Cultural Issues in Crimes Against Humanity

¶ … Culture that Encourages Human Rights

Americans were shocked when they learned about the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Or were they? Certainly, the media reported shock and outrage on the part of the public to the unpleasant revelations. But the outrage, if it really existed, has certainly not been a lasting outrage. The White House response to photos of young military personnel sexually assaulting and humiliating prisoners was to imply that only a few poorly supervised bad apple MPs would do such things. President George W. Bush said: "These acts do not represent the values America stands for." However, many Americans do not abhor the treatment of those prisoners at all. In fact, they think there should be more of it. "They do it to us," is commonly heard in restaurants where ordinary people discuss current events. Republican Congressman James Inhofe of Oklahoma dismissed the whole thing by saying, "These prisoners -- they're murderers, they're terrorists ... Many of them probably have American blood on their hands." Inhofe did not apologize for his comments either, which implies he believes he speaks for a large segment of the voting population in his state that applauds such behavior.

An article in World Watch ("What a Nation Values," 2004) points out that the soldiers who were tormenting the prisoners are very young, perhaps only a year or two out of high school, and the product of public schools where playground bullying, a time-honored American institution, has escalated to horrendous proportions in recent years. A boy beating up and humiliating other boys is a tradition and "a big part of the American experience." The writer suggests that abuses at Abu Ghraib reflect what happens everyday in American schools. If the soldiers thought what they were doing was wrong, he argues, they would have tried to hide their actions; but no, they photographed themselves. In movies, TV, and video games young people have seen tens of thousands of violent acts, often performed by the good guys: "Kick ass is what a hero does," at least this is the message of violent video games which repeat narratives found everywhere else in the media, as well. The games offer an exciting and seductive portrayal of so-called real men and the opportunity to play at being this kind of a man: "Many of these texts [games] align masculinity with power, with aggression, with victory and winning, with superiority and strength -- and, of course, with violent action" (Alloway & Gilbert, 1998, p. 97). Like girls who play with Barbie and learn to be caregivers, Boys play violent video games for learning purposes and learn to be men. We live in a culture that allows such messages, distorted and destructive to manhood, to be sold to boys and young men for big profits. Media violence and the real thing are not the same, of course, but in a culture where the biggest and most lucrative industry is entertainment, media experience becomes reality. A certain kind of hardedge mentality develops. What do 10,000 civilian deaths matter? Or a few hundred blown-up buildings? If the bad guy, Saddam, goes down, all is well.

In fact, the treatment of the prisoners does reflect the values of the Bush administration. Of course, there are some Americans whose values are not in line with torture, violence, war, and the destruction of civil liberties and human rights, people like Dennis Kucinich and Marianne Williamson who are working to create a U.S. Department of Peace; religious groups like Unitarians and Quakers who believe that people need to think more than they need to believe; the Union of Concerned Scientists who keep trying to prevent America from returning to the Dark Ages; the Human Rights Watch; and the legacy of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. ("What a Nation Values," 2004). But, in general, these people are not the voting block that supports George W. Bush. People who support Bush, his values, and policies are people like Ann Coulter who wrote in the National Review that America should strike back at Muslim terrorists, "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." The National Review reports receiving lots of e-mails in response to her article from readers who agree and urge that we "nuke" Mecca. In this kind of retaliative cultural climate, why are we so surprised when American soldiers torment, degrade, humiliate, and torture prisoners of war?

Although President Bush says publicly, "the United States reaffirms its commitment to the worldwide elimination of torture ... freedom from torture is an inalienable human right, and we are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law," his administration has actually fostered and encouraged it. Harold Koh (2005) suggests that after the 9/11 attack the administration had the opportunity to set up a democratic long-range plan for controlling terrorism. Instead, the administration looked for shortcuts, and torture was one of them, "a substitute for multilateral police work; the uncertainties of intelligence gathering; the expense of guarding ports, reservoirs, and transportation centers; and the financial regulation necessary to cut off the funding of terrorist groups" (p. 7). Koh testified before the Senate that the torturing, which is an international crime, is done with government authorization. Members of the Bush administration developed a torture policy and a legal rationale for torture was created. In his message to the Senate, Koh states: "Torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment are both illegal and totally abhorrent to our values and constitutional traditions. No constitutional authority licenses the president to authorize the torture and cruel treatment of prisoners, even when he acts as commander-in-chief"(p. 8). He went on to say that mistreatment of prisoners also violates the Geneva Convention agreement, under which our own troops were protected from similar treatment.

Information and confessions obtained by torture are notoriously unreliable. People will say anything to escape the pain being inflicted upon them. Pain and fear are what torture is all about in tactics such as holding a person's head under water, boiling limbs, and wiring a mans hands, legs, and penis in order to deliver electric shocks. The people who are tortured are not necessarily guilty either. Many haven't even been charged. When Congress watched 1800 slides and several videos (three hours worth) of Abu Ghraib Prison, they saw American soldiers sexually assault prisoners with chemical light sticks (Barry et al., 2004). They saw them laugh at the abused and mutilated dead bodies of Iraqis. Newsweek states that "U.S. soldiers and CIA operatives could be accused of war crimes. Among the possible charges: homicide involving deaths during interrogations" (p. 26). It was also clear that some of the torture methods used were taught, and ordinary American soldiers didn't think them up all by themselves. "Who taught them? Almost certainly it was their superiors up the line" (p. 27).

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 5 states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The United States ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1994 and therefore is legally bound to act in accordance with it. Article 2 states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture" (cited in Koh, 2005, p. 9).

Jay S. Bybee from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued a 50-page memorandum on August 1, 2002, which explored how torture could be used against suspected terrorists without the United States being held legally liable for it. Koh (2005) states that the memo defined torture so narrowly that many heinous acts committed by Saddam Hussein's regime would not be considered torture. It gave much more power to the president as commander-in-chief than the Constitution actually provides for, and concluded that the International Convention Against Torture permits the U.S. To engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. The president's counsel, Alberto Gonzales, did not repudiate this document. Donald Rumsfeld and others in the administration concluded that the Geneva Convention is outmoded and does not apply to al Qaeda and the Taliban. Rumsfeld told reporters in February, 2002 "The reality is the set of facts that exist today with the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were not necessarily the set of facts that were considered when the Geneva Convention was fashioned" (cited in Ross, 2005). In Rumsfeld's view, detainees at Guatanamo Bay are all unlawful combatants who "do not have any rights" under the Geneva Conventions.

Ross (2005) points out that military practice has been governed since the Civil War by Lincoln's humanistic principles relating to the treatment of prisoners in wartime. The Lieber Code, produced by the Lincoln administration, called for restraint and following accepted rules of war. The United States has adhered to principles of the Lieber Code in its treatment of POWs ever since. Article 16 of the Lieber code states: "Military necessity does not admit of cruelty -- that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions" (cited in Ross, 2005, p. 20). The Lieber Code led to and served as a model for Prussia and other armies in Europe. The American idea of how prisoners should be treated in wartime became the basis for the Hague Regulations at the turn of the 20th century and the Geneva Conventions at mid-century (p. 20).

The Bush administration, however, turned away from Lincoln's legacy. The CIA asked Bush administration lawyers in July, 2002, for example, how far the agency could go when questioning terror suspects. Alberto Gonzales, the president's chief counsel, met with his colleagues to discuss the question. It was partly from this meeting that the August 1 infamous 50-page memo emerged. Gonzales said the war on terror "renders obsolete Geneva' strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners." Iskoff et al. (2005) states in a Newsweek report "Gonzales and his team were constantly looking to push legal limits, to widen and maximize Bush's powers" (p. 55). Reportedly, Gonzales is far more loyal to the president than he is to the Constitution.

Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale, thinks this kind power maximization could be prevented with new legislation. He argues that the war on terror, unlike traditional wars, will never end. Terrorists will always lurk in the shadows. We should, therefore, not call it a war. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor agreed when she upheld the president's power to detain Yaser Esem Hamdi as an enemy combatant only so long as U.S. troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan (but not for a never ending war on terrorism). Ackerman recommends development of a new tradition in law. When a natural disaster strikes or an attack by terrorists, Congress should declare a state of emergency and authorize the president to act unilaterally only for a week or two -- "long enough for Congress to consider the matter" (Ackerman, 2004). He goes on to say, "The emergency should expire unless a majority of Congress supports the president. After two months, the matter should return to Congress for reauthorization, and this time, a 60-percent super-majority should be required for another two-month extension; the next should require 70%, and 80% thereafter" (p. 40).

In September, 2002 the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued its legal opinion on Article 49 of the Geneva Convention which states "... individual or mass forcible transfers of protected persons [e.g. noncombatant civilians] from occupied territory ... are prohibited, regardless of their motive" (cited in Koh, 2005, p. 10). The Office of Legal Counsel asserted that Article 49 does not prohibit temporary relocation of "protected person" "for a brief but no indefinite period, to facilitate interrogation" (cited in Koh, 2005, p. 10). This paved the way for the CIA's program, called "extraordinary rendition," which relocates suspects to be questioned in countries where torture is legal and practiced. Knight (2005) reports a bill was passed in May of this year authorizing $82 billion in military spending. Lawmakers slipped in an admonition on page 26 that "no one in U.S. custody -- American or foreigner -- may be tortured or subject to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment"(p. 34). However, nobody knows if this legislation also outlaws sending prisoners overseas for questioning in countries with histories of human rights violations and serious abuse of prisoners.

For example, the CIA snatched Khaled el Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, from a bus in Macedonia during a vacation trip, handcuffed him, and took him to a motel. Three weeks later he was blindfolded and flown to Afghanistan, where in a U.S. prison he was "shackled, repeatedly punched, and questioned about extremists at his mosque in Ulm, Germany" (Hirsh, et al., 2005, p. 32). After several months he was finally released. Newsweek found flight information and other evidence that confirms Masri's story, and a Munich prosecutor is investigating the case as a kidnapping. Several cases of serious abuse have been linked to CIA operatives, but so far nobody in that agency has been prosecuted.

In 1994 the United States signed the "United Nations Convention Against Torture," a treaty which was later codified into federal law. The treaty specifically prohibits transferring detainees abroad to countries where there are "substantial grounds for believing" that the prisoner will be subjected to torture. The Bush administration claims to be in compliance with the convention because it asks these countries for assurance that the detainee won't be tortured. The State Department, however, reports "patterns of torture and abuse" in all the countries where we have sent prisoners. Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, points out: "Governments that engage in torture always try to hide what they're doing, so their 'assurances' on torture can never be trusted" (cited in Knight, 2005, p. 36). It is estimated that the United States has rendered several hundred terrorist suspects to foreign governments.

Even more disturbing, in May, 2005 a massacre of several hundred political demonstrators took place in Uzbekistan where the U.S. has a base and has trained Uzbek military personnel. The Uzbek rulers who ordered the killings received "Godfather" protection from the United States. Donald Rumsfeld blocked attempts by NATO to investigate the massacre (McGovern, 2005). Uzbek is strategically important as a base where interrogation of suspected terrorists takes place. Examples like these point to a gap between what we say and what we do, between rhetoric and practice. The United States cannot condone mass killings, and torture prisoners, or transport them to a country to be tortured, and still be a leader on human rights at the same time. Other countries, including our allies, are concerned about what they perceive as Washington's cavalier attitude toward international law. A document known as "The Downing Street Memo" prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair warns in a typically understated British fashion: "U.S. views of international law vary from that of the U.K. And the international community" (cited in McGovern, 2005).

Meanwhile, the American people remain complacent and largely unaware of what is going on. What they know about they shrug off, or worse, endorse. One might well ask how this could happen in a country noted for its Puritan conscience, a religious people that sees itself as a "beacon of light to the world," a shining model of virtue and morality for the rest of the world to emulate, a country that offers freedom from oppression to the world's downtrodden people. Half of America voted for George W. because they believed their president to be a righteous man who prays daily for divine guidance. Perhaps our ignorance about crimes against humanity and human rights violations is because a 30-second sound bite on the six o'clock news does not permit a knowledgeable and intelligent discussion of complex issues. It is no secret that the media all along has functioned to preserve the status quo. In the nationalistic fervor that swept over the country following the events of 9/11, media newscasters offered virtually no dissent, critical questions, or objections when Bush wanted to invade Iraq.

Ethical questions come up every day in the newsroom concerning what should be reported and what should be withheld for the sake of security, especially during wartime when ethical standards are blurred (Matloff, 2005), but more disturbing, some journalists complain that dissent about how stories are presented and bias in reporting is not permitted. A journalist who publicly criticizes the network news will be severely punished in numerous and unpleasant ways (Goldberg, 2002, & Stossel, 2004).

In "The Censors: New Patterns in Opinion Control," an article in Columbia Journalism Review, several examples of media censorship are described. Ted Koppel, for example, made a program in which he read aloud "the names of 721 U.S. military members killed up to that point in Iraq." Sinclair Broadcast Group ordered its eight ABC affiliates not to air the program. When Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines publicly expressed her group's distaste for the war and the President, Cumulus Media stopped all its country stations from playing Dixie Chicks music: "At a Cumulus-sponsored war rally in Shreveport, Louisiana, a bulldozer symbolically [demolished] a pile of Dixie Chicks CDs. Many of the 1,225 radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications also [banned] the Dixie Chicks" (Cooper, 2004 ). When Roxanne Walker, a liberal on a talk show at WMYI in Greenville argued that the war in Iraq was not justified, she was fired. When Charles Goyette, the host on a drive-time talk show, welcomed critics to speak out against the war, his contract was not renewed. Disney refused to distribute Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 that was against Bush and the war. The article reports that Congress wanted an FCC investigation because of "the disturbing pattern of politically-based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry" (Cooper, 2004, p. 59) but goes on to say that an investigation is not likely to happen under the present administration.

In a thought-provoking article titled "The American National Conversation About (Everything but) Shame," Dov Cohen (2003) explores the concept of shame in relation to American culture and character. Cohen defines two types of shame. One is a feeling of shame that results from a loss of face when a person (or nation) is insulted or threatened. Honor and reputation is violated or lost as a result. Lack of bravery is seen as a moral failing if one fails to protect his honor, and this results in a sense of shame. This ethic stems from frontier life, where there was no law enforcement to protect citizens against crime. Frontier people developed an ethic of say what you mean, and mean what you say and never back down. Cohen argues that "In some ways we have never left the frontier" (p. 1077). The frontier is part of our national myth, and the cultural drive to maintain our honor and avoid shame is part of the American psyche.

It gets played out in our foreign relations. Losing our honor was a major concern, for example, in the escalation of the Vietnam War. Our honor seemed to be violated when Saddam Hussein toyed with us. President George W. Bush invoked the frontier language of honor when he said he wanted to go after "the guy who tried to kill my dad." Before any weapons inspection could be completed, the United States sent thousands of troops to the Middle East. We would have lost face if we backed out, turned tail, or seemed to have made idle threats. "The logic of the frontier is that where there is no effective law enforcement, a reputation for meaning what you say and not backing down is absolutely essential" (p. 1078).

The other kind of shame comes as a result of moral wrongdoing. In recent years society has experienced significant shifts in its conceptions of what is wrong. For example, premarital sex used to shameful as well as the birth of children out of wedlock; however, these have lost their moral (and immoral) significance. Single mothers and divorcees are no longer shamed either whereas they used to be society's pariahs. Cohen (2003) argues that conservative concern about family values is really a wish to return to a structure that can instill a sense of shame. "The cry for traditional family values is in some ways a cry of 'come back, shame, come back'" (p. 1085). Instead of shame, self-esteem is touted as a panacea for problems like underachievement, crime, and drug abuse. Conservatives want a return to character where self-respect is earned. They see self-esteem an entitlement, which will "bring about a nation of self-satisfied, underachieving individuals who have no real reason to strive for the good and who cannot be shamed into good behavior" (p. 1086).

In a strange sort of turn around, liberals moralize that greed is bad and shameful, clashing with conservatives for whom greed has lost its moral significance. Economist Paul Krugman claims that "the past 30 years have brought rising inequality in the United States, undoing the broadly 'middle-class' society that was America from World War II through the 1960s, and returning it to pre-1930 levels of inequality. Krugman attributes a large part of the rising inequality to changing cultural norms rather than simply market forces. 'Fear of outrage kept executive salaries in check. Now the outrage is gone'" (Cohen, 2003, p. 1088).