Product Details

• Actors: Israel Rivera, Megan Ambuhl Graner, Javal Davis, George W. Bush, John Yoo
• Directors: Rory Kennedy
• Writers: Jack Youngelson, Mark Bailey
• Producers: Caitlin McNally, Diana Barrett, Gil Shochat, Jack Youngelson, Julie Gaither
• Format: Closed-captioned, Color, DVD, Widescreen, NTSC
• Language: English (Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo), Spanish (Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo)
• Region: Region 1 (U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats.)
  
• Aspect Ratio: 1.66:1
• Number of discs: 1
• Rated: NR (Not Rated)
• Studio: Hbo Home Video
• DVD Release Date: June 5, 2007
• Run Time: 78 minutes
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• ASIN: B000NY0YK4
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #98,178 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
• For more information about "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)

Editorial Reviews

GHOSTS OF ABU GHRAIB - DVD Movie

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

108 of 108 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars What Will Haunt Americans Forever, July 8, 2008

By 

Edwin C. Pauzer (New York City) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (DVD)

"Continue!" commanded the experimenter. The volunteer did as he was told even though he thought he was providing extraordinarily painful levels of shock to the actor in the next room. All the volunteers did as they were told with the majority administering "lethal" levels at 450 volts. A psychologist named Dr. Stanley Milgram conducted this experiment at Yale in 1961. This is how Rory Kennedy's film begins.

Forty-two years later the United States is taking Taliban and al Qaeda prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. But how should they be classified, as prisoners of war? John Yoo, counsel at the Department of Justice explains that these "detainees" do not fit the description of prisoners of war, and therefore, are not afforded the protections the Convention provides. Furthermore, it is believed that these detainees have information vital to the war on terror, and it must be gotten from them. But, once again, John Yoo is perplexed by the wording of the Geneva Convention which forbids "severe" treatment of prisoners. "What does that mean," Yoo asks the camera. He suggests that it should only describe loss of bodily functions, organ failure, or death. Yoo does not note for us that the last two are usually too late to reverse the technique. By this standard, Japanese officers executed after World War II for torturing allies did not commit torture at all--not even Saddam Hussein! The White House agrees with Yoo's assessment and decides that those in their custody will not be given protection under the Geneva Convention.

Now, it's a question of how to get information. Major General Geoffrey Miller (USA) is transferred from Guantanamo to Iraq. He believes that information must be obtained at all costs. Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld approves techniques called sensory deprivation, dietary manipulation, stress positions, presence of military dogs, and sleep management.

The 372nd Military Police Company is under the command of Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. When the company arrives in Iraq, they find that they are assigned as correction officers at Abu Ghraib, something they are not trained to do. With the arrival of MG Miller, they are put under the command of Military Intelligence, the C.I.A., and a variety of contractors hired by the military. They follow orders to carry out all of the above.

Some of them will follow orders in the belief that they are moral orders; some will carry them out even if they feel what they are doing is questionable. A very few will complain to their chain of command. All of these military police personnel, to a soldier believe that if the pictures of Abu-Ghraib had not become public that there would not have been an investigation.

But then, Specialist Granger, an experienced correction officer who seems to enjoy the power from the misery he can inflict on others, gives Specialist Darby diskettes of photographs for him to copy as a keepsake of his tour in Iraq. When Darby gets to the second one he is appalled at what he sees. He follows his conscience and his training, and leaves the disk under the door of army detectives known as the Criminal Investigative Division, or CID. Darby's identity is safe, that is, until Secdef Rumsfeld mentions him by name on national television. Darby is whisked out of country and lives under federal protection, under an alias to this day.

Eleven members of the Abu-Ghraib prison were court-martialed with Granger being found guilty and given ten years at hard labor, even though a colonel officially commended Granger for his performance at the prison. The others, all enlisted personnel, were given far lighter sentences. No officers were found guilty other than BG Karpinski who was demoted in rank and forced to retire, MG Miller is awarded the Distinguished Service Medal.

Many of these enlisted men and women at Abu-Ghraib were interviewed for this film. We never hear questions given to them, but their doubts, their confusion, their apologies, their excuses, their remorse about their mission, their responsibilities, and their questions about why where they were the only ones tried, come through loud and clear.

The simple answer is that there were so many investigations, that none of them had any teeth. None were given carte blanche to investigate the highest levels of decision-making where these abuses originated. Many of these MP's employed abusive techniques that they never would have known about without having been told how to execute them.

All of these prisoners in Tier 1 were supposed to be hard-core al-Qaeda supporters with actionable intelligence. All were released without charge. No intelligence was ever gained from any one of them under torture. To this date the military has yet to publicize how many died in custody.

The film ends where it started, with the experiments. Dr. Milgram poses the question: If we can get people to do immoral or criminal acts because they believe it is coming from authority figures, think how easy it will be if it is done in the name of a country with all its prestige and legitimacy behind it.

Milgram asks us to consider the unthinkable:

Perhaps there is a little bit of Nazi in all of us.



Also recommended:

Miles, Steven M.D., "Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity, and the War on Terror." Random House, 2006. This short book focuses on the medical personnel cooperating with torturers regarding dietary manipulation, stress positions, and sleep management. It is stunning in its revelations. The author is accessible.

Dean, John W. "Conservatives Without Conscience." Viking Adult Press, 2006. I call the reader's attention to one part of this book that deals with experiments with people who are willing to follow authority.

27 of 27 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Hang our American heads in shame., July 12, 2008

By 

Timothy P. Scanlon (Hyattsville, MDUSA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (DVD)

This would-that-it-were-incredible film starts and nearly ends with an early 1960s study entitled "Obedience" in which psychologists concluded that people will, if given adequate direction from perceived authority, perform in ways contrary to their ethics. (All right, it's a run on...Forgive me.)

After the Iraq debacle began, presidential counsel Alberto Gonzales redefined torture so as to UNdefine it, thereby justifying anything this country did. Then Iraqi prisoners were taken into Abu Ghraib.

Interesting, but the troops interviewed for the film reflected on how badly prisoners there at Abu Ghraib were treated by Saddam's regime, how many, for example, had been brutally executed there. Interesting, huh?

The MPs were eventually taken from the Abu Ghraib and military intelligence was given a more active role. Unfortunately, the interrogators weren't getting any information. God forbid, did it occur to them that the prisoners didn't have any information to give? Apparently not.

So the army felt it would make more sense to get a very Rumsfeld kinda guy, Gen. Geoffrey Miller, from Gitmo which was/is notorious for their getting information despite "techniques" used. (Note that just yesterday the Red Cross's report was released which indicated that what the US is doing in Gitmo IS torture, and it IS a war crime.)

This is apparently when "mistreatment" of prisoners occurred. They were sexually humiliated, electrocuted, all sorts of techniques of torture you have to see the film to believe that those purporting to represent "democracy" would practice. Oh, and one was allegedly killed, and Lyndie England, one of the noncoms convicted in the Abu Ghraib incident, had a thumbs-up picture taken of her with the body of a prisoner which they claimed had died of a heart attack. (She acknowledged that there was blood on the body that wouldn't have been there if that's how he died...)

To make a long story short, Ms. England--who was among those interviewed for the film--was taking pictures of the goings on. She just seems to have a thing for cameras. Eventually, her paramour, I think his name is Graber, gave the pictures to Spec. Darby who reported them.

Toward the end of the film, the troops interviewed admitted that, if the pictures hadn't been released, nothing would have happened to counter this criminal behavior.

Of course, the bureaucracy tried to run from any responsibilty for the actions. But the question came up: how could those who were relatively uneducated, the noncoms allegedly responsible for the acts, know the practices that had been developed by the Brazilian military, and taught to US troops?

Those actually punished for torture and humiliation were the noncoms; Don Rumsfeld claimed no responsibility, Dubya proclaimed "disgust," and others in the hierarchy claimed just a few bad apples had done that on which the film focuses.

Oh, and all of those who'd been tortured at Abu Ghraib were released with no charges.

There's so much more that one could say about this fine film. We should hang our collective heads in shame at being responsible for this, while claiming to spread "democracy." But one can be HURT by seeing what was done in Abu Ghraib. I'm still trying to settle down after having seen the film.

Then why only 4 stars? Well, there was barely a mention of the private contractor/interrogators that some other books and films have covered. I think that's still an important element of this "war" of which we much we aware. Aside from that, I strongly recommend this film. It exposes not only the ghastly acts for which our country's credibility is in grave jeopardy, but provides some solid questions as to who was actually responsible for the events that took place.

18 of 22 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Abu Ghraib: A Very Public Scandal Revisited In A New Documentary, March 14, 2007

By 

K. Harris "Film aficionado" (Albuquerque, NM) - See all my reviews
(TOP 10 REVIEWER)    (HALL OF FAME REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (DVD)

I'm fearful of treading into politics, but I will attempt to be as nonpartisan as possible. Having just viewed the new documentary "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" by Rory Kennedy, I do feel that it is one of the better films I have seen lately. And while many will infer whatever political agenda that they happen to subscribe to--either that this film is ridiculous propaganda or that it speaks undeniable and unpleasant truths, I will limit my brief review to the content of the film. What I admired about "Ghosts" is that it is a relatively straightforward presentation by those involved in the incident itself. Filmed with no narration, the actual participants in the event are interviewed extensively. With dignity and candor, they take responsibility for that moment in time--a moment that will follow them for the rest of their lives. There are no histrionics, no excessive drama--the film just examines an event that became a public spectacle. And as a public spectacle, it opened a floodgate of controversy and criticism about human rights, international law, and America's role in being a world leader.

As the American presence in Iraq grew more prominent, Abu Ghraib prison became a holding cell for anyone suspected of having knowledge of terrorist activities. With too few guards and too many inmates, the situation was not ideal. When photos surfaced in the press showing American troops (acting as guards) engaged in humiliation techniques, it ignited much unwanted attention. The Americans directly involved were cast as rogue agents who had gotten out of control. But all maintain they were under specific orders to disorient and humiliate the prisoners to make them more receptive to interrogation. The documentary links their actions as specific sanctioned techniques--and points to a chain of command that was fully complicit in the actions, all the way up to Donald Rumsfeld.

Again, you can draw your own conclusions (in fact, you probably already have) about the political nature of Abu Ghraib. What we are left with, then, are those who were immediately involved, who posed cheerfully in the pictures, and who suffered the consequences. Some seem mystified by the part they played, some less than remorseful, some feel scapegoated--but all are undeniably affected. For those who really dwell on their actions (even if they were under orders), they are haunted by an unanswered question. By helping to strip away someone else's humanity--did they lose some of their own? All politics aside, it's a question that requires some contemplation. "Ghosts" is a worthwhile film, one that brings to light an incident that "shamed" and shocked America. But was that shame based on what was done in Abu Ghraib, or was it a reflection of being embarrassed that it was caught on film? I'll leave that question for you to answer for yourself. KGHarris, 03/07.