Abu Ghraib Psychology Essay. What do you think you would do in a situation like Abu Ghraib? Do you think the military personnel who were involved in the Abu Ghraib incident should have been jailed or reduced in rank?

what the rules are to the maximum extent possible and when you start messing around with those rules when you say they don’t apply, now you are in unlimited warfare", Rear Admiral John Huston US Navy 1997-2000. "This war was a war that would foremost depend on intelligence that is on information derived from prisoners at war therefore rules regarding  interrogation, what you could and couldn't do to prisoners, were absolutely central to fighting this new war", Mark Danner (Author of "Torture and Truth"). Beyond the Geneva Conventions, there were still other restrictions on how the U.S. could treat prisoners, including the UN Convention against Torture. Part I - Crime Chapter 113C of Torture does not define many of the terms used such as torture, severe, pain, all of thought were to be ambiguous and vague implications therefore the U.S. justice department issued a memo in 2002 to the Whitehouse averring "Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. In Iraq, a team of soldiers were told to shoot anyone that looks like the enemy. In addition to that, a soldier said that everyone here looks like the enemy. After 911 (September 1, 2001), it was rational to contemplate the paranoia the Americans possessed against Arabs, therefore the soldiers would presume every person staring at them in Iraq would be considered a threat and therefore captivate the suspicious threat. Furthermore, General Miller had been running prison operations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prior to being assigned to the Abu Ghraib prison. As a support to the actions executed in Abu Ghraib, in 2004, the Bush Administration released a formally classified document that showed General Rumsfeld had approved many extreme techniques. These techniques consist of solitary confinement and enhanced or extreme disorientation which include stress positions, individual phobias, removal of clothing, and sexual humiliation. Needless to say, In August 2003, eight months after Rumsfeld gave his approval for harsher interrogation tactics as Guantanamo, General Miller was sent to Iraq. However, the Administration's official position was that the Geneva Conventions applied there. Miller told the guards at Abu Ghraib that they are treating the prisoners too well and that if they don’t treat them like dogs you have lost control over the interrogation. The following month, General Sanchez issued a new memo, officially rescinding some of the techniques he had just approved. All these modifications and issuing of memos led to confusion of the soldiers which disallowed them to know what exactly they were allowed to do. The guards would hang people by their hands in positions unbearable for even 5 minutes causing them to scream after 30-60 minutes, subsequently the guard stated "now that is the music I want to hear". They would not allow sleep for 5 nights, strip guards and forcing them to have oral sex with each other. They were dragged on the floor while being nude therefore the genitals were being scraped while being dragged, and they were stacked on top of each other while nude forced each other’s genitals to have contact. Moreover, a progress report was issued of the soldiers who said they were doing a good job and performing well and that they should continue doing whatever it is they were doing. This progress report therefore acted as an encouragement for the techniques used. There was an incident regarding a dead man claimed to have died from a heart attack however in fact he was murdered. That being said, Grainer and Sabrina (two soldiers) were imprisoned for taking a photo and being in a photo involving that dead person but none were brought to trial for committing the murder. They were charged for taking photos of the murder that took place rather than charging the people that committed the murder. It was said to be a cover-up. The murder of al-Jamadi was the only death at Abu Ghraib ruled a homicide. Eventually they were all caught as the pictures were sent to the investigators (CID) by Darby (another soldier). All the people involved were charged depending on their actions.   Honestly speaking, if I was to be in that situation, knowing myself I'd probably commit similar actions however not to that extent. I know I have some humanity in me and I am aware of my own extent. Given that I am an American I do feel the pain for the 911 incident and have much hatred and detestation to the Muslims however that would not influence my actions into doing my job. I may be bias and treat them a little more aggressively than they should be. As I am asked this question the first thought that comes to mind is the fundamental attribution error also known as the correspondence bias. This error states that we would see a person in a situation and claim we wouldn’t do the same however if we were to be in that situation we probably would do the same. We tend to focus on the person rather than the situation. This is called perceptual salience.   I think the military personnel involved should have been reduced in rankings. However, if they committed a murder then that should be a consequence of imprisonment. If we think about this logically, they cannot be blamed or seen in a disgustful aspect. They were merely following order from General Miller to treat them like dogs. However, the military personnel went to extreme but consider their emotions towards these prisoners and imagine the 911 incident having an impact on these soldiers. There was one particular action I found preposterous where Sabrina was charged for merely taking pictures of the homicide as opposed to the homicide being investigated. There was no action executed against General Miller which I found to be absurd given that he was the one who influenced the military personnel into being more aggressive and severe with their interrogative approaches.   The military personnel experienced the tragedy of 911 which therefore meddled with their disposition. Likewise, being assigned to Abu Ghraib with those environmental exposures acted as situational factors. Both dispositional factors and situational factors influenced the military personal into committing the actions against the detainees. They have developed a sense of hatred through the past years from the 911 incident which caused them to have this perspective of people in Iraq. Therefore, with the inclusion of this perspective, they treated the prisoners with hostility and torture. Moreover, they had a sense of authority against these prisoners and followed through with the orders from a higher authority (General Miller). Also, the rules of Rumsfeld suggested that these extreme techniques were allowed. The norm of guards is expected to demonstrate actions to represent authority or power through attempts of degradation hence the situation that occurred in Abu Ghraib. In correlation to this, the Stanford experiment was a representation of demonstrating authority and power through situational factors. 24 students were divided into the roles of either guards or prisoners. The experiment ended the 2 week experiment in less than a week because it got carried away and caused mental defects. Guards were starting to strip, hood, and forcing them to simulate sodomizing one another. We can explain the reasoning behind these actions through situational factors. They were assigned a role of guards which usually conduct actions to establish power oppressed upon prisoners. Each day, the extent to which the guards would go to in order to convey authority and power would intensify therefore Abu Ghraib may be seen as an aggravated replication of the Stanford Experiment seeing as how in Abu Ghraib the military personnel were influenced by both dispositional and situational factors whereas the guards in the Stanford Experiment were only exposed to situational factors.