Abu Ghraib Documentary Analysis

In the article, “The Torture Myth,” Anne Applebaum explores the controversial topic of torture practices, focused primarily in The United States. The article was published on January 12, 2005, inspired by the dramatic increase of tensions between terrorist organizations and The United States. Applebaum explores three equality titillating concepts within the article. Applebaum's questions the actual effectiveness of using torture as a means of obtaining valuable information in urgent times. Applebaum explores the ways in which she feels that the United States’ torture policy ultimately produces negative effects upon the country. Applebaum's final question is if torture is not optimally successful, why so much of society believes it

In her essay “Cluster Fuck” Linda Williams discusses Errol Morris’s documentary Standard Operating Procedure. She believes that Standard Operating Procedure should receive more “scrutiny” for its investigation of the frame. She discusses how images of death and torture are framed by the people who take them and how they are then publicly received as the truth. Williams argues that Standard Operating Procedure asks the audience to question their visual interpretation and investigate the framing of the visual culture of war. By investigating the investigation into the actions that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison and the system in place to punish such acts Williams argues that Standard Operating Procedure reframes and contextualizes these forced

The organization of the essay is impressive. The introduction is effective in grasping the audiences’ attention. Mae begins the essay by giving information about the topic. She states that “[i]n 2004, when the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib became known, many Americans became concerned that the government was using torture as part of its interrogation of war-on-terror detainees.” This quote makes readers want to read further into the essay, and it also shows how the topic of essay is

"I asked several people, several times, where I could find a copy of the standard operating procedures, or even rules and regulations,’ says Frederick. ‘And nobody would ever provide me with any or let me know where they were. The only thing they would do is just give me a pat on the back and say everything will be all right" (60 Minutes, Abuse at Abu Ghraib) This is Sergeant Chip Frederick, one of the soldiers that has been convicted of conspiracy, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, assault, and indecent acts. He served 8 years in military prison, in Washington D.C. Even though Sgt. Frederick plead guilty, he claimed that no one involved in the scandal was properly trained, and did not know the standard Geneva Conventions. “We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my

After watching Frontlines documentary Secrets, Politics and Torture one is automatically faced with mixed views on the major issue, torture, discussed throughout the documentary. At first it shows the different ways our government tries to protect our country and national security, but as one continues to watch the documentary you see how our government attempts to manipulate rules and scenarios in order to help protect the CIA’s inappropriate behavior. On the one hand it is easy to understand why it was unnecessary to torture the prisoners we held captive, but in another light we must also understand the real reasons for acting with such cruel behavior.

Abu Ghraib Prison was a cruel and inhumane form of torture that occurred during the famous era of Saddam Hussein. Twenty miles west of Baghdad, Abu Ghraib stood as the most infamous prisons the world has ever seen. There was reported weekly executions, daily torture and barbarous living conditions. As many as fifty thousand men and women were crammed into Abu Ghraib at once. During the war against Iraq, The United States Army took over the prison and committed extenuous human rights violations against the prisoners. Detainees were raped, beaten, stripped, deprived of food and sleep, hung by their wrists and threatened with death all under American control. A famous picture taken at Abu Ghraib depicts an Iraqi standing on a box, in a scarecrow-like

The Abu Ghraib torture scandal left a large blemish on the occupation of Iraq and George Bush’s War on terror. As stories of the torture happening in the Abu Ghraib prison began circulating, American citizens had trouble comprehending the acts of evil their soldiers had committed on Iraqis. Some began to see a correlation between Abu Ghraib and the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. Though the guards in both situations were brutal to their captives, distinct differences lay in the severity of their actions. Abu Ghraib’s guards were much more vicious to their captives, and this can be attributed to the prejudices the guards felt against their captors, the environment, and the lack of training, compounded with a lack of accountability in the leadership.

In the movie, “A Few Good Men”, two types of reactions are shown in response to being part of a person’s wrongful death. Philip Zimbardo in his work, “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, provides the perspective of the guards who initiated a harsh prison environment and how they reflected upon the experience. Meanwhile a real-life scandal is analyzed by Marianne Szegedy-Maszak in “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism”. This piece reviews the actions of soldiers in controversial situations shortly after the infamous 9-11 attacks. Repeating the military topic, Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee Hamilton addressed Lt. Calley’s steadfast belief that he did no wrong in the Vietnam War scandal in “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of

She begins recounting the notorious details, how innocent college students labeled prisoners and guards displayed psychological abuse after only six days of confinement, and makes reference to Stanley Milgram’s obedience study and Abu Ghraib, where similar maltreatment, perceived or real, was conducted on civilians by civilians. She addresses and refutes the accepted belief that the Stanford Prison Experiment proved that anyone could become a tyrant when given or instructed by a source of authority. Instead, she suggests that Zimbardo’s inquiry points toward but does not land on one exact conclusion. She explains the influence of the setting, the presentation of the roles, Zimbardo’s participation, and perhaps a sense of expectation felt, all of which can be reflected in the shocking behavior of a few guards. She argues that it should not have been so shocking. Konnikova discredits the neutrality of Zimbardo’s experiment by insisting that people who would respond to an ad for a psychological study of prison life were not “normal” people. However, with her diction and choice of evidence she displaces the study's culpability in a way that ultimately blurs and undermines her claim.

In “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak informs the reader of the situation United States guards caused against Iraqi detainees. Under Bush’s presidency, United States soldiers brought physical abuse and humiliation upon the Abu Ghraib Prison. Szegedy-Maszak briefly analyzes the situation and compares the abuse to further scientific experiments in which test obedience. One of the experiments was the topic of another article titled, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” written by Philip G. Zimbardo. In his work, Zimbardo discusses the experiment he held at Stanford University. A group of male students from the university were paid to participate in an experiment held in a mock prison. Half of the group

citizens, but it was the researchers afterwards that contributed the most startling idea. Zimbardo, the same man who ran the Stanford Prison Experiment, said in an interview with the New York Times, “Prisons tend to be brutal and abusive places unless great effort is made to control the guards’ base impulses. It’s not that we put bad apples in a good barrel. We put good apples in a bad barrel. The barrel corrupts anything that it touches” (Swhwartz, 2004 p. 2). A professor of Law at Loyola University, Marcy Strauss, studies criminal procedure and wrote a forty-two page manuscript on the lessons that should be discussed beyond news articles. Strauss said of Abu Ghraib, “Undoubtedly, these factors [poor training of guards, poor oversight and horrendous conditions] played a major role in facilitating the abuse. Correcting these conditions is imperative. But, to end the introspection there would be a mistake” (Strauss, 2005 p.9). The idea that people could be malignant under specific circumstances has been proven by Milgrams’ studies and this idea is now apparent in real life. Thus, the concern for prisons, as pointed out by both Zimbardo and Strauss, cannot simply be that the guards or correctional officers do not abuse people in the future. The issue is that the maltreatment and indignity in Abu Ghraib was a result of the poor foundation of the U.S. correctional system (Strauss,

Guantanamo Bay, though started with good intentions, only highlights America’s negative side. Marine Major General Michael Lehnert, who played a significant role in the opening of Guantanamo, has drastically changed his opinion and said that it, “Validates every negative perception of the U.S.” (Sutton 1). One example of this occurred in 2006, when President Bush justified the use of “physical coercion” (torture) during interrogations (Fetini 1). Some of these torture methods include isolation, beatings, sleep deprivation, and general abuse. Other tactics such as disrespect for Islamic symbols or sexual provocation are used to encourage stress in detainees (Bloche 1). These immoral methods led to an international outcry. It was later remarked that the Cuban territory upon which Guantanamo is located is being used as a “concentration camp” of sorts (Fetini 1). Guantanamo and its unethical values are being recognized by nations around the world, displaying America in a bad light.

The practice of torture by United States officials has become one of the most controversial elements of military history. The debate of its use in gathering intelligence has been particularly prevalent since the Bush administration. Most recently, a detailed and graphic scene of torture was presented in the movie Zero Dark Thirty. Proponents for the use of torture state that it is necessary for intelligence gathering and that ethics should be waved aside. Opponents argue that it is not becoming of American practices and it is not a reliable source for intelligence gathering. The public debates on this issue have forced policy makers and military officials to look at whether or not torture, particularly waterboarding, should be legal. The

Kohlberg’s morality theory defines various levels and stages where a person’s morality can be tested on a scale. Reviewing the Stanford prison experiment and the Abu Ghraib prison was interesting. The guards in the Stanford prison experiment reacted differently than each other and showed different levels of morality. In the Abu Ghraib prison, the guards were put in a real life situation where the morals were tested. It was fascinating to see how the two different scenarios had similar behaviors.

The notion of “authorization” as permitting the existence of torture is apparent in the fact that though an individual may “theoretically, . . . [have] a choice” to refrain from such activity, “given the situational context . . . the concept of choice is not even present”; disobedience to the dictates of authority means “punishment, disgrace, humiliation, expulsion, or even death” (196). Therefore, one is freed from moral unease by the fact that he may feel trapped and unable to act against his superiors, as retaliation would be imminent. In some instances, as was demonstrated by