Allegations in Iraq reflect the violent, abusive prisons that have arisen in the U.S.

By Robert L. Bastian Jr.

President Bush has asserted that the abuse of Iraqi
prisoners at Abu Ghraib "does not reflect the nature of
the American people."

"That’s not the way we do things in America," he added.

In terms of aspirations, Bush is certainly correct:
Americans generally do not regard themselves as
arrogant, abusive, violent, mean, petty and ignoble. As
a matter of empirical, verifiable fact, however, the
best social scientific evidence suggests that the
president is simply wrong on both counts.

In 1971, for example, Stanford psychology professor
Philip G. Zimbardo initiated an experiment in which
participating Stanford students were designated either
as prisoners or guards, with guards told to maintain
order. After only a few days, the project had to be
terminated prematurely because the guards were, with no
apparent motivation other than fulfilling their roles,
becoming uncomfortably abusive toward the prisoners.
What does that say about our "nature"?

In another famous experiment, Yale psychology professor
Stanley Milgram told subjects to give electric shocks to
a victim in a learning experiment. As the "victim" - an
actor in another room who was not actually being shocked
– gave incorrect answers, the participants were asked to
turn the voltage up, even to where the dial read
"danger," a point at which the victim could be heard
screaming. Although often reluctant, two-thirds of the
subjects continued to follow orders to administer
shocks.

Given that, what’s so surprising about the fact that in
2004, reservists "controlling the relevant tier in Abu
Ghraib prison would - in an effort to "follow orders -
agree to "soften" the Iraqi detainees for questioning?

If the president was wrong about the nature of the
American people, he was no less wrong about the way
things are done by Americans.

At the outset of the occupation, it was earnestly argued
that the Iraqi people would welcome and benefit from
imposition of U.S.-style democracy and freedoms. "The
American public - and, I suspect, most of the world -
believed that Americans could do a better job of running
a prison such as Abu Ghraib. We’re not arbitrary,
abusive, unaccountable or unjust, right? Indeed, last
June, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski told a reporter that
Americans were making living conditions so much better
at Abu Ghraib that she was concerned prisoners "wouldn’t
want to leave."

But again, we are deluding ourselves. The hard fact is
that the U.S. did install in Iraq an American-style
approach to prison management. Like the U.S. prison
system, it is underfunded and inadequately supervised,
lacks civilian oversight and accountability and is
secretive and tolerant of inmate abuse until evidence of
mistreatment is pushed into the public light. That,
regrettably, is the American model.

Over the last four decades, political leaders here at
home have committed themselves to incarcerating inmates
at rates that ultimately rivaled the former Soviet Union
and repressive Middle Eastern regimes. Prisons have
grown overcrowded and understaffed.

At the same time, there has been no commensurate
commitment to protecting prisoner rights or upholding
even minimal standards. Both state and federal
legislatures, with the complicity of federal courts,
have continually trimmed avenues of legal redress for
inmates subject to abuse.

For its part, the public was fed the myth that prisoners
were coddled, and accepted on faith that inmates were
treated fairly. The public faith was interrupted only
when graphic images materialized as evidence or by
guards "rolling over."

Regarding Abu Ghraib, testimonial evidence of abuse was
reported by no fewer than half a dozen organizations,
including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.
Until photos were shown on "60 Minutes II," though, they
were merely allegations and, therefore, not the subject
of public concern and remedial action.

So, what has been shown in Abu Ghraib that has not
already been seen in the U.S.? Recently, images of cages
in which California Youth Authority wards were locked up
for as much as 23 hours a day were broadcast. In 2001,
Human Rights Watch reported in detail how extensively
rape is tolerated in U.S. prisons.

The Eddie Dillard case, in which I represented the
inmate, revealed a paper trail with respect to one
prolific cell rapist responsible for more than 30
reported incidents of attempted or completed sexual
assaults at six different California prisons. Still, the
predator was assigned more cellmates.

The accumulated result: A federal district court judge
in Northern California has threatened to take over the
California Department of Corrections because it can’t
break the code of silence among its guards and take
responsibility for the integrity of its mission.

In the last decade, the department has restricted visits
by family and journalists to the remote locations where
prisons have been scattered, on the ground that the
press might glamorize prison life. Or has it acted to
impede reporting of underfunding and abuse?

In the shadow of the infamous Abu Ghraib photographs,
it’s easy to understand why much of the world looks upon
Americans as craven and arrogant. In so many ways, the
United States’ interests and international image have
been harmed as we act on our aspirations and self-
congratulatory beliefs instead of a cold, hard view of
reality, including our own limitations.

No less a figure than Winston Churchill famously said
that "treatment of crime and criminals is one of the
most unfailing tests of civilization of any country." If
Churchill is right, so, at the moment, are America’s
critics.

<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...>