In times of conflict, anger and hatred cast their dehumanisation spell and the Abu Ghraib incident is testimony to this. The horrific photographs show how US military personnel fail to see their enemies as fellow humans, susceptible to pain and humiliation.

In a battlefield, when one's primary objective is to remain alive, such an outlook is unfortunately understandable. But in the confines of a prison, where the enemy is at your mercy, shouldn't a certain degree of tolerance and respect be extended?

But such is the tragedy of war, as the reciprocating act of slaughtering (the authencity of which is still being debated but nevertheless if found to be true, would hardly surprise anyone) an American civilian so violently exhibits.

The moment the torture came to light, politicians around the world, including those on our soil, condemned it, and rightly too.

This was a golden opportunity to assail the United States of America, which over the years concerned itself with the human rights abuses of other nations but was now faced with a ghastly one of its own making.

A hail of castigation came forth, and another followed when the superpower apologised for the unbecoming conduct of its gallant soldiers.

Democratic mechanisms at work

However, the critics, especially those dwelling in dictatorial states and guided democratic nations, ignored how America's democratic mechanisms cranked to life after, or for that matter, even before the photographs made headlines.

Here's a comparative recap.

1) A soldier, who laid his hands on the photographs, grew upset and leaked it to the press. Now, one wonders whether a uniformed personnel in other countries would do the same, and if it happened, would he or she be safe from retribution.

2) An American media published the photographs. Immediately all other television stations and newspapers there carried the story, including the so-called American mouthpiece CNN.

Now in certain countries that would have amounted to editorial harakiri, licences would have been revoked and journalists would be pacing the floors of another Abu Ghraib for threatening national security.

In more extreme cases, a bomb would have ripped through that brazen media organisation's building and some of its staff being riddled with bullets.

In a nutshell, in some places, the story would have never seen the light of day as editors would have consulted the powers-that-be before anything else.

3) The American government makes a public admission and apologises, which critics say does not salve the wound and they do have a valid point.

But then again, in certain parts of the world, there would have been outright denials and counter-accusations of how the whole episode was conceived by certain foreign elements to shame the country. Some would have even denied the existence of the prison itself and dismissed the photographs as opposition-generated fakes.

An apology by the head of state perhaps? You must be kidding! In some political circles, the word apology does not exist as it is a sign of weakness that shatters the myth of infallibility.

4) Those responsible for the torture are suspended and legal action is initiated against them. Now, when denial is the order of the day, soldiers in certain countries need not worry of such things should they decide to leash or wire-up one of their captives.

5) A senate hearing commences, comprising both Republican and Democrat congressmen. Most shocking of all is that its proceedings are televised live, for hours at length. (Our honourable information minister should advise them against such costly endeavours).

Now to imagine ruling and opposition politicians in certain countries presiding over a hearing of such grave importance, without being at each other's throats, remains just that, an imagination. More importantly, the hearing in itself by certain standards would be nothing more than a fantasy, especially during an election year.

Impressive Rumsfeld

6) US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is mercilessly grilled by politicians from both sides of the divide, who apparently did extensive homework on the issue. He accepted responsibility and apologised for the incident.

Now a politician of similar stature in certain parts of the world, would not be subjected to a similar fate. The idea itself would appear inconceivable. Accountability, is another word many politicians have never heard of.

The manner in which the questions were framed and the way Rumsfeld responded was impressive to say the least.

7) Next came the generals of the most powerful military in the world with glittering stars on their epaulets. They too were shown no compassion. Another salvo of questions, fielded in the crisp military manner of 'Yes Sir and No Sir'.

In other parts of the world, one wonders whether generals would be able to withstand such an assault without being provoked to stage a coup and roll tanks into the houses of the politicians, who dare question their judgment and authority.

The hearing continues and the American media keeps unearthing fresh photographs of torture. Only time will tell, the outcome of this ghastly episode.

But at the end of the day, while the American people should bow their heads in shame for the action of some of their soldiers, they should also hold their heads high knowing that American democracy survived the hades of Abu Gharib.

RK ANAND is a member of the malaysiakini team.