Skip to main content

View Diary: Why is "Zero Dark Thirty" being unfairly singled out? (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It seems to be in the eye of the beholder- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mumtaznepal

    Some thoughtful people see that the torture was in fact shocking and that ultimately no useful information came out of it.

    Some other thoughtful people see that the torture has a horrifying entertainment element and will be attractive to simple minds.

    Simple minds are attracted to the simplicity of the solution- torture until you get what you want.

    There are probably more nuances yet.

    •  I disagree (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Code Monkey, TKO333, Armando, lotlizard

      I disagree.

      I just watched it, and there's a man tortured for a long time at the start of the film, I mean it's not just a quick scene but goes on and on. Then this same man is being given tea and food by the interrogator, but when he doesn't say enough, the interrogator says "Listen i can go eat with some other dude and hang you back up to the ceiling" and the man immediately starts naming names, including the name of Osama Bin Laden's courier, which we all know is what led to finding him.

      The head of the CIA interrogation program said this gives a wildly false impression, that waterboarding was used very early on and yielded nothing, that he told them that, that he got information finally by building trust (not by threatening to start torturing people again after doing so earlier) and that the hanging from the ceiling and the rest was taken from the stories of the abuse in Iraq by military guards, not the CIA at all.

      No "simple mind" was required to think that was being portrayed was "torture got us Bin Laden". It's up to each individual to know whether this is true or false of course, but the criticisms of the movie for depicting something that was false as if it had actually happened are perfectly valid.

      •  I saw the movie too, and disagree with you :-) (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindtrain, Ray Blake

        I thought it was pretty clear in the movie that torture of all of the involved yielded nothing.

        Yes, courier names were given, but the significance of that wasn't put together until nearly a year later by the CIA agent.

        The most interesting line of the movie was the lead actress being introduced to torture her first arrival in the middle east, and her subsequent dedication to finding bin Laden after the murder of her friends (CIA agents) in a terrorist attack.

        "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

        by mumtaznepal on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:24:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lost me (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Code Monkey, eztempo, Armando, lotlizard

          I don't understand, what is it you don't agree with?

          "Yes, courier names were given, but the significance of that wasn't put together until nearly a year later by the CIA agent."

          So what?

          By "were given" I assume you're referring to the scene I described, which is very definitely showing a man giving up the courier's name because of the threat of torture. After showing him being tortured for a long part of the film.

          So watching the film, someone who knew nothing from other sources would think okay, torture, and then threatening to do it again, led to learning the courier's name. The attention that the woman, Maya, shows, asking him to repeat the name, at the particular moment is clearly meant to show the significance.

          This is what critics are complaining about, and they're right.

          •  Maybe I'm misunderstanding your posts, but I (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            al23, Ray Blake

            didn't think the movie implied torture worked at all.

            Yes, the line when they were eating, when torture was threatened again (where the lead prisoner was eating) to me showed that it wasn't the torture that got results. Torture didn't result the courier name being given.  And the name being given was only a small piece of the puzzle, not an "aha, we have it!" moment.  

            The CIA agent put the courier names together a year later, and figured out alias were being used by the brothers.

            You may disagree, and that's fine.  

            I have no problem with liberals who have actually seen the film giving their own assessments of it, based upon our common "liberal" viewpoints.

            "Privatize to Profitize" explains every single Republican economic, social and governing philosophy. Take every taxpayer dollar from defense, education, health care, public lands, retirement - privatize it, and profit from it.

            by mumtaznepal on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 01:50:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  That scene (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard

          is clear that torture worked.

          I do not understand how you can say it did not

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site