Compare and contrast this incident with the My Lai Massacre; how is the recent U.S. mistreatment of Iraq prisoners a crime of obedience as described in the Kelman and Hamilton paper, "The My Lai Massacre?"

Authors Avatar

Lindsay Nicora

Deviance-Final Exam

Dr. Beckley

Deviance

Final Exam

Question #1 – A) Compare and contrast this incident with the My Lai Massacre; how is the recent U.S. mistreatment of Iraq prisoners a crime of obedience as described in the Kelman and Hamilton paper, “The My Lai Massacre?”

Answer:  

The photographs of prisoners mistreated in Iraq are the product of what we call a crime of obedience.  Crimes of obedience begin with orders.  But orders are often vague and are rarely clear through transition from one authority down to subordinate soldiers.

As in the My Lai Massacre, the soldiers in Abu Ghraib and their supervisors, the supervisors who gave the soldiers their orders, were in a dehumanized state of mind.  That is why they were able to order and to conduct extreme sexual, mental and physical torture and human rights abuses upon their fellow human beings.  Nobody in their government or superior in their chain of command mentioned Article IV of the Geneva Convention to the soldiers.  In both incidences, the testimony of all soldiers held responsible claimed to be all ill-trained, overworked, underpaid, and subjected to horrific stress.  They claimed that they were acting under orders to “soften up” the prisoners for interrogation.  The military officers claimed that they didn’t know who gave the orders and refused to accept any of the blame or responsibility for what had happened.

        In both cases, the number of people held responsible for these atrocities was and continues to be nearly obsolete, considering the deliberate acts that were committed, as well as the evidence that backs up those claims.  According to the article, those held responsible and facing prosecution in Iraq (only six suspects), have charges of one or more of the following: conspiracy, dereliction of duty, cruelty towards prisoners, maltreatment, assault, and/or indecent acts.  

From the My Lai Massacre, Lieutenant Calley was the only person convicted and the only person to serve any jail time.  The core of the defenses in both cases was that the defendant was just carrying out the orders of his superiors.  When asked why they didn’t inform their chain of command about the abuse, both case files show that they assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something.  

It is likely that the structure of the authority situation contributed to the massive violence by conveying the message that acts of violence against villagers were required, and that these acts, even if not ordered, were permitted by the authorities in charge.  Some of these actions suggest that there is an unquestioning obedience to superior orders, no matter how destructive the actions of the orders call for, this is also authority based.

This kind of obedience is created in military training and reinforced by the structure of the military authority situation.  As we have seen, this kind of obedience does come with some benefits.  Apparently one of the benefits is that even if you are responsible, directly or indirectly, for the atrocities that occur, you are apparently not subject to any penalties or punishment for those acts.    

The soldiers involved should not be excused for the acts committed, and the government should not be excused of providing soldiers the kind of training and leadership that would lead them into doing this and even allowing them to consider what they were doing was right.  

The blame needs to roll uphill, but unfortunately, it won’t.  Whatever the outcome of congressional hearings, military court-martials or legal investigations, the question remains; whether we will ever see those responsible for such abuses-from the top level of command down to the soldiers-held accountable and bear the consequences for their part.

Part of the military experience is the disciplined “training” that young people receive.  I call it dehumanization.  It happened in Vietnam and its still happening.  For a soldier to call an Iraqi a “human” has become unacceptable.  Can you train a person to kill other humans?  I don’t think so, but you can if you turn those people into “gooks” or “rag heads”, or whatever non-human assignment you can think of.  Then, the soldier is no longer murdering human beings.  No, they are just killing “things” of lesser value and their actions are justified, to themselves and to their country.  Isn’t this attitude reflected in the photos from Iraq?  

Question #1 – B) How might the social processes of sanctioned massacres create the conditions for the violence at Abu Ghraib?

Answer:  

The Kelman and Hamilton article stated that, “it is more instructive to look not at the motives of violence, but at the conditions under which the usual moral inhibitions against violence become weakened” (pg. 91).  This article discusses the three social processes that cause sanctioned massacres, where the moral inhibitions against violence become weakened, these processes are: authorization, routinization, and dehumanization.

Join now!

Authorization occurs when the situation becomes so defined that the individual is released of the responsibility to make personal moral choices.  Through routinization, the action becomes so organized that there is no opportunity for raising moral questions.  Through dehumanization, the person’s attitude towards their target change, causing the person to take away their target’s human status and the target’s morality no longer exists.

To view the Iraqis as animals, or as sub-humans, makes it easier for the soldiers to dominate them, to break down their doors in the middle of the night, to imprison them without charges and without notifying ...

This is a preview of the whole essay