Abstract
This article analyses the reports of various military and intelligence institutions in the United States in response to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal which destroyed the reputation of the armed forces in the Iraqi theatre of war in 2004. The photographs delegitimised the mission and provoked strong reaction from the occupied Iraqis. The reports attributed culpability for the abuses perpetrated on the imprisoned Iraqis to 'sadistic' and criminal soldiers and deflected responsibility from senior members of the military and the decay within the institution itself, brought on by the discourse of terror and the introduction of techniques amounting to torture. This article, taking Abu Ghraib and the avoidance of responsibility for atrocity as an example, seeks to comment on the presumed limitations imposed on the applicability of international law during the 'War on Terror', the brutality of the military as an institution and the resulting alterations in the mind-set of individualsbyinherentdehumanisation of theenemyin conflict.
Publisher
O P Jindal Global University
Reference210 articles.
1. “Abu Ghurayb Abuse Chronology”. 2009. Global Security - www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iraq/abu-ghurayb-chronology.html
2. “A Class Divided” 1985. PBS Frontline Documentary - www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html
3. Alford, C. F. 1997. “Review: Hitler's Willing Executioners: What Does 'Willing' Mean?” ‘ , 26(5), October Akande, D. 2003. “The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Nationals of Non-Parties: Legal Basis and Limits”, Journal of International Criminal Justice, (1), pp.618-650’
4. ‘American Civil Liberties Union. 2009. “ACLU Obtains Detailed Official Record of CIA Torture Program” & “Attorney General Holder to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate Torture,” August 24th www.aclu.org’
5. American Psychiatric Association (APA). 1994. in Baumeister, R. F. and Campbell W. K. 1999 “The Intrinsic Appeal of Evil: Sadism, Sensational Thrills and Threatened Egotism,” Personality and Social Psychology Review 3 (3) pp.210 – 221.