I never aspire to be objective because I don't believe in objectivity. It's important to be truthful, and it's important to make sure that the audience has a solid sense of what the expectation should be of a particular film.

Many of the soldiers suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and have not been supported by the government when they've requested psychological help. Of course, the prisoners continue to suffer physically and psychologically. Much needs to be done - torture has a negative impact on everyone it touches, including us, Americans, as a nation.

People standing up and saying, 'This isn't right,' is certainly a quality I admire in specific circumstances. There are people who do that and have a different set of politics, and then I don't necessarily agree with what they're doing and why they're doing it. But the act in and of itself of saying something is wrong and standing up for what they think is right is something I generally admire.

I don't think films in and of themselves create radical change, but I think a film can contribute to people's understanding and deepen their understanding and help contribute to a shift.

Sometimes we want to engage in a war for financial reasons, for strategic reasons, for moral reasons, for all sorts of reasons, and it's important when we're making that decision to remind ourselves of what happens to the people on the front lines when we start this process.

The world - and America - has been defined by people who haven't necessarily abided by the laws and the rules. Civil disobedience is part of our nation's history and has redirected our country in many instances, from the feminist movement to the Civil Rights movement and beyond.

The U.S. has represented throughout its history a commitment to human rights and the law - shining a light on what happened at Abu Ghraib exposes our departure from this long-term commitment. It does not, however, excuse the atrocities carried about by Saddam Hussein and others.