Rules, fools and ghouls

Rules – who needs'em? In fact, "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

That's a famous line from Shakespeare's "Henry VI," intended to convey at least one madman's idea of nirvana. Of course, it falsely implies that a world with no rules, or at least no one to defend them, is the greatest place to live. Want proof? Abu Ghraib prison.

TRENDING: 'So cool': Kathryn Limbaugh shares Rush's final moments

Here existed a world within the war where the rules were temporarily suspended. The result was not nirvana.

What may have started with all the appearances of a frat party eventually spiraled out of control. When order did emerge, the only ones enjoying themselves were those who came into power by brute force, fear and intimidation. This is the environment that led to the human-rights violations that now preoccupy our media, armed forces and critics of American culture worldwide.

The primary defense of those accused in the prisoner abuse is that "they were doing what they were told." As trials surrounding war crimes of Nazi Germany, Japan and Kosovo attest, this is a defense that rarely works.

Yet I would suggest in these circumstances this defense may serve to mitigate at least some responsibility of the immediate participants by strongly implicating those up the chain of command for at least three reasons.

1. Because the military instills through discipline and training the need for men and women in our armed forces to follow orders; and
2. Because human-behavior studies predict that many people do what they are told even when they know what they are doing is wrong;
3. Responsible leaders know or should know both.

Specifically, studies of obedience reveal how people react to those in authority when directed to act against their better judgment. The most famous experiment was done at Yale University over 40 years ago.

In this study, participants were told that the study was designed to determine how punishment stimulates memory. They were then put at the controls of a device that generated electrical shocks ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The person tested was strapped in a chair, wired to the electrical device and given lists of words to memorize.

Each time the subject failed to memorize the words, the person at the controls was ordered to apply an electrical shock increasing the intensity by 15 volts after each failure. People receiving the shocks of increasing intensity showed visible and audible signs of stress. According to one report, "they groaned at 75 volts, complained of pain at 120 volts, demanded to be released at 150 volts and screamed in agony at 285 volts. By 300 volts they were speechless."

Hesitation by those at the controls was met with reassurance by the researchers. Participants were told "there was no real danger; the experiment must go on for the advancement of science; and that the researchers themselves would take full responsibility." The test ended either when the person giving the electrical shocks disobeyed or when the person failing the memory test received the maximum 450 volts.

In the end, 62 percent of the participants administered the maximum 450 volts of electrical shock. That means two out of three people voluntarily obeyed authority even though "they were convinced they were inflicting pain on a screaming human being begging to be released from the experiment."

The real shock – there were no shock treatments. The screaming "victims" were acting. It was the people giving the shocks who were being tested. The conclusion was that many people will follow orders even when they think what they are doing is wrong.

This tendency of human behavior should be understood by those leading our armed forces who additionally train these men and women to follow orders.

In the case of Abu Ghraib, leaders wanted "actionable" information from the detainees. As a result, untrained soldiers were placed in position to extract that information and through verbal and non-verbal communication given assurances that this behavior was not only condoned but authorized. This demonstrates leadership control and therefore leadership responsibility.

On the need for rules, it couldn't be plainer. First, to protect ourselves, we need to know the rules in any given circumstance. Next, we need to understand adherence to the rules are what ensure, at least in America, equal treatment and equal freedoms, especially for the weakest and most vulnerable in a society. Finally, rules build in people a sense of security and stability providing boundaries and safe limits of conduct. They even provide a sense of fair play in war as given by the Geneva Conventions.

So who needs rules? It looks we do. For that matter, the lawyers do, too.