5 Ways Zero Dark Thirty Criticizes Torture

zerodarkthirty 5 Ways Zero Dark Thirty Criticizes Torture

It’s been frustrating to witness the discussion surrounding the complexities and ambiguities within Zero Dark Thirty devolve into people shouting back and forth whether the film shows torture as either awesome or the worst. Whether you have ignorant fools such as Sean Hannity and Liz Cheney saying it’s awesome for showing how effective “enhanced interrogation” is or the liberal stalwarts like Glenn Greenwald blasting the movie for not focusing entirely on characters decrying the use of torture, the conversation is being dominated by people primarily looking to voice their own views on torture and using the movie as a topical means by which to do so. I’m all for discussing torture in this way—and in the interest of full disclosure, stand fairly firmly on the side of the Greenwald camp—but if you’re going to reference the movie, you need to know what you’re talking about.

These people don’t know what they’re talking about. The film critic community has pointed out a lot of errors that have been made by political columnists analysing the film, but there’s still been an overwhelming impression by the casual moviegoing public that this movie is a pro-torture, hurrah hurrah we got Bin Laden type movie. It’s neither of these, but what I want to focus on for the moment is the torture stuff, because that’s the easiest to refute. It’s also somewhat central to the point of the movie, but not in the way these commentators think it is or want it to be. More on that later. First, let’s detail the ways the movie complicates the popular narratives on torture and interrogation and ultimately criticizes the entire program the US government was responsible for. FYI, it’s probably best to go through this after having seen the movie or it will make little sense/give away some important details that are better to experience on screen.

Continue reading on the next page…

http://www.facebook.com/chris.prust.96 Chris Prust

Great article and great movie! I agree 100%.
Daniela

You’re inaccurately describing the opening interrogation scenes with Ammar, specificially the ruse or trick that was used to help get the confession that was central to the movie’s narrative.

At a CIA black site, Dan and Maya are interrogating Ammar, an Al Qaeda money man and nephew of the September 11th mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Despite attempts at coercion, Dan fails to elicit information regarding the Saudi Group that could have possibly prevented the Khobar attack in 2004. So in this respect, the interrogators fail. However, soon thereafter, Maya devises a ruse: because Ammar had been brutalized by prolonged sleep deprivation, she believes Ammar can be bluffed and manipulated. “Short-term memory loss,” Dan later tells us, is a consequence of sleep deprivation. So Maya and Dan inform Ammar that he had coughed up information after he was kept awake for 96 hours, helping to prevent the Khobar attack. As a result, Ammar feels comfortable talking over a meal because he is under the false impression that he has already spilled operational secrets to his interrogators and that his interrogators are happy with him. During this lunch, when Ammar balks at naming Al Qaeda colleagues who were with him in Afghanistan, Dan tells Ammar the following: “I could always go and eat with some other dude and hang you back up to the ceiling.” Right after Dan says this, Ammar gives up some war names, including that of Abu Ahmed al Kuwaiti, the Bin Laden courier who would eventually lead the CIA to the now-famous compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

Per the scene, the ruse and eventual confession is contingent on the past use of 96 hours of sleep deprivation, Ammar’s extrajudicial detention at a black site without any contact to the outside world, and the threat of more torture. You cannot separate previous torture and the possibility of more torture from the key piece of information that was obtained since it was all part of the process, per the movie’s dialogue.

Also, you intentionally leave out various other scenes that explicitly or subtely show the utility of torture. For example, when Maya threatens a detainee with Israeli torture, the detainee responds: “I have no wish to be tortured again. Ask me a question and I will answer it.” This detainee goes on to tell Maya that Abu Ahmed is Bin Laden’s “most trusted courier.”
Aquila89

So, Maya isn’t supposed to be a hero. Too bad nobody told this to Jessica Chastain. In an interview with Time magazine, she said this about the woman who is the basis for Maya: “I wanted to scream
it from the rooftops that there was a woman that really should be
acknowledged and celebrated.” Chastain also said Maya is very similar to
Bigelow, and she means that as a compliment. She made similar comments
in her Golden Globe speech. Based on her statements, she sees Maya as an unambiguous hero and a feminist role model.
Alisa

I just can not believe…. ….read it here http://2.gp/qmuE