Institutionalized Barbarism

In our most recent set of assigned reading articles, one in particular struck me at what has been a raw nerve for some time now: Abu Ghraib and the use of torture by America in the War on Terror. I began seriously studying this issue earlier this year, and was horrified by what I discovered. In addition, I read "How to Break a Terrorist" written by Matthew Alexander, a senior interrogator who performed interrogations in the fallout following the Abu Ghraib scandal, when there was still intense debate within the military. This book opened my eyes to the nature of interrogations, and to the implications of different approaches. The 'old school' of interrogation involves control and domination of the detainee, whereas the methods being tested by Alexander and his colleagues are based on rapport and trust. The efficacy of the latter method over the former is made obvious in this book, as it alone brings about the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, then-leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and an earth-shattering blow to sectarian violence in the region.

The recognition of these facts alone makes their end results all too predictable. In Alexander's methods, we see a tendency to respect the culture and human dignity of one's captives in order to receive a reliable flow of useful information. In spite of what this approach's critics say, it is by no means a 'soft' approach to interrogation; it forces detainees to fully consider the implications their noncooperation will have for both themselves and their families. This approach should be demanded, if not expected, of any society that would call itself rational, humanistic, and just.

In the Abu Ghraib methods, however, we see a swift departure from anything rational or just. Emphasizing dominance and control as the cornerstones of interrogation puts the process on the same level as rape. Dehumanization, exerting dominance and force, selfish exploitation of another; can we really examine dominance and control in interrogation without drawing harrowing parallels to rape? Under those methods, devout muslims experienced belittlement of their religion, attempted conversions, forced violations of their religious doctrine, and countless other offenses. The fact that this is all done under force and threats of violence makes such interrogation and a rape attack different only in the venue of the assault.

Upon closer examination of this course and such treatment of detainees, it's clear that in our society it is not merely gender that is a factor in oppression. The circumstances that lead to dehumanization need not be merely sexual in nature; in our society, it seems we are all too willing to dehumanize people to attain what we desire, the only distinction that gender and religion have is that people like to use them as their excuse to take part in doing so.