Don't see "Zero Dark Thirty" without reading this letter
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
Don't see "Zero Dark Thirty" without reading this letter
I think that sometimes bipartisanship is overrated, but it's great to see two leading Democrats team up with a high-profile Republican on this: The clearest message yet that torture isn't just morally wrong, but had nothing to do with the killing of Osama bin Laden.
The reason, of course, is the looming release of the Oscar-buzzed motion picture, Zero Dark Thirty, based on the real-life pursuit of the 9/11 mastermind. Even though it's not yet in wide release, there's already a huge controversy about how the movie depicts torture. I haven't see the film, but I've read a lot of reviews that make compelling arguments on both sides. It boils down to this. Torture happened, and we should not shy away from the fact. But does the movie reveal that torture was a dead end, both morally AND in terms pf gathering intelligence? Or will it mislead millions of American moviegoers into thinking torture "got" OBL?
Comes now Sens. John McCain, Diane Feinstein, and Carl Levin with a letter -- addressed to the chairman of Sony Pictures -- setting the record straight. I thought this section was especially powerful:
We are fans of many of your movies, and we understand the special role that movies play in our lives, but the fundamental problem is that people who see ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ will believe that the events it portrays are facts. The film therefore has the potential to shape American public opinion in a disturbing and misleading manner. Recent public opinion polls suggest that a narrow majority of Americans believe that torture can be justified as an effective form of intelligence gathering. This is false. We know that cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of prisoners is an unreliable and highly ineffective means of gathering intelligence..
The use of torture should be banished from serious public discourse for these reasons alone, but more importantly, because it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, because it is an affront to America’s national honor, and because it is wrong. 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. 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.
Sending this letter now was absolutely the right thing to do. Moviegoers are going to leave Zero Dark Thirty with differing ideas about what the film is trying to tell us about torture. That why it's so important people walk into the theater knowing the truth.
Comments (51)
Funny how that when Republicans complained about the original release date was political the Dems pooh poohed it. Now that the film doesn't meet the narrative the Dems want, they pooh pooh it.— Captain Terrific- Ahh shut up. You sound like a little kindergarten kid crying because somebody else got a juice box and you didn't. — AreaMan
- Funny how it worked when Republicans pooh-poohed the miniseries about Reagan in 2003 and banished it to Showtime.
Will, let's deal with gun control first. One major initiative at a time. You would make a horrible politician.— wokmaster- Those tasked with gathering intelligence from high value detainees should be authorized to use the methods that are most likely to provide valuable results. If "exhaustion therapy" is deemed unlikely to be effective on a subject, they need not use that technique.
I would defer to the practitioners.— Mr. Smith - The whole world needs to know that we are not the Nazis.— orange rhino
- Wow, Oliver Stoned movies don't contain facts. Where is the disclaimer on them. Oh, sorry, they fit your flawed narrative.— georgel
- ? — wokmaster
- "Moviegoers are going to leave Zero Dark Thirty with differing ideas about what the film is trying to tell us about torture. That why it's so important people walk into the theater knowing the truth." Yeah, Bunch, wouldn't it be terrible if people had the right to hold differing opinions about a movie? Your claim that people must "know the truth" before seeing anything that might disagree with your opinion is a philosophy that seems to work pretty well in North Korea and Syria and Turkmenistan. — J H
- But some torture WAS EFFECTIVE in the overall factual arc of intelligence gathering which led to President Obama jumping out of a plane at 3:00am, scaling a slippery 16 foot tall wall, distributing 14 perfect 8-ball shots to OBL's various guards, and then swimming 90 miles to safety holding his breath all the while.— zen
- Maybe, instead, Obama could've had Bin Laden cornered and then let him get away and then invaded the wrong country and as a finale, landed on an aircraft carrier with his crotch stuffed and a giant joke of a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" behind him. — abendteuer
- Mr Smith_ leaving it to the practitioners is a foolish choice. They are not necessarily experts but rather people who have chosen this field because they find it rewarding. if you find something rewarding, you will tend to employ it. All hammers view all the world as a nail. If those who truly know believe these methods to be effective in gathering intelligence (as opposed to gathering confessions) then we should have a consensus about it. Since it seems that most experts doubt the reliability of intelligence gathered from torture, we should ask ourselves why our country used it.— doc al
- Its a movie. There are many movies that don't get the political facts straight or have an agenda without any thought of the other side (Syriana and Green Zone come to mind). People walked out of Argo thinking it was how the story actually happened. In my mind its unfortunate a movie like Zero Dark Thirty is even being made - more because there is no need to share with terrorists what our strategies are. Why risk the safety of those in the field by displaying on film military tactics that were used?— rbrogna1
- With the impossibility of knowing true fact from fiction in the world and an infinite amount of opinion bombarding us each moment, who knows what we know? I have my hands full just preparing for the fiscal cliff and 12-21, not to mention the zombies.— EagleEye61
- AreaMan, that insult doesn't even make sense.— Captain Terrific
- hey bunch - is killing a baby that survives an abortion torture? #questionsobamawillneverbeasked— teardownthisfishwrap
- Why did you stop using your baldymcfatkins username? lolz...... — The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- "Those tasked with gathering intelligence from high value detainees should be authorized to use the methods that are most likely to provide valuable results" . . . Sometimes the pressure to get results as quickly as possible, to appease superiors, leads to recklessness and desperation.— montani semper liberi
- All the gun nuts trying to blame violence in the media for the school shootings will be rushing to see this movie, I bet.— carl and sons
- "That why it's so important people walk into the theater knowing the truth". Are you saying there is no Jason Bourne? Rambo? James Bond? Clark Griswold? Who knew?— jimmymack
- "Wow, Oliver Stoned movies don't contain facts."
georgel, how do you never get embarrassed for your daily stupidity? If you actually want to back up that silly statement, watch The Untold History of the United States on Showtime and tell me where he got his facts wrong. I should warn you that Stone's co-author is American University history professor Peter Kuznick.— Hamlet - Will, is the collateral damage pain and suffering inflicted on civilians from our drone strikes considered "torture"?— michael_b
- I'm sure you were saying the same thing when Bush carpet bombed Iraq, right? — The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- No.
There, I answered your question...
will you answer mine?— michael_b - So you're a hypocrite. Ok, thanks. — The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- OK, you think I'm a hypocrite.
Now, will you answer my question?— michael_b - No, I wouldn't consider it torture — The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- Funny how the high ground, moral or otherwise, is often a slippery slope. More concerning to me is Will's insistence on getting this message out for a movie he admits he hasn't even seen yet. He's taking the words of others to preach 'goodness' or 'righteousness' to his flock. Movies are famous for bending the truth OR just making it up to suit there story all together. Why would a 'righteous' person want to see a movie that has torture in it in the first place? I guess it all doesn't matter, the world is going to end tomorrow!— elbrewador
- It's always funny when they boil down the 'higher-standard' that the US up holds in matters of torture. Simply put, we are the only ones who up hold such standards. We do not chop off their heads of our prisoners or send body parts to their families. In the past, the idea that we humiliated prisoners in "Fraternity" like events compared to removing fingers and tongues is comical. This cookie-cutter country neither wants to do what is needed nor see it. To paraphrase A Few Good Men, You would like to sleep peacefully not knowing how you are kept safe, but critiscize the way that it is done. This country has surivived because courageous people have stood tall and done things to keep you safe. Think about that while you mock them.— theAngelsofBlood
- "Sometimes the pressure to get results as quickly as possible, to appease superiors, leads to recklessness and desperation."
Is that the explanation for most of Bunch's slapdick presentation of the daily talking points from Media Matters?— Mr. Smith - "Think about that while you mock them." . . . . . Yet it's the acceptance of the use of torture that mocks them as professinals and their service and sacrifice to our country. Any jackbooted thug can torture.— montani semper liberi
- Most reviews I have read seem to confirm that this movie doesn't link the torture to the capture of OBL. In fact, it shows how unhinged the Bush Administration became after 9/11.— chasing history
- Can anyone here answer the following question?
Is the collateral damage pain and suffering inflicted on civilians from our drone strikes considered "torture"?
Please, focus on the question - it's a yes or no answer.
— michael_b - No — The Fundamentals of the Economy are Fine
- This reminds me of people protesting "Life of Brian", "Dogma", and other movies even though the people against the movie never even watched it.— LouDiamondPhillipsheadScrewdriver
- michael, is it your position that collateral damage is a war crime? As a moral position, I agree. Legally speaking, it depends on whether there's a primary military objective by which collateral damage is merely incidental but unavoidable, and whether the anticipated collateral damage is "proportional" (i.e., not excessive) to the military objective. The Pentagon actually has software designed to make that assessment.— montani semper liberi
- For instance, the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - war crimes or not?— montani semper liberi
- Torture is being at work with Christmas carols for background music. Listening to John Lennon and Yoko Ono's "Happy Christmas" 3 times a day sure beats water boarding. For the love of God, someone shoul cut Yoko's vocal chords.— FletcherT
- "For instance, the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - war crimes or not?"
According to The Untold History of the United States, absolutely yes. If Wallace, and not Truman, was on the vice presidential candidate in 1944, the bomb would not have been used and the war with Japan would have ended a couple of months earlier. Talk about immoral...— Hamlet - Hamlet, with Japan refusing surrender and vowing to arm civilians including women and children untolds millions could have been killed. I don't necessarily agree that it was a choice of only atom bomb or multi year slog through Japan. There were alternatives but Truman chose the bomb. He also showed the Soviets we weren't afraid to use it. I didn't see the show you are discussing but I will check it out.— egmetzjr
- "the bomb would not have been used and the war with Japan would have ended a couple of months earlier."...WTF, earlier? Typical lefty fan fiction. If memory serves the partitioning of the world was planned under Roosevelt's watch, so the whole "Wallace would have prevent Viet Nam" premise is merely toilet paper with print.— 2ndNlong
- The film "Seal Team Six" already covered much of what "Zero Dark Thirty" does. Of course, "Seal Team Six" showed Obama in a favorable light, which naturally drove right-wingers crazy and thus this portrayal of real events was castigated by anyone to the right of John Birch, which these days includes about 99% of the Republican Party.— Mr_Cool
- "Hamlet, with Japan refusing surrender and vowing to arm civilians including women and children untolds millions could have been killed."
That is the "common wisdom" today, but it's not true. The only reason the Japanese would not surrender is Truman's Unconditional Surrender doctrine, which included the Japanese giving up their emperor. They were willing to agree to anything but that. Two months (actually, I think it was three months) of terrible and blody fighting go on, then we drop the atom bomb, the Japanese do not surrender. We had fire bombed almost ever Japanese city but Hiroshima and Nagasaki anyway (for a reason) so the devastation was similar to Tokyo and Osaka. Anyway, after Nagasaki, we agreed to let them keep their emperor...then the Japanese surrendered. The atom bomb was to scare the Russians. It had nothing to do with the war against Japan. It was the start of the Cold War.— Hamlet - 2ndNlong, you have the reading comprehension of an eight-year old.— Hamlet
- Hamlet, I think the main reason Truman dropped it was to show we have it and it works. Horrible thing to do to largely civilian areas.— egmetzjr
- I haven't seen the Oliver Stone thing but I have to say from what I've read I think it's a bit of a stretch on his part. The Japanese garrisons on Iwo Jima and Okinawa had basically fought to the death. On Okinawa there were large scale suicides by the civilian population as well. By the end of the war, the emperor was more or less a prisoner of the Japanese high command. It's true that the destruction caused by the atomic bombs was comparable to and in some cases exceeded by that resulting from the low level incendiary bombing raids throughout 1945. What prompted the Japanese to surrender in the end was the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan August 8th, 1945 and quickly overrunning Japanese forces in Manchuria and elsewhere. Presented with the possibilty of a US invasion from the south and a Soviet invasion from the north, the Japanese capitulated. It has to be said though that the Japanese were a horrible people between 1936-1945. There is to this day very little love lost for Japan in Korea, China and anywhere else occupied by the Japanese military during World War II. History has also proven true the Allied belief that Stalin was not an honest broker in Europe (not to mention a mass murderer on the scale of Hitler). While it's true that the Red Army had destroyed the vast majority of the German war machine as compared the American and British contributions in the West, it was also clear to more than a few people that Red Army wasn't leaving the occupied countries anytime soon after the war. Where the dropping of the atomic bombs fits into that is open for debate.— abendteuer
- Abendteuer, history is kind of a hobby of mine. Especially world history from 1919 to the present day, so I’m not just going by the Stone/Kuznick documentary. But Stone’s documentrary illustrates my point of view while it showed me a few details that I never really considered in their chronological order.
Having said that, you just explained the other half of the equation of the Japanese surrender of 12-15 August 1945: Stalin keep his promise to Roosevelt and invaded Manchuria 9-20 August, 1945. The Japanese Imperial High Command and the new US Military Industrial Complex had a common enemy. But I repeat – the dropping of the atom bombs had nothing to do with the surrender. The fanaticism of some civilian population and the troops had nothing to do with it (although it does help muddy the waters so it’s harder to see the truth).
Stalin was seen as an honest broker by the then dead Roosevelt, but not by the people who controlled the hapless Truman, the running mate they forced on Roosevelt (and the rest of the Democratic Party) in 1944. Churchill and Stalin split up Europe and Stalin kept his word on the agreement for years after (Churchill admitted this shortly before his death).
Yes, the Soviet Union destroyed the Nazi war machine and we took the credit. Then we proceeded to take over the world, partially using the threat of our new nightmare weapon, which we aptly demonstrated in August of 1945.— Hamlet - Oh, and one more thing. I'm talking in a kind of shorthand. Nothing is as cut and dry as I make it out in these posts, but I have limited time and room. Rarely is anything ever just black or white. The real story is usually several shades of gray.— Hamlet
Comment removed.
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: