Abu Ghraib Film Obscures Truth阿布格萊布電影掩蓋真相
By通過 Sam Provance山姆provance | Former Army Sgt. |前陸軍漲跌。 Sam Provance was the only uniformed military intelligence officer at Abu Ghraib who broke the code of silence surrounding the infamous prisoner abuses.山姆provance是唯一穿制服的軍事情報官員在阿布格萊布誰打破了沉默的代碼周圍的臭名昭著的囚犯濫用的情況。 He spoke out during the Army’s internal investigation, at a congressional hearing and in press interviews.For his brave integrity, Provance was punished and pushed out of the US military, clearing the way for the Pentagon to pin the blame for the sadistic treatment of Iraqi detainees on a handful of poorly trained MPs.他以在軍隊的內部調查，在國會聽證會上和在新聞interviews.for他的勇敢正直， provance受到懲罰，並趕出美軍，結算方式為五角大樓的PIN責任為多尼諾少將的治療伊拉克被拘留者對少數缺乏訓練總薪級表。 Now, history is repeating itself in Errol Morris’s supposedly hard-hitting documentary on the scandal:現在，歷史重演，在莫里斯（ Errol的假定很難打的紀錄片醜聞：
Representatives for film director Errol Morris told me during pre-production that “Standard Operating Procedure” would be the very best documentary on the abuses of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib – the one that would tell the whole truth.代表電影導演莫里斯（ Errol告訴我，在生產前， “標準作業程序”將是非常最佳紀錄片對虐待伊拉克囚犯在阿布格萊布-即會告訴全部真相。
I had pinned great hope on that.我曾寄予很大的希望就這一點。 It didn’t turn out that way.它沒有變成這樣。
My perspective on the Abu Ghraib scandal came from spending from September 2003 to February 2004 at the Iraq prison as a sergeant in Army Intelligence.我的角度來看就阿布格萊布醜聞來自開支從2003年9月至2004年2月在伊拉克的監獄，作為一名警長在軍隊的情報。 Working the 8 pm-to- 8 am night shift, it was impossible not to notice who was directing the operation.工作了晚上八時至上午八時夜班，這是不可能不通知誰是指揮運作。 And I shared all this with Morris.和我分享這一切都與莫里斯。
But now I’ve seen the film and I’m disappointed.但現在我已經看過電影和我很失望。 Morris does little to get to the bottom of what happened.莫里斯並無到達底部發生了什麼。 He muddies already opaque waters regarding who was actually responsible for the abuse of prisoners.他muddies已經不透明的水域就誰負責，實際上是為虐待戰俘。
The film focuses on the awful photos, the people in them and those who took them.電影側重於可怕的照片，人們在他們和那些誰了。 This perspective plays right into the hands of the cover-up artists.這個角度來看起著右轉入手中，掩蓋了藝術家。 It perpetuates the myth that the abuses are rightfully laid at the feet of those impressionable, but very human, young soldiers.它延續神話，即侵權行為是理所當然地奠定了在英尺這些impressionable ，但非常的人力，年輕的士兵。
Morris should have been looking up the chain of command; at the civilian and military officials actually responsible for ordering these Military Police Reservists to rough up prisoners.莫里斯應該一直在尋找行動的指揮鏈;在文職和軍事官員，實際上負責訂購這些憲兵預備役人員粗略起來的囚犯。
A no-holds-barred documentary?不舉行時效的紀錄片？ Give me a break.給我一個突破。
Finally, the Whole Truth!最後，整個真相！
I was first put into contact with the makers of “SOP” while I was still in the Army.我是第一次投入與決策者的“專科門診” ，而我還是在軍隊。 From the beginning, I was told this was going to be a huge project with the production support of Sony Pictures Entertainment; and that Morris, who had won an Oscar with his documentary, “The Fog of War,” would be at the helm.從一開始，有人告訴我這是去是一個巨大的工程與生產的支持，索尼電影娛樂公司，以及莫里斯，誰曾贏得過奧斯卡獎，與他的紀錄片， “戰爭迷霧” ，將在掌舵。
This was to be the breakthrough investigation into what really happened at Abu Ghraib, who was responsible for the abuse and why it was ordered – the project that really got people’s attention, going where previous investigators and media had feared to tread.這是必須突破的調查，當時到底發生了什麼，在阿布格萊布，誰負責的濫用，以及為何被飭令-該項目真正得到人們的視線，去那裡以前的調查和媒體曾擔心到胎面。
Call me gullible but, believing this was to be a groundbreaking work, I fully cooperated with Morris.給我打電話，但輕信，認為這是一項開創性的工作，我充分合作，與莫里斯。 I assisted him in his quest for documents, videos, photos, notes and helped him contact fellow soldiers who were at Abu Ghraib and knew what happened. i協助他在他追求的文件，影片，照片，筆記，並幫助他聯繫戰友誰分別在阿布格萊布和知道到底發生了什麼。
When I was discharged from the Army in October 2006, I went to Boston for a two-day interview.當我出院，從軍隊在2006年10月，我去了波士頓的一個為期兩天的採訪。
Morris asked me to sign several contracts before and after the interviews, and I did as he asked without paying much attention to them.莫里斯要求我簽署一些合同之前和之後的面試，我曾作為他詢問，沒有重視他們。 I do remember however, that in one contract Morris agreed to pay me one dollar.我記得，不過，在一個合約莫里斯同意支付我一美元。
In any event, I never got the dollar, but was reminded of this last week when I read in the New York Times that others got paychecks for their participation.在任何情況下，我從來沒有得到港元，但有人提醒，這在上星期當我看到在新的紐約時報說，其他得到paychecks為他們的參與。
I have never asked for or taken money for media interviews.我從來沒有要求或採取金錢為媒體的採訪。 To me, that undermines the process and trivializes the importance of the issues of torture and prisoner mistreatment and their meaning for the moral atmosphere in our country as a whole.對我來說，這破壞的過程和trivializes問題的重要性，酷刑和虐待囚犯和他們的意義，道德的氣氛在我們國家作為一個整體。
When the film was finished, Morris told me he had intended to use some of the footage from my two days of interviews and the materials I provided, but decided in the end to “narrowly focus” on the Military Police.當影片完成後，莫里斯告訴我，他原本打算使用的一些畫面從我的為期兩天的面試和材料，我向，但決定在月底以“狹義的重點是”對軍事警察。 This, of course, is what so many others have done and is in the worst tradition of a Nixon-style “modified, limited hangout.”當然，這是什麼有這麼多其他人所做的那樣，是在最壞的傳統，一個尼克松式“的修改，有限的聚會” 。
Chain of Command?指揮鏈？
Here’s the oddest thing: Even though Morris’s lens is trained on the Military Police, he does find room for a civilian interrogator, Tim Dugan, who worked at Abu Ghraib for CACI, a contractor factory for civilian interrogators.這裡的oddest一點：即使莫里斯的鏡頭是受過訓練的關於軍事警察，他並不尋找空間，平民審訊，添杜根，誰的工作在阿布格萊布為caci ，承辦工廠用於民用審訊。
I witnessed for myself how civilian personnel, like Dugan, corrupted the military.我親眼目睹了自己如何文職人員，像杜根，敗壞了軍隊。 Indeed, they were the genesis of the break from conventional interrogation techniques into what Vice President Dick Cheney hinted at when he spoke of the “dark side” of intelligence.事實上，它們分別是成因探討打破常規的審訊手段到什麼副總統切尼暗示，在他發言時的“黑暗的一面”的情報。
It was they who ordered the Military Police and some of my own unit’s Military Intelligence soldiers to “soften” the detainees for interrogation, and encouraged the behavior depicted in the photographs.這是他們誰下令軍事警察和一些我自己單位的軍事情報兵，以“軟化”被拘留審問，並鼓勵的行為，所描繪的照片。 I know; I was there.我知道我有。 And, of course, I told Errol Morris. ，當然，我告訴莫里斯（ Errol 。
So I was surprised, to say the least, to see Morris giving Dugan a place to contend that, essentially, the abuses were all the military’s fault.所以我很驚訝，至少可以這樣說，看到莫里斯給予杜根的地方，爭辯說，基本上，被濫用的所有軍事的過錯。
Odd indeed.單確實。 Even Maj. Gen. George Fay, whose investigation of Abu Ghraib left much to be desired, reported the pernicious effect civilian interrogators had on the impressionable and inexperienced soldiers.甚至少將喬治費，其調查阿布格萊布還有許多不盡如人意，報導了有害影響的平民審訊人員已對impressionable ，缺乏經驗的士兵。
Fay reported, for example that Daniel Johnson, one of Dugan’s CACI interrogator colleagues, whom I knew at Abu Ghraib, was using Spc.費報導，舉例來說，丹尼爾約翰遜之一，杜根的caci審訊的同事，其中我知道在阿布格萊布監獄，是使用的SPC 。 Charles Graner as “muscle” for his interrogations.查爾斯格拉納為“肌肉” ，他盤問。
And yet, Morris describes Dugan as “remarkable.” Remarkable, indeed, Errol.然而，莫里斯描述杜根為“顯著” 。顯著，事實上， （ Errol 。
Did no one tell you that CACI, Dugan and several of his fellow interrogators were sued by their victims in Abu Ghraib, seeking to hold them accountable for their behavior?當時沒有人告訴你， caci ，杜根和幾個他的同胞，審訊被起訴的受害者在Abu Ghraib ，尋求他們為他們的行為呢？
In the civil case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Abu Ghraib prisoners, the lawsuit implicates Dugan in the abuse.在公務員隊伍中的情況所帶來的憲法權利中心的名義阿布格萊布監獄的囚犯，官司牽涉杜根在濫用。
“CACI interrogator Timothy Dugan also tortured plaintiffs and other prisoners,” the lawsuit alleges. “ caci審訊提摩太杜根也折磨原告和其他囚犯， ”訴訟指控。 “For example, he physically dragged handcuffed plaintiffs and other prisoners along the ground to inflict pain on them. “舉例來說，他身體拖了手銬，原告和其他囚犯沿地面造成疼痛對他們的影響。 He struck and beat plaintiffs and other prisoners.他在和毆打原告和其他囚犯。 He bragged to a non-conspirator about scaring a prisoner with threats to such a degree that the prisoner vomited.他吹噓，以一個非串謀約嚇唬囚犯威脅到這種程度，該囚犯嘔吐。
“When a young non-conspirator directed him to cease the torture and comply [with] Army Field Manual 34-52, Dugan scoffed at his youth and refused to follow the direction.” “當一位年輕的非串謀指示他停止酷刑和遵守[與]軍隊實地手冊34-52 ，杜根嘲笑他的青年和拒絕遵循的方向” 。
The lawsuit further alleges that Dugan took part in a CACI cover-up of when a detainee died by going through “the charade of interrogating a prisoner who was already dead as part of the conspiracy’s efforts to conceal a murder.” Dugan is accused, too, of threatening a fellow CACI employee who talked to investigators.訴訟還稱，杜根參加了在caci包括成立時，一名囚犯死亡經歷“文字的審問一名囚犯誰是已經死亡的一部分，該陰謀的努力，以掩蓋一宗謀殺案” 。杜根是被告，也威脅研究員caci僱員誰談過調查。
CACI has denounced the lawsuit as baseless, and the individual defendants were dismissed out on a technicality. caci已退出訴訟作為根據的，個別的被告被駁回，列於技術上的。 However, on Nov. 6, 2007, US District Court Judge James Robertson in Washington denied CACI’s motion for summary judgment and ordered a jury trial against CACI.然而， 2007年11月6日，美國地方法院法官詹姆斯羅伯遜在華盛頓否認caci的議案，簡易判決，並下令對陪審團的審訊caci 。
A criminal investigation also is pending in the Eastern District of Virginia concerning some of the CACI employees.刑事調查，也正在等待在弗吉尼亞州東區有關部分的caci僱員。
In “SOP,” Dugan presents himself as a whistleblower who tried to stop the abuses.在“燮， ”杜根介紹了自己作為一個舉報人誰試圖阻止濫用的情況。 He claims that he reported to his “section sergeant” that two Army female interrogators were stripping detainees naked as an interrogation technique, and how shocked he was to see this.他聲稱，他報告了他的“一節警長”兩個陸軍女性審訊人員被剝奪被拘留者赤裸裸的作為審訊技術，以及如何震驚，他是看到這一點。
Dugan claims he got the brush-off; was told not to get involved.杜根聲稱，他得到了刷落;獲悉，不要介入。 So who was this “section sergeant?” And is he/she above the law?那麼誰是這“一節警長？ ” ，是他/她凌駕於法律之上？
Why did Dugan not offer himself as a witness in any of the various investigations?為什麼杜根沒有提供自己作為證人在任何的各項調查？ Where has he been if he felt then the way he now says he did?如果他一直認為，如果他的話，他說，他現在沒有呢？ Again, why sport the good-guy badge now?再次，為什麼體育善意傢伙徽章，現在呢？
I came away with the impression that Morris was unprepared for the interview and was being taken for a ride.我來到距離與印象，即莫里斯是準備採訪，並正在採取一坐。
CACI’s Defense caci的國防
For obvious reasons, CACI has gone to extraordinary lengths to separate itself from the horrors of Abu Ghraib, arguing that the military alone was at fault.由於顯而易見的原因， caci去了不平凡的長度分開，從本身的恐怖阿布格萊布，認為軍事僅在故障。
CACI recently announced the release of a book, Our Good Name: A Company’s Fight To Defend Its Honor And Get The Truth About Abu Ghraib. caci最近宣布推出一本書，我們的好名稱：公司的鬥爭，以捍衛其榮譽，並得到真相阿布格萊布。
CACI contends strongly that its interrogators adhered to the military chain of command, something it has been feverishly trying to establish in the lawsuits against it. caci爭辯強烈，它的審訊，堅持以軍事的指揮鏈，一些已經狂熱地試圖建立在訴訟反對。
And so, the behavior captured in the photos?因此，行為中被俘的照片？ That was the military’s responsibility, not CACI’s.這是軍方的責任，而不是caci的。
That is not what I observed from my ringside seat.這不是我所觀察到從我的ringside席位。
I told Morris that the reality was that the civilian contractors paid little heed to the military chain of command, and that they were the ones actually running the show.我告訴莫里斯認為，現實情況是，平民承包商支付很少照顧到軍事的指揮鏈，和他們那些實際運行顯示。 That didn’t make it into the final version of “SOP.”沒有使它成為最後的版本的“專科門診” 。
Even though it is now an established fact that between 70 to 90 percent of detainees at Abu Ghraib were completely innocent, something I learned directly on site, Dugan implies that the harsh interrogation practices applied there were legitimate – except of course for the failings of the military.即使現在是一個既定的事實之間的70至90 ％的被拘留者在阿布格萊布是完全無辜的，我學到的東西，直接在現場，杜根意味著嚴酷的審訊做法，適用於有合法的-當然，除了為失敗的軍事。
This myth-making is intended to hold CACI harmless and help it maintain its very lucrative government contracts.這個神話的決策是打算舉行caci對人體無害，而且幫助它維持其非常有利可圖的政府合約。 CACI International had $1.6 billion in revenues in 2005. caci國際已為16億美元的收入在2005年。 Folks have always told me it all has to do with money; I suppose they’re right.人們一直告訴我，這一切已經這樣做與錢，我猜想他們的權利。
But Congress should be asking some simple questions.但是，國會應該要求一些簡單的問題。 It should start by asking why civilian contractors are being employed in connection with the interrogation of persons under detention in wartime, a function which previously has been entirely in the hands of the uniformed military?它應首先問為何平民承包商正在僱用他們涉嫌與審問，被拘留者在戰爭年代，一個函數以前已經完全在手中的軍裝軍方有把握嗎？
This could yield some interesting answers.這可能會產生一些有趣的答案。 Indeed, evasion of military rules and discipline as well as avoidance of congressional oversight might be at the heart of the answers.事實上，逃避軍事規則和紀律，以及避免國會監督，可能在心臟的答案。
Morris takes pride in calling “SOP” a horror movie and – with the mood music and the needless slow-motion reenactments – he makes sure of that.莫里斯引以自豪的要求“專科門診”和恐怖電影-與情緒的音樂和不用慢的議案r eenactments-他肯定了這一點。
However, “SOP” does little more than humanize some of the “bad apples” (a good thing, I suppose), while gratuitously absolving the civilian interrogators actually responsible for fouling those apples.不過， “專科門診”多一點人性化的一些“壞蘋果” （一件好事，我假設） ，而無償開脫平民審訊，其實負責污垢那些蘋果。
But, wait.但是，等待。 Abu Ghraib is not primarily about Military Police – or civilian interrogators.阿布格萊布監獄是不是主要是軍事警察-或文職審問。 It is about the many thousands of wrongfully detained Iraqis – many of them abused, tortured and even killed.它是關於許多數以千計的錯誤拘留的伊拉克人-他們中的許多虐待，拷打甚至殺害。 It is also about their families.它也涉及他們的家人。 What about their story?什麼對他們的故事呢？
Morris has called “SOP” just “the tip of the iceberg,” citing the unused volumes of material he’s collected since production began.莫里斯所謂的“專科門診”只是“冰山一角”為由，未使用的大量的材料，他的收集自開始生產。 But Morris owed his viewers a glimpse of the whole iceberg, not just the small misleading piece that bobbed above the surface.但莫里斯欠他的觀眾一窺整個的冰山一角，不僅是小具誤導性的一塊bobbed認為，上述表面。
He has announced his next film project: a comedy.他已宣布他的下一部電影計劃：喜劇。 Go figure.去的數字。
Sam Provance, a former Army sergeant specializing in intelligence analysis, refused to remain silent about the torture of Abu Ghraib, where he served for five months at the height of the abuses. He was punished for refusing to take part in the cover-up, and pushed out of the Army. For his sworn testimony to Congress, 山姆provance ，前陸軍中士專門從事情報分析，拒絕保持沉默，有關酷刑的阿布格萊布監獄，他在那裡任職5個月，在高度的虐待，他被處罰，拒絕參加在掩蓋起來，和趕出軍隊。他宣誓就職的國會作證， click here 點擊這裡 . 。
See More: 看到更多的： Torture 酷刑 USA News 美國新聞Have Your Say: Abu Ghraib Film Obscures Truth 你說：阿布格萊布電影掩蓋真相
Please note, only selected comments will be published.請注意，只有選定的評論將出版。
Or discuss this report in our our new forums 或討論這個報告在我們的我們的新論壇
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 1st, 2008 at 8:53 am and is filed under 此項目被張貼在週四， 2008年5月1日在上午8時53分，並提交下 War & Terrorism News 戰爭和恐怖主義新聞 , ， General 一般 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the 您可以按照任何的反應，此項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. 餵養。 You can 您可以 leave a response 留下的回應 , or ，或 trackback Trackback跟踪 from your own site. 從你自己的網站。
Free Newsletter 免費通訊 
Related News 相關新聞
- RINF Film Screening: Iraq for Sale - The War Profiteers rinf放映電影：伊拉克出售的-戰爭奸商
- General: Bush knew about Abu Ghraib一般：布什知道阿布格萊布
- Pentagon records prisoner abuse by US military五角大樓記錄虐俘美軍
- US Navy To Redesign ‘Swastika’ Base美海軍重新設計' swastika '基地
- Iran’s parliament votes to call CIA, US Army ‘terrorist’ groups伊朗的議會投票呼籲美國中央情報局，美國陸軍'恐怖團體
Email This Page To A Friend 電子郵件此頁給朋友
Latest Headlines 最新的新聞標題
- Worldwide Support for Free Media全世界支持自由媒體
- Banksy throws London stencil party班克斯全倫敦樣板黨
- Nepal police detain 100 Tibetan protestors尼泊爾警方拘留100名西藏示威者
- Ex-Guantanamo man: “Torture is terrorism”前關塔那摩的男子： “酷刑是恐怖主義”
- Why Gordon Brown should halt ID cards為什麼財政大臣布朗應停止的身份證
- Sex offender DNA files expanded性罪犯的DNA檔案擴大
- Secret Bush “Finding” Widens War on Iran布什的秘密“發現”擴大了對伊朗的戰爭
- Denying Palestinians Free Movement in the West Bank無可否認，巴勒斯坦人的自由流動，在約旦河西岸
- RINF Forums Now Online rinf現在網上論壇
- Pentagon Documents Highlight Torture Methods五角大樓的文件強調酷刑的方法
More更多 Breaking News突發新聞
Archive 存檔