Abu Ghraib

In the past few weeks of maintaining this blog, I have come to notice that one of the main arguments of those opposed to any harsh treatment of accused terrorists is the abuses that have taken place at Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq. I would now like to take the time to clarify the differences between what happened at Abu Ghraib and the proposed treatments of accused terrorists.

Before I begin, I’ll start by saying that what happened at Abu Ghraib is horrible and wrong in every possible way. Those responsible for the torture and abuse of the prisoners there should be, and were, held accountable. Out of the seventeen soldiers who were accused of abuse, eleven were convicted and sentenced to military prison and dishonorably discharged. Also, new military units have been deployed whose sole purpose is to find and stop any and all instances of military abuse.

The difference that many members of the public fail to recognize is that the majority of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib are not accused or convicted terrorists. They are mostly criminals arrested by the US an Iraqi security forces at checkpoints for various reasons. Some of the prisoners there are even soldiers captured during the war who are awaiting trial. The crimes committed against these persons break almost every international law regarding the treatment of prisoners, but this has little to do with terrorists. The Guantanamo Bay facility, which houses mainly accused terrorists, has not had the legal battle that Abu Ghraib has. They have far stricter guidelines regarding the treatment of accused terrorists as well as the legal right to perform certain acts of interrogation such as isolation. The atrocities of Abu Ghraib are horrible, but they should not be used as evidence to support the rights of terrorists since accused terrorists were not the primary persons abused.