- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
It's sufficient for the superior officers in the hierarchy of supervision- from (above) Maj. Gen. Miller on down, to send the message to those with hands-on authority over the detainees that ordinary norms of humane conduct toward those in their custody don't apply, meanwhile keeping pointedly silent on what won't be allowed- or whether any limits whatsoever exist in that regard.
Not really. I have worked in senior positions in facilities similar to prisons, and also worked for a while in a maximum security prison. Such organizations have a myriad of policies and procedures that staff are very familiar with that set standards for how inmates are to be treated and their rights protected.
Even if I had received a memo from the governor of my state saying that as of now all human rights of my charges and all abuse laws were suspended, my staff would still have been obliged to follow all policies and procedures unless they were specifically directed to ignore them.
For example, if the inmates got three meals a day, it would not be a simple matter to say: O.K. it has come to my attention that the inmates are too fat, so effective immediately there will be no breakfast. The bacon, eggs, toast, and coffee will all be delivered to the staff mess for consumption by staff.
I give this example simply to show that if a specific procedure is in place, then it requires a specific order to countermand it. You cannot just issue an order saying that the inmates are too fat, so please give them less food, without specifying how this is to be done.
