News – Errol Morris's new film, "Standard Operating Procedure," is a hypnotic meditation on the notorious Abu Ghraib photographs. In this Propeller interview, he discusses the documentary, the scandal, and the pictures themselves, which he calls "a State of the Union address in its most perverse form."
Errol Morris seems to have a perspective and an understanding that is surely alien to those who questioned him in this interview. I wonder if any of those whose questions were selected (JamesMarcus, not2needy, Spadecaller, SonOfTheMask, gamahuche, or Radiofreeeuropa) have ever served in the military?
I have not served in the military, 1-2-O. Can you elaborate further on what you meant in your comment and why you asked about military service?
At a couple of points, in response to questions from Propeller, Morris seemed be a bit exasperated, largely because his questioner did not seem to understand how the military actually works, and why he spent his time interviewing "****** privates" instead of the Secretary of Defense.
There are actually two reasons why Morris didn't go after Rumsfeld from the get-go. First, the people at the scene can give a far more complete and indisputably more accurate account of what happened than can anyone else. Second, there is an old military truism, "In the motor pool, the Sergeant is a helluva lot more influential than the Colonel." If someone was never there, as seemed the case, they would not have been aware of that when they framed their questions.
Nobody at the interview actually asked Morris why he hadn't grilled Rumsfeld for SOP. There was a question about the prospect of Rumsfeld or Bush eventually submitting to a lengthy conversation for another film (as Robert McNamara did in "The Fog of War"). And at that point, Morris did blow off some steam--but in a generalized way, not in response to the specific question. Nobody at the interview suggested that the director should be talking to top brass instead of ******* privates.
Suggesting and implying are to different things, as I'm sure you well know. The mild exasperation surfaced earlier, and was evident in Morris' response to Spadecaller's initial question. But for this reader, there is no way to gauge what degree that was prompted by the questions submitted by Propeller, or to what degree it was a reaction to questions from other participants in the Roundtable.
On the other hand, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that few of the other Roundtable participants were military veterans, either.
I noticed something, so I asked. So far we have the responses of three of the six Propeller questioners, and none were veterans. Now, James, you can pretend that I'm just gunning for you, or you can wonder what I saw--but you may be certain that I believe that I saw something in the questions and responses that prompted my question, and so far it has been borne out.
I didn't object to your initial question. That's why I was curious to have you expand on it. And my guess is that you're right, very few if any of the roundtable participants had served in the military. Perhaps they would have asked different questions if they had. Keep in mind that Morris had already spent the day hustling from one interview to the next, and may have had a residue of exasperation to draw on.
But that brings to mind another question. I assume you're a veteran, Oscar. What question would you have posed to Morris by virtue of that experience? (And by the way, I'd be happy to have you participate in future group efforts like this one, if you're interested.)
I served. And, I know what it is to refuse to abide by an illegal order. A soldier daring to abide by international law, the Geneva Convention, or the constitution can sometimes contradict an order from a superior officer; the consequences are usually extremely hazardous.
It certainly was for me. That is why I asked that question: "Can one truthfully assert that the photographs depict a series of isolated events caused by a small group of misguided soldiers--by, as you just said, 'bad apples'?"
My experience in Vietnam was that international crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva convention, were usualy overlooked and covered-up. When they were forced into view for the world to see, deals were made. Only those on the lower rungs of the ladder were blamed. And, most often promises were made that they would be pardoned after everything "blows over."
This was 'allegedly' done to "defend" the country.
"My experience in Vietnam was that international crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva convention, were usualy overlooked and covered-up. When they were forced into view for the world to see, deals were made."
A little critical thinking here Spadecaller
Based on your experience and the fact that this was already know and under investigation in the year 2003 (You didn't hear about this till 2004) belie your suspicions that this was being "covered up"?
Thanks, 1-2-O, that was very perceptive. I hadn't picked up on that at all.
My intent with my question was to have him set forth what he saw as the important "truths" (realities) that his movie had recovered for us that he felt were missing in what has passed for a national dialogue on the subject.
As I noted to James below, I was disappointed at the brevity of his response. He didn't do much beyond saying that he felt it taught us "something" that was possibly "deeply unpleasant". I understood what he meant by likening it to a "perverse" State of the Union, but that still kept things fairly vague. Gritty specifics were not forthcoming.
"Second, there is an old military truism, "In the motor pool, the Sergeant is a helluva lot more influential than the Colonel." If someone was never there, as seemed the case, they would not have been aware of that when they framed their questions."
That would help explain Brigadier General Janis Karpinski victim hood claim that everyone below her and everyone above her knew what was going on. She was the only one in the chain of command that was clueless.
Of course with her female guards dropping dead from dehydration due to not drinking any water from 3pm (1500) to 5am (0500) the following day, she could easily missed all that was going on under her supervision.
No way they'd have let me serve in the military, 1-2-O!
I was the one who organised a massive show of disrespect to Field Marshal Montgomery when he came to inspect our CCF [Combined Cadet Force].
My decision to even be in this ludicrous - and compulsory - organisation was that it would be more fun to be in it and sabotage it than be outside the loop. But my way was much more Good Soldier Schwejk than these loons who were at the very least given far too long a leash in Iraq.
Regardless of that I hope that your inference is not that ONLY someone who has been in the military has the right to have an opinion about what happens in the military? The same argument would mean that only someone who has been in a concentration camp would have the right to an opinion about that? Or only someone who was in Hiroshima on August 6th 1945 can have a valid opinionm about that. Or am I completely misunderstanding your point?!
You are partly misunderstanding my point, which I hope has been made clearer by other responses in this thread. I do think that someone who had actually served in the military would have been more aware of HOW such things can happen, and thus less likely to go on a political head-hunting expedition. But the questions in this this article seem fairly reasonable, although the tone suggested to me that there were no veterans involved in their formulation.
James, that was an interesting interview. I have to admit I was a bit disappointed in the brevity of his response to my specific question.
Still, thank you very much for posing my question to him.
Glad you enjoyed it, SOTM. These roundtable interviews do pose some obstacles--there's always pressure from the other interviewers, who (understandably) want to get in their own questions. So it's hard to follow up. But luckily Morris was quite talkative and articulate.
I can't really picture the format but it seem like you managed to get more than your two cents in James. What I do really appreciate is this extraordinary way that we can all, even in a minimal way, be participants.
I have no delusions that my comment on something is going to change the course of history but many aberrant things have happened in World History simply because there was no one who saw or knew or was able or willing to bear witness.
Just one thing that makes me darn happy to be living in the present.
Oscar, No i have never served in the military, however i don't think that should be a prerequisite to being able to recognize abuse. When we sink to the levels of other people, we can no longer make judgements of what's right and wrong.
Don't be stupid. I didn't say it was "a prerequisite to being able to recognize abuse." Whether you "sink to the levels of other people," or whether you rise to their levels, depends on where you are starting from.
Many critics of the administration see the events at Abu Ghraib as "evidence" that the military is flawed, the administration is flawed, and the policy is flawed--and that the flaws are essentially moral in their nature.
The interview with Morris suggests that these views may be misdirected. There were certainly "flaws" in the behavior of the personnel at the prison, but nothing in the article confirms that they were institutional flaws.
If the military is to be targeted for special criticism (and the chain of command surely has responsibility for oversight), I think that it should be directed more at Karpinski, who was in a position where she should have known what was going on and should have put a stop to it. But she became the darling of the media, who miraculously exonerated her, as soon as it was apparent that she was willing to give them ammunition to use against, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al. Morris believes that the administration "created an atmosphere" which allowed abuse, but neither the interview nor the film make that clear and incontrovertible.
I think Morris is trying to avoid the very traps you are talking about--he doesn't want to use Abu Ghraib as a stick to beat the Bush administration with (like much of the Left), nor does he want to exonerate the military by dismissing the culprits as a handful of bad apples (like much of the Right). He's focusing on what actually happened, reconstructing it to the best of his abilities. I would say that he does point to some institutional flaws, but doesn't want them to subsume the entire story.
As for Janis Karpinski, she was in charge of 15 detainee facilities in Iraq, and has repeatedly claimed that the areas used for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib were under the control of military intelligence. If she screwed up, at least she's paid for it. In 2005 she was demoted to colonel--for reasons not officially related to the Abu Ghraib scandal (if you believe that, I've got a nice bridge I can sell you). She was the only high-ranking officer to be punished for the prisoner abuse.
oscar,
It seems very difficult to disengage actions of military units from its chain of command. It would have added little to have the Pentagon civilians give interviews since they're political appointees. Put into that mix, outsiders who were not directly responsible to the military chain of command at that prison. That in itself begs the questions of who was actually in charge of that prison and the subsequent criticism of the administration's handling of the war. That the military has also suffered from this is an understatement. Many who criticize the military for its lack of control on this issue don't understand how the military works, hence the broad brush being applied. The fact that this has happened in all military actions we've been involved in is also not a viable excuse, but it is understandable as part of a natural human condition for abuse of other humans.
I disagree with part of your comment. It is fairly easy to disengage command responsibility from some actions. I think it is often the case that military personnel do things of which their superiors have no knowledge. For example, one of the men I served with was Capt. Ernest Medina, who later gained considerable notoriety when he was tried for war crimes in conjunction with his company's actions at at place called My Lai. Medina was acquitted, but one of his platoon leaders, Lt. William Calley, was convicted. I was not at My Lai, but I knew Ernest Medina quite well, and I always thought of him as EXACTLY THE SORT OF MAN WHO COULD COMMIT SUCH A CRIME. However, I am quite sure that no one above him in the chain of command was responsible for what happened there.
Hi James...kudos to all involved. A very interesing interview. I found these two quotes a bit chilling:
" --is that we're dealing with some crazy war of humiliation. The idea was to show Iraq and Saddam Hussein who was boss."
And...
"..The horror movies that have been coming in since the war started are different. Now you don't kill people. You humiliate them first, then kill them--the killing is an afterthought. And I think there is some truth to it."
Not a member? Sign-up today!
alphomega
Nitros
MacBookForMe
gigzapix
rontravel
soulkeeper009
dokkyou08
VanMc
alamala
Lancaster1249
TheAttacks
tehranchik
TamaraAshton
Will1313
individual
thinkingserious
loverman
msaleem
corey.spring
HattieBury1
CorneliusChaney
alllo
CameronBerger
Hanga
NoWayMan
jordan11
sinstun
AddKing
ChasityBowman
_kam0_
jnbammer
avpd85
Cote288
Lifeoflava
TweekerchickQC
RickyDawkins
Spadecaller
Ciera Marie
digitalfever
BJTJ
hurr1
eStates.th
TravelTrip
USdoct
kibasilasa
jomarjarmo
satansatan
Aniboomer
gamahuche
newsarefree
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
36)
Vote
FTA:
The crime here is not photography. The crime here is what is depicted in the photographs, and as such, the photographs represent very significant evidence, not to be hidden, suppressed, redacted. They should be shown and discussed.
The photographs speak for themselves, and IMO, rathers negates anyones claim that our military are "teams of professionals", the cream of the American crop. Frankly, after seeing those pictures, i am somewhat insulted by anyone making that comment, but it's one i see on Propeller a lot.
Thanks James, great interview!
FTA
"They're not taken by journalists or war photographers, but by soldiers themselves. And because they're taken by soldiers themselves, the question arises: are these pictures of policy, or of some aberrant behavior?"
If the pictures were a "policy" how would you have seen them?
Remember when this news hit the press the investigations were already done or in work.
You know about Abu Ghraib because the military/government wanted you to not only know this happened and it's being dealt with.
If Abu Ghraib was part of some secret CIA interrogation why would they make that public?
If it worked you wouldn't want to let the enemy know what's up. And if it didn't work it would be kinda dumb to release that to the press ya think?
Since Morris has spent the last two years interviewing not only the soldiers who took the photos but CID investigators, contract interrogators, and Abu Ghraib top brass (including former Brigadier General Janis Karpinski), I'm willing to grant him some expertise on the subject. As for the pictures being "policy," perhaps his language is unclear. What he's asking is: was this behavior officially sanctioned, or were the perpetrators just loose cannons? It's a very legitimate question--perhaps the key to the whole mess.
um, no. wrong.
it was made public due to the efforts and conscience of a whistleblower, joe darby.
the military didn't come clean. they were exposed.
do some research for chrissakes.
its called "google"
NoWayMan
um, no. wrong.
"it was made public due to the efforts and conscience of a whistleblower, joe darby.
do some research for chrissakes.
its called "google""
Good advice you should try it some time.
Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse
Beginning in 2004, accounts of abuse, torture, sodomy[1] and homicide[2] of prisoners held in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq (also known as Baghdad Correctional Facility) came to public attention.
Did ya get that? "came to public attention" in 2004
As revealed by the 2004 Taguba Report, a criminal investigation by the US Army Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since 2003 where multiple recruits from the 320th MP Battalion had been charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with prisoner abuse.
Did ya get that? "Criminal Investigation Command had already been underway since 2003"
Are you aware that the year 2003 is before 2004?
in January 2004, who was it that provided a CD of photographs and an anonymous note to Special Agent Tyler Pieron of the US Army Criminal Investigation Command?
Joe Darby.
he had the CD in 2003, which is one year before 2004.
the army had an investigation going in late 2003 but wasn't going to make it public until Darby blew his whistle.
so it ws Darby's actions that forced the military to go public.
booyah
check
and
mate