Correlations b/w Iraqi Prisoner Abuse and My Lai Massacre

[tangluva]

Hmmm...although I already had a notion on this, I'm glad you (Epidemic) asked that.

One of the soldiers today got a maximum of one year in prison, and dishonorable (I think, I hope) discharge. I don't think that this punishment is sufficient enough, considering that this guy went through (AFAIK) the best military training American taxes can buy. Of course, he does have a personality of his own, yet this does not a sufficient excuse b/c he is still a significant model for American society.

This is why I came into questioning how they are giving out these punishments. This trial will go into textbooks, it must therefore carry some significant weight within American Justice. When I say that the punishment should be more severe, I mean that worse than the punishment curriculum they have now for U.S. Soldiers (since it has always been mostly the same). I would even go as far as to put the crimes by U.S. soldiers punishable to that of a regular civilian, but since there is always someone begging "but they were just following orders", I would make the sentence, let's say, 3/4ths of the sentence from the regular civilian, and life remaining life in prison, just as a compromise.

I expect the best from our fine servicemen and servicewomen, so I demand that they remain the best, no ifs, ands, or buts.

[tangluva]

Hmmm...or Gomer's looks a little more lax, though I personally would not give mercy.

Edit: Well, I believe my 3/4th's of the regular civilian sentence and life=life is lax enough as is, but yeah, any other suggestions might be good.

Edit #2: Yeah, my notion on punishment is still a little rough in terms of rhetorical quality, so if you find anything inconsistent, LMK.

[Chuckiechan]

Well, the A-rabs were calling for death. Is that good enough for you?

[Aaron_J]

so I demand

Tangluva, have you ever served in any branch of our military?

[Chuckiechan]

Who kidnapped you and brought you to this evil country?



Eh?

[Theophylact]

One of the soldiers today got a maximum of one year in prison, and dishonorable (I think, I hope) discharge. I don't think that this punishment is sufficient enough, considering that this guy went through (AFAIK) the best military training American taxes can buy. Of course, he does have a personality of his own, yet this does not a sufficient excuse b/c he is still a significant model for American society[/b]

He got the sentence (one year, reduction in rank, other-than-honorable discharge) because he copped a plea and didn't face a general court martial. Under a special court martial, the maximum sentence is what he got. He was allowed to cop a plea because he's testifying against others whose crimes are supposedly greater. I admit it seems pretty light punishment; but when you consider that the worst thing that's likely to happen to Stephen Cambone, whose idea this seems to have been, is to lose his job (and probably get a much better-paying one at the Heritage Foundation), the punishment looks pretty severe.

[tangluva]

Mr. ChuckieChan, I requested that you fix your fallacies in several past posts, and I will not respond to you until you do so. DON'T THINK YOU CAN JUST CRAWL AWAY FROM YOUR LOGICAL OBLIGATIONS AND SIMPLY HAVE YOUR WAY IN THIS DEBATE. You don't respect my requests, I won't respect yours, Mr. Joseph McCarthy. (Notice that I mentioned this back in the end first/beginning second page)

Originally posted by Aaron_J:

Tangluva, have you ever served in any branch of our military?

I will tell you the truth: NO. Yet, do I need to serve in order to speak out against undemocratic actions committed by others within our system of government? NO.

Well, if you're trying to go along with the "he/she was just following orders" explaination, I never meant just the lower rankings, but all rankings within all selective services. I know I have not made this explicit in the past, but this is what I meant this whole time. Not one person is "above the law", and it does not matter if it is me, you, or someone else. TO SUM UP, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS TO PUNISHMENT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE IN SELECTIVE SERVICES AT ANY RANKING. YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO THE TIME, PERIOD.

To Theophylact, hmmm....I went on the deep end because of the notion of these servicemen/women currently convicted as being the current deterrents towards future fallacies. Your objection is very much fine....so yes, I could not really push the envelope on the punishment scheme UNTIL WE SEE RESULTS. I do have legitimate reasoning though: IT SEEMS TO ME AS IF OUR GOVERNMENT (there, I just didn't say American, I said US) HAS JUST RECENTLY EMPHASIZED ON THIS PROBLEM THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE VIETNAM WAR.

[Epidemic]

Looks like an entirely different "Epidemic's Typical List of Questions Thread" thread might need to be started... methinks he should.

There can not be specific answers to these questions as different situations will require different punishments. In the Iraq incidents I would hardly hold those at the bottom of the food chain as culpable as those above them. They were not acting of their own accord in most instances.

You could say that but then again people did refuse the orders and were not hung or shot.

also it depends on your knowledge as the officer in each rung up the ladder. If you tell someone to get the cat out of the tree any way you can your idea of any way and the guy who shoots your cat to get him down may be very different. Extreme example but time may shed more light on the subject.

As for the just following orders thing. I am sorry, but for the mistreatment depicted in the first round of pictures could very easily be followed. Your own sense of morality versus the required goal versus the direct order all weigh in to your interperetation of what is an illegal order. Would a buck private decide to over-rule his chain of command over embarrasing a prisoner.

Now 99.999% of people would not follow an order to chop off the fingers of a prisoner 1 by 1. That falls under the realm of virtually universally understood to be beyond your commanding officers legal orders. but when told to loosen up a prisoner by making life in prison for them more difficult through embarrasment and humilliation. I think that will fall into a much more grey area where 70, 60, 50% would not choose to buck the chain of command and risk courts martial, reduction in rank, military prison (real hard time) for failure to follow a direct order on shakey grounds which you were unsure of.

[Chuckiechan]

tangluva, feel free to request anything you want.

Answer mine:

Well, the A-rabs were calling for death. Is that good enough for you?

Just what is your overly agressive little rant about? Just what do you want?

I don't know what fallacies you are talking about except anything you don't agree with. You seem to believe everything that is printed in the left wing media, yet anything from anywhere else is lies.

You explained that you get your facts from movies, now go watch "Troy" and teach history!

[Gomer]

As for the just following orders thing. I am sorry, but for the mistreatment depicted in the first round of pictures could very easily be followed. Your own sense of morality versus the required goal versus the direct order all weigh in to your interperetation of what is an illegal order. Would a buck private decide to over-rule his chain of command over embarrasing a prisoner.

Now 99.999% of people would not follow an order to chop off the fingers of a prisoner 1 by 1. That falls under the realm of virtually universally understood to be beyond your commanding officers legal orders. but when told to loosen up a prisoner by making life in prison for them more difficult through embarrasment and humilliation. I think that will fall into a much more grey area where 70, 60, 50% would not choose to buck the chain of command and risk courts martial, reduction in rank, military prison (real hard time) for failure to follow a direct order on shakey grounds which you were unsure of.

99.999%????? Read up on Stanley Milgram

Examples of Milgram's Theory
The following and preceding examples are the most extreme case known in the 20th century, where obedience was used by an authority figures to perform or subject immoral acts on other human beings. Another example is the Mi Lai massacre which involved American soldiers in Vietnam. Mi Lai was a small village where American soldiers opened fire and killed over 350 men, women, and children. It's important to note that this was the only documented incident during the Vietnam conflict that the American public was informed of, however, the chances of it being an isolated incident are highly unlikely.

Milgram councluded that the following factors could help explain the situation at Mi Lai. Military training sets apart soldiers from all others to prevent competition with authorities outside the military. The period of basic training is largely used to breakdown the concepts of individuals and create cohesion in the group or unit. During this time the soldiers spend a large majority of their time being disciplined during which they are virtually brainwashed into following orders without question. This is indeed the very function of a soldier. Political differences were used for the justification of actions and to differentiate the two sides (U.S. and North Vietnam). This combined with the trump card of race, which was used as the catalyst,depersonalized the actions of combat. The soldiers involved with this massacre felt that they were simply following orders and it was their duty to do so because it was dictated by their "authority" figure. This undoubtedly sounds similar to that of Eichman's reasoning.

Milgram has noted reoccurring themes (as found in Obedience to Authority) in these specific incidents as well as others. People who are doing a job as instructed by an administrative figure are following the instructions of that administrative outlook and not the outlook of a moral code. The feelings of duty and personal emotion are clearly separated. Responsibility shifts in the mind of the subordinate from himself/herself to the authority figure. There is a well defined purpose behind the actions or goals of the authority, and the subordinate is depended upon to help and meet those goals. Milgram has this to say about these factors and findings from his study, "The results, as seen and felt in the laboratory, are to this author disturbing. They raise the possibility that human nature, or -more specifically-the kind of character produced in American society, cannot be counted on to insulate the citizens from brutality and inhumane treatment at the direction of malevolent authority."

A lesson in depravity, peer pressure, and the power of authority

The aftermath of the Holocaust and the events leading up to World War II, the world was stunned with the happenings in Nazi German and their acquired surrounding territories that came out during the Eichmann Trials. Eichmann, a high ranking official of the Nazi Party, was on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The questions is, "Could it be that Eichmann, and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

Stanley Milgram answered the call to this problem by performing a series of studies on the Obedience to Authority. Milgram's work began at Harvard where he was working towards his Ph.D. The experiments on which his initial research was based were done at Yale from 1961-1962.

In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."

Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.

The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a student or an actor who is never actually harmed. (The drawing of lots was rigged, so that the actor would always end up as the "learner.")

At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.

Today the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical but, it revealed some extremely important findings. The theory that only the most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would submit to such cruelty is disclaimed. Findings show that, "two-thirds of this studies participants fall into the category of ‘obedient' subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes (Obedience to Authority)." Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

Milgram also conducted several follow-up experiments to determine what might change the likelihood of maximum shock delivery. In one condition, the touch-proximity condition, the teacher was required to hold the hand of the learner on a "shock plate" in order to give him shocks above 150 volts.

The most amazing thing to note from this follow-up experiment is that 32% of the subjects in the proximity-touch condition held the hand of the learner on the shock plate while administering shocks in excess of 400 volts! Further experiments showed that teachers were less obedient when the experimenter communicated with them via the telephone versus in person, and males were just as likely to be obedient as females, although females tended to be more nervous.

Milgram's obedience experiment was replicated by other researchers. The experiments spanned a 25-year period from 1961 to 1985 and have been repeated in Australia, South Africa and in several European countries. In one study conducted in Germany, over 85% of the subjects administered a lethal electric shock to the learner!

[Chuckiechan]

You have sucessfully explained how Islam and it's Mullah's give permission for their followers to commit atrocities throughout the world.

Allah say's it's ok to kill the infadels, I guess it's ok then. What muslim wants to argue with Allah?

Your research also suggests that US personnel were given the "ok" to humiliate the prisoners, like the test subjects were given premission from the researchers. That has yet to be proven, only shouted from the left wing press. Can't they wait for the facts to come out at trial?

I presume that, in your opinion this misbehavior at the prison is the "norm" for all US personnel?

How do you feel about women in foreward areas (like prisons). They seem to be starring in quite a bit of film!

[tangluva]

Last time I'm speaking to you until you finally address the fallacies within the debate ChuckieChan. Otherwise, it is not worth it for me or anyone else to read your posts, since you accuse me of things that I have proven false when I discussed it with other people (ex. Communism, my mistake for jumping the gun on punishment, etc.), as well as the fact that your comments simply do not correlate logically with the rest of our postings. I don't know who you think you are just wanting your way in debates, but I don't appreciate it.

Anyways, as a Psych major, I am very happy to see people correlating Milgrim's Experiment to this stuff!

[Chuckiechan]

Threads regarding sensitive topics often get heated, however, members are still expected to remain composed and respectful, regardless of the subject matter.

Whir, TechIMO Moderator

[tangluva]

Thank you, mods.

Actually, here's a statement you guys can debate:

Milgrim's experiment can be used as a premise towards the statement "He/she was just following orders."

However, the statement "He/she was just following orders" does not prove mental incompetancy during the crime. Therefore, the defendent was not insane during the crime and was aware of his/her actions, yet still chose to act anyways.

Also, just a reminder, THIS STATEMENT IS ONLY DISPUTING UPON PSYCHOLOGICAL GROUNDS. THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THEY PROCEEDED WITH THE CRIME DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THIS STATEMENT, AND IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT TOPIC. YOU MAY POST ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AFTER DEBATE ON MY STATEMENT IS DONE OR JUST SIMPLY DIES.

Alrighty, let's see what you guys think!

Edit: Also, the Milgrim experiment is highly regarded in social psychology, but it is in itself a general ethics topic.

[Epidemic]

Well one could say that if virtually everyone can be corrupt that no one except for the higher-ups who set the environement should be punished.

Basically if you tangluva (joe average american) were put in one of these studies you would likely fall under the studies influence. This is evidenced by every war which has ever been.

otherwise good people fall under the spell (loose rules and suffering loss of fellow soldiers) of power and do nasty things. These same people who fall under the spell usually do not become a threat to society as they fall back under civilized rules upon re-integration into civilization.

AFAIAC the general/commander/captain set the environement.

[tangluva]

Originally posted by Epidemic:

otherwise good people fall under the spell (loose rules and suffering loss of fellow soldiers) of power and do nasty things. These same people who fall under the spell usually do not become a threat to society as they fall back under civilized rules upon re-integration into civilization.

AFAIAC the general/commander/captain set the environement.

Two things:

Yeah, the man/woman of higher rank does set the environment, but this does not except the lower ranked from any responsibility for their actions.

Also, about the "These same people who fall under the spell usually do not become a threat to society as they fall back under civilized rules upon re-integration into civilization". From this link:

There is an estimated 300,000 veterans who are Homeless on any given night and twice that number experience homelessness over the course of a year.

1/3 of the homeless have served in the United States Military.

Most homeless veterans are male and account for at least 60% of the nation's homeless men.

More than 90% of the homeless veterans are high school graduates, a third have some collage education. Most are unemployed, but nearly all have worked in the past year.

The single largest segment of homeless veterans, approximately 58%, is from the Vietnam Era. 3% from WWII, 14% Korean War, and 25% from the Post Vietnam Era, including Desert Storm.

One quarter of homeless veterans from the Vietnam Era have full or partial symptoms flashbacks, anxiety, emotional numbing, depression of the war related mental illness called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Those with PTSD are more likely to be unemployed than those without it and up to six times likely to abuse alcohol and drugs.

More than half of the homeless veterans have a drug or alcohol abuse problem that may have started or worsened during the military service.

Between 1/2 and 2/3 of homeless veterans have had at least one failed marriage/relationship strained or broken by the weight of their problems.

There are many statistics that would refute the words "usually do not become a threat to society" in your statement.

[Epidemic]

I did not say warriors do not have problems.

I said most fall back under societies rules.

They are not killing raping and torturing people at a tremendous level.

Note the use of usually (meaning most). Look at john kerry a murderous thug, that under your rules would be in jail for life right now is a respected senator and only a short time after returning to the US was decrying his attrocities.

The only sad thing is that in 3 months he went from civillian to killer to civillian activist.

[tangluva]

Originally posted by Epidemic:
I said most fall back under societies rules.

Hmmm...you didn't say that the first time, but that is what you meant, and that's fine. Well, the "most" part is still disputable, but I'll leave that alone for now.

[Epidemic]

Actually I did say that.

to me usually means in most cases, more often than not or most often. I am not sure what your definition of usually is. Usually might also mean under normal circumstances I am quite sure that some people come back damaged beyond repair from war.

These same people who fall under the spell usually do not become a threat to society as they fall back under civilized rules upon re-integration into civilization

[crouse]

Last time I'm speaking to you until you finally address the fallacies within the debate ChuckieChan. ....... I don't know who you think you are just wanting your way in debates, but I don't appreciate it.

Sorry dude, as far as I'm concerned the "fallacies" in this debate STARTED when you try to equate prisoner (prisoner--- not "innocent women and children") abuse in Iraq with the My Lai Massacre (innocent women and children). The are NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same. So, hence I put forth you started the whole thread down the wrong track IMHO. Like comparing a bicycle accident to a 95 car pile up..... not exactley apples and oranges.