Leading members of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees have slammed Zero Dark Thirty as “grossly inaccurate and misleading” in a letter to Sony Pictures Entertainment today and asked for an on-screen clarification of the facts.
“We write to express our deep disappointment with the movie Zero Dark Thirty,” Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) wrote to studio chairman and CEO Michael Lynton. “We believe the film is grossly inaccurate and misleading in its suggestion that torture resulted in information that led to the location of Usama bin Laden.”
“We understand that the film is fiction, but it opens with the words ‘based on first-hand accounts of actual events’ and there has been significant media coverage of CIA’s cooperation with the screenwriters.”
The senators note that the film “depicts CIA officers repeatedly torturing detainees and then credits these detainees with providing critical lead information on the courier that led to the Usama Bin Laden.”
“Regardless of what message the filmmakers intended to convey, the movie clearly implies that the CIA’s coercive interrogation techniques were effective in eliciting important information related to a courier for Usama Bin Laden. We have reviewed CIA records and know that this is incorrect,” the senators wrote. “Zero Dark Thirty is factually inaccurate, and we believe that you have an obligation to state that the role of torture in the hunt for Usama Bin Laden is not based on the facts, but rather part of the film’s fictional narrative.”
Noting that they appreciate the role of motion pictures in American culture, Feinstein, McCain, and Levin said this movie “has the potential to shape American public opinion in a disturbing and misleading manner.”
“The use of torture in the fight against terrorism did severe damage to America’s values and standing that cannot be justified or expunged. It remains a stain on our national conscience,” they added. “We cannot afford to go back to these dark times, and with the release of Zero Dark Thirty, the filmmakers and your production studio are perpetuating the myth that torture is effective. You have a social and moral obligation to get the facts right.”
MiniTrue also recommends that the slogans, “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” and “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH,” be featured prominently.
I’m please with the senator’s action. I was disgusted with the trailer. Too bad they didn’t say anything about “Argo”.
I just finished “The Finish: the Killing of Osama Bin Laden” by Mark Bowden, an author I have read over the years and feel gives generally accurate accounts. Finding OBL involved tens of thousands of hours on the part of many very dedicated people to put the pieces together for a location.
Overwhelmingly “soft” interrogation gleans the most accurate information. But there are also situations of perceived immanent catastrophic attacks that would reasonably call for “squeezing” the prisoner in a harsh manner. Right after 9/11 we feared further attacks and some prisoners were treated harshly. All actions were cleared legally before hand.
Torture? Would someone like to define that term for me? Would they then define pornography also?
The funny thing about Zero Dark Thirty – as Lionel and I make clear in a forthcoming Poliwood – is that it is incomprehensible. The plot makes no sense. Therefore, these politicians are just wasting their time. No one knows what’s going on anyway.
The man who led the CIA effort to find Bin Laden, Jose Rodriguez wrote a book about it.
In that book he said waterboarding was (in my understanding) a technique used during the induction of prisoners to make them cooperative.
So. Not directly a source of information. But directly a means to make hard cases not so hard anymore.
Rodriguez’ “Hard Measures” confirmed that the careful application of same can be, and actually was, effective as an intelligence tool. Perhaps more interesting was the political back-story and the demoralizing impact on intelligence officers when the rules changed.
Interrogation protocols were well understood and fully vetted by the lawyers. Everyone knew – even the interrogation subjects – what the rules were, what was legally sanctioned and what was not, and everyone followed them. But as a new leadership arrived and “changed the rules”, those who acted on our behalf were subject to investigation – not for violating the rules, but for having acted in a way these new bosses didn’t approve. That meant lawyers and shattered careers. Whoever makes it through such an ordeal decides henceforth he will play it safe. And that means people will die.
Is it moral to protect the nation from a nuclear bomb attack using any available methods or is it moral to not ruffle the hair on the suspect’s head and let the bomb go off? Between and among the authorities of the Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act 1021 ff, and NSDD 51 we already have the capacity to install a “gestapo” like police force in this country. As I understand it, we citizens have no capacity to determine whether or not someone has “disappeared” because Federal authorities are exercising their authority under one or more provisions of the above cited laws.
– afraid to hold the director accountable.