The subject of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib Prison has garnered global attention and a prominent role in arguments over the Iraq War. Military police officers systematically abused captives in a manner characterized as psychopathic, brazen, and heinous at the facility. In this context, the troops who committed the abuse, their superior commanders, and officials of the George W. Bush administration failed to adhere to public administration principles that could have prevented the Abu Ghraib Prison atrocities.
The primary factor that public administrators must consider when making ethical decisions is that they are morally responsible for their outcomes. While only specific troops have been punished for their roles in the Abu Ghraib torture, the issue damaged the United States and the U.S. Army’s reputation, especially since the former is regarded as a champion of human rights and democracy (Adams et al., 2006). Failure to take responsibility following an ethical debacle often leads to negative press and criticism. Those who served as President Bush’s advisers before and during the Abu Ghraib Prison crises significantly impacted policy formulation and implementation. This means that authors of the document authorizing torture, for instance, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, are accountable for the pervasive use of torture.
Therefore, public administrators are likely to bend the rules when they portray a lack of accountability. In other words, a factor leading to bad ethical decisions is a total disregard for protocols and procedures for handling sensitive problems. In the context of Abu Ghraib, this refers to the disregard for protocols governing the treatment of prisoners of war. For example, prisoners were subjected to sexually explicit acts of abuse by the guards, beatings, dog intimidation, being stacked up in a pyramid, and other demeaning acts (Adams et al., 2006). Had the people responsible for the prisoners followed the Geneva Convention, which mandates that prisoners of war be handled with humanity, the abuses would not have occurred.
When making ethical decisions, public administrators must ensure that their decisions and actions are open and centered on the commitments made to those they serve. In an organization, this includes supervisors and managers, employees, and the public. There are various forms of administrative evil, but one defining feature is that those who do these wrongdoings may be unaware of the wrongdoing they are committing. Indeed, some of the prison guards and medical personnel in Abu Ghraib stated that they believed they were not doing anything wrong as they were merely following orders from above. This means that bad ethical decisions can arise when public administrators lack transparency, even to their colleagues. The Bush administration did all it could to classify the kind of torture committed against captives at Abu Ghraib as lawful. They modified the Geneva Convention’s definition of torture to include “pain that is difficult to endure” (Adams et al., 2006, p. 684). The administration had a clear goal to deviate from and disregard the laws prohibiting this treatment to support its application.
To summarize, corruption, blackmail, and misappropriation are not the only bases for making immoral decisions. Instead, they can result from questionable decisions and actions by public officials to pursue their selfish goals or ideals. In Abu Ghraib, the United States government and Army opted to treat captives as they saw fit under the pretense of fighting terrorism and extremism, resulting in egregious human rights violations.
References
Adams, G. B., Balfour, D. L., & Reed, G. E. (2006). Abu Ghraib, administrative evil, and moral inversion: The value of “Putting Cruelty First.” Public Administration Review, 66(5), 680-693.