Customer Reviews

Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

"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.

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.

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.

In a political science class of mine the other day, my professor popped in this film and gave no intro, except to say the title. After the film was over I realized why, because this documentary goes into greater detail then my professor ever could, in way far more telling.

First off, as you can see by the title, the documentary is about the prison camp Abu Ghraib. At first you get an introduction, through soldiers stationed there about the prison, and it's dreary past. This was a former prison used by Saddam after all; however, the focus wasn't on phantasms. In fact, the ghosts are perhaps a forewarning of the abuses we now know of; abuses that, as you find out throughout the film, are even more disturbing then you might have imagined, and once again show how humans can lose themselves in the situation, as these soldiers, who are actually narrating this themselves, did during their time in Abu Ghraib.

What most impressed me was the fact that this documentary was able to gather as many soldiers that worked there, along with a couple of the former prisoners. See at first, I didn't realize the people I was watching talk about the prison, the soldiers, were indeed the one's that were a part of the egregious acts, and you'd never imagine that till the end. Even more disturbing, is how these soldiers, clearly not jailers, were hung up to dry as "a few bad soldiers" when, as the movie shows, torture was a policy from above, not a spontaneous action from below.

Clearly, this film may shake peoples ideas differently based on their political viewpoints; however, I believe that no matter the party, or persuasion, you should watch this film. My only warning is that this film is graphic, so be forewarned. Otherwise, hopefully this excellent documentary will open your eyes, as it did mine, to the situation in Abu Ghraib that we only thought we knew...

This is a potentially good movie that could have greatly furthered the worldwide debate on policies of torture by the United States government. In the end, though, the film falls victim to its own sort of narrow, self-limiting vision of America.

One appropriate subtitle for this movie might well have been: "What happens to good people who are caught up in bad situations". Filmmaker Rory Kennedy makes the point, in the movie and her audio commentary, that the low-level U.S. military guards at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq who were caught in those embarrassing torture photos seen round the world were basically "sweet" and "likable" young people who were scapegoated by the Pentagon and the Bush administration.

But what is most disturbing with that story line is that not one of those former American guards, neither men nor women -- and Kennedy admittedly scores a filmmaking coup in getting them to talk on camera about their experiences at Abu Ghraib -- ever shows anything resembling remorse about participating in torture against innocent Iraqi people. The closest they get to that in this film is when one male U.S. soldier cries over the death of an Iraqi man in his custody, though that death was only marginally related to Abu Ghraib. It is left up to one Iraqi torture victim at Abu Ghraib, who openly weeps at the memory of the torture-induced death of his elderly father at Abu Ghraib, to give this movie any real emotional depth.

Or if that subtitle doesn't grab you, another suitable subtitle for this film might well be: "Made of the American people, by the American people, for the American people". The former Iraqi detainees of Abu Ghraib are the only "non-Americans" featured in interviewees throughout this film. It's all "us, we, our" among the U.S. soldiers, academics and others interviewed for this film. The DVD packaging itself labels the Abu Ghraib torture photos as "photographs that are etched in our national consciousness". Our national consciousness? Those photos outraged the consciousness of the whole world, not just people living in the USA or in the Arab world.

The real ghosts of Abu Ghraib prison are not to be found in the dank, dark halls of Saddam Hussein's notorious gulag, now taken over by the Americans. No, the real ghosts of Abu Ghraib are to be found in the well-documented cases of prisons and jails all across the USA, where brown-skinned men and women have been routinely tortured physically and psychologically for many decades. The ghosts of Abu Ghraib have long roamed and wandered through the violence of U.S. society, especially in the cells and hallways of its vast prison system.

I suppose one shouldn't be so hard on filmmaker Rory Kennedy; after all, she is the youngest child of the late Robert F. Kennedy (assassinated in 1968) and the niece of former U.S. president John F. Kennedy (assassinated in 1963). And we all know that the Kennedy family stands as a liberal American voice of moral concern at times. One could also fairly argue that it is Americans who most need to see such a movie and reflect yet one more time on what their "national consciousness" is doing to all the other people on this planet.

Still, this movie could have been so much more. The full story of Abu Ghraib has never really been told and may never be, given that the U.S. government is, if some U.S. news media are to be believed, fighting tooth and nail today to prevent other photos and videos of Abu Ghraib prison from publicly surfacing -- images and sounds that are reported to be even more shocking than what the world has already seen. Why did this movie skirt all around that issue, while devoting much time to issues of "good people caught up in bad situations"? Is that really the way most Americans look at their own military's torture of innocent people overseas?

I give "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" a perfect 5 stars for its potential -- minus 3 stars for once again letting the American people off the hook when it comes to telling the full truth and taking full moral responsibility for their actions before the people of the world.

Just looking at video footage of Abu Ghraib prison is enough to set you on edge due to its eerie environment and knowing the sinister past it played under Saddam Hussein's regime. This is how `Ghosts of Abu Ghraib' begins and it sets a tone for the revealing and disturbing information to follow

Using a collection of interviews from military personnel, former prisoners, and selected other authorities, the scandal at this infamous Iraqi prison comes full circle and attempts to explain what actually occurred there, who the players were, and consequences of these events.

First and foremost, the operative word for what happened to prisoners would be `torture'. It's no stretch to realize that methods used in Abu Ghraib were a clear violation of Geneva Convention Accords. To circumvent `official policy', it is interesting how the U.S. Justice Department and other government entities interpreted the status of the prisoners and reworked policy definitions on how to conduct interrogation and torture. One certain area looked at is Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Somewhere down the line, the questionable methods used here were eventually adapted for use in Abu Ghraib. After looking at all the sordid photographs of the prisoners in this program, what is seen looks less like torture methods and more like concentrated acts of humiliation and degradation brought about by the military police guards.

Knowing that U.S. military guards were not properly trained in corrections duties and that somewhere in the scheme of things the Military Intelligence section ending up calling the shots, it makes you wonder if there was anything organized occurring at all at Abu Ghraib. Discretion never seemed to be a foremost concern either due to so many damaging and disgusting photographs being taken and eventually given to the Army Criminal Investigation Division. Once the secret was out, damage control went into full swing. The U.S. government began a campaign of disinformation and deception to protect those at the top and to make scapegoats of many at the bottom. The official explanations of ignorance of these events and then blaming a `few bad soldiers' who did this all on their own are just ridiculous.

`Ghosts of Abu Ghraib', while a really good documentary in my opinion, is also one that is bound to spark disgust, anger, disbelief, and a host of other emotions in viewers. Despite this program showing a very dark and graphic chapter in our military's history and one that is bound to haunt us for a long time to come, I would recommend this program to everyone as a more thorough dissection of the Abu Ghraib scandal rather than what the media revealed.

Another film I saw at Sundance in 2007 before its release on HBO. Provocative and hard hitting film with more access than you'd think possible. I already knew a lot about the Abu Ghraib situation -- but knowing and seeing it up close are two different things.

One quibble is that the glossy interview style which HBO seems to require for its documentaries is somewhat at odds stylistically with the gritty subject matter.

I also feel the film could have been tougher on US military prison policy in the region -- but given what must have been a very difficult situation, I'm amazed filmmaker Rory Kennedy was able to get as much access to the individual soldiers and show as much as she did.

Should be an eye opener to anyone who has a heart and half a brain.While the film does not concentrate enough on the government cover-up it shows enough that should alarm any 'true' GOD fearing (and patriotic American citizen) that the government is out of control and cannot be trusted. Escapegoats and patsies are a real part of US history. It sickens me everytime I see a Bush/Cheney sticker as they should be replaced with impeachment stickers for the LYING-self proclaimed believer-in-GOD man. Which GOD I am not sure......as 'my' God and savior through Jesus Christ would NEVER believe in torture!!!!!

1. I was bothered by how the soldiers in this video rationalized what they did. I really didn't hear much remorse or sadness. That bothered me but I have to think what it would be like in their shoes. If I went through the hardening that they did, would I be cold too?

2. I'm more worried though about the cover up than the ground level soldiers. Their higher ups knew what was going on. I want the official death count of people that died in that American styled Concentration Camp. This is not America's finest moment. This shows the immorality of the men that ordered and control the way this war is wagged.

3. The interviews with the former prisoners were hard to watch. The pain in their voices...

4. War is messy but it is not supposed to be this messy.

I gave it three stars because they didn't talk about some of the reason I heard where behind the treatment. I read that they justified their actions because some of the men that supposedly raped Jessica Lynch were in the prison and they were paying them back. I felt like there could have been more depth to it.

Be warned, this is uncensored and raw. Graphic nudity, scenes and language and unlike a Rated R movie, this is real...

There is no excuse for the actions of the troops during the Abu Ghraib incidents. However, before people feel the need to judge others understand that these men and women were untrained in their guard duties, they were supposed to 'care' for people that had, in their eyes, murdered their comrades, were literally living in Sadams old torture chambers where they had to clean off the blood before they could lay down cots and were often at a lack of food and water themselves. They may not get new shipments of basic necessities for long periods of time. I highly recommend this movie and ask that you hold your opinions till the end. These troops were literally living in HELL. Again, no excuse and they needed to be punished, but who hasn't ever been tired, hungry and snapped at a friend or family member? Multiply that by 1,000 and you BEGIN to understand what these men and women had to deal with.