It's hard to find words to describe how the American people feel about the alarming pictures coming out of Iraq today. I'm absolutely positive that almost 100% of U. S.citizens are saddened by the actions of a few of us. It won't mean much, but I'd like to apologize to the citizens of the world for what has happened. I only hope those responsible are to pay dearly. It doesn't matter whether or not we approve of the war, as individuals. None of us find this to be acceptable behavior. Those are the only words I can find.

Ed

I don't know what is wrong with the world today. What is anyone gaining from destroying Iraq. I just hope some heads will turn and such atrocities will end completely.

We are all people of the earth, drink the same water, eat the same food.
:bawling:

I agree with you both, what the heck is going on? Anyway, now all the recent news is people denying everything and that the pics could be frabricated, etc. After reading the latest news, I was wondering if I or someone with the eye for details on photo's could find discrepancies within them. Obviously things like, were the soldiers wearing a certain type of uniform, would be tough to disinguish, but if the photos were fake, it would seem like there would be something, somewhere, that could be wrong. Has anyone thought the same thing and taken a close look at any of them?

I've been reading and visiting this site for a few months and find it very informative! This is my first post and hopefully will soon start participating in the photo related issues as well!

Since so many are already being reprimanded, I don't think the fake picture idea carries much weight. Canada went thru a similar situation in Somalia with a few soldiers torturing some people. It seems that no matter what country you are from, you'll find incidences like this. Some seem to really enjoy the power they hold over others but to me the real bad asses are the commanders that allow this to go on under their noses. They should be court martialed.

Dave

Last week, I watched a documentary about a 1970s experiment conducted by a psych professor here in the U.S.

He divided paid college volunteers into two groups: guards and prisoners and set up a makeshift "prison." He almost canceled the experiment at first because no unexpected dynamics occurred.

But then, the "guards" became sadistic and power-obsessed. The "prisoners" became demoralized, contentious, and sometimes emotionally unstable.

It was much like the famous Stanley Milgram experiment, the conclusion being: "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

Too bad we're not more closely related to gorillas than chimps. All gorillas like to do is eat, sleep, and have families. I didn't come to the wisdom of this lifestyle until later years. :tired:

We just have to accept the fact that there are good people and bad people.

Here's a link to a BBC article on this subject (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3683115.stm) (which includes a discussion of the famous Stanford Prison Experiment). Sadly, it's not as simple as "good people" and "bad people" - all the evidence over several decades suggests that most (though not all) people will behave like this under the right circumstances if there are no checks on the prevailing atmosphere and behaviour. The focus needs to be on ensuring that the "right circumstances" don't arise and that there are such checks.

The focus needs to be on ensuring that the "right circumstances" don't arise and that there are such checks.

As much as I hate to say this, I just don't see that happening. And since most people would act like that under the "right circumstances", does that mean they should not be held accountable? Or maybe someone else should be held accountable?

Ed

Yes, they should be held accountable. Many, many types of behaviour could be induced in people under the "right" circumstances, but society as a whole cannot function unless people are held accountable for those types of behaviour.

It all depends on what you want to achieve - you can just hold people accountable after the event, but if you want to stop the abuses happening in the first place you need to accept that you can't just rely on the inherent decency of the human spirit to do it.

As per the BBC article, those in senior positions of responsibility need to be up-front and specific about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and about the need to maintain professionalism, and need to make sure that that is enforced rather than let slide. I agree that there will always be abuses somewhere that need to be dealt with after the fact, but the extent of them can be reduced. Frankly I think that the first step is recognising that the fact that the men under your command are upright, well-balanced, reasonable people does not mean that you can overlook the potential issues that could arise - it's something that needs to be talked about and followed up on.

For a real "shocker," check out the Stanley Milgram experiment at Yale:

http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

Sixty per cent of Milgram's subjects were willing to shock a subject into unconsiousness or even death when so ordered by an authority figure.

I personally find the Stanford experiment more shocking, because the subjects in that were not ordered to do anything -- they just spontaneously started torturing and abusing the other subjects. But Milgram's is also a classic result and a sobering insight into human nature.

What I find disconcerting is that this is one bubble that floated to the top of the glass and popped. How many more bubbles are out there that haven't popped that we don't know about? I mean, how much has the government been able to cover up and keep from us?

Dave

I suppose the reason I find the Milgram experiment more sobering is the subject's willingness to go to such extremes.

Milgram, who is Jewish, originally wondered if there was something unique to the German personality which would explain the Holocaust. His original intention was to take the experiment to Germany. However, his results in America convinced him that the excuse and license of "just following orders" is not unique to that culture or nation. He had no need to go to Germany to validate his fears.

Hi, just a foreign perspective on things. Your troops are not the only ones involved in prisoner abuse. British troops have also been accused of the same offences, and images published in the media. I don't suppose this made news in the U.S as I found your news broadcasts pretty insular when I was on a ski vacation in Vail recently. But it seems that everyone is capable of extreme behaviour when placed in extraordinary circumstances. Surely the stress now shoud be on reinforcing systems in place to ensure that occurences of this type do not happen again.

It's generally believed the pictures published in the UK tabloids were fake. However at the end of the day setting armies to control civilians never works, the former being trained to destroy opposition not pander to it.

Frankly I think that the first step is recognising that the fact that the men under your command are upright, well-balanced, reasonable people I'm not sure of the make-up of the forces, but I have a feeling these are career soldiers and not conscripts. To paraphrase Chris, career soldiers are trained to kill people. I'm sure that you can expect the same degree of "uprightness" and "reasonableness" from a soldier in the field as from any mugger in the downtown area of any city.

On the other hand, the pics I've seen in our media look rather fake to me. I think most folks on this forum could make pics like that. Remember, you only need a head shot - the rest can be staged. The whole war was a media event - why not take it further?

Al, I think you are missing my point (you only quoted half the sentence, missing the important part of the thought it represents) - what I was saying (in a longer form so less open to misinterpretation) is that In general (not specific to Iraq) a given group of people may be entirely lovely, wonderful people -- people you would take home to meet your mother or be happy to have marry your daughter [OK, not all of them marry your daughter at once, obviously], etc. etc. BUT they are still almost certainly capable of carrying out these type of acts. Indeed, if put in a position of untrammelled power over others in the right circumstances, they are likely to carry out these acts - all the psychological evidence suggests that the majority of people will (the subjects in the Stanford experiment were well-educated students at a top-rank university, who had not been trained to kill, but it took them only days to fall into the behaviour patterns). Therefore anyone in a position of command over a group of individuals who are themselves in a position of more-or-less absolute authority over another group of individuals cannot rely on the calibre of the people under his/her command to ensure that abuses don't occur -- it is essential that institutional checks are in place.
Because this (need for institutional checks) holds true for mother-meeting, daughter-marrying individuals, it holds just as true for those you wouldn't let within a mile of your daughter or mother.

the pics I've seen in our media look rather fake to me.No one is actually denying the authenticity of the Abu Ghraib photos, though - once the photos got into the public domain the authorities admitted that this stuff had been going on. That would be an odd reaction if the photos were fake (and, conversely, those I've seen don't look fake to me).

Everyone, including me, was outraged when Mike Tyson bit off a piece of Evander Holyfield's ear during a boxing match.

When I discussed it with a friend at work, he said, "I guess it's OK to brain damage your opponent, but you can't bite his ear."

The absurdity of my limited outrage struck me.

I think there might me a parallel here with the current events in Iraq.

[QUOTE=BigAl]I'm not sure of the make-up of the forces, but I have a feeling these are career soldiers and not conscripts. To paraphrase Chris, career soldiers are trained to kill people. I'm sure that you can expect the same degree of "uprightness" and "reasonableness" from a soldier in the field as from any mugger in the downtown area of any city.

I would suggest that perhaps the opposite is true. These people are probably conscripts, bored to tears wishing they were out seeing some "real" action. To relieve the boredom, let's have some fun with the prisoners. Their commanders probably went along with it to keep the morale high.

Dave

The people involved in the main instances are reservists, by and large.

Which British army authorities admitted it had been going on?

To me it seems Iraq is ungovernable in the democratic sense. What the allies need to do is recruit a hard nosed individual with an in depth knowledge of the country and experience in dealing with political opponents. Now let me think.....

Which British army authorities admitted it had been going on?The Abu Ghraib photos are the US ones. I have deliberately not commented on the photos featuring the British because those have not been accepted by the authorities and I don't know enough about them to make a judgment myself.
To me it seems Iraq is ungovernable in the democratic sense. What the allies need to do is recruit a hard nosed individual with an in depth knowledge of the country and experience in dealing with political opponents. Now let me think.....I have heard (admittedly only from the Rory Bremner show, but I have found that a reliable source in the past) that the US invested a lot of time and money getting experts who really knew the area and culture to draw up a detailed plan for the sensitive short-term government of Iraq and a peaceful transition of power. Then when they actually invaded they threw away that carefully-thought-out plan and just made up a new one (not drawn up by experts, etc., etc.)

Remember that Iraq like most of Africa had its boundaries sketched out on the back of an envelope at the British foreign office sometime in the twenties. Probably between the pudding course and the brandy and cigars! The boundaries bear no relation to the ethnic groupings.

The same program had a long strand on that, as well - drawing some fairly obvious parellels.

What we have now is a country the bulk of who's populace have little to lose and as their situation deteriorates move away from logical remedies and lean towards fundamentalism. Military technology falls down in an urban environments like Bagdhad as the US army has found out over the past few weeks and one wonders what has to be done, will Bush hang in there to save face and let it become an American Stalingrad?

Long before this organized conflict started, I began following theWhere's Raed (http://www.dear_raed.blogspot.com/) blog. I don't pretend to understand all (any?) of the issues, but I was always moved by the quote appearing on his blog page:

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington

I remember when the Viet Nam war ended and the soldiers returned from combat and the problems they were having re-integrating into society were becoming apparent, a rather blunt individual of my acquaintance commented "at least they had the humanity to shoot the dogs that they used over there" - On the surface a cruel remark, but what he meant was that those poor soldiers are changed in ways we can't even imagine and then we expect them to come home and behave as though nothing had happened (and behave while their there as if they were out for dinner in a fancy restaurant)

Who knows what drugs they have to take to avoid illnesses - some of those drugs have already proven lethal.

Ah it's a sad sad situation, I wish I had an answer, no, I wish I could even begin to understand the problem,

Margaret

Big Al :

I'm not sure of the make-up of the forces, but I have a feeling these are career soldiers and not conscripts. To paraphrase Chris, career soldiers are trained to kill people.

I keep hearing reservists.... but worse yet many are prison guards back home.

That would be an odd reaction if the photos were fake For several years, I've been testing how my students react to faked photographs - even with all the clues given, 95% of them do not believe that the composite image is faked (this was discussed on this forum several years back). I doubt whether the majority of those out there (including the politicians) will have a different viewpoint to these students.

(and, conversely, those I've seen don't look fake to me).Have a close look at the shadows in the picture with woman with the cigarette in her mouth (US pics), especially the shadow of her arm, compared to the shadows of the "prisoners" and the shadows on either side of her. Even the cigarette looks fake to me.

In "defense" of the soldiers, they are degraded, denigrated and humiliated during their basic training as a means to get them to accept, without question, the authority and commands of anyone with a higher rank. To the rank and file, similar treatment is often the only means for them to get anyone to accept their authority...

95% of them do not believe that the composite image is faked ... I doubt whether the majority of those out there (including the politiciansBut in this case there are specific named individuals identified in the photos, many of whom are now up on court martial charges (including Lynndie England, who is the woman in the photograph you mention), and so far as I understand (and admittedly I am relying on the media reports of the cases here so this may be wrong) they are not arguing that the pictures are fake, or that this did not happen - they are arguing that they were obeying orders from higher up the chain of command (which, of course, has historically not been a great defence either).

I've only seen the photo you mention at very low res so I don't feel able to comment on it specifically, although at the low res it looked OK to me. I have noticed, though, that once I've got used to manipulating photos I start to see things that look "fake" everywhere, even in pictures I know are straight out of the camera with no manipulation. And I've seen similar comments from others on RetouchPRO about how something that was actually there in the original photo - some trick of lighting or shooting angle - looks unnatural or fake. I'd be very reluctant to trust my eyes/judgment on anything other than the most blatant manipulation - I think these days provenance is almost everything in judging the reliability of a photograph.

also there may have been many bright light sources.

On the prison guard thing ... here in the usa .. there was mention of that on one of the networks last night... even the bags over the head... supposedly to keep prisoners from spitting at them.

must be strange growing up in a small prison town ... the talk around the dinner table. I surmise no kid hears "my dads a fairer guard than your dad".

anyhow! Google news had this from a San Francisco paper..

Rumsfeld is a problem, but he is not the problem in an administration that thinks it can set its own rules without having to answer to anyone, whether the issue is its formation of an energy policy with industry lobbyists behind closed doors, the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without regard to the Geneva conventions or its resistance to various international treaties. It is worth remembering that this very invasion and occupation of Iraq was launched in defiance of the United Nations.

the whole article is attached

I have no reason to believe the pictures were faked. As has been mentioned, nobody is denying the fact that these things actually happened. IMHO there is no reason for people to act like that against other human beings. "Just following orders", or "We haven't been told the rules of war" would not be an acceptable excuse to me. I can understand, in some cases, when a civilian is shot. This could easily happen when you can't tell the civilians from the enemy, and you feel your life might be threatened. But to do the things that have been done to prisoners in this war and others is something I just can't understand. The studies suggest that I might do the same things under certain conditions, but I would hope the studies were wrong. Although I have very definite political views on this, I won't get into that part of it on this site.

Ed

Someone correct me if I am wrong...but I recall reading a story that mentioned Colin Powell was very much against the current Iraq policy and that he and Dick Cheney are barely on speaking terms as a result...Interesting that the opinion of Powell, the person in the Bush administration with the most extensive military background, is being totally ignored by the policy makers (Cheney and Rumsfeld).

...and their absurd policy seems to be to have the army act as an urban police force. These people are trained to kill and destroy things...not keep the peace between several ethnic/religious groups. Is it any wonder that this stuff is happening?

Whichever candidate is elected, I expect to see a new Secretary of State.

Ed

...and their absurd policy seems to be to have the army act as an urban police force. These people are trained to kill and destroy things...not keep the peace between several ethnic/religious groups. Is it any wonder that this stuff is happening?

A technique borrowed from the Israelis I think Greg !

I heard this morning that there are pictures of many Iraqi women who were nude. Given their culture, these people must feel as though they have been raped! It might not sound like a major thing (the nudity) to many, but consider the fact that their women keep their faces covered, while in Western cultures many women wear almost no clothing in many places. I wonder what the women's rights groups in the U.S. will have to say about it.

Ed