Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  The fact that this "liberal" reaction is so strong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    tells me that for many, the message that "torture doesn't work" was buried too far down in the plot for many viewers to infer it. Were there scenes showing interrogators finally getting the information they need by befriending their subjects, as actually happened? Was the contrast in results highlighted? If not, then the uneasy-to-offended "liberal" reaction has a strong basis in reality.

    •  SPOILER ALERT (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      al23, mumtaznepal

      Yes, some information is revealed by befriending a terrorist who had previously been tortured and the movie does suggest that his prior torture plays some role in him releasing the information but I truly believe the film ultimately asks whether or not torture is worth it at all because the information comes from other sources as well.  

      As Michael Moore said: "I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that Zero Dark Thirty endorses torture either hasn't seen the move or wasn't paying attention."

      Or Andrew Sullivan who also has defended the film against these accusations and says: "The critical clue comes from traditional intelligence - a data point friendly countries gave to the CIA in the wake of 9/11 and then took a few years to percolate up to the analyst who saw its salience."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site