Kathryn Bigelow - Torture Apologist?

**Lester C.** · 12-11-2012, 12:18 AM

Americans that are anti-torture and pro civil liberties have lost the argument and are very much in the minority. Obama has continued all the evil shit, Bush got up and running regarding both issues and has expanded it to include United States citizens. If Romney would have won, we would still be in the same boat. This was one of the few issues that was a nonissue on the campaign trail because both parties see eye to eye on it. It makes me sad and angry but there you go.

**stevapalooza** · 12-11-2012, 01:13 AM

Obama doesn't strike me as the pro-torture type. If he has kept these policies in place, maybe there's a good reason for it. Like maybe they're a necessary evil. No one is anti-torture. It's just a matter of how bad things have to get before you finally condone it. Well maybe things HAVE gotten that bad. That certainly seems to be Obama's stance, and he has better info on the world situation than I do. When even a guy like him says "maybe we shouldn't be so quick to take torture off the table", that says a lot about the state of things.

**Lester C.** · 12-11-2012, 02:08 AM

This website provides a timeline of all the stuff Bush started and Obama continued, legalized and or expanded. It's pretty damning and I'd rather not have any of the laws on the books, but if I had to do it again ten times, I would still vote for Obama over Romney. People I have great respect for like Barry Eisler felt so strongly on this issue he chose not to vote because of this issue along with the peel-back of many of our civil liberties but not voting usually means the greater of two evils win so I vote even though I feel like I’m voting for the lesser of two bastards at least on these two issues.

**ShaunN** · 12-11-2012, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by stevapalooza

Obama doesn't strike me as the pro-torture type. If he has kept these policies in place, maybe there's a good reason for it. Like maybe they're a necessary evil. No one is anti-torture. It's just a matter of how bad things have to get before you finally condone it. Well maybe things HAVE gotten that bad. That certainly seems to be Obama's stance, and he has better info on the world situation than I do. When even a guy like him says "maybe we shouldn't be so quick to take torture off the table", that says a lot about the state of things.

This is just wrong. Torture doesn't work, for the clear reason that people say anything to avoid the pain. My understanding is that Obama has stopped the torture; what he has done that has evoked a lot of anger is the expansion of the drone program, which has killed (at least) 800 civilians since he ramped it up.

Here is an article by Marlow Stern which argues that the critics have misunderstood the film and the torture scenes.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...e-torture.html

Stern argues that what the film shows is that it is when the CIA is not torturing people that it actually gets usable information from them, particularly the one man who is the subject of two torture scenes. It is when he is fed and treated humanely that he gives the CIA useful intelligence. I am skeptical about this, since this kind of scene can also be shown as the "good cop/bad cop" routine, just on a different scale. It may suggest that torturing this man was key to getting him to the point where he was willing to respond to positive actions.

I am going to read more about this before I make any decisions. I don't want to spend my money supporting a film that advocates torture. That was certainly one of the reasons I never bothered with "24" and I don't want to change that policy.

**zemo** · 12-11-2012, 02:29 AM

Originally Posted by stevapalooza

Obama doesn't strike me as the pro-torture type. If he has kept these policies in place, maybe there's a good reason for it. Like maybe they're a necessary evil. No one is anti-torture. It's just a matter of how bad things have to get before you finally condone it. Well maybe things HAVE gotten that bad. That certainly seems to be Obama's stance, and he has better info on the world situation than I do. When even a guy like him says "maybe we shouldn't be so quick to take torture off the table", that says a lot about the state of things.

Honestly said, every thinking person should be against torture. You don't get any truths that way anyway, so you let your victim lose their humanity and lose your own along the line too. Torture doesn't work, that has been prove. It's just an extreme way to vent anger at a situation that is outside your control.

**Danimal** · 12-11-2012, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by zemo

Honestly said, every thinking person should be against torture. You don't get any truths that way anyway, so you let your victim lose their humanity and lose your own along the line too. Torture doesn't work, that has been prove. It's just an extreme way to vent anger at a situation that is outside your control.

I agree with this. The idea that no one is "anti-torture" baffled me, as I am strongly against torture. Like you said, you lose your humanity and it's ineffective. There's no good reason to do it outside of sadism.

**motorfirebox** · 12-11-2012, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by stevapalooza

Obama doesn't strike me as the pro-torture type. If he has kept these policies in place, maybe there's a good reason for it. Like maybe they're a necessary evil. No one is anti-torture. It's just a matter of how bad things have to get before you finally condone it. Well maybe things HAVE gotten that bad. That certainly seems to be Obama's stance, and he has better info on the world situation than I do. When even a guy like him says "maybe we shouldn't be so quick to take torture off the table", that says a lot about the state of things.

Uh, where are you getting your information? The general consensus is that Obama pretty effectively ended the use of torture in the US. What policies, specifically, is Obama keeping around that leads you to believe he's holding the torture card in reserve?

**The Xenos** · 12-11-2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by zemo

Going to make myself unpopular: Osama bin Laden was found through a big helping of information from a Pakistani doctor, setting up a fake polio drive to collect intel (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...pakistan-polio). This lead to a ban on polio vaccination by the Taliban. While this is obviously unreasonable and the Taliban are the main culprits, I can not help but feel that the revenge for 9/11 has been carried out on the backs of Afghan children.

Now, I was not one to cheer the capture of Bin Laden. I find it a hollow fake victory in a world where there are still dozens of assholes to take the place of this one old asshole and will likely use him as a martyr. I am disgusted by Obama playing along with Bush's Mission Accomplished double plus good War on Terror.

Yet I don't rally agree with this equivalence. While that is horrible that such a thing happened to stop vaccination in the country, I do not put it fully on that doctor or the US incursion. I put it majorly on the Taliban, a regime which is undoubtedly evil if they would rather not treat their children properly to protect some disgusting old fart terrorist.

**stevapalooza** · 12-11-2012, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by motorfirebox

Uh, where are you getting your information? The general consensus is that Obama pretty effectively ended the use of torture in the US. What policies, specifically, is Obama keeping around that leads you to believe he's holding the torture card in reserve?

He did? Ooooh. Then scratch that.

**EmarAndZeb** · 12-11-2012, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by motorfirebox

Uh, where are you getting your information? The general consensus is that Obama pretty effectively ended the use of torture in the US. What policies, specifically, is Obama keeping around that leads you to believe he's holding the torture card in reserve?

It's true he signed that order, and good on him for that; however, the standards that said order holds interrogators to leave a disturbing amount of wiggle room for continuing "*nudge*wink*Don't torture, guys!" type of operations. You'll also note that no one will be prosecuted for their involvement in the "harsh tactics" employed under the Bush administration. It's understandable why a president wouldn't want to open the door to prosecution of underlings following the orders of a previous administration, but let's be real, here: it's still an instance of Realpolitik trumping morality, and arguably the rule of law.

Be aware, too, that even the fairly timid and "don't rock the boat"-y PolitiFact lists his position on "extreme rendition"* as one of "compromise." For one, no matter what the stated policy is, the extreme secrecy surrounding anything and everything to do with counterterrorism makes it nigh impossible to verify if said policy is being followed. And, as always, there are apparently loopholes:

However, Malinowski added that a "big problem” is that the Obama administration "has placed a much greater emphasis on asking foreign intelligence and security services to take the lead in arresting terrorism suspects around the world.”

For instance, he said, "instead of having the CIA detain an Egyptian, and then rendering him to Egypt, the U.S. is now more likely to pass the intelligence to the Egyptians and ask them to make the arrest themselves. That's not technically a rendition – and it's not prohibited by human rights treaties in the way some renditions are -- but some would argue that it has the same effect. And because these detainees never pass through U.S. hands, we have no information about how many people are involved and where they end up detained.'