Errol Morris' Abu Ghraib film: "Standard Operating Procedure"

[schwartzie]

Saw this movie, which opened in NY in late April.
Has anyone seen it? Want to discuss?


Errol Flynn (directed The Thin Blue Line; Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control; and The Fog of War) is a genius. The film is a very disturbing look at what appears to be acts of torture. The stories are told by the soldiers on the ground and the shocking photographs they took. Most of the soldiers ended up serving prison time for apparently following orders.

The movie is an indictment of "standard operating procedures" used to break prisoners, including outright physical torture, beatings, sexual molestation and degradation, psychological abuse. Stuff that clearly crosses the line of torture. If these acts were perpetrated on US soldiers, we would be up in arms-all of us. It is frightening that the so called war on terror is being used to justify this dramatic and unilateral escalation of prisoner abuse. (And, think long and hard about allowing your children to serve in this military.)

Clip 10 (and all the others...) are troubling
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Moriarty]

I've never heard of it, but I may check it out. Films like this are usually pretty full of sensationalism, but you're recommending this one, so you feel it was generally free of slant?

[schwartzie]

I've never heard of it, but I may check it out. Films like this are usually pretty full of sensationalism, but you're recommending this one, so you feel it was generally free of slant?


Take a look at some of the clips on the facebook page--there's like 10 or 12 of them, and see what you think.

To me it looked like Morris offered a pretty wide range of conflicting views. The movie consists entirely of talking heads of the guards and interrogators and contractors who did the work (remember Lindy-- the little tough girl in so many of the photos, finger cocked like a gun, cig hanging from her mouth? She tells a story that seems credible if creepy), their supervisors and higher ups, interspersed with the still photos that we've all seen. The camera moves awfully slowly, leaving time for the interviewees to pause, to silently think--with their eyes telling volumes. You have the sense that the interviewees felt that they had a full and fair opportunity to tell their individual stories/viewpoints, and that the film made an effort to capture the conflicting views, but did not neatly tie them up for us.

[Aronnax]

It looks interesting, I'll check it out when I get the chance.

It's sad that most people aren't taught about the Standford Prison and Milgram experiments in school.

[schwartzie]

It looks interesting, I'll check it out when I get the chance.

It's sad that most people aren't taught about the Standford Prison and Milgram experiments in school.

I'd love to hear your thoughts after you see it. Aren't those experiments interesting for what they suggest about human nature.

[jesse]

"Fear of the truth...silenced people"

It does not take a genius to understand why this remained hidden. First and foremost, any military itself is based on a strict hierarchy and discipline is everything. You do not question orders, you simply execute orders as told.

I can imagine that the soldiers who were within Abu Ghraib were shocked by the actions, and if they would have blown the whistle about the conditions, who knows, maybe they would have suffered a similar fate as the alleged terrorists.

It is unbelievable what humans do to one another when at war. This certainly would be a very different aspect if this war had been of the classical protoype: one nation strikes another, either or both declare war and duke it out. Not this shindig. The rules have been changed, and since might makes right, the stronger party can butcher and treat the prisoners as they see fit.

I do not buy the thought that only the leadership positions within the military operation told the military police to beat and mercilessly torment the inmates. It takes both parties, the orders from above and then the willingness of the soldiers themselves to hit the inmates hard inside Abu Ghraib.

I'll try to get a copy of the full documentary out of interest at the barbarism exhibited then and which probably continues covertly. War does send principles out the windows fairly quickly, it seems.

[Moriarty]

Take a look at some of the clips on the facebook page--there's like 10 or 12 of them, and see what you think.


I watched them and it was very interesting. I'll check out the film when I get home. Thanks.

Aronnax: you make a point. I don't know if those case studies are a part of the core curriculum for military police or any other people placed in authority positions within institutions like Abu Ghraib, but if they aren't, they should be.

[Karamazov]

I'll have to check it out. The Fog of War proved rather interesting.

I wonder where Philip Zimbardo is these days?

[schwartzie]

It does not take a genius to understand why this remained hidden. First and foremost, any military itself is based on a strict hierarchy and discipline is everything. You do not question orders, you simply execute orders as told. The guards pretty much all stated that when they arrived at Abu Ghraib, the procedures and methods were in place, and they simply continued on as they were trained to do. For example, sexual humiliation-making Islamic men stand naked before female guards--was one method used to soften detainees, disorient them, and prepare them for interrogation.
I can imagine that the soldiers who were within Abu Ghraib were shocked by the actions, and if they would have blown the whistle about the conditions, who knows, maybe they would have suffered a similar fate as the alleged terrorists. One interviewee was an interrogator. It wasn't clear to me what military organization he was with. He said the sexual humiliation stuff was irregular, and when he asked about it, he was told that it was only used by female guards, and he could not use those methods. Another interviewee was a female guard who stated that she was one of the three guards who took still photos of the detainees being tortured; she said that the reason she took the photographs is because she believed the procedures were improper,that she knew that some day shit would hit the fan, and she wanted photographic corroboration of the procedures she participated in.
The rules have been changed.... Contemporary researchers have credibly documented the effort to develop effective coercive interrogation techniques. For example, Naomi Klein, in The Shock Doctrine, at pages 15-16 and 25-48, tells of the work of Dr. Ewen Cameron, Director of McGill University's Allan Memorial Institute to develop these techniques beginning in the 1950's. (A FOIA request in the late '70's showed that Cameron's research--using patients with mild psych symptoms as guinea pigs for development of effective "softening" methods--was funded by the CIA, which sparked US Senate hearings and yielded more information on the research. Nine of Cameron's damaged psych patients later got together and sued, and were paid $750,000 by the CIA in 1988 to compensate them for harm done to them as human guinea pigs. The co-funder of the research, the Canadian government paid an additional 100K to each victim. Because of the FOIA and lawsuits, a fair amount of info is in the public domain.) Many of the methods used on the Abu Ghraib detainees were identical to techniques that were developed by Cameron, and further developed in Vietnam and Central America during the 1960's to 1980's, according to Alfred W. McCoy,(A Question of Torture:CIA Interrogation...) of the Univ. of Wisconsin. The issue is whether particular acts are "torture" within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. Some of the interviewees strongly claimed that some acts stepped over the line. Others thought not--they were just softening detainees. In one brief segment of the film, some expert gives his assessment of which acts were fair and which appeared illegal.
It takes both parties, the orders from above and then the willingness of the soldiers themselves ... inside Abu Ghraib. No dispute. One poor guy was just a desk clerk-he got drawn into an incident where, he said, he couldn't say no. He did prison time for that one bad act. Even Lindy, the scary little female guard in so many pics was very clear about her cooperation and why she did it instead of refusing orders, as she "should have done." Many of the guards did prison time for their acts.

Their claim, though, is that they were not sexual freaks or vicious bad apples, but rather, they executed SOP, and unfairly took all the heat.

Does anyone know enough about military law or procedures to know what the guards should have done if they were ordered to engage in an act that they believed violated the Geneva Convention or other military standards for appropriate treatment of detainees? There has to be some protocol for this....

[Karamazov]

The guards pretty much all stated that when they arrived at Abu Ghraib, the procedures and methods were in place, and they simply continued on as they were trained to do. For example, sexual humiliation-making Islamic men stand naked before female guards--was one method used to soften detainees, disorient them, and prepare them for interrogation.
One interviewee was an interrogator. It wasn't clear to me what military organization he was with. He said the sexual humiliation stuff was irregular, and when he asked about it, he was told that it was only used by female guards, and he could not use those methods. Another interviewee was a female guard who stated that she was one of the three guards who took still photos of the detainees being tortured; she said that the reason she took the photographs is because she believed the procedures were improper,that she knew that some day shit would hit the fan, and she wanted photographic corroboration of the procedures she participated in.

Ah, yes. I remember that woman. I read an article in The New Yorker (with collaboration with Errol Morris I might add) about her genuine fascination of violence, evident in her photographing many grisly scenes in Iraq and in Abu Ghraib. Not that she actually enjoyed seeing the violent acts, she was simply fascinated by the aftermath (she even had a shrunken cat head she kept around for amusement). At first, reading her letters she sent to her girlfriend back in the States, she was pretty shocked with what was going on but then steadily became indifferent. After all, rules are rules. Slowly she became apathetic,depressed and tried to justify herself for what was going on, acting as If she wasn't a participant, an outsider looking In. Hence, her original motivation to want to photograph the abuse, as a way to alleviate any sense of responsibility or guilt.

It would be easy to assign the blame on the lower level grunts, but they were merely following the absurd regulations(or lack thereof) by the higher ups. I think prison sentences should be the maximum punishment, judging the status many of these soldiers hold while being back in country with no hope for any aspirations of a good job, a decent education and an overall good quality of life. Thats punishment enough.

[Moriarty]

Does anyone know enough about military law or procedures to know what the guards should have done if they were ordered to engage in an act that they believed violated the Geneva Convention or other military standards for appropriate treatment of detainees? There has to be some protocol for this....

The reason the guards did prison time (besides bad public relations) is for violation of the Law of Land Warfare. Specifically, they would have been obligated NOT to follow an order or directive that they felt violated it. The only gray area is in the specific classification of a detainee versus a uniformed enemy prisoner of war. The difference in the label has a big difference in the rights the person is entitled to. It's kind of confusing, but not *that* confusing.

My net connection isn't behaving this morning, so I can't send you a particular link. If you want to dig deeper, google law of land warfare or FM 27-10.

[jesse]

The guards pretty much all stated that when they arrived at Abu Ghraib, the procedures and methods were in place, and they simply continued on as they were trained to do. For example, sexual humiliation-making Islamic men stand naked before female guards--was one method used to soften detainees, disorient them, and prepare them for interrogation.

I am sure this method does have its uses, but it does not have to amount to torture. It is shocking enough to be told by a heretic and a woman what to do next. War games and BDSM perhaps? :cool:


One interviewee was an interrogator. It wasn't clear to me what military organization he was with. He said the sexual humiliation stuff was irregular, and when he asked about it, he was told that it was only used by female guards, and he could not use those methods. Another interviewee was a female guard who stated that she was one of the three guards who took still photos of the detainees being tortured; she said that the reason she took the photographs is because she believed the procedures were improper,that she knew that some day shit would hit the fan, and she wanted photographic corroboration of the procedures she participated in.

I bet her commanding officers were heavily pleased by the photos surfacing in the public. :p


Contemporary researchers have credibly documented the effort to develop effective coercive interrogation techniques. For example, Naomi Klein, in The Shock Doctrine, at pages 15-16 and 25-48, tells of the work of Dr. Ewen Cameron, Director of McGill University's Allan Memorial Institute to develop these techniques beginning in the 1950's. (A FOIA request in the late '70's showed that Cameron's research--using patients with mild psych symptoms as guinea pigs for development of effective "softening" methods--was funded by the CIA, which sparked US Senate hearings and yielded more information on the research. Nine of Cameron's damaged psych patients later got together and sued, and were paid $750,000 by the CIA in 1988 to compensate them for harm done to them as human guinea pigs. The co-funder of the research, the Canadian government paid an additional 100K to each victim. Because of the FOIA and lawsuits, a fair amount of info is in the public domain.) Many of the methods used on the Abu Ghraib detainees were identical to techniques that were developed by Cameron, and further developed in Vietnam and Central America during the 1960's to 1980's, according to Alfred W. McCoy,(A Question of Torture:CIA Interrogation...) of the Univ. of Wisconsin. The issue is whether particular acts are "torture" within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. Some of the interviewees strongly claimed that some acts stepped over the line. Others thought not--they were just softening detainees. In one brief segment of the film, some expert gives his assessment of which acts were fair and which appeared illegal.


Where is the line drawn between torture and "softening" techniques used during / prior interrogation? This is clearly a gray area that probably is being exploited to get off the hook if a few basic principles of a pesky document called the Geneva Convention. Since the term "torture" is avoided, you can inherently hide behind other equivalent terms which can amount to the same behavior which some do try to have banned. This is fine and all, but you cannot have observers everywhere documenting violations and I doubt any military organization is keen on being observed while in duty. Torture without being called torture.

Everyone involved has their own account of what happened and the differing opinions are proof of this event. One group says the tactics used crossed a line while others say they simply did as they were told, hence why they don't deem their actions as overkill.

Unpleasant as those experiments and the aftermath is, a few payouts here and there does not vindicate their actions. Cameron & CO toyed with lives and arguably their work remains in good use by governments.

It is unlikely those who have been detained and put through the interrogation routines are going to get their wrongs fixed. The US military probably will not admit their doings and I doubt the detainees have enough evidence to condemn them, either. Catch 22.


Their claim, though, is that they were not sexual freaks or vicious bad apples, but rather, they executed SOP, and unfairly took all the heat.

The hierarchy deemed it was better to let the figureheads suffer the consecuences while the fat cats go fairly unscathed in the aftermath. In some sense, I do not blame them for committing such acts because war is war, you do or you die and you have your fate placed in the hands of your superiors. War is always a severe mental drain and it is all too easy to get caught up in the moment and stoop low enough to perform humiliation and other acts which you would not do otherwise.