Scandal at Abu Ghraib

The deprave scandal of prison houseers at Abu Ghraib occurred during the Iraq war. From 2003 to 2006 AbuGhraib prison was a US Army detention center for captured Iraqis. An probe into the treatment of detainees at the prison was prompted by the discovery of graphic photos represent guards ab victimisation detainees in 2003. The facility was located 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 luck as a Military Police (M.P.) at the Abu Ghraib prison, when, in January of 2004 he blew the pennywhistle on several of his colleagues that were involved in the wickedness scandal. He said he received the now- nonorious abuse photos on computer disks(CDs)from Cpl.Charles Graner at the beginning of December(Associated Press). He turned them over to the Army investigators Jan. 12, testifying that he knew Graner was a ringleader in th e abuse and would be returning(a) to the prison soon from a nonher(prenominal) assignment.Darby was right in disclosing the abuse and blowing the whistle because the commerce of preventionof further amerciable abuse of prisoners by U.S. Army mortalnel outweighed any other duty or loyalty that he may have felt entrap to.In addition, withholding evidence and knowledge of some social occasion as fundamentally vilify as torture could have led to more problems for Spec. Darby overall because the abuse could have escalated and eventually have been found outanyway. In James 2this slick, reassert legal compriseion against him as a co-conspirator, for withholding evidence, and misfortune to bust 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 painful acts performed by Army psychenel could have led to tremendous psychological stress due to feelings of g uilt.Why did Joe Darby wait several weeks to turn the CDs in?In a situation where whistleblowing becomes a very real theory for someone, two, possibly more,loyalties start conflictingwithin the person having to decide on whether to blow the whistle or not,Most oftenthisis a conflict between a universe or common object lessoninterestthat 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 agonising for the potentialwhistleblowerbecause hewill havetodisregardone loyaltyin favor of another(both of which be of equal 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 decision and it had to be made(Norris). While he was hailed as a hero by some, he was also confront a lot of opposition 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 harassment and threats against him and his family.According to Kantian deontology, which is the best moral theory to apply here,Darby had a duty to blowthe whistlebecause the concept of duty is the of the essence(p) or central point of James 3deontology, and rather than being upset(a) about the consequences of an action, the important thing is the way actors think when they make choices.The act should come from respect for the moral law. The only inherently good thing, harmonize to Kant, is the good will, and the will is good when one acts out of duty and not out of inclination (to gain something hoo ey or gain a feeling of self-satisfaction).Darby made the decision to blow the whistle for the sole priming of preventing further wrongdoing by fellow soldiers, 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 make out 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 quiet 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 of the States.For example,teachers,and physicians are required to report suspicions of abuse, nurses are required to report mi stakes in the medical treatment of patients, and thereare laws that punish the failure to report a felonyin numerous states.Even in the Military there are clauses that obligate a soldier to refuse an order 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 long been encouraged or been made necessary by management in corporatecodes of ethics (Paddget).Considering that many U.S. soldiers were in the unequivocal pictures that were taken of the abuse, one stands to reasonably 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 well-tried.In his defense, his attorney insisted that Sivits was exclusively following orders, as he had been train ed, 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 obedience was flawed.Strict obedience, which is what Sivits obedience to superiors essentially was, cannot salvage participation in a case involving unrule-governed actions as using torture and abuse on detainees of the U.S. Army. The Uniform Code of Military nicety (UCMJ) 809890. ART.90(20), makes it clear that soldiery personnel need to pursue the lawful statement 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 liability 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 comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ (Mosqueda).