If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Torture...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Some of you may have seen Zero Dark Thirty (I know G and I have) and it's kind of inspired this thread. The film is about the hunt for Bin Laden and has caused a few stories to be written about the torture scenes.
So have argued that the film gloryfies torture as a tool, others say that actually it depicts that torture wasn't how Bin Laden was actually tracked that the CIA actually had the information needed already and therefore the torture used by CIA was gratuitous. Then there's a last group who argue that the film takes an ambiguous approach and leaves viewers to make up their own minds about it.
Anyway, my question is have you seen the film and if so what did you think and secondly what your general view about torture is... devil's advocates are welcome!
So have argued that the film gloryfies torture as a tool, others say that actually it depicts that torture wasn't how Bin Laden was actually tracked that the CIA actually had the information needed already and therefore the torture used by CIA was gratuitous. Then there's a last group who argue that the film takes an ambiguous approach and leaves viewers to make up their own minds about it.
Anyway, my question is have you seen the film and if so what did you think and secondly what your general view about torture is... devil's advocates are welcome!
0
Comments
What I saw was a flinchy red head who was really uneasy with it, and as the film went on she because more and more used to it, which could very well reflect what happens in those kind of situations. There is an element of people doing bad things so others dont have to, and I have no doubt that somewhere along the line, some information may very well have been extracted to save lives, but it still doesnt take back the fact that torturing is bad and not a very nice thing in the slightest.
I think the ends have to justify the means, saving millions lives using questionable methods?
To be fair, I'm not sure that Zero Dark Thirty is really a "Hollywood" representation because it's not fictional.
As for the OP, I actually don't think that the film itself glorifies torture. As G said, you can see the facial expression of the female lead ("Maya") and you also see her becoming hardened to it. However, it does suggest (contrary to some opinions) that torture brings certain results...
The main connecting name was the result either of direct torture or following someone being "broken" through torture.
In this, I suspect that it's accurate. Torture, per se, overused and without the "right" questions being asked is actually useless. However a scientific application can bear fruit...
Of course it's fictional.
You would be surprised.
I'd argue they muddy the debate by being too clean; they often lack the ambiguity of real life and heroes are able to side step moral dilemmas. Because often the real incidences of torture are not hard-bitten intelligence officers methodically torturing a man determined to resist and doing so to save a city from a nuclear holocaust, but tired and exhausted young men giving a prisoner a kicking to find out direct intelligence which is likely to save their lives. A cursory reading of many military memoires from WW1, WW2 etc suggests that on all sides this is not totally uncommon
Or to put it another way Herman the German has just been captured by a platoon who've just been tasked to take an Italian village, he's shaking with fear as his mate dies with a gut wound; whilst a young officer screams at him in a mixture of schoolboy French, some English and the little bit of Italian about whether the village is occupied and where are the mines. And then the platoon sergeant gives him a couple of punches to help loosen his tongue and as he wretches on the floor gives him a hard kick in the ribs and another man shoves a sten in his face and makes clicking noises. So Herman talks and after he sits their shivering and hoping his command of English was good enough that they understood their is a spandau covering the road, as the soldier standing guard keeps a rifle aimed at him and who will likely shoot him dead if he turns out to have lied and directed the platoon into a minefield.
Does torture work? In these cases, yes
Is it moral? That may depend whether you're the prisoner or the bloke who's walking up the road to take that village.
I never been in that situation, so I can't say what I'd do. I'd hope I'd do the right thing. The trouble is I don't know what that is.
We don't know how much is fictional and how much isn't. I wouldn't assume it's totally (or even mainly) accurate
While John McCain is a politician, and therefore likely to lie, he refutes that -
Given the sources stated for the storyline, I think you might be surprised as to how much is based on fact. However, the comparison was with "Rendition" (as an example given) which is a fiction.
Worth reading about the search. The evidence supplied by KSM was actually used to verify the courier's existence (alongside that of other tortured and non-tortured captives) with part of the reasoning being how much those at the top of AlQ (such as KSM) played down the role of Al-Kuwati. This suggested (as others lower in the food chain had named him) that he was worth protecting and was therefore a likely link to another high profile AlQ leader. At the time OBL wasn't necessarily the considered link, although that level of denial by KSM was considered important because why else would he protect someone unless the target was most valuable.
The film, and much of the source materiel, also refer to other detainees who gave up the name first - this was why KSM was originally asked about him. He was being used to test how important the lead actually was.
So, none of that contradicts what McCain said. However, it's worth noting that the likes of KSM *only* started talking about anything *after* they were tortured.
Interesting argument. What if you don't *know* the person being torture is actually a terrorist?
Its what I was thinking. Certainty is something rarely had.
For those that don't, if you could goto your grave knowing you could have saved the lives of your wives, husbands, parents, children but instead chose not to then so be it.
I think there is a place for the use of torture in interrogation, but that there are very few circumstances which ever require it to be used. Most of the time torture is used for the pleasure of the interrogators, or is used as punishment for being a political dissident, not because it causes any new information to be revealed.
Ultimately we're all human, and whilst we may have different thresholds I can guarantee that all of us would quite willingly torture someone if the stakes were high enough.
I mean look at the Milgram experiments, he showed that all it took for most people to electrocute some poor bastard was for a guy in a white coat with glasses to tell you that you had no choice.
OK, you repeatedly kick me in the nuts and I give you a PIN. What do you do with it?
You're right, most people will torture given the right set of circumstances.
But that's why this conversation is so important. By turning a blind eye, by going along with the lie that all torture victims are filthy murdering terrorists with the keys to a dirty bomb, we're effectively giving the torturers a free ride. That's wrong.
did you miss this?