to believe Lagourani [who said that most soldiers did abuse the prisoners], not the media) then this act was normal by all means. Because more than 50% of the soldiers in Iraq did abuse the prisoners, then the incidents at Abu Ghuraib are normal. However, if one looks at it through a "normative" defenition, based on values of equality and justice before the law, then this was defenitely a deviant act becaue the prisoners were not given basic human rights, and were violated of rights givent to them under the Geneva Convention, Article 3, that states, "[POW's] shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Thus the defenition of deviance varies with the defenition of the norm.

The discussion raised important questions of American involvement in the Middle East, and the treatment of any people -- be it Iraqi's, Arab's, or American's -- in accordance with the most basic of human rights, that is, to be treated with dignity. Instead of American's asking "Why do they hate us?" the discussion begs the question "Why would they like us?!"

As one audience member put it, "How can I, as an American citizen, be proud to call myself an American, or even, truthfully call this country 'Democratic' when my administration allows and sanctions these acts to happen -- and continue?"

Abu Ghuraib was not a stranded event -- war crimes, especially with American soldiers [as they are always the occupier, not the one bieng occupied] are rampant simply because of the extraordinary power they [American soldiers] hold. We, as Americans, need to understand that these acts are bieng committed in our names and with our tax dollars. We must realize that to the world outside the US, "Americans" not "American officials" or the "Bush Administration" are the real perpetrators of the acts, and it is to us that they point the finger of blame.

Peace everyone, I'd seriously reccommend Lagourani's book if you want to learn more about this subject.

Sumeyya