Tortured Logic

[MovieBob]

Tortured Logic

MovieBob address the controversy surrounding enhanced interrogation and it's portrayal in Zero Dark Thirty.

Read Full Article

 

[Erttheking]

Contains spoilers for Zero Dark Thirty? WHAT SPOILERS!? What, that Osama Bin Laden dies?

 

[The_Darkness]

To the above poster: You mind-ninja'd me - I was going to write something like that but forgot about it.

I find myself in an interesting position. On the one hand, I've held off watching Zero Dark Thirty because, well, the feeling of 'too soon' is still present. (I haven't seen any of the 9/11 films either.) But on the other hand it does seem to be provoking some interesting discussions, as well as being cited as a 'This is roughly what happened, make your own mind up', which I can support.

I have seen the documentary/reconstruction that was released a while back, complete with SEAL and Obama interviews, so I can weigh in on the torture discussion from that perspective. I thought they did admit to using torture and that a tortured inmate did give some vital info. I don't remember whether or not said info was given during torture, so it may even be related to the scenes in question. Basically, I'm of the opinion that torture can work, but that it's just as likely not to work or to even give false information.

 

[tkioz]

I read one of those ultra-right wing "we do bad things for a good reason" books a while back, I think it was by Tom Kratman, and one of his central themes was "people say torture is unreliable, because people will say anything to get the pain to stop, well anything also includes the truth" thus justifying the extremely repugnant actions of his "heroes".

You know what? He's completely right, yes people will say "anything" to get the pain to stop, and logically "anything" also includes the truth, but that ISN'T the problem with torture being unreliable, you might get the "truth" out of someone after setting fire to their genitals, problem is how do you KNOW what is the truth and what is what the guy thinks you want to hear? That is what makes torture useless as a form of information gathering, you've got so much garbage and noise you simply can't rely on it.

And that's only the practical reasons torture is wrong, the moral reasons are far more compelling, after all we're suppose to be better then the barbarians we're fighting against, not stooping to their level, that's why we shouldn't lock people away for years on end without legal representation by declaring them "unlawful combatants", that's why we shouldn't use "enhanced interrogation methods", we're suppose to be better then that.

For what it's worth I agree with Bob, the movie wasn't advocating torture, it was showing it for the moral and practical obscenity it is.

A little information about what it's like to be waterboarded http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808

 

[Alex Cowan]

I take issue with one point. The fact that the switch to a more 'good cop' approach (offering food, daylight etc.) achieves the desired result is dependent on the torture that preceded it.
Were the prisoner not maltreated beforehand, the offer of mercy would be meaningless. Furthermore, the fact that they can convince him he already betrayed his co-conspirators under duress is dependent on his treatment beforehand having been sufficiently psychologically damaging to put him in a state of mental weakness. It's not a 'different strategy' proving 'enhanced interrogation' to be a failure. Instead, it shows that such techniques, if used as part of a broader plan, can achieve the desired results.

 

[Pat Hulse]

I take issue with one point. The fact that the switch to a more 'good cop' approach (offering food, daylight etc.) achieves the desired result is dependent on the torture that preceded it.
Were the prisoner not maltreated beforehand, the offer of mercy would be meaningless. Furthermore, the fact that they can convince him he already betrayed his co-conspirators under duress is dependent on his treatment beforehand having been sufficiently psychologically damaging to put him in a state of mental weakness. It's not a 'different strategy' proving 'enhanced interrogation' to be a failure. Instead, it shows that such techniques, if used as part of a broader plan, can achieve the desired results.

I find your reasoning somewhat compelling, but ultimately flawed. Part of what motivates these people is the assumption that Americans are evil, godless, and will treat them like animals. Even if the "good cop" approach is their opening move, it could still work simply by forcing them to question whether or not they're fighting on the right side. After all, if they are indeed captured by the evil-doers, why is it that they are treating him with dignity and patience?

It is difficult to say whether or not the "good cop" approach would have worked in this particular context as an opening move, but just because it came after torture doesn't necessarily mean that it was entirely dependent on the torture in order to work. In fact, having the "good cop" approach preceded by torture would probably be less effective simply because the terrorist will see it as an empty and manipulative gesture from their sworn enemies. However, if the "good cop" approach is the only one you see, it's harder to justify defending your allies who you know very well would not treat their captives as well as your enemies are treating you.

 

[RA92]

I haven't watched the movie, but I'll take Bob's word for it. Can't really see video games handling it with any kind of nuance, though. After the new Splinter Cell's knife-gouging interrogation, I'm fully prepared for a 'Press X to Waterboard' next.

 

[Alandoril]

Whether or not it worked is largely irrelevant. The whole lying to get information that way is a part of the same process. It shouldn't be done in the first place and using such tactics makes these people just as much barbarians as they claim the men they hunt are.

And I've no time at all for that "freedom isn't free" nonsense. You have your ideals and you stand by them, even if the people you're fighting would rip them up and throw them back at you.

The fact that any nation or coalition of the "willing" thinks it can ride roughshod over the world making people disappear into black bags and dragging them to sites for "enhanced interrogation" (even the very term is an Orwellian nightmare) or shipping them off to developing nations who will go to lengths even western security services tremble at is beyond disgusting.

Yes, you may be dealing with monsters but that is no reason to become one.

How many Bin Laden's do they think this crusade will create? How many more pointless "wars" waged superficially in the name of democracy (lol) but in reality keyed to keep undesirable nations in the dirt will it take before people realise that all they create is a cycle of vendetta that goes beyond the military into the realms of the economic, the social, the intellectual and the social?

Far better to look into the reasons they hate us and do something about it rather than give them more cause to do so.

 

[The_Darkness]

Whether or not it worked is largely irrelevant. The whole lying to get information that way is a part of the same process. It shouldn't be done in the first place and using such tactics makes these people just as much barbarians as they claim the men they hunt are.

Hmm. I'd draw a line between actual bodily harm torture and using the truth to 'trick' someone into giving you more information. Partly because the second one is more likely to work, provided that they swallow the bait, and partly because I view lying and trickery as less morally wrong than putting a person through water-boarding or any other kind of torture.

And although the bait relied on the fact that the prisoner had already been tortured, I'd put that down to using more truth in your story to make it more convincing - the lie didn't need the torture. They could have just said that they thwarted the bombing by other means, or by something that the prisoner had said or done that gave them a hint, regardless of torture. (People very rarely remember their every word and action, especially not when under interrogation.)

 

[Sixcess]

Using torture is not nearly as morally repugnant as using torture and then denouncing it as bad. Nor can the Obama administration and its supporters salve their conscience by blaming it all on Bush. He's been gone for 4 years now, and yet Guantanamo Bay is still open, and 'enhanced interrogations' are still going on.

America needs to either own up to its own moral failings and take steps to end them, or it has to stop claiming that it's the 'good guy.'

 

[Falseprophet]

I take issue with one point. The fact that the switch to a more 'good cop' approach (offering food, daylight etc.) achieves the desired result is dependent on the torture that preceded it.
Were the prisoner not maltreated beforehand, the offer of mercy would be meaningless. Furthermore, the fact that they can convince him he already betrayed his co-conspirators under duress is dependent on his treatment beforehand having been sufficiently psychologically damaging to put him in a state of mental weakness. It's not a 'different strategy' proving 'enhanced interrogation' to be a failure. Instead, it shows that such techniques, if used as part of a broader plan, can achieve the desired results.

I find your reasoning somewhat compelling, but ultimately flawed.

Alex Cowan said "it shows such techniques, if used as part of a broader plan, can achieve the desired results." I.e., within the context of the film, "torture cop, good cop" is presented as the effective method, not "good cop" alone.

I'll give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they thought they were making it clear by interrupting ineffective torture with effective compassion that "torture is bad, but compassion is effective". But Alex is suggesting maybe it's not clear enough, and the scene can be interpreted as "torture + compassion = effective". I suppose I'll make my own determination when I finally see the film.

CAPTCHA: i love you

Well, I certainly don't wish torture on any fellow Escapists!

 

[Pink Gregory]

A very well put and thought provoking article.

Exactly the kind of discussion that such a film should raise.

I know this doesn't add much to the discussion, but credit where credit is due.

 

[RJ Dalton]

I suppose that's what you should expect from a media that assumes that the public is incapable of thinking and will believe whatever it sees on TV.

 

[Verlander]

People are taking films too seriously, and Katherine Bigelow is probably loving it. This isn't journalism, this is entertainment, and it's crafted so well that the Academy rewards them for it.

It's an insight into the detractors of other forms of violent art (movies, games, music), that if they themselves are looking for morality in this form, it's understandable that they cannot accept the concept that others may not be doing the same.

 

[karamazovnew]

The producers could've just kept the cookie in the jar and never talk about the subject. But they did... There are way too many Americans who simply will not believe that their gov would do such a thing, so forcing those to look the truth in the face should, in a normal world, should count as a good thing. It should normally make the movie stand out from the crowd, brave enough to talk about such a traumatic reality. But it doesn't... It's not the movie's fault. In a normal world, any topic about torture should be "torture is bad, m'kay? case closed, don't do it, whatever the reasons!". But since in our world the US, the world's pillar of democracy and liberty, has spat in the face of the Geneva Convention, the torture issue has taken a turn for the worse. If some backwater 3'd world country uses torture, it's something we can all deal with mentally. It fits the bill. But since the US do it (and who knows who else, the Vatican maybe?!), suddenly torture becomes a "topic", something to be discussed, weighted, like the iPhone price. I've had my share of Youtube clashes with 'Murikans (god loving christians no less) who advocated torture, endorsed it, applauded it, while at the same time denying it happened. The fact that the movie has become controversial is that THESE people are capable of viewing torture as a good thing and this taint has fell on the movie itself.

What I loved about the movie was that it showed US torture as horrible as it is. Torture is torture, but the way the US does it just make you want to puke. I'm a gruesome person, almost an expert on medieval torture. But the modern way is much worse. I'd rather share Ravaillac's fate and be done with in 13 days than end up in Guantanamo for years and years.

 

[grigjd3]

Ever read the lyrics to "Born in the USA" and wonder just why it is that the pro-war neoconservatives seem to love that song? It's like they never actually listened to anything but the refrain.

 

[Pyrian]

I take issue with one point.

I agree entirely. Every article I've read denouncing Greenwald's point has invariably pointed out that his fundamental critique is, in fact, correct: per ZDT, torture led (however indirectly) to finding OBL, an assertion that is both factually incorrect (AFAIK) and politically and ethically/morally and even, yes, pragmatically dangerous.

 

[Blind Sight]

Greenwald's point was solid, it was about the overarching notion that torture was directly or indirectly responsible for finding the location of Osama Bin Laden. A case of 'it didn't work in this one scene' isn't applicable when the entire movie infers that although torture isn't perfect, overall it provided reliable intelligence data for the mission. The problem is doubled when Bigelow goes around saying what an accurate retelling of real-world events the movie is, even when THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE CIA comes forward to say it's inaccurate.

 

[sageoftruth]

I take issue with one point. The fact that the switch to a more 'good cop' approach (offering food, daylight etc.) achieves the desired result is dependent on the torture that preceded it.
Were the prisoner not maltreated beforehand, the offer of mercy would be meaningless. Furthermore, the fact that they can convince him he already betrayed his co-conspirators under duress is dependent on his treatment beforehand having been sufficiently psychologically damaging to put him in a state of mental weakness. It's not a 'different strategy' proving 'enhanced interrogation' to be a failure. Instead, it shows that such techniques, if used as part of a broader plan, can achieve the desired results.

I find your reasoning somewhat compelling, but ultimately flawed. Part of what motivates these people is the assumption that Americans are evil, godless, and will treat them like animals. Even if the "good cop" approach is their opening move, it could still work simply by forcing them to question whether or not they're fighting on the right side. After all, if they are indeed captured by the evil-doers, why is it that they are treating him with dignity and patience?

It is difficult to say whether or not the "good cop" approach would have worked in this particular context as an opening move, but just because it came after torture doesn't necessarily mean that it was entirely dependent on the torture in order to work. In fact, having the "good cop" approach preceded by torture would probably be less effective simply because the terrorist will see it as an empty and manipulative gesture from their sworn enemies. However, if the "good cop" approach is the only one you see, it's harder to justify defending your allies who you know very well would not treat their captives as well as your enemies are treating you.

Basically, what I heard was that it's not about being good or bad to the person. The idea is that trying to break them with pure brutality is going about it the wrong way. Apparently, the most effective form of interrogation so far involves deluding the person into thinking that you already know more about him than you actually do, so that he feels that resistance is pointless and that lying will get him nowhere. In the movie, they did that by saying that he had already revealed the information to them in his ramblings.

 

[BrotherRool]

I always love it when an article spends the first half of a page badmouthing the people whose opinions are disagreed with and the article is going to go one to deconstruct. If your argument is solid you can just show it to us instead of knocking down the people involved first. Perhaps at the end, after you've shown them false you can explain why they came to a false conclusion, heck that even be a nice thing to do 'they aren't film critics for a job so they probably missed this this and this'