Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

puella -> Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/23/2007 12:29:55 PM)
I am wondering if anyone saw the HBO Documentary by Rory Kennedy last night called 'The Ghosts of Abu Ghraib"? It has left a very strong impact upon me, and I highly recommend people to watch it if they get the chance.

cloudboy -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/23/2007 4:58:59 PM)
I found it incredibly DISTURBING. My old Russian history professor used to say, "The ends don't justify the means, the means determine the ends." The Abu Ghraib saga struck me as the Bush Administration (Rumsfeldt in particular) taking its own mismanagement of the war out on innocent IRAQI prisoners, as if a few interrogations would magically provide US forces with the golden intelligence it needed to end the insurgency. It was an insane gambit that backfired. Abu Ghraib reflects a criminal negligence in our policy makers --- who somehow think that war crimes further the US interest. (We have become the "New Russians," or as Reagan used to say, "evil empire.") The war there is LOST. Washington is in denial about it. I'm not sure it was ever a winnable objective, installing a democracy by force in IRAQ, but the execution of the objective has been botched beyond repair. The looting, disarming the army, not safeguarding all the weapons caches, no WMD, the language and culture barrier between our troops and the natives, the collapse of all central authority, and then our senseless torture of the IRAQIs themselves --- add up to one huge clusterfuck and policy failure.

WyrdRich -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/23/2007 9:38:44 PM)
I saw it. It was powerful and well made, a slick bit of propaganda with a political agenda. Nowhere near as blatant as "Farenheit 9/11," but one Big Lie is enough. I'll probably have more to say after I get a chance to reflect, but I'm glad I live someplace where a film like that can be made and shown.

WyrdRich -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/24/2007 11:10:44 AM)
What happened at Abu Graib was ugly, but the film wasn’t really about that. It was an attempt to shift the responsibility from the guards who performed the acts to the highest levels of the administration. Such a case might be made, but “Ghosts of Abu Graib” makes it in a dishonest way. Creating propaganda is as much about what you leave out, as what you put in. What this film leaves out is critical. There was plenty of footage from the Milgram Experiment, where it was demonstrated that people will act in violation of their basic values in obedience to authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment The implication was made that these soldiers would only have done such things under coercion. What was never mentioned, was the far more applicable Stanford Prison Experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment . I consider such an omission clear evidence of dishonest intent on the part of the films producers. Another point of the film was made by an interviewee who claimed he had been assigned to “the gun” without being given clear rules of engagement and that nobody knew what they were. That is in direct contradiction of what I’ve been told by people who participated in the initial invasion and occupation.

mnottertail -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/24/2007 11:14:49 AM)
no fuckin' private soldier is a private soldier, they are a sign of the times, and no private scrubs a fuckin' garbage can without authorization or allowance from a corporal----ad infinitum

WyrdRich -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/24/2007 11:32:45 AM)
If the film had made the case that someone knew precisely what they were doing (i.e. Stanford) when the detainees were handed over to reservists, it would have been a lot more persuasive. Or were you agreeing about not having rules of engagement? You can be so darn confuddling in your replies, Ron. [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/24/2007 11:49:36 AM)
I didnt see the movie, nor will I, I am simply saying, as anyone who has been in the military, this certainly was not the work or the institution of privates or sergeants. there is some kind of propensity to make the guy that slashed the other guys throat responsible, if this is the case, we don't need generals. Everybody would be doing it. Ron

cloudboy -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/24/2007 12:06:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich What happened at Abu Graib was ugly, but the film wasn’t really about that. It was an attempt to shift the responsibility from the guards who performed the acts to the highest levels of the administration. Such a case might be made, but “Ghosts of Abu Graib” makes it in a dishonest way. Creating propaganda is as much about what you leave out, as what you put in. What this film leaves out is critical. There was plenty of footage from the Milgram Experiment, where it was demonstrated that people will act in violation of their basic values in obedience to authority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment The implication was made that these soldiers would only have done such things under coercion. What was never mentioned, was the far more applicable Stanford Prison Experiment, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment . I consider such an omission clear evidence of dishonest intent on the part of the films producers. Another point of the film was made by an interviewee who claimed he had been assigned to “the gun” without being given clear rules of engagement and that nobody knew what they were. That is in direct contradiction of what I’ve been told by people who participated in the initial invasion and occupation. The point the film made seemed very persuasive to me. 1. Rumsfeldt wasn't satisfied with the intel gained out of Abu G. 2. He tranfered the commanding officer from Guantanimo to ABU G. 3. The new officer upon being transferred told the MPs, "you have to treat the prisoners like dogs." 4. At this point new handling procedures and interrogation techniques started at ABU G. 5. The interrogation techniques were right out of the GITMO memo approved by Rumsfeldt. 6. The soldiers convicted of violations were simple, not very intelligent, and green soldiers who in no way thought up these new practices. 7. The Administration investigation of ABU G was more cover-up than investigation. 8. Cheney, Rumsfeldt and the BUSH ADM have pushed to ok torture as a policy tool of our government.

meatcleaver -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/24/2007 12:33:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyrdRich What happened at Abu Graib was ugly, but the film wasn’t really about that. It was an attempt to shift the responsibility from the guards who performed the acts to the highest levels of the administration. Such a case might be made, but “Ghosts of Abu Graib” makes it in a dishonest way. Creating propaganda is as much about what you leave out, as what you put in. What this film leaves out is critical. The British were criticized by the US command for not being rough enough with their prisoners and not extracting enough quality intelligence. That fact alone goes a long way to indicating the ordinary troops at Abu Ghraib were not the problem but the problem was very high up the command.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/28/2007 11:24:40 PM)
Im no fan of Rumsfeld, but I do not believe that he ordered the events of Abu Ghraib. I dont believe the Pentagon had any idea what was going on. Abu Ghraib reminded many of a famous psychology study that was conducted in the early 1970s called the "Stanford Prison Experiment." Basically what they did was take 2 groups of people and randomly assign them a role of either the prisoner or a guard. The 14-day experiment was ended on the 6th day because it got so out of control. Gangs were forming between the prisoners. And the guards were becoming sadistically abusive. What was interesting is that the situations that occured in that study seemed to be similar to the kind of things that started the problems at Abu Ghraib. More on the study and some pictures are located here: http://www.prisonexp.org/

meatcleaver -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (2/28/2007 11:59:09 PM)
Interesting test but Rumsfeld and Cheney have made too many slips of the tongue and Rumsfeld's criticisms of the lack of British aggression in interrogating its prisoners was taken as needing to torture prisoners for info. Abu Ghraib was not a few soldiers out of control, it was institutional and that is the criticism I've heard made by many American commentators.

puella -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 6:06:37 AM)
Hello cyberdude, I understand what you are saying, but I think there is a more sinister problem than just "ordering" something. I think that he is far to smart to ever come out and directly order what took place. I think he nuanced enough to understand how to achieve those ends without ever having to say something that definitive, so singular. The problem is that the administration has set up the frame work for this all to go down exactly as it did in Abu Graib, on so many levels. By sticking people in a job they have no training for, by nullifying the Geneva Convention, by redefining terms like torture to suite your agenda, by straining the employed forces, by mixing those forces with contractors who are not bound by any law or repercussion what so ever... they set up a toxic cocktail of conditions to ensure that they had a situation which would get what they wanted, without allowing for a means to let the possible (and in this case actualized) repercussions rise to past the most immediate culprits. I found the whole movie just extremely sad more than accusatory. I think we all know that there will not be, nor was there ever the potential for the powers that be to actually be accountable for that which they have sown. To me this documentary really exposed a second tier of damage. A second row of victimization, and it was uncomfortable for me to think of those soldiers that way, knowing that they had brutalized others to a much more destructive degree. I am still digesting the film, to be honest. I have watched it 3 times and it does not get any less disturbing with additional viewings. What must this do to the soul? That is just the resounding question I am left with, after each viewing. This film left me feeling as if a very heavy mantle had been laid over my shoulders.

popeye1250 -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 11:01:35 AM)
No, I wouldn't watch any movie or anything like that made by a "Kennedy" and I'm from Boston, Mass origionally. They give people of Irish descent a bad reputation. That whole family is full of drunks, childmolesters, rapists, criminals and lowlifes. Take away their money and most of them would be in prison. I'm just waiting for the next public embarrassment to come from them. Oh, and I'd love to see an al qeada butt pyramid with osama bin laden on the bottom.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 11:42:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Interesting test but Rumsfeld and Cheney have made too many slips of the tongue and Rumsfeld's criticisms of the lack of British aggression in interrogating its prisoners was taken as needing to torture prisoners for info. Abu Ghraib was not a few soldiers out of control, it was institutional and that is the criticism I've heard made by many American commentators. It's not that simple. The insurgency is even worse with the way they kill. They are violating the Geneva Conventions also since it states you are not allowed to use civilian clothing while engaging in combat. Insurgents also have targetted and killed many more civilians than the US has killed. Remember when they kidnapped Nick Berg and sawed off his head while screaming about how great and merciful Allah is. Are you saying that is allowed by the Geneva Conventions? Because I never hear any peace activists being critical of those acts.

pahunkboy -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 2:36:13 PM)
---no mention of US prisons. Think they are nice? Think again. The prison system needs reformed in the USA. Many in for drugs. 2 million cuurent, up 2x in 20 yrs. so we double again in 20 years???

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 2:39:52 PM)
YES I saw it ans thinkits a shame that only emlisted people got the shaft.CIA and dod came in and took control and told the emlisted people what to do and in the end the shit flowed down hill as usual

meatcleaver -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 3:35:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Interesting test but Rumsfeld and Cheney have made too many slips of the tongue and Rumsfeld's criticisms of the lack of British aggression in interrogating its prisoners was taken as needing to torture prisoners for info. Abu Ghraib was not a few soldiers out of control, it was institutional and that is the criticism I've heard made by many American commentators. It's not that simple. The insurgency is even worse with the way they kill. They are violating the Geneva Conventions also since it states you are not allowed to use civilian clothing while engaging in combat. Insurgents also have targetted and killed many more civilians than the US has killed. Remember when they kidnapped Nick Berg and sawed off his head while screaming about how great and merciful Allah is. Are you saying that is allowed by the Geneva Conventions? Because I never hear any peace activists being critical of those acts. It is irrelevent who is killing who, the US and its lapdog Britain created the situation in which so many people are getting killed. The idea was to fight for freedom and civilisation though I don't hear Bush talking about that anymore. How can you fight for civilised values if prisoners (they may well be innocent of any wrong doing) are being systematically tortured? The idea of being civilised and living by laws is to have higher values, that comes at a price. If America, and Britain for that matter are to lower themselves to the standards of their new found bogeymen, why should anyone in the world see the US and Britain as any better than the terrorists who murder? In fact the US and Briatain are just giving terrorists credibility by lowering themselves to the standards of terrorists. Which is my whole objection to the war, the US and Britain have become terrorists.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 4:09:16 PM)
The Bush admin claims that since these prisoners were not actual members of a uniformed army, the geneva conventions do not gurantee them protection. When Geneva took place, the state of war was considered to be between two standing armies. The idea of insurgencies were never really part of the deal. After World War 2, there was a very strong Nazi insurgency that ended up costing over 400,000 Soviet lives. The Soviets were able to put down the insurgency eventually and they used some pretty horrific tactics to achieve it.

Sanity -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 4:20:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver It is irrelevent who is killing who, the US and its lapdog Britain created the situation in which so many people are getting killed. It isn't irrelevant at all? How can you say it's irrelevant. It's the United States and Britain who are standing guard over the civilians there, and you can only hate them for the protection they provide? And how is everything our fault. Are you trying to pretend that Saddam wasn't committing genocide before we got there? Are you trying to pretend that he wasn't torturing people, even entire families in horrible, unspeakable ways? How can you suggest that it is all America's fault, or that who is doing the killing is not relevant. Of course it is. We're the good guys there, and for you to pretend otherwise is pure folly. And prisoners are not being "systematically tortured" over there as you try to suggest. If some torture happens on our part (since we're not perfect) and its found out, it is stopped, and investigated. Congress investigates it endlessly, and it becomes political fodder for the left to use in their hatred for America... every last aspect of it is splashed across the tabloids, even if that means our enemies can use it against us, because we're a great and a free and an open society CONTRARY to what you are suggesting, and completely contrary to what we are fighting against over there. It is my impression that you are CATEGORICALLY wrong, in everything that you try to say.

pahunkboy -> RE: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib (3/1/2007 4:22:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Interesting test but Rumsfeld and Cheney have made too many slips of the tongue and Rumsfeld's criticisms of the lack of British aggression in interrogating its prisoners was taken as needing to torture prisoners for info. Abu Ghraib was not a few soldiers out of control, it was institutional and that is the criticism I've heard made by many American commentators. It's not that simple. The insurgency is even worse with the way they kill. They are violating the Geneva Conventions also since it states you are not allowed to use civilian clothing while engaging in combat. Insurgents also have targetted and killed many more civilians than the US has killed. Remember when they kidnapped Nick Berg and sawed off his head while screaming about how great and merciful Allah is. Are you saying that is allowed by the Geneva Conventions? Because I never hear any peace activists being critical of those acts. It is irrelevent who is killing who, the US and its lapdog Britain created the situation in which so many people are getting killed. The idea was to fight for freedom and civilisation though I don't hear Bush talking about that anymore. How can you fight for civilised values if prisoners (they may well be innocent of any wrong doing) are being systematically tortured? The idea of being civilised and living by laws is to have higher values, that comes at a price. If America, and Britain for that matter are to lower themselves to the standards of their new found bogeymen, why should anyone in the world see the US and Britain as any better than the terrorists who murder? In fact the US and Briatain are just giving terrorists credibility by lowering themselves to the standards of terrorists. Which is my whole objection to the war, the US and Britain have become terrorists. BINGO!!!!!! by declaring war or terror- we gave the them media attn. we stooped top their level--- and --- bingo

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2026

Terms of Service

0.03125