Logic Times

Meaningless Abu Ghraib

Posted by Aslan, 02/14/05, 7:51pm. Comments (3)

While the abuse at Abu Ghraib was both illegal and immoral, it was not significant. The theft of an elderly woman’s purse in Central Park is illegal and immoral, and at about the same level of significance. Actually, such a purse-snatching is probably a more serious moral issue due to the woman’s innocence.

Societies take great pains to quantify crime and punishment. Crimes fit into a hierarchy as measured by the consequences, which have their definition in the penal code:

§ 12.02. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES. Offenses are designated as felonies or misdemeanors.

§ 12.03. CLASSIFICATION OF MISDEMEANORS.

(a) Misdemeanors are classified according to the relative seriousness of the offense into three categories:

(1) Class A misdemeanors;

(2) Class B misdemeanors;

(3) Class C misdemeanors.

(b) An offense designated a misdemeanor in this code without specification as to punishment or category is a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) Conviction of a Class C misdemeanor does not impose any legal disability or disadvantage.

§ 12.04. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES.

(a) Felonies are classified according to the relative seriousness of the offense into five categories:

(1) capital felonies;

(2) felonies of the first degree;

(3) felonies of the second degree;

(4) felonies of the third degree; and

(5) state jail felonies.

(b) An offense designated a felony in this code without specification as to category is a state jail felony.

Above is a typical state penal code (Texas). Consider the sentencing guidelines:

§ 12.31. CAPITAL FELONY.

(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state seeks the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life or by death. An individual adjudged guilty of a capital felony in a case in which the state does not seek the death penalty shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life.

(b) In a capital felony trial in which the state seeks the death penalty, prospective jurors shall be informed that a sentence of life imprisonment or death is mandatory on conviction of a capital felony. In a capital felony trial in which the state does not seek the death penalty, prospective jurors shall be informed that the state is not seeking the death penalty and that a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction of the capital felony.

§ 12.32. FIRST DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.

(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the first degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for life or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the first degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

§ 12.33. SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.

(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

§ 12.34. THIRD DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.

(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the third degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

Why do we differentiate between felonies and misdemeanors, between murder and theft, between terrorism and jaywalking? The obvious answer is that society holds certain behavior to be more undesirable, more threatening to the social order and more immoral than other behavior. And law enforcement personnel and civilians understandably react differently to various criminal behaviors. Jaywalking does not bring out SWAT teams and low-flying television helicopters. September 11th ignites a war.

Abu Ghraib, if condoned government policy, had the potential to be a scandal, more alarming because of the hypocritical violation of American moral tradition than because of any violation of human rights. Instead, Abu Ghraib has proven to be the aberrant criminal behavior of a few employees of the United States Government, and, as a result, certainly does not deserve excessive attention.

Consider the story in the following context: the 2000 census projects that there were about 291,000,000 people in the United States the year Abu Ghraib entered onto the national scene, a year that saw 559,000 assaults here on domestic soil (data here and here). In 2004, there were about 2,000,000 federal employees. If we assume that a federal employee is as likely as anyone else to commit a crime, we can conclude that roughly 3840 federal employees committed some form of assault in 2004. Do you recall seeing hundreds of newspaper stories above the fold on violent IRS employees or gangs of post office workers? Of course not, because there is no political advantage in such stories.

This analysis is, of course, naive and simplistic, but it puts into perspective the suffocating bias that dominates the media in this country. To make a minor crime – vastly less tragic than any of the 14,000 murders that took place during the same year – the number one non-election story in 2004 is a crime in and of itself; an ethical crime of far greater consequence than Abu Ghraib.

Comments

1: Larry Horacek

February 15, 2005 12:30am EST

Once again, I appreciate the thought and preparation that went into your article. The statistical comparison presents yet another angle of the abhorrent treatment that the “story” of Abu Ghraib got in the media. Anyone with common sense could see that the behavior was instigated by a few and, when discovered, was handled competently by military commanders. The mishandling was done exclusively by the press and media. The criminal behavior barely reached the threshold of misdemeanor, yet the media reports made the offenses appear as capital felonies.

Today, Eason Jordan of CNN resigned…only to prevent the ego-shattering firing that was about to come had he not resigned. Ward Churchill spews the most despicable, vile, comments offensive to all Americans yet he is supposed to get a free pass because his “speech” is protected…sure, just the way that anti-politically correct speech in NOT protected. The media’s defense of the indefensible has become so blatant that one can use dozens of logical arguments to show the hypocrisy and intellectual lameness of their positions…if only we had a press and media who would have the courage to report these views and debate the facts. We suffer not from a lack of logic here; we suffer from a lack of intellectual integrity.

{Aslan: I think Logic Times has located its favorite contributor (see Larry’s comments here and here). I can’t find anything not to agree with in this posting.}

2: Jack Stafurik

February 15, 2005 1:36am EST

The question here is whether torture is condoned government policy of the US. Unfortunately, it appears to be so. The torture memoranda put forward by the Justice Department at Gonzales's request in effect redefined torture so narrowly that almost anything short of murder was OK. It was like a bank robber redefining robbery so that, say, any theft less than $10 million was not robbery, and would not be punished. And, when the Senate tried to pass a resolution opposing torture, the White House lobbied successfully to kill it. Why did they do that, if they purport to abhor torture and want us to think they have high moral standards? I can't understand what they were thinking of. Finally, these were not isolated incidents by a few bad apples, but were endemic in Iraq and Guantanamo. Under the strict military operational procedures it is hard to imagine these could have occurred as often as they apparently did without the complicity or at least the willful ignorance of those in charge of the facilities.

The damage to US prestige and moral authority of this is incalculable. No longer can we claim to the world to follow a very high moral standard that they should emulate. How do the torture memoranda with their legalistic twists square with our supposed Christian principles? What kind of pain would Jesus say it was OK to inflict on prisoners? Would he accept the rationalizations the administration made? Why don't we have a single leader in this administration with the moral backbone to say publicly any kind of torture is wrong, and we as a civilized nation will not try to justify it or define it away?

And the tragedy for the Iraqis is that from 60% (US Army estimate) to 90% (UN estimate) of the inmates had nothing to do with the insurgency. Rather, they were innocent Iraqis picked up in sweeps or turned in by someone with a grudge. What hatred they will have for the US when (if?) they are released, and what better way to sow the seeds for future jihadists.

If we want to be leaders, we must be willing to accept that we are held to a higher standard than others. And we must understand that we will be judged not on what we say, but on what we do. The current regime doesn't get that.

{Aslan: Sigh. Jack, you have always argued extremely well from the other side of the spectrum. I recall our exchanges on Bush’s character. However, as was the case then (see here), your eloquence conceals bias and a massage of the facts. Or more accurately, a willingness to accept the slightest shred of a rumor as a fact, such as with: "[t]he torture memoranda put forward by the Justice Department at Gonzales's request in effect redefined torture so narrowly that almost anything short of murder was OK." This is untrue. The Gonzales memo has no link whatsoever to Abu Ghraib, so the implied linkage between Abu Ghraib and an established policy on torture is also untrue. Second, the memorandum (here), concludes that torture is unlawful, and is in fact a thorough legal opinion on U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2340:

§ 2340. Definitions

Release date: 2004-08-06

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3) “United States” includes all areas under the jurisdiction of the United States including any of the places described in sections 5 and 7 of this title and section 46501 (2) of title 49.

The purpose of the memo was to clarify how non-protected enemy combatants in this new war are to be managed. Gonzales’s own words were that the new unconventional war "renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, script (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments."

Your observation about the makeup of Abu Ghraib detainees only goes to undermine your premise: that torture is being systematically used in the war on terror. Why torture rock-throwing hoodlums picked up for loitering? Are you suggesting that the torture policy of the U.S. is not only for immorally extracting information from true terrorists, but that the whole military command just likes to torture anyone it can get its hands on?

In the end, Jack, I would suggest you labor mightily to fit the situation to your bias. "Under the strict military operational procedures it is hard to imagine these could have occurred as often as they apparently did without the complicity or at least the willful ignorance of those in charge of the facilities." This statement does absolutely nothing to prove your desire – that torture was a condoned tool of interrogation by the military high command, Rumsfeld and Bush. With thousands of newspapers blanketing this story, not a single shred of evidence has been produced which suggests that Abu Ghraib was anything more than what it actually was: simple, uncoordinated assault by military personnel.

By the way, your reliance upon the pacifism of Jesus is not the best of strategies. Jesus is part of the triune God, and divine justice makes the worst of Saddam’s Abu Ghraib look like a walk in the park. For those who are Christian, Jesus brings salvation…salvation from what? From the wrath of God, which, as the Bible says (in the Grapes of Wrath reference): "The angel swung his sickle on the earth, gathered its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God's wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses' bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia."}

3: EvntPrdcr

February 15, 2005 12:44pm EST

There is a difference. Individual misdeeds, violent or not are just that, individual. When an official arm of the government appears [whether true or not] to be involved in "systemic" wrong doing, especially in the area of human rights, it IS news because we expect our government, our soldiers to rise above the standard of states who sponsor terrorism or routinely engage in human rights violations. Whether we believe this to be naïveté or not is not the issue. The President was right in condemning such activity, apologizing for the commission of such crimes, and sanctioning the punishment of the perpetrators. He has set a moral tone that is correct and takes us out of "old ways of thinking" about such crimes committed in war.

{Aslan: You are entirely correct, which is why I suggested that "Abu Ghraib, if condoned government policy, had the potential to be a scandal, more alarming because of the hypocritical violation of American moral tradition than because of any violation of human rights. " However, with eager media armies in pursuit of the desired story, nothing has been produced beyond an unrelated memo from the Justice Department. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it IS a duck. The media keeping the home fires burning in hopes that the other shoe will fall only reveals their bias.}