Heroes and Villains: A Conversation with Errol Morris »
Posted By JamesMarcus 5 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsErrol 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."
Read Full Story at newsquake.netscape.com »
Submitted By:
JamesMarcus
James Marcus is a writer, translator, critic, and editor. He is the author of Amazonia: Five Years at the Epicenter of the Dot-Com Juggernaut and ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 36
-
0%
not2needy5 months, 2 weeks ago
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!
Reply-
0%
injest5 months, 2 weeks ago
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?
Reply-
0%
JamesMarcus5 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
1-2-Oscar5 months, 2 weeks ago
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?
Reply-
0%
JamesMarcus5 months, 2 weeks ago
Hi Oscar. I can't speak for the others, but no, I haven't served in the military. I'm curious about your comment, though--what sort of perspective do you find lacking in the questions?
Reply -
-
0%
1-2-Oscar5 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply
-
-
0%
gamahuche5 months, 2 weeks ago
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?!
Reply-
0%
1-2-Oscar5 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
gamahuche5 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
1-2-Oscar5 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
0%
1-2-Oscar5 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply -
0%
JamesMarcus5 months, 2 weeks ago
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.
Reply
-
-
0%
oldgringo5 months, 2 weeks ago
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."
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.