The movie left me so disgusted as its message was that torture works.
The idea that torture works is bedrock in the entertainment world, partially because it's a narrative shortcut and shows how far the "hero" is willing to go.
...and even for complete extremism, like pure terrorism.
Still, it's also true that the premise "the system and law enforcement don't work" is really the basis of all superhero narratives. That's how the need for the superheros is justified.
Unfortunately, in real life, "good" and "bad" aren't possible to define, nor are they absolute characteristics.
GP was just drawing the parallel, not implying a real connection.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_social_influence [2] https://www.uic.edu/labs/skitka/public_html/OppTorture.pdf
>"People [in Guantanamo] had already seen the first series, it was hugely popular." Others who were at Guantánamo at the time confirmed her account. Some described to me how the series contributed directly to an environment encouraging those in the interrogation facility to see themselves as being on the front line, and to go further than they otherwise might have
So torturers at Guantanamo had to get lessons on torture from a TV series which, prior to Season 4, was basically torture-free and pro-Muslim?
From Season 4, 24 was fascistic, pro-torture garbage, but it was taking its cue from real life US policy, not directing it.
Yes, in 24 and Zero Dark Thirty it's realistic -- a state military or intelligence agency using torture in a prescribed way. They would actually have received training about effective techniques for torturing people, which is pretty chilling in and of itself.
But you can also watch the 90s Batman cartoon, where Batman holds criminals off of roofs to get them to talk, or the X-men cartoon where Wolverine puts his claws up to someone's chin. It's not strictly "torture", but using fear (of death) to make someone talk is similar to using pain. The person will do whatever is required to end it, whether that involves being truthful or not.
Even worse, you have scenes where James Bond (or some hero) is tortured and doesn't talk. It creates the idea that someone who talks when being tortured is a traitor or is somehow weak. In reality, it's really rare to be able to withstand torture, and the US Dept of Defense doesn't even consider soldiers to have failed their country if they talk.
But Dirty Harry became an archetype in American film. Now there are hundreds of films with the protagonist being a "tough guy cop" who "doesn't play by the book." It's no wonder how our society has become what it is.
Here's Ebert's review: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dirty-harry-1971
You should consider that skill to suffer fools a superpower.
This goes far beyond what the CIA is influencing. It's just a common theme in crime dramas.
What's the last major motion picture where the focus was on the importance of the rights of people accused of crimes? I can't think of many and the ones I can think of are the documentaries about actual cases of abuse.
They don't need checks and balances, because they're always right. How many movies are there where the hero tortures completely the wrong person?
I'm okay with say Die Hard as that's entertainment but these go far beyond with the veneer of "truth"
---
Seriously though, the disgusting narrative over the last 16 years has left me completely numb and disenfranchised from the idea of justice in the US.
There is just a mountain of evidence that we are living in the police-state side of an Empircal Oligarchy in the US.
The Oligarchs experience unfettered financial, political and legal freedom -- whilst their position is protected and enforced by the police-state-complex that punishes the poor or the questioning.
/cynicism
We are witnessing social engineering in action. It has been quite effective.
The CIA and others like it, like our elected officials, is a reflection of who we are. They are a mirror.
I have DECADES of knowledge on this subject. I swear I can refute anything you could possibly espouse.
Maybe, if mirrors could reach back out and change what they are reflecting. Like a fun house mirror.
Their personality is of no matter - I asked their age just to see where they were coming from, its a fair question.
While I have not lived outside the US, I have followed the intelligence apparatus for many years; My brother, a general in the Air force, who was personal doctor the the joint chiefs of staff as their flight surgeon, as well as me who was personal IT handler for the head of DHS... and a long time person in IT in SV... I dont fuck around with my credibility
This country is fucked. The whole system is fucked.
Do I really need to spell it out for you? If you want to say it is NOT fucked -- then please enlighten me!!! PLEASE
I need some hope - but other than what I see what is going on -- THERE IS NONE
So, give me some, please.
Your main problems are income and social inequality. And your tax code.
There are people literally risking their lives so that their children could have a life comparable to yours.
Oh boohoo. Get your shit together.
___
[1] - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/world/europe/dazed-ukraini...
From Wikipedia: In August 2010, a former Pakistani intelligence officer approached the U.S. embassy station chief in Islamabad and offered to provide Bin Laden's location, in return for the $25 million reward, according to a retired senior U.S. intelligence official.[17] This story was corroborated by two U.S. intelligence officials speaking to NBC news, and had been previously reported by intelligence analyst Raelynn Hillhouse.[18][19] The Pakistani official informed U.S. intelligence that Bin Laden had been located by Pakistani ISI in 2006, and held under house arrest near Pakistani intelligence and military centers ever since. The official passed polygraph tests, after which the U.S. began local and satellite surveillance of Bin Laden's Abbottabad residence.[17]
The downside of this is clear, "Foreign vaccination centres are really CIA spying stations!" is now no longer a conspiracy theory, but something that actually happened.
Even I think that, even though with sufficient amount of torture, you can get a guy to say anything you want to hear.
What's contentious is the idea that you can get someone dedicated to reveal a secret before their friends notice their absence and change the secrets. The classic movie plot is something like a bomb disarm code but that's a [fortunately] rare situation and likely futile when e.g. a dedicated extremist who knows they only have to hold out for a short period of time.
It's unwise to caricature your opponents as evil or stupid. Not only is it an impediment to understanding them, but it makes any sort of dialogue impossible.
Consider this video featuring Retired General Wesley Clark talking about plans in the Pentagon (circa 2001) to regime change 7 Middle Eastern countries in 5 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
Assuming there is any truth to this claim (and I'm suspicious because we can't independently verify the claims), the implication is that the US military investigated and drew up plans to free the countries and make their oil available to western nations in order to fuel future economic growth (I'm taking liberties and drawing inference from previous US intervention in Middle Eastern foreign policy). It's not "profit", but it's the long term "security" (which can be extremely subjective) of the US.
I consider torture itself evil under all but the most extreme and rare ticking time bomb scenarios. Little to none of the enhanced interrogation stuff I've read about fits into that category. So that leaves the question of whether the motives are also evil or just stupid.
Doing something that you know doesn't work on the theory it will intimidate is stupid, especially with an enemy that comes from an honor culture that relishes conflict and values martyrdom. Failing to evaluate your techniques for actual success rate is stupid. And so on...
....yyyes? precisely that?
Or are you being super sarcastic? Or something?
> In the police truck on the way to the police station: “Where did you leave the Hyundai?” Denial instead of dissimulation: “It wasn't me.” It was—property stolen from the car was found in his pockets. In the detectives' office: “It's been twenty minutes since you took the car—little tin box like that car—It will heat up like an oven under this sun. Another twenty minutes and the child's dead or brain damaged. Where did you dump the car?” Again: “It wasn't me.”
> Appeals to decency, to reason, to self-interest: “It's not too late; tell us where you left the car and you will only be charged with Take-and-Use. That's just a six month extension of your recognizance.” Threats: “If the child dies I will charge you with Manslaughter!” Sneering, defiant and belligerent; he made no secret of his contempt for the police. Part-way through his umpteenth, “It wasn't me”, a questioner clipped him across the ear as if he were a child, an insult calculated to bring the Islander to his feet to fight, there a body-punch elicited a roar of pain, but he fought back until he lapsed into semi-consciousness under a rain of blows. He quite enjoyed handing out a bit of biffo, but now, kneeling on hands and knees in his own urine, in pain he had never known, he finally realised the beating would go on until he told the police where he had abandoned the child and the car.
> The police officers' statements in the prosecution brief made no mention of the beating; the location of the stolen vehicle and the infant inside it was portrayed as having been volunteered by the defendant. The defendant's counsel availed himself of this falsehood in his plea in mitigation. When found, the stolen child was dehydrated, too weak to cry; there were ice packs and dehydration in the casualty ward but no long-time prognosis on brain damage.
I think the actions of the police are unimpeachable. Had they not tortured the thief, an innocent child would be dead. Now, does that mean I think torture should be legal? Of course not. Do I think the CIA has committed atrocities and violated human rights? Yes! But that doesn't mean torture doesn't work.
It can be, as long as the perpetrator of the torture is willing to be held accountable for it. In the stereotypical '24' scenario, what happens if you torture somebody and don't find out where the bomb that's about to destroy the city is hidden?
In a just world, if you save the city, the governor or the President will likely pardon your crime, so it's all good. If you don't, you should go to prison for a very long time. But it never seems to work out that way, does it? It's all upside for the torturer, no downside. That's about as close to the definition of "evil" as you can get in my book.
We see it in action every time we read about police who step over the line (as in your anecdote) or a berserk prosecutor who seems bent on setting an example or furthering his own career rather than seeking justice. When it comes to violating peoples' rights in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way, there are almost never any consequences for failure.
a) The kid would have been already dead?
b) They didn't get an answer?
c) They got the attribution wrong and tortured an innocent man?
All aside, I don't agree that hiding what they did could be morally right.
In Germany we had a case where during a kidnapping a very high-ranking police official threatened the suspect with torture, which actually got the location of the child (that had already been killed). He put a note what he did in the protocol and handed that to the DA.
He later was sentenced for it (very mildly), and the courts made clear that even this doesn't fly and cannot be excused. And of course we got a big public debate about it during the trial.
You misuse (legally speaking) your position of power to be morally right, at least face the consequences for it. Don't decide for yourself that you deserve to get away with it.
In case of terror suspects, quite a few have emerged innocent which is quite embarrassing in the first place, but understandable. Also, one should question the relevance of any information retrieved after long sustained periods of torture when surely facts on the ground have probably changed significantly.
Moreover this person, in the stanford thing, is a petty thief who is quite likely to fold under pressure since the crime has manageable consequences for him, and he doesn't possess training and motivation to withhold info at all costs. This trait wouldn't be present in case of some death cult, military, or even a serious gang member.
The point is, it isn't correct to make blanket statements like torture wouldn't work, ever. But the prevalence of incidences where some force might work shouldn't be used to justify comic levels torture demonstrated in the recent cases.
And finally, One might however see value in the dampening effect torture has on enemy morale. However, you can't play both sides, pretend to be a great champion of human rights and values and continue to come up with hilariously OTT torture routines. That is the problem US & Allies face regarding this whole torture debate/narrative. You have to own up to the uh assholery.
Their actions were effective but illegal. Effective in that they forced disclosure of the child's location. Illegal for excessive force, denial of due process, etc. Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on.
More broadly, we'd probably convict more criminals if we ditched the legal presumption of innocence and other defendant protections. And of course, it can be heartbreaking and enraging when a palpably guilty defendant escapes justice because of prosecutorial error or other "technicality". Just as those cops were heartbroken and enraged at the arrestee's callous disregard of the child's life. I can imagine how they felt, and I don't know if in their place I'd have had the courage to follow the law.
My point is that the rights we've agreed any of us should have as a defendant in a state criminal action do lead to occasional awful circumstances like those cops faced. I think the more awful the circumstance, the more important it is to uphold those rights. They're fundamentally important, and they're not much use if we only enforce them when it's easy or convenient.
I disagree. It's good to be wary of this sort of thing, but Australia (where this happened) doesn't seem to have a police brutality problem. Had the police done the legal thing, an innocent child would have been cooked alive. So in this case, I'm glad they broke the law.
Laws and morals don't always agree. When they disagree, that is a failing of laws, not morals. Many things are illegal, but moral. For example, it may be necessary to steal or trespass to help save a life. Sometimes, despite your best efforts, those actions are for naught, and the person dies anyway. Does that make those actions wrong? No. And in those cases, you'd be hard-pressed to find a DA willing to prosecute. I'm OK with that.
Again, I think torture should be illegal. I think programs like the CIA's extraordinary rendition are abhorrent. I think Guantanamo Bay will be rightfully condemned by future generations. I'm certain the post-9/11 institutionalization of torture has caused far more harm than good. But I also think that torture can, in some cases, be morally justified. And I think my example demonstrates that.
The law recognizes extenuating circumstances such as those in the example, and provides reasonable outcomes - the DA/Grand Jury could have declined to charge, a jury could have declined to convict, a judge could have vacated a jury's conviction, and/or the governor could have pardoned them if they were sentenced. Under the circumstances, I think the cops would not have been punished. I'd endorse that outcome, given the facts.
But instead, the cops committed crimes and covered them up. That's bad for us, because it reduces transparency of state conduct. Basically, it's bad for our society if its police use illegal force without accountability.
If the right thing, the moral thing to do in a particular situation involves breaking a law, well ok, but we all (through the law) should know about it and we should all (through the law) hold accountable those who acted illegally. That doesn't mean they'll be punished - but IMO moral conduct must include accountability.
I think a better view of these types of situations is to affirm that torture is never legal, nor is it moral - but it might on rare occasion be an effective tactic to achieve a better outcome. But accountability has to be part of the picture.
I think if we had held that as our standard of conduct following 9/11, we would not have Guantanamo as a national shame today. The law can help when morality drifts due to fear and panic.
Standing in contrast, if you are looking for that, is a wonderful two-part episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation called "The Chain of Command."