3 ms·

I think Zimbardo argued as an defence witness in Lyndie England's trial that the lack of proper guidelines and laissez faire leadership, vulnerability of the ca

by kpil 8y ago

I think Zimbardo argued as an defence witness in Lyndie England's trial that the lack of proper guidelines and laissez faire leadership, vulnerability of the camp and the guards in a hostile city, combined with the harsh interrogation methods used by the non-military spooks, created a local "group dynamics" accepting violence and abuse. The point was to show that England was not a freak, and it could happen to anyone. I'm inclined to agree that writing nice policies on a paper won't be enough when running a prison camp in a war zone where some higher ups are waterboarding the prisoners...

pluma 8y ago
Also, it's a well-understood principle that soldiers are more comfortable actually killing the enemy if you actively dehumanize the enemy. Humans are generally very unwilling to actually kill other humans even in war so teaching them not to consider their enemies humans is an easy way to make them more efficient. Not surprising what happens when they then take the same mindset to POWs while being given free reign to "interrogate". The question isn't whether England was a freak. The question is how we could allow this to happen after Lidice (Germany), Nanking (Japan) and My Lai (US). That no-one was tried for Abu Ghraib as a war crime is unsurprising but abhorrent.
- mercer 8y ago
  I'm inclined to believe that this was explicitly allowed to happen by those in power, and most of the 'shock' and perhaps even the 'well, look at stuff like the SFE to see how people can go wrong' is really just covering up for the ugly truth of torture that quite a few people in positions of power are really quite okay with. I mean, considering the history of the US government, or the behavior of its various three-letter agencies, does it make any sense to give them the benefit of the doubt?
  - pluma 8y ago
    Well, considering the US now officially is a country that's using torture (on principle, even if we accept the wordplay around defining waterboarding and solitary confinement as "not torture"), I wouldn't be surprised.

by kpil 8y ago

pluma 8y ago

Also, it's a well-understood principle that soldiers are more comfortable actually killing the enemy if you actively dehumanize the enemy. Humans are generally very unwilling to actually kill other humans even in war so teaching them not to consider their enemies humans is an easy way to make them more efficient. Not surprising what happens when they then take the same mindset to POWs while being given free reign to "interrogate". The question isn't whether England was a freak. The question is how we could allow this to happen after Lidice (Germany), Nanking (Japan) and My Lai (US). That no-one was tried for Abu Ghraib as a war crime is unsurprising but abhorrent.

mercer 8y ago
I'm inclined to believe that this was explicitly allowed to happen by those in power, and most of the 'shock' and perhaps even the 'well, look at stuff like the SFE to see how people can go wrong' is really just covering up for the ugly truth of torture that quite a few people in positions of power are really quite okay with. I mean, considering the history of the US government, or the behavior of its various three-letter agencies, does it make any sense to give them the benefit of the doubt?
- pluma 8y ago
  Well, considering the US now officially is a country that's using torture (on principle, even if we accept the wordplay around defining waterboarding and solitary confinement as "not torture"), I wouldn't be surprised.