Stanford Experiment

Wow! Because of concerns regarding the protection of human subjects, there is absolutely NO WAY this experiment could be replicated today! After reading about the experiment, I really am quite shocked by the severity of the student's actions and how involved the experimenter became. I was surprised that the experiment lasted only 6 days and that the students underwent that transformation in such a short period of time. I truly thought it would take weeks before that authoritarian mentality would solidify within the students. Wow.

Well, I guess this does reveal some interesting things that directly parallel and potentially explain the abuses that took place at Abu Ghraib. Some of the parallels I saw were:

1) From the very first minutes, the experiment was already geared at humiliating and dehumanizing the students/prisoners. I was shocked to learned this because I kind of just pictured the students showing up to the experiment and voluntarily changing into their prisoner roles. But I guess it makes sense because in real imprisonment situations, such as Abu Ghraib, the morale breaking down process begins from the very first encounter. Beginning with the arrest/abduction of the prisoners, the men and women of Abu Ghraib were treated with the sort of disdain and abuse that laid the foundations for their dehumanization.
[Slide]

2) The Stanford experimenters, like the Abu Ghraib guards, continued this dehumanization in every aspect of the prisoner's experience. Like in Abu Ghraib, the Stanford experiment attempted to divorce the prisoners from their former selves. I was surprised to see that they stripped the prisoners, deliced them, dressed them the way they did, and shackled their feet. [Slide] The uniform dresses the prisoners were forced to wear and the numbers by which they were now solely identified by really paralleled the more subtle morale breaking tactics of Abu Ghraib.

3) The military men at Abu Ghraib were not MPs. In the video, one of the men expressed shock at the idea of being assigned to prison duty at Abu Ghraib and commented that this was a real morale breaker for him and his colleagues. Like many of the guards at Abu Ghraib, the students were not trained in how to be a prison guard and at first they seemed unsure how to assert their authority. [Slide] I feel like this probably parallels the experience of many of the new Abu Ghraib, and like those guards, the students quickly learned that power is dangerous.

4) The concept of iteration is also demonstrated in the experiment because originally the guards used seemingly benign punishments such as push ups and gradually escalated to more and more extreme techniques. [Slide] This clearly parallels the experience of the Abu Ghraib guards who gradually committed more and more grave atrocities as their thirst for power grew and consequences did not manifest as a result of their actions.

5) The use psychological punishment is also something that was present at both Abu Ghraib and the Stanford experiment. The use of a special privilege cell really instilled doubt in the Stanford prison population much like how the sounds of other screaming prisoners broke down the morale of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. [Slide]

6) The Stanford experiment's use of "counts," sometimes several times per hour, also parallels the Abu Ghraib's guards tactic of sleep deprivation. [Slide] In both situations, the prisoners were not allowed to sleep and were constantly being disturbed.

ADS

The 60 minutes piece prompted me to consider what else is out there about the ADS sytem, so here are a few links I found useful when looking into the U.S. military`s use of ADS.

Wikipedia (I know, not always the most accurate, but informative nonetheless). There is an interesting point made under the section labeled "Controversies".

Controversy as to the methodology of testing, in which volunteers were asked to remove glasses, contact lenses and metallic objects that could cause hot spots, has raised concerns as to whether the device would remain true to its purpose of non-lethal temporary incapacitation if used in the field where safety precautions would not be taken.

Again, keeping in mind that this is wikipedia, so its veracity may be in question, a good point is raised regarding testing conditions and actual use. A weapon may appear compliant with all necessary standards in the most ideal of situations, but what about in realistic use situations? I've been told that this is one of the controversies surround testing of cluster munitions. Apparently, when cluster munitions are tested, to establish dud rate, they are tested under very controled dropsites, with very level ground of a known density and with low wind. However, since the bombs are used in a myriad of places and under various conditions, the dud rate present in the testing zone never corresponds to the dud rate experienced in the field. I wonder if the testing of ADS systems under controled circumstances will also lead to similarly skewed results.

I also found it amusing that the ADS has been refered to as the Pain Ray.

Joint Non Lethal Weapons Program (I especially found the fact that they had a humans effects advisory panel interesting).