Scandal at Abu Ghraib

The subvert s stick outdal of prison houseers at Abu Ghraib occurred during the Iraq war. From 2003 to 2006 AbuGhraib prison was a US military detention center for captured Iraqis. An investigation into the treatment of detainees at the prison was prompted by the discovery of graphic photos depicting guards abusing detainees in 2003. The facility was find nearBaghdad on 280 acres.At the height of the scandal, the prison held up to 3,800 detainees.Most of the detainees lived in tents in the prison yards(CNN Library).Spec. Joe Darbywas a U.S. Army Reservist serving as a forces Police (M.P.) at the Abu Ghraib prison, when, in January of 2004 he blew the go on several(prenominal)(prenominal) of his colleagues that were tortuous in the abuse scandal. He said he accepted the now-notorious abuse photos on computer disks(CDs)from Cpl.Charles Graner at the beginning of December(Associated Press). He sour them over to the Army investigators Jan. 12, testifying that he knew Graner was a ringleader in the abuse and would be returning to the prison soon from another assignment.Darby was right in disclosing the abuse and blowing the whistle because the responsibility of preventionof further iniquitous abuse of prisoners by U.S. Army somebodynel office outweighed any other duty or committal that he may engage felt bound to.In addition, withholding distinguish and knowledge of some thing as fundamentally wrong as torture could collect led to more problems for Spec. Darby overall because the abuse could put on escalated and eventually drive been found outanyway. In James 2this case, justified legal action a reachst him as a co-conspirator, for withholding evidence, and failure to exhibit illegal activity could have been usedagainst him.Furthermore, feeling as distressed as he did about finding the photos of the abuse, living with the knowledge of having ignored inhumane acts performed by Army force-out could have led to tremendous psychological stress due to feelings of guilt.why did Joe Darby wait several weeks to turn the CDs in?In a situation where whistleblowing becomes a very real possibility for someone, two, possibly more,loyalties start trothingwithin the person having to decide on whether to blow the whistle or not,Most oftenthisis a conflict between a public or common cleaninterestthat the actor feels he has to protectand hisfeeling of duty, commitment , and loyalty to an organization and/or one or several individuals.This conflict of loyalties can be agonizing for the potentialwhistleblowerbecause hewill havetodisregardone loyaltyin favor of another(both of which are of represent moral importance to him)if he blows the whistle.In Spec. Darbys case there were several conflicts. First, the loyalty to the institution of the Armysecondthe loyalty to his colleaguesthird, public interest intheprevention of harm and illegal activities,and finally thefear of retaliation, the threat to his own person as well as his family.In one interview, about disclosing the abuse at Abu Ghraib, Darby is quoted assaying it wasthe right purpose and it had to be made(Norris). While he was hailed as a paladin by some, he was also facing a lot of electric resistance for his actions as a whistleblower. After returning to the U.S. he was placed in protective custodyfor an extended amount of time, and later had to move from his hometown to escape agony and threats against him and his family.According to Kantian deontology, which is the best moral supposition to apply here,Darby had a duty to blowthe whistlebecause the concept of duty is the essential or central occlusion of James 3deontology, and rather than being worried about the consequences of an action, the important thing is the way actors think when they brand choices.The act should come from respect for the moral police. The only inherently vertical thing, according to Kant, is the goodly will, and the will is good when one acts out of duty and not out of incli nation (to gain something material or gain a feeling of self-satisfaction).Darby made the determination to blow the whistle for the sole reason of preventing further wrongdoing by fellow spends, and further harm to prisoners at Abu Ghraib. He acted out of good will he had neither material gain nor did the act of whistleblowing make him feel good. He perceived it as his moral duty to disclose the information.While an opponent of whistleblowing may argue that deontology cannot justifyintroducing as universal law theexternal or public disclosure in all cases of alleged wrongdoing, it can be countered here that it is equally not justifiable to establish as a universal law for a person to keep smooth about knowledge of intentional wrongdoing forever or indefinitely.Additionally, the duty to blow the whistle,as suggested bydeontology,is already being upheld in several professions, and in many an(prenominal) of the States.For example,teachers,and physicians are required to report suspi cions of abuse, nurses are required to report mistakes in the medical treatment of patients, and thereare laws that punish the failure to report a felonyin legion(predicate) states.Even in the Military there are clauses that obligate a soldier to refuse an sound out that is not legal. These are all examples of deontological theory supporting whistleblowing as the duty of a good citizen. While blowing the whistle externally is still often a controversial concept, internal whistleblowing has hanker been encouraged or been made obligatory by management in corporatecodes of ethics (Paddget).Considering that many U.S. soldiers were in the explicit pictures that were taken of the abuse, one stands to fair pose the question if Darby was the only person who was James 4disturbed by the actions of the soldiers involved in the torture of detainees. Spec. JeremySivits, who is also mentioned in case 6.2, was the first soldier to be tried.In his defense, his attorney insisted that Sivits was merely following orders, as he had been trained, to photograph the abuse. He claimed that followingorders was the right thing to do for Sivits(Clancy, Vaught and Solomon). This defense did not hold up in court, and Jeremy Sivits was tried and convicted, possibly because his invoking the defense of bow was flawed.Strict obedience, which is what Sivits obedience to superiors essentially was, cannot excuse participation in a case involving un rightful(a) actions as using torture and abuse on detainees of the U.S. Army. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809890. ART.90(20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the lawful command of his superior officer, 891.ART.91 (2), the lawful order of a warrant officer, 892.ART.92 (1) the lawful general order, 892.ART.92 (2) lawful order.In each case, military personnel have an duty and a duty to only obey lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not co mply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. opus and not to those who would production unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ (Mosqueda).