EXPORTING AMERICA'S SHAME

Allegations in Iraq Reflect the Violent, Abusive Prisons That Have Arisen In
the U.S.

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.