Editor’s note: the author works at the Berlin-based Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.
Now that Zero Dark Thirty is hitting cinemas in Europe viewers can finally form their own opinion about the debate that has swept over here from the United States for the past month.
The story about “the greatest manhunt in history” traces the steps of the intelligence effort in finding Osama bin Laden, from the first interrogations of captured terrorists in 2002 to the 2011 raid by American special forces on bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. At the center of the plot is Maya, a young and ambitious CIA official. While researching the script, director Kathryn Bigelow and screen writer Mark Boal had access to some high level officials within the CIA and the Defense Department for background interviews. Bigelow has advertised the fact that they used almost journalistic approach to piece together what happened. Since much of the information about the real life events depicted in the movie are still classified and publications about the hunt have been few, part of the film’s appeal is the promise to provide movie goers with new insights.
Most of the controversy the film generated has focused on the first half hour, in which Maya and her CIA colleague Dan interrogate a terror suspect named Ammar. They employ a number of brutal methods, including stress positions, sleep deprivation, starvation, waterboarding and confinement in a box barely larger than the detainee himself. At first Maya is somewhat repulsed by the violence, but she quickly adjusts and is prepared to do whatever it takes to get the detainee to talk. A number of commentators have pointed out that the plot wrongly implies that the use of torture was integral to finding bin Laden.
The sequence of events does indeed seem to suggest that the interrogation of Ammar provided a first clue that set the CIA on the right track. According to Senator John McCain former CIA director Leon Panetta has disputed this version of events. McCain and two of his Senate colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, chair Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, have written a letter to acting CIA director Michael Morell asking for clarification what kind of information CIA officials hat provided to the filmmakers. In the letter, they state that a classified study on the detention and interrogation program by committee staff based on internal CIA records has shown that the decisive information that led to bin Laden had not been gained through coercive techniques.
In this context one dramaturgical decision by the filmmakers that so far has received little attention deserves mentioning. While generally not much except Maya’s immediate surrounding is shown, terrorist attacks are part of the plot at regular intervals. After opening with a sound montage of 9/11 itself, the movie shows an attack on a Saudi oil installation in Khobar in 2004; the London bus bombings of 7/7/2005; the bombing of the Islamabad Marriott hotel in 2008 (Maya is eating there with a colleague and barely survives); the suicide bombing that wiped out almost an entire CIA unit at the US military base Camp Chapman near the Afghan town Khost (Maya loses a close colleague); even the failed attempt to set of a car bomb on Times Square in New York in 2010. As Karen Greenberg has noted, these attacks provide a constant backdrop of fear. But they do more than that. They provide the ticking time bomb scenario that is indispensable to anyone who wants to defend the use of torture. Even advocates of torture only ever justify it as a means of stopping an imminent attack and saving the lives of innocent people. However, in the real world ticking time bomb scenarios rarely if ever happen. The many attacks shown in the film provide an effective substitute. They are not presented as separate events, carried out by local operatives and each with its own particular circumstances, but rather as a steady continuous onslaught of strikes masterminded by the leadership of Al Qaeda. By making this choice the filmmakers turn the hunt for bin Laden into a race against time.
If one wants to legitimize enhanced interrogation, claiming that torture led to bin Laden by itself is not enough. The overwhelming focus of the debate on the role of torture in locating bin Laden neglects an important point. Even in the opinions of advocates of coercion and even in the case of in Laden, bringing a terrorist to justice for acts committed in the past does not justify its use. It is also necessary to make the case that bin Laden is still a danger. If he were an old man hiding out with little communication to the outside world and without much influence on the actions of a lose network of terrorists who increasingly act independent from Al Qaedas leadership, it would be hard to argue that torturing potential informants would be anything but revenge. However, if he is still the central figure continuously plotting attacks from the Middle East to Manhattan…
The point is made explicit in a little-noticed exchange between Maya and her superior. After the failed Times Square bombing Maya presses Joseph Bradley, the CIA station chief in Pakistan, for more ressources to find bin Laden. Bradley tells her that he doesn’t care about bin Laden and that Maya should be more concerned with protecting the homeland. Maya then lectures him about how bin Laden provides the inspiration for all these attacks. She stops just short of saying that if they get him, the attacks will end. Needless to say, in this scene Maya is the one the viewer identifies with. As usual Bradley is just one more obstacle to her doing her job. And the hunt for bin Laden is one great attempt to protect the homeland against further attacks and save the lives of innocent Americans.
This is not to say that the late bin Laden’s had no role whatsoever. He was not hiding in a cave completely cut off from civilization, but lived in a city and was able to communicate through his messenger. But it is questionable how much control he had over the operational activities that led to the diverse terrorist attacks so prominently emphasized throughout the plot. The point is this: There are different ways to tell the story, and, whether intentionally or not, the makers of Zero Dark Thirty consistently tell it in a way that makes the strongest possible case for torture.
There is an interesting divide between the response of people who have been studying the interrogation program critically and traditional film critics. The former point out that it is not possible to remain neutral and that what is left out is as important as what is shown. Not part of the narrative, for example, is the fact that the CIA and the military have detained hundreds if not thousands of innocents; that as many as 100 people or more have died in CIA and military custody; that CIA interrogation have led to false information that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq; and that even within the CIA the enhanced interrogation program was highly controversial. Regular film critics are much more likely to buy the filmmakers’ defense that depiction of torture does not mean endorsement and that the film doesn’t judge, but lets the viewer fill in the blanks. Perhaps this positive response stems from the fact that by the standards of Hollywood the use of manipulative stylistic devices is restrained. The pathos in the dialogue is kept to a minimum, music is used sparingly. But as Matt Taibbi vividly describes the film will hardly leave most spectators ambivalent about the events depicted. Maya, the protagonist, is no anti-hero. The viewer identifies with her throughout her struggles and setbacks until the final triumph. And Maya is not ambivalent about torture. Rather than using artistic gimmics, the films judgement is integrated in the plot itself, in the sequence events are presented, and indeed by what is included as well as what is left out.
Why is this so important? After all, Hollywood is known to take its liberties with dramatizations based on real events. As we know from the experience with the popular TV show “24”, depictions of the good guy torturing on screen can be quite influential. Among those who referred to “24” in discussions about enhanced interrogation techniques were Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and John Yoo who during his tenure in the Office of the Legal Council in George W. Bush’s Justice Department authored of some of the infamous “torture memos.” The show was so popular with members of the military that the Pentagon sent a representative to try to convince the producers of 24 to tone down the torture scenes. The military leadership feared that Jack Bauer could have negative consequence on the behavior of the troops stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
“24” was quite obviously a work of fiction. Still its many instances of ticking time bombs proved irresistable to those who wanted to argue in favor of the use of coercive interrogation techiques. For many viewers, Zero Dark Thirty may appear to be an authoritative if unofficial record of how the US got bin Laden. Imagine how much ammunition that provides to those who want to justify the CIA interrogation program.