• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'

You got my quote mostly right; however, I don't agree that you've shown quite what you think you have. People accused of crimes have due process. The have rights. They can appeal. A wrong can even be righted. When we take someone and motor true them, there is no due process, no trial, no conviction, no appeal, no rights. It isn't punishment nor rehabilitation. It is brutality, and often ineffective brutality. Guards who brutalize convicted prisoners in our system break he law and in turn can be punished. When prisoners do so o other prisoners, they too can and should be held accountable. The behavior is defended by the system or those who govern prisons, not openly. And good people can take legal action. None if that describes what we have done with torture. Even in the face of learning we tortured or allowed others to torture innocent people, we still have people defending the indefensible.

No, I don't buy that there is any comparison to those convicted of crimes.

I'll tell you this as well, something I learned from an old first Sargent that I think has proven true. We do those who torture an injustice. Solders have to home and live with what thy do. I was discussing this recently with a vet who told me he participated in such acts, and felt they were right. We discussed the effect on him. He listen, talked, and eventually admitted he didn't sleep well, and that his wife worried about him. We do them no favors, and there are more effective ways.

Btw, I'd worry more about those who felt nothing while brutalizing another human being.

The concept of due process itself is subjective. Let's just say for a moment that we bring Taliban POWs back to American soil to be tried in American courts. Well, who gives us the right to remove them from their homeland? And what if they don't recognize the authority of the American courts? "Due Process" is a construct of law that is supposed to equally apply the law to all... but what if the laws themselves are unjust, or the treatment received after receiving due process? And what about the glaring fact that, even in our own country, some get more due process than others? The entire system that is the basis of your argument crumbles under scrutiny, because human beings are imperfect. Prison guards get away with breaking their own rules every single hour of every single day, because the only witnesses to their actions are deemed "uncredible". And to really drive the point home, every single law enforcement officer in this country is imbued with a certain amount of discretionary authority - they can choose to bring someone in or let them go, based on whatever information the officer has (or doesn't have) at that time. You can be arrested for noncompliance with a police command, or for a minor infraction that carries no jail time with it, or even over a case of mistaken identity(!), and your only recourse is to go with the officer and sort it out later... because, if you do resist that "unjust" and unlawful arrest, THAT is actually a crime, for which you can be punished! It's a crazy world we live in.

But once someone has gone through this due process of law, what then? Is solitary confinement suddenly not emotionally scarring, because that person got there through due process? Actually, now that I mention it, solitary confinement is at the discretion of the Warden... which means there is no due process for that specific sentence. Due process can land someone in prison, but what happens to them once they are there is largely discretionary. But I digress. What about due process on the battlefield? If egalitarian practice is the cornerstone of due process, why can't the Rules Of Engagement be used as "law", and satisfy the code of due process if equally applied to all?

I'll say again, I think the fact that some of the less savory techniques we have are so effective is very unfortunate. I cannot condone their use... but I also cannot condone time-sensitive intelligence to rot in an enemy combatant's brain if people are going to die. I'm glad I've never been in the situation where I had to perform such acts, but a part of me, however small, is grateful for the fact that someone is there to commit such acts if necessary.

Now we can argue what constitutes "necessary" all day long!
 
The concept of due process itself is subjective. Let's just say for a moment that we bring Taliban POWs back to American soil to be tried in American courts. Well, who gives us the right to remove them from their homeland? And what if they don't recognize the authority of the American courts? "Due Process" is a construct of law that is supposed to equally apply the law to all... but what if the laws themselves are unjust, or the treatment received after receiving due process? And what about the glaring fact that, even in our own country, some get more due process than others? The entire system that is the basis of your argument crumbles under scrutiny, because human beings are imperfect. Prison guards get away with breaking their own rules every single hour of every single day, because the only witnesses to their actions are deemed "uncredible". And to really drive the point home, every single law enforcement officer in this country is imbued with a certain amount of discretionary authority - they can choose to bring someone in or let them go, based on whatever information the officer has (or doesn't have) at that time. You can be arrested for noncompliance with a police command, or for a minor infraction that carries no jail time with it, or even over a case of mistaken identity(!), and your only recourse is to go with the officer and sort it out later... because, if you do resist that "unjust" and unlawful arrest, THAT is actually a crime, for which you can be punished! It's a crazy world we live in.

But once someone has gone through this due process of law, what then? Is solitary confinement suddenly not emotionally scarring, because that person got there through due process? Actually, now that I mention it, solitary confinement is at the discretion of the Warden... which means there is no due process for that specific sentence. Due process can land someone in prison, but what happens to them once they are there is largely discretionary. But I digress. What about due process on the battlefield? If egalitarian practice is the cornerstone of due process, why can't the Rules Of Engagement be used as "law", and satisfy the code of due process if equally applied to all?

I'll say again, I think the fact that some of the less savory techniques we have are so effective is very unfortunate. I cannot condone their use... but I also cannot condone time-sensitive intelligence to rot in an enemy combatant's brain if people are going to die. I'm glad I've never been in the situation where I had to perform such acts, but a part of me, however small, is grateful for the fact that someone is there to commit such acts if necessary.

Now we can argue what constitutes "necessary" all day long!

Not sure we have any right at all to mess with the Taliban, having not properly declared war.

Due process is not quite as arbitrary as you make out. It gives the accused opportunity to defend him or herself. This concept is important and essential to our justice system. I don't know how to convince you of his, but the difference is significant.

Secondly, the scarring of solitary is significantly less than found with torture, not to mention most are not in solitary. Prison, though far from perfect, is not in anyway equal or comparable to torturing people.
 
Not sure we have any right at all to mess with the Taliban, having not properly declared war.
In that case, we had no right to intervene in Libya. We killed people there, you know.

Due process is not quite as arbitrary as you make out. It gives the accused opportunity to defend him or herself. This concept is important and essential to our justice system. I don't know how to convince you of his, but the difference is significant.

Secondly, the scarring of solitary is significantly less than found with torture, not to mention most are not in solitary. Prison, though far from perfect, is not in anyway equal or comparable to torturing people.

Due Process as a concept is not arbitrary, that is true. But it is not carried out when something as simple as wealth can avert it. Don't even pretend that the wealthy don't have an easier time in court than the poor. And again, we were talking about certain acts that are defined as "torture". Well guess what, solitary confinement was considered torture when the Abu Ghraib scandal was going on, as well as national attention on GitMo. What about shame... is that torturous? Stripped naked and subjected to ridicule? That happens every time you process into a jail or prison. Loud rock music and dogs were also considered torture. So, while the concept of due process may not be arbitrary, the definition of torture most definitely is, as well as what actions in what settings are defined as torture.

Torture needs not be physical. We have already established that. And when we talk about things like waterboarding, there is no element of physical harm; it is psychologically traumatic. Well, so is isolated confinement!
 
Not sure we have any right at all to mess with the Taliban, having not properly declared war.
In that case, we had no right to intervene in Libya. We killed people there, you know.



Due Process as a concept is not arbitrary, that is true. But it is not carried out when something as simple as wealth can avert it. Don't even pretend that the wealthy don't have an easier time in court than the poor. And again, we were talking about certain acts that are defined as "torture". Well guess what, solitary confinement was considered torture when the Abu Ghraib scandal was going on, as well as national attention on GitMo. What about shame... is that torturous? Stripped naked and subjected to ridicule? That happens every time you process into a jail or prison. Loud rock music and dogs were also considered torture. So, while the concept of due process may not be arbitrary, the definition of torture most definitely is, as well as what actions in what settings are defined as torture.

Torture needs not be physical. We have already established that. And when we talk about things like waterboarding, there is no element of physical harm; it is psychologically traumatic. Well, so is isolated confinement!

Not a big fan of Libya, but we had more legal right than either Afghanistan or Iraq. But we'd be better off as a country if we returned to cut ally declaring war, and stop with the imperialism.

Even wealth isn't arbitrary, nor talent. But we account for as much as a free country can. Still, it is this process that makes a major difference.

Now, the more important point, not all mental anguish is equal. What the prisoner experiences in comparison the the torture victim as as different as lightening and a lightening bug. They are not comparable.
 
Not sure we have any right at all to mess with the Taliban, having not properly declared war.

Not a big fan of Libya, but we had more legal right than either Afghanistan or Iraq. But we'd be better off as a country if we returned to cut ally declaring war, and stop with the imperialism.

Even wealth isn't arbitrary, nor talent. But we account for as much as a free country can. Still, it is this process that makes a major difference.

Now, the more important point, not all mental anguish is equal. What the prisoner experiences in comparison the the torture victim as as different as lightening and a lightening bug. They are not comparable.

My entire point this thread has been that there is no clearly drawn line in the sand. There are some pretty atrocious things we have passively given our blessing to as a society for the ends those means create, solitary confinement being one of them. Morals are always a question of the ends and the means. And can we justify something like waterboarding, if it can be deemed "necessary"?

Look, I'm not advocating torture, anymore than I am advocating our prison system. But we as a species are very good at talking ourselves into some pretty horrible stuff, for the sake of... whatever that horrible stuff yields as a benefit. I think it's pretty naive to assume everything done in a CIA "black site" is "torture," and that "torture" is "bad," because there is a lot of grey area in the world of global politics. In a perfect world, there would be no need and therefor no reason to use enhanced interrogation techniques, because there would be no reason to interrogate in the first place. Nor sending anyone to prison, for that matter.

But I recognize that we do not live in a perfect world.

"Torture" itself is a loaded word. If you apply the word "torture" to something, you've already passed the debate over whether or not it is torturous. All of the definitions of "torture" involve some level of pain, often called excruciating, but none limit that definition to physical pain. In this regard, all we need is the systematic application of pain of any sort, and for any reason. I suppose people from abusive families suffer "torture" on a daily basis, as well as prisoners, menial office employees who do not like their jobs, and even kids who suffer test anxiety while taking their finals.
 
Define "due process".

You seem to be quick to judge me, but it looks like you haven't a clue where I am coming from or what the basis of my argument is.

Good. Please tell me where you're at and what the basis of your argument is. I'm all eyes, or ears, as the case may be. Apologies if I have misinterpreted your words. :peace

Due process is what it has always been in this country--requiring actions by all 3 parts of government, including the judiciary.
 
My entire point this thread has been that there is no clearly drawn line in the sand. There are some pretty atrocious things we have passively given our blessing to as a society for the ends those means create, solitary confinement being one of them. Morals are always a question of the ends and the means. And can we justify something like waterboarding, if it can be deemed "necessary"?

Look, I'm not advocating torture, anymore than I am advocating our prison system. But we as a species are very good at talking ourselves into some pretty horrible stuff, for the sake of... whatever that horrible stuff yields as a benefit. I think it's pretty naive to assume everything done in a CIA "black site" is "torture," and that "torture" is "bad," because there is a lot of grey area in the world of global politics. In a perfect world, there would be no need and therefor no reason to use enhanced interrogation techniques, because there would be no reason to interrogate in the first place. Nor sending anyone to prison, for that matter.

But I recognize that we do not live in a perfect world.

"Torture" itself is a loaded word. If you apply the word "torture" to something, you've already passed the debate over whether or not it is torturous. All of the definitions of "torture" involve some level of pain, often called excruciating, but none limit that definition to physical pain. In this regard, all we need is the systematic application of pain of any sort, and for any reason. I suppose people from abusive families suffer "torture" on a daily basis, as well as prisoners, menial office employees who do not like their jobs, and even kids who suffer test anxiety while taking their finals.

Perfectly clear? No. But not as blury as some like to make it. We knew waterboarding was torture before Iraq and defined it as such. Definitions are not that maluable. And yes, a judgement has been passed. As I said, it wasn't new. Long before us that judgment was passed. Those who wanted to skirt around the issue tried to create doubt where there wasn't any real doubt. And much like what what you did with prisons, no one is really standing up and saying abusing family members and spouses is OK. Much of it is against the law. There are options and help. No government saying that it is OK to beat your wife or molest your children. We know it is wrong, and it has no seal of approval from the government, or even the society. I keep repeating, these differences matter.
 
[h=1]Bin Laden film attacked for 'perpetuating torture myth'[/h]So, apparently three senators are upset that a Hollywood movie is less than 100% factually accurate. In other news, one M. Mouse is revealed to be a cartoon rodent and dinosaurs can't really be cloned from DNA locked in amber for millions of years.

Really? Is this what members of Congress are drawing a salary for doing?

Update:

Well, the CIA seems to agree with them. Some things just need saying. A film that purports to be historically accurate should be called when it's not:

The CIA has made a rare public statement on the soon-to-be-released film about the capture of Usama bin Laden, "Zero Dark Thirty."
"I would not normally comment on a Hollywood film, but I think it's important to put (the film,) which deals with one of the most significant achievements in our history, into some context," acting CIA Director Mike Morell said Friday.
He said the film addresses the successful hunt for Bin Laden but in doing so"takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate."


Read more: Morell calls 'Zero Dark Thirty' not realistic in rare CIA public statement | Fox News
 
Perfectly clear? No. But not as blury as some like to make it. We knew waterboarding was torture before Iraq and defined it as such. Definitions are not that maluable. And yes, a judgement has been passed. As I said, it wasn't new. Long before us that judgment was passed. Those who wanted to skirt around the issue tried to create doubt where there wasn't any real doubt. And much like what what you did with prisons, no one is really standing up and saying abusing family members and spouses is OK. Much of it is against the law. There are options and help. No government saying that it is OK to beat your wife or molest your children. We know it is wrong, and it has no seal of approval from the government, or even the society. I keep repeating, these differences matter.

And those are all very good points. However, we don't find any credible reason for child or spouse abuse. There is no justification that anyone has come up with to make it "ok." We have, however, justified such things forced kidnapping and confinement, segregation and isolation, and even killing. Has it ever been impressed upon you that humanity has multiple words for "killing," that denote differences in legal status? For example, "murder" is an illegal (unjustifiable) killing, whereas "manslaughter" is used for accidental or unintentional killing, often through demonstrable negligence. Then there is "combat", the killing "enemy combatants," which is justifiable on the world's stage and even in religious texts. We also have "capital punishment," which is the sanctioned killing of a citizen by their government (sanctioned, of course, by that government). The end result is the same - a dead person - yet there are various ways to label the act that all have different connotations.

Certain acts of "torture" are no different. Solitary confinement is torturous, yet it has the tacit approval of those not within the prison system. So, if we as a society decide that something like waterboarding isn't torture... does that mean it isn't? I sense this is the thrust of your argument, where the due process part stemmed from anyway. And it is a good thrust. But it is naive.

Take the act of killing, for example. I am going to assume that you do not wish to kill anyone with your own hands, for any reason. But imagine someone is holding you hostage as part of a bank robbery... would you not be grateful for a resolution to that conflict, even if someone else had to kill the person holding you hostage (in order to prevent that person from killing you)? A part of you DOES support killing, on some level, if there is an immediate and direct benefit to you. You may not want to get your hands bloody, but some part of you is no doubt grateful that there are "good guys" that are willing to do it for you.

So why would you shut the door on things you label "torture", if there is a similar benefit to you as a result? That was one of the chief arguments against waterboarding back when that controversy was blowing up - it doesn't work, so there is no reason to do it. The problem with that argument is that it is wrong. Enhanced interrogation techniques do work, or else they wouldn't be used! But there is a moral argument to be made against the use of such tactics, I readily agree. The "should" in this case is the entirety of the argument. And I can easily paint a picture where "should" can be justified. Again, this isn't support for such action, but to play devil's advocate, it is easy to concoct a situation where the efficacy of what you call "torture" can ethically justify it's use.
 
A film that purports to be historically accurate should be called when it's not:
Really? All of them? Because that would be, ALL of them.

Braveheart - William Wallace seduces the future Queen Isabel of England even though said Issy was 3 when Wallace was executed.
The Patriot - decided that the tricky bit where the British won the Battle of Guildford Court House should be ignored, so the Americans win.
The Untouchables - who gets the credit for nailing Capone? Elliot Ness or tax inspector Franklin J. Wilson?
U-571 - has the US capturing the first Enigma machine from a U-boat in 1944, when actually that would have been HMS Bulldog's 1941 capture of 2 machines from a German spy ship.
Battle of the Bulge - really, where to start? Wrong landscape, wrong weapons, wrong time-line, wrong explanation.
Pearl Harbour - everyone knows this, don't they? Virtually nothing was historically accurate.
The Alamo - Alamo historian Timothy Todish said, "there is not a single scene in The Alamo which corresponds to a historically verifiable incident."
Saving Private Ryan - in which the US liberated France single-handedly.

The list goes on and on and I don't recall Senators having gotten their panties wadded over all of these.
 
When the law said due process is based on results in inhumane acts against individuals, can that really be considered "right"? That was your contention, that "rightness" can't happen without either permission or due process. But when due process, dutifully carried out to the letter of the law on an egalitarian basis, results in inhumane treatment.... can that still be considered "right"?

"Rights" are not the same as something being "right". It seems like that is what you are saying and I have no idea why...

In essence it is different, but in practice it is the same. And even in intent it is the same - prison is used as a punitive action, every bit as much as a "corrective" action. We "punish" people by sending them to a place they don't want to go to, where they have no choice or freedom and very few rights.

As it should be...

Yet, you and the rest of polite society condone this.

And why not?

But it is interesting that you condone punishment for wrong-doing. Who decides what is considered "wrong-doing"? And who decides what a "just" punishment is? You? Me? Us, collectively? You condone punishment, which means you condone coercion of force on another person (that is, an act done to them against their will). Can this not leave psychological scars? And if it does... how different is it than torture? Further, if we can justify the means with the ends and decide that sending people to prison (unwilling confinement, reduced liberty, huge potential for rape and other assaults), then why should we draw a seemingly arbitrary line at what you consider "torture"? If the ends justify the means, and it does work to extract information, then why is it considered over the line when something like prison isn't?

You make a compelling argument that most parents torture...
 
U-571 - has the US capturing the first Enigma machine from a U-boat in 1944, when actually that would have been HMS Bulldog's 1941 capture of 2 machines from a German spy ship.

The US Navy captured one in 1944

Pearl Harbour - everyone knows this, don't they? Virtually nothing was historically accurate.

The Japanese attacked the Americans at Pearl Harbor.
Ships were hit including the USS Arizona.
A Couple of fighters got off the ground
The Doolittle Raid that used B-25s
Etc.

Saving Private Ryan - in which the US liberated France single-handedly.

This was not suggested nor implied once anywhere in the film.
 
The US Navy captured one in 1944
Yes, just not the one that allowed the Allies to crack the code; that happened 3 years earlier.



The Japanese attacked the Americans at Pearl Harbor.
Ships were hit including the USS Arizona.
A Couple of fighters got off the ground
The Doolittle Raid that used B-25s
Etc.
Well, it's unlikely they'd go the whole hog and suggest it was a US victory.


This was not suggested nor implied once anywhere in the film.
It was not explicitly suggested, but it was heavily, heavily implied.
 
Yes, just not the one that allowed the Allies to crack the code; that happened 3 years earlier.

The movie didn't imply that this was the only or first Enigma aquired as far as I can remember, and I just watched it two days ago.

Well, it's unlikely they'd go the whole hog and suggest it was a US victory.

From the crap movie that it was it sure looked like the US got it's ass handed to it pretty clearly...

It was not explicitly suggested, but it was heavily, heavily implied.

What? Seriously? Not once was it implied. They showed the experience of some US soldiers on the beach of Omaha (which was a US beach so you aren't going to see anything but Americans) and then a US operation to save a US soldier who hooked up with a US outfit... the language never implied anything about anything and if you are taking the conversation between Sam Malone and Hanks to say that it is the US capturing St Lo to Cherbourg to whatever to Paris to Berlin then that is being taken out of context. That was the Allied strategy... not a US one.

I am sincerely shocked. I actually can't believe that a couple of you would even begin to come to such a conclusion.
 
The movie didn't imply that this was the only or first Enigma aquired as far as I can remember, and I just watched it two days ago.
In how many scenes is it emphasised how important this incident is in allowing the Allies to decode the enemy's communications. In truth it was not.



From the crap movie that it was it sure looked like the US got it's ass handed to it pretty clearly...
You miss the point. It's not that it claimed otherwise, it's that the factual details are a hotch-potch of half-truths and inventions. Bigelow isn't being criticised for claiming that Bin Laden wasn't killed, but of the factual details about how the intel was gathered.


What? Seriously? Not once was it implied. They showed the experience of some US soldiers on the beach of Omaha (which was a US beach so you aren't going to see anything but Americans) and then a US operation to save a US soldier who hooked up with a US outfit... the language never implied anything about anything and if you are taking the conversation between Sam Malone and Hanks to say that it is the US capturing St Lo to Cherbourg to whatever to Paris to Berlin then that is being taken out of context. That was the Allied strategy... not a US one.

I am sincerely shocked. I actually can't believe that a couple of you would even begin to come to such a conclusion.

It's not just a couple of posters on DP. You'll find many commentators and reviewers thought so too...

But whether or not this is an honest account of World War Two is some-thing the glowing American reviews have ignored. And although the combat realism and period authenticity can't be questioned, other things will stick in the throats of non-American audiences.

Take the no-show of any Allies. While this is forgivable for Omaha Beach (a uniquely American ****-up), it's harder to explain as Captain Miller's eight-man unit move inland. Where are the British, the French, the Polish or the Canadians?

Total Film magazine

He has already revised World War II history with his American flag-waving epics Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.

But now Steven Spielberg is set to further antagonise the British military, and the SAS Regiment in particular, with his latest cinematic offering.

Mail Online

Hollywood revising history shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

gotta say bull ****
i have been on these boards for a number of years
cross swords with will more often than i agree with him
but in all that time he has always been straight up
one of the few who offers facts to back up his positions

you on the other hand, not so much
if there is any debate about one's credibility, you are certain to lose that argument

I am glad you get on well with Will. I also acknowledge your feelings as it concerns my credibility. I am sure you have a very good reason for feeling that way. After doing a little homework, I have discovered the only time you may possibly feel I am credible is when I am addressing Navy Pride. While some may see that as selective, I see it as you defending a friend . . . and that's a good thing. Nicely done.
 
Last edited:
In how many scenes is it emphasised how important this incident is in allowing the Allies to decode the enemy's communications. In truth it was not.

I don't recall that but I do recall them saying over and over that the Germans should never find out that they stole the Enigma because they would change the code as a result. Big difference.

You miss the point. It's not that it claimed otherwise, it's that the factual details are a hotch-potch of half-truths and inventions. Bigelow isn't being criticised for claiming that Bin Laden wasn't killed, but of the factual details about how the intel was gathered.

Is this film a documentary?

It's not just a couple of posters on DP. You'll find many commentators and reviewers thought so too...

I am a pretty smart guy... majored in History with a focus on WWII, not that it is important, and those guys and anybody else that has the stance being portrayed are just flat out wrong.

Hollywood revising history shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

They are movies to entertain... it is not a conspiracy.
 
I don't recall that but I do recall them saying over and over that the Germans should never find out that they stole the Enigma because they would change the code as a result. Big difference.



Is this film a documentary?



I am a pretty smart guy... majored in History with a focus on WWII, not that it is important, and those guys and anybody else that has the stance being portrayed are just flat out wrong.



They are movies to entertain... it is not a conspiracy.

Again, you're missing the point. I was responding to this comment by Maggie:

A film that purports to be historically accurate should be called when it's not
I was pointing out that all historical movies get their history wrong. I've got no problem with that and I don't believe any feature film-maker would claim their movies are 100% accurate. They all, ALL engage in poetic licence. I just pointed out some glaring examples.
 
Again, you're missing the point. I was responding to this comment by Maggie:

Ahhh... I was REALLY missing the point then... OK. :)

I was pointing out that all historical movies get their history wrong. I've got no problem with that and I don't believe any feature film-maker would claim their movies are 100% accurate. They all, ALL engage in poetic licence. I just pointed out some glaring examples.


:lol:

I'll just shut up now.
 
Ahhh... I was REALLY missing the point then... OK. :)




:lol:

I'll just shut up now.

No probs. And, btw, I really like Saving Private Ryan.U-571 not so much, and Pearl Harbour and Braveheart sucked rhinos' gonads.
 
No probs. And, btw, I really like Saving Private Ryan.U-571 not so much, and Pearl Harbour and Braveheart sucked rhinos' gonads.

Saving Prvt Ryan... great
U-571... agreed
Pearl Harbour... utter crap
Braveheart... are you outa your Vulcan mind, man! (Best McCoy impersonation)
 
They are movies to entertain... it is not a conspiracy.

Actually... movies have been used since the start of the movie industry to form opinions and paint specific pictures.... aka propaganda. The American movie industry is no different and has been especially bad to rewrite historical fact to portrait the US in a different light. May it be Cowboys and Indian movies (where American's were seen as the victims of savage native American Indians.. when in fact it was the other way around for the most part) or war movies, they have always shown (for the most part) the American's as heroes and saviors.

Now there is nothing wrong in that per say, but you have to remember that when watching American made movies (and other countries for that matter). They are basically "nationalistic propaganda" movies often that goes out of their way to paint a positive picture of the country. The Brits were good at it too back in the day when they made war movies.

Now there are exceptions... Band of Brothers comes to mind.. a clear propaganda series showing the glory of the 101st airborne, but it also showed the gruesome parts of war and even American war crimes (the new company leader that shoots German POWs). This was quite different than the usual American war movies that always shows the American solider as the almost angelical savior of mankind and the "enemy" as brutal and almost inhuman.

So movies are not always just for entertainment... they are also more than often a means of propaganda hidden in a form of entertainment.
 
Actually... movies have been used since the start of the movie industry to form opinions and paint specific pictures.... aka propaganda. The American movie industry is no different and has been especially bad to rewrite historical fact to portrait the US in a different light. May it be Cowboys and Indian movies (where American's were seen as the victims of savage native American Indians.. when in fact it was the other way around for the most part) or war movies, they have always shown (for the most part) the American's as heroes and saviors.

Now there is nothing wrong in that per say, but you have to remember that when watching American made movies (and other countries for that matter). They are basically "nationalistic propaganda" movies often that goes out of their way to paint a positive picture of the country. The Brits were good at it too back in the day when they made war movies.

Now there are exceptions... Band of Brothers comes to mind.. a clear propaganda series showing the glory of the 101st airborne, but it also showed the gruesome parts of war and even American war crimes (the new company leader that shoots German POWs). This was quite different than the usual American war movies that always shows the American solider as the almost angelical savior of mankind and the "enemy" as brutal and almost inhuman.

So movies are not always just for entertainment... they are also more than often a means of propaganda hidden in a form of entertainment.

Sometimes they are... but more often then not a movie is mistaken as propoganda when it is just appealing to its market. When filming a war movie Americans generally want to see Americans win. I don't want to watch a movie about My Lai. I want to watch a movie where there are challenges that we face, overcome and win. I don't watch Saving Private Ryan to watch some Germans win and get Ryan.

Also, movies are changing. People want more truth and accuracy in their movies than ever before. I think that a lot of this started with the classic, The Outlaw Josey Wales. The Natives were not bad guys. Whites were bad guys and good guys. It was confusing. It was real.
 
And those are all very good points. However, we don't find any credible reason for child or spouse abuse. There is no justification that anyone has come up with to make it "ok." We have, however, justified such things forced kidnapping and confinement, segregation and isolation, and even killing. Has it ever been impressed upon you that humanity has multiple words for "killing," that denote differences in legal status? For example, "murder" is an illegal (unjustifiable) killing, whereas "manslaughter" is used for accidental or unintentional killing, often through demonstrable negligence. Then there is "combat", the killing "enemy combatants," which is justifiable on the world's stage and even in religious texts. We also have "capital punishment," which is the sanctioned killing of a citizen by their government (sanctioned, of course, by that government). The end result is the same - a dead person - yet there are various ways to label the act that all have different connotations.

Certain acts of "torture" are no different. Solitary confinement is torturous, yet it has the tacit approval of those not within the prison system. So, if we as a society decide that something like waterboarding isn't torture... does that mean it isn't? I sense this is the thrust of your argument, where the due process part stemmed from anyway. And it is a good thrust. But it is naive.

Take the act of killing, for example. I am going to assume that you do not wish to kill anyone with your own hands, for any reason. But imagine someone is holding you hostage as part of a bank robbery... would you not be grateful for a resolution to that conflict, even if someone else had to kill the person holding you hostage (in order to prevent that person from killing you)? A part of you DOES support killing, on some level, if there is an immediate and direct benefit to you. You may not want to get your hands bloody, but some part of you is no doubt grateful that there are "good guys" that are willing to do it for you.

So why would you shut the door on things you label "torture", if there is a similar benefit to you as a result? That was one of the chief arguments against waterboarding back when that controversy was blowing up - it doesn't work, so there is no reason to do it. The problem with that argument is that it is wrong. Enhanced interrogation techniques do work, or else they wouldn't be used! But there is a moral argument to be made against the use of such tactics, I readily agree. The "should" in this case is the entirety of the argument. And I can easily paint a picture where "should" can be justified. Again, this isn't support for such action, but to play devil's advocate, it is easy to concoct a situation where the efficacy of what you call "torture" can ethically justify it's use.

I might not want someone to die to end a conflict, even at might expense. However, all of that really only clouds the issue. The things we have deemed illegal remain illegal. We don't really redefine murder or rape to suit us. Not in the way some have tried to do torture. I don't buy your argument. I still think you are confusing different things. I commend you for a much better discussion than I expected, but they are still very different things.
 
a movie is mistaken as propoganda when it is just appealing to its market.
The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are often exactly the same thing. Where the two might depart is when the intention of a film may not be to propagate propaganda, but it turns out that way because of ingrained cultural assumptions. Intention different, effect identical.

Pete's right about British war movies of the Fifties and Sixties. A lot of them were pure propaganda i.e. intention plus effect e.g. The Dambusters, 633 Squadron. Some others were inadvertent propaganda created by in-built cultural assumptions, even when the intention of the movie might have been the opposite of propaganda e.g. Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia.
When filming a war movie Americans generally want to see Americans win.
Nothing wrong with that, provided you don't make over-blown claims about historical veracity.

I don't want to watch a movie about My Lai.
I would like to see that, not because I want to see the US military at its worst, but because it's a story that ought to be told, seeing the protagonists on both sides. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Hollywood to option it though. How about Oliver Stone?

I want to watch a movie where there are challenges that we face, overcome and win. I don't watch Saving Private Ryan to watch some Germans win and get Ryan.
Well, that's honest.
Also, movies are changing. People want more truth and accuracy in their movies than ever before.
But not you?

I think that a lot of this started with the classic, The Outlaw Josey Wales. The Natives were not bad guys. Whites were bad guys and good guys. It was confusing. It was real.
And a classic.
 
Back
Top Bottom