EBrittain

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Summary of prisoner abuse scandal
What happened on the “night shift of Tier 1 at Abu Ghraib prison were acts of brutality and purposeless sadism. The pictures shown were unacceptable even at war time; they were not part of any of the authorized interrogations. They represent deviant behavior and the failure of military leadership and discipline” (“Final Report of the Independent Panel to Review DoD Detention Operations”).
Janis Karpinski was the highest ranking officer before the torture scandal ever occurred. She knows the details pertaining to what happened in Abu Ghraib. There has been talk about how the military officials play into the tortures themselves. One in particular is General Miller. He was the person in charge of detainment center in the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He was sent to Abu Ghraib to help improve the interrogating techniques used. General Miller actually made it a point to come and assist with different techniques. He himself said that the interrogators were being too nice to them. He even took it a step further and gave an example used in Guantanamo. He said that you have to let them know who is in charge, “you have to treat them like dogs.” Interesting enough, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld authorized the interrogation techniques. So who dropped the ball? The Secretary of Defense was pressuring for additional intelligence and more aggressive methods, but was based solely on the needed and appropriate detains which the government defined as “unlawful combatants.”

To what extent should principles of human rights and international law played a role in America’s decision to invade Iraq?

Human rights and international law should play a role in America’s decision to invade Iraq. Where the lines should be drawn should be regulated by the government. The government is fighting in Iraq in order to protect itself from terrorism, and free people in Iraq, enforce international law, and bring peace to the Middle East. In terms of international law, Brian Lepard notes there should be a principle of moral laws requiring governments to take some measurements on the measures of their abilities to prevent violations on human rights, like crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture. The victory that the Iraqi people had over Saddam have been seen as a positive consequence in terms of the moral standpoint of human rights. Saddam is said to be the worst Slobodan Milosevic.
The war can be morally justified because Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, violator of Human Rights, torture and a mass murder causing terror to the world. There were some contradictions because there were arguments as to why the United States wanted to remove Saddam out of power when they supported once the brutal war with Iran. The United States did not do anything about the brutal regime, and allowed what Kanan Makiya called the “Republic of Fear.”
The war with Iraq helped to make the lives of the Iraqi people better. The reason in doing this was to allow the brutal regime to be overpowered. In order to gain the rights of the Iraqi people back. To the Iraqi people, they feel that their rights have been taken away but American soldiers are over there fighting to better their lives. Of course, the Abu Ghraib scandal comes to mind in terms of Iraqi people’s own rights being violated. In my opinion, they were indeed violated. Even if they were held in detainment, they should not have to be degraded. With prisoners, determining what human rights are can be difficult. But with proper people in charge, and overseeing what happens this should not be a problem. Whether it is the President, Secretary of Defense, or the highest ranking general, the rights among humans should not be put in jeopardy.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home