It seems to me, also, that even if a few "bad apples" -- let's suppose we're talking about Graner, England, one or two or three others -- got through the screening and training processes with their badness intact, which may be likely but isn't impossible, in a good "barrel" they wouldn't rot the others, or not many of them. In a good "barrel", i.e. a strong social ethic that condemns the kind of things they did, including rigorous accountability rather than anonymity, and a majority who adhere to that ethic, they wouldn't have gotten away with the abuses for long. That the "good" soldiers at Abu Ghraib didn't stop, expose and turn in the "bad" ones seems to me like proof enough that the barrel was rotten.