A controversy has erupted relating to Zero Dark Thirty and its depiction of torture used by American intelligence forces in the War On Terror. Critics of the movie assert that 1) the movie incorrectly shows that interrogations under torture helped track down Bin Laden and/or 2) the movie favors this application of torture. Astoundingly, much of the criticism came before the release of the film and from people who had not seen it.
It is historical fact that, during the George W. Bush administration, American intelligence forces used “harsh interrogation techniques” on detainees, some of which (including waterboarding) constitute torture. It is also well-established that torture is not an effective means of interrogation. You can check with last month’s report by the Senate Intelligence committee (reported here) and these intelligence experts interviewed on NPR (and also here).
In my view, the torture used in these interrogations violated US and international law. I also take the word of interrogation experts that torture is not effective because it does not produce reliable intelligence. To end the torture, subjects will eventually say anything that they think that the interrogator wants to hear – whether true or timely or useful or not. These experts say that more useful information is gained – without torture – by using skilled non-coercive interrogation techniques.
[SPOILER ALERT – the next few paragraphs contain key plot points. If you haven’t seen the movie, you can skip to the last paragraph for my conclusion.]
So does Zero Dark Thirty incorrectly show that interrogations under torture helped track down Bin Laden? The first hour of Zero Dark Thirty depicts the first years of the War On Terror, including several instances of interrogation with torture (which undeniably happened). In the movie, one of the pieces of information secured through such an interrogation is a nickname for one of Bin Laden’s couriers – but this tidbit does not pay off. But years go by without anyone capitalizing (or even verifying this lead). Most of the intelligence agents even believe information from another detainee that the courier is dead. In fact, years elapse and new leads come and go after the torture of detainees has ended.
Only in the ninth year of the man hunt, do the intelligence agents begin to close in by combining an overlooked tip on the courier’s family name, wiretapping the courier’s mother’s home phone, triangulating his cell phone calls (my favorite scenes in Zero Dark Thirty), putting a tail on the courier and satellite and drone surveillance of the compound. Even with this, only the Jessica Chastain character rates more than a 60% probability on Bin Laden’s location. All of this happens long after Zero Dark Thirty has shown the last of the torture – and after showing presidential candidate Obama pledging to end the practice when elected President.
Now, of course, non-critical thinkers in the audience may see torture at the beginning and the successful raid on Bin Laden at the end, and incorrectly connect the dots but, in my opinion the filmmakers cannot be held responsible for the lazy thinkers in the audience. I conclude that Zero Dark Thirty does not show that the use of torture helped to locate Bin Laden.
And does Zero Dark Thirty favor the use of torture? The torture scenes are realistic, and they are uncomfortable for the audience; they are not gratuitous. In contrast, in the Dirty Harry movies, the audience roots for Harry when he shoots the bad guy in the kneecap to get information. In Zero Dark Thirty, the filmmakers do not frame the scenes so the audience gets a kick out of the torture – even though the folks being tortured are the most despicable people on earth. I have no problem with the filmmakers showing the use of torture – it did happen and it illustrates that, in the 9/11 aftermath, the American government would go to any means to get the terrorists. Just because the filmmakers show stomach-turning torture does not mean that they endorse it. I conclude that Zero Dark Thirty does not favor the use of torture.
Finally, I am very disappointed that many commentators and political leaders that I generally agree with jumped into the fray before they saw Zero Dark Thirty. These are the same folks who, along with me, would not hesitate to ridicule the criticism of a film (e.g., The Last Temptation of Christ) by right wingers who hadn’t seen it. In this case, their criticism of Zero Dark Thirty was both unfounded and unfair.
