فديو لم ينشر من قبل الجرائم التي
احدثها الاحتلال في سجن ابو غريب How Good People Turn Evil, From
Stanford to Abu Ghraib
فديو لم ينشر من قبل
الجرائم التي احدثها الاحتلال في سجن ابو غريب
احد الجنود الامريكان وهو فليب زمبرادو والذي كان شاهدا على مرتكبي
الفضائع بحق المعتقليين العراقيين في سجن ابو غريب ادخل صورا بشكل
فديو بعضها لم ينشر من قبل
Abu Ghraib: How Good People Turn Evil
Video:TED 2008: As a witness in the defense of an Abu Ghraib
guard, Philip Zimbardo had access to images (NSFW) of abuse
taken by the guards. His TED presentation puts together a short
video of some of the unpublished photos. Viewer discretion is
Stanford to Abu Ghraib
TED 2008: How Good People Turn Evil, From Stanford to Abu Ghraib
By Kim Zetter
As an expert witness in the defense of an Abu Ghraib guard,
Philip Zimbardo had access to many images (NSFW) of abuse taken
by the guards. His TED presentation puts together a short video
of some of the unpublished photos, with sound effects added by
Zimbardo. Many of the images are explicit and gruesome,
depicting nudity, degradation, simulated sex acts and guards
posing with corpses. Viewer discretion is advised.
Courtesy Philip Zimbardo
View slideshow (NSFW)
For more, visit
MONTEREY, California -- Psychologist Philip Zimbardo has seen
good people turn evil, and he thinks he knows why.
Zimbardo will speak Thursday afternoon at the TED conference,
where he plans to illustrate his points by showing a
three-minute video, obtained by Wired.com, that features many
photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (disturbing
In March 2006, Salon.com published 279 photos and 19 videos from
Abu Ghraib, one of the most extensive documentations to date of
abuse in the notorious prison. Zimbardo claims, however,
that many images in his video -- which he obtained while serving
as an expert witness for an Abu Ghraib defendant -- have never
before been published.
The Abu Ghraib prison made international headlines in 2004 when
photographs of military personnel abusing Iraqi prisoners were
published around the world. Seven soldiers were convicted in
courts martial and two, including Specialist Lynndie England,
were sentenced to prison.
Zimbardo conducted a now-famous experiment at Stanford
University in 1971, involving students who posed as prisoners
and guards. Five days into the experiment, Zimbardo halted the
study when the student guards began abusing the prisoners,
forcing them to strip naked and simulate sex acts.
Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil,
explores how a "perfect storm" of conditions can make ordinary
people commit horrendous acts.
He spoke with Wired.com about what Abu Ghraib and his prison
study can teach us about evil and why heroes are, by nature,
TED 2008 Coverage
to Tackle Origins of Evil, Theories of Everything
Your work suggests that we all have the capacity for evil, and
that it's simply environmental influences that tip the balance
from good to bad. Doesn't that absolve people from taking
responsibility for their choices?
No. People are always personally accountable for their behavior.
If they kill, they are accountable. However, what I'm saying is
that if the killing can be shown to be a product of the
influence of a powerful situation within a powerful system, then
it's as if they are experiencing diminished capacity and have
lost their free will or their full reasoning capacity.
Situations can be sufficiently powerful to undercut empathy,
altruism, morality and to get ordinary people, even good people,
to be seduced into doing really bad things -- but only in
Understanding the reason for someone's behavior is not the same
as excusing it. Understanding why somebody did something --
where that why has to do with situational influences --
leads to a totally different way of dealing with evil. It leads
to developing prevention strategies to change those
evil-generating situations, rather than the current strategy,
which is to change the person.
You were an expert defense witness in the court-martial of Sgt.
Chip Frederick, an Abu Ghraib guard. What were the situational
influences in his case?
Abu Ghraib was under bombardment all the time. In the prison,
five soldiers and 20 Iraqi prisoners get killed. That means
automatically any soldier working there is under high fear and
high stress. Then the insurgency starts in 2003, and they start
arresting everyone in sight. When Chip Frederick [starts working
at Abu Ghraib] in September, there are 200 prisoners there.
Within three months there's a thousand prisoners with a handful
of guards to take care of them, so they're overwhelmed.
Frederick and the others worked 12-hour shifts. How many days a
week? Seven. How many days without a day off? Forty. That kind
of stress reduces decision-making and critical thinking and
rationality. But that's only the beginning.
He [complained] to higher-ups on the record, "We have mentally
ill patients who cover themselves with [excrement]. We have
people with tuberculosis that shouldn't be in this population.
We have kids mixed with adults."
And they tell him, "It's a war zone. Do your job. Do whatever
you have to do."
How did what happened at Abu Ghraib compare to your Stanford
The military intelligence, the CIA and the civilian interrogator
corporation, Titan, told the MPs [at Abu Ghraib], "It is your
job to soften the prisoners up. We give you permission to do
something you ordinarily are not allowed to do as a military
policeman -- to break the prisoners, to soften them up, to
prepare them for interrogation." That's permission to step
across the line from what is typically restricted behavior to
now unrestricted behavior.
In the same way in the Stanford prison study, I was saying [to
the student guards], "You have to be powerful to prevent further
rebellion." I tell them, "You're not allowed, however, to use
physical force." By default, I allow them to use psychological
force. In five days, five prisoners are having emotional
The situational forces that were going on in [Abu Ghraib] -- the
dehumanization, the lack of personal accountability, the lack of
surveillance, the permission to get away with anti-social
actions -- it was like the Stanford prison study, but in spades.
Those sets of things are found any time you really see an evil
situation occurring, whether it's Rwanda or Nazi Germany or the
But not everyone at Abu Ghraib responded to the situation in the
same way. So what makes one person in a situation commit evil
acts while another in the same situation becomes a
There's no answer, based on what we know about a person, that we
can predict whether they're going to be a hero whistle-blower or
the brutal guard. We want to believe that if I was in some
situation [like that], I would bring with it my usual compassion
and empathy. But you know what? When I was the superintendent of
the Stanford prison study, I was totally indifferent to the
suffering of the prisoners, because my job as prison
superintendent was to focus on the guards.
As principal [scientific] investigator [of the experiment], my
job was to care about what happened to everybody because they
were all under my experimental control. But once I switched to
being the prison superintendent, I was a different person. It's
hard to believe that, but I was transformed.
Do you think it made any difference that the Abu Ghraib guards
were reservists rather than active duty soldiers?
It made an enormous difference, in two ways. They had no
mission-specific training, and they had no training to be in a
combat zone. Secondly, the Army reservists in a combat zone are
the lowest form of animal life within the military hierarchy.
They're not real soldiers, and they know this. In Abu Ghraib the
only thing lower than the army reservist MPs were the prisoners.
So it's a case of people who feel powerless in their lives
seizing power over someone else.
Yes, victims become victimizers. In Nazi concentration camps,
the Jewish capos were worse than the Nazis, because they had to
prove that they deserved being in this position.
You've said that the way to prevent evil actions is to teach the
"banality of kindness" -- that is, to get society to exemplify
ordinary people who engage in extraordinary moral actions. How
do you do this?
If you can agree on a certain number of things that are morally
wrong, then one way to counteract them is by training kids.
There are some programs, starting in the fifth grade, which get
kids to think about the heroic mentality, the heroic
To be a hero you have to take action on behalf of someone else
or some principle and you have to be deviant in your society,
because the group is always saying don't do it; don't step out
of line. If you're an accountant at Arthur Andersen, everyone
who is doing the defrauding is telling you, "Hey, be one of the
Heroes have to always, at the heroic decisive moment, break from
the crowd and do something different. But a heroic act involves
a risk. If you're a whistle-blower you're going to get fired,
you're not going to get promoted, you're going to get
ostracized. And you have to say it doesn't matter.
Most heroes are more effective when they're social heroes rather
than isolated heroes. A single person or even two can get
dismissed by the system. But once you have three people, then
it's the start of an opposition.
So what I'm trying to promote is not only the importance of each
individual thinking "I'm a hero" and waiting for the right
situation to come along in which I will act on behalf of some
people or some principle, but also, "I'm going to learn the
skills to influence other people to join me in that heroic
يرجى الاشارة الى موقع التحالف الوطني العراق عند اعادة
النشر او الاقتباس
العراق باق ٍ
والاحتلال إلى زوال