Zero Dark Thirty

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby brekin » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:01 pm

You guys are missing the point, this is a feminist movie.

A feminist film epic and the real women of the CIA
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/opinion/b ... =allsearch
Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's National Security Analyst and author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden, from 9/11 to Abbottabad," which this story, in part, draws upon.

(CNN) -- The star of the new film "Zero Dark Thirty" is a flame-haired female CIA analyst Maya (played by Jessica Chastain) who is obsessed with finding Osama bin Laden.
Maya sits in on brutal interrogations of al Qaeda detainees without a qualm and is constantly berating her male bosses to do more to find the leader of al Qaeda. And Maya is there at the end of the movie, identifying bin Laden's body shortly after a Navy SEAL team has killed him in Abbottabad in northern Pakistan.
Maya doesn't have a significant other or even much of a social life to speak of. The only friend she has is another female CIA analyst, Jessica, a CIA official of a slightly older generation who is almost as obsessed as Maya is about hunting down the leaders of al Qaeda.

When men come into Maya's life their only significance is to act as enablers to get what she wants: the head of Osama bin Laden. Or men are obstructions to that goal to be rolled over.
The CIA station chief in Pakistan won't give Maya the agents on the ground to follow the man she believes is bin Laden's courier, so she screams obscenities at him and threatens him with a congressional investigation. She gets what she wants.

During a meeting with CIA director Leon Panetta, Panetta's top deputy tells his boss the chance of bin Laden being in Abbottabad is 60%. From the back of the room, Maya chimes in to say that the odds are actually 100%.

When Panetta, played with a sly charm by James Gandolfini, asks Maya whom exactly she is to make this assessment, she explains that she is the person who has found bin Laden, although she puts this in far more colorful language than can be reproduced here.

According to a Washington Post profile by Greg Miller, the CIA analyst who most resembles the real-life Maya is in her 30s and was in Pakistan as the hunt for bin Laden heated up in 2010. Just as Maya is portrayed in the film, she has sharp elbows and was singlemindedly focused on bringing the leader of al Qaeda to justice.
Kurtz: CIA's most famous operative is a secret star

"Zero Dark Thirty's" director, Kathryn Bigelow is, of course, the first woman to win an Oscar for best director, for the 2008 film "Hurt Locker." Previously, the stars of Bigelow's movies have been men playing roles that are quintessentially macho; U.S. Army bomb techs in Iraq in "Hurt Locker" or Soviet submariners during the Cold War in "K-19: The Widowmaker."
Now that she has placed a woman at the center of "Zero Dark Thirty," how faithfully does Bigelow's reworking of the war on terror as a feminist epic reflect the historical record?

In many ways, it fits it pretty well. The prominent role that women played in the hunt for bin Laden is reflective of the largest cultural shift at the CIA of the past two decades. The veteran CIA operative Glenn Carle, who is retired, recalls, "When I started, there were to my knowledge four senior operation officers who were females, and they had to be the toughest SOBs in the universe to survive. And the rest of the women were treated as sexual toys."

Now popular culture is catching up with reality. Not only does "Zero Dark Thirty" star a female CIA officer as the person who finally found bin Laden, but the award-winning fictional television series "Homeland" is built around the character of Carrie Mathison, played by Claire Danes as a determined CIA officer with a gift for finding clues to the activities of a terrorist leader.

Women and the bin Laden unit

From the founding of the bin Laden unit at CIA in December 1995 onward, female analysts played a key role in the hunt for al Qaeda's leaders.

The founder of that unit, Michael Scheuer, explains, "(Female analysts) seem to have an exceptional knack for detail, for seeing patterns and understanding relationships, and they also, quite frankly, spend a great deal less time telling war stories, chatting and going outside for cigarettes than the boys. If I could have put up a sign saying, 'No boys need apply,' I would've done it."

When Scheuer set up the bin Laden unit, Carle remembers the reaction among his fellow operations officers was, "What's his staff? It's all female. It was just widely discussed at the time that it's a bunch of chicks. So, the perspective was frankly condescending and dismissive. And Scheuer (and his staff) essentially were saying 'You guys need to listen to us; this is really serious. This is a big deal, and people are going to die.' And of course they were right."

Jennifer Matthews, the CIA officer who provides something of a model for "Jessica" in "Zero Dark Thirty," was one of Scheuer's top deputies, focused on the all-important Afghanistan-Pakistan border region.

Matthews' work was critical to the spring 2002 arrest of Abu Zubaydah, a key al Qaeda logistician, who provided the first information that it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed who had masterminded the 9/11 attacks. This came as a complete surprise to the CIA, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been largely seen as a peripheral figure in al Qaeda.

Like the Maya character in "Zero Dark Thirty," Matthews sat in on coercive interrogation sessions in secret CIA prisons overseas. According to "The Triple Agent", a deeply reported book by Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick, Matthews flew to Thailand for Abu Zubaydah's interrogation and witnessed him being waterboarded.

Matthews graduated from Cedarville University, a small Christian college in Ohio, in 1986 with a degree in broadcast journalism and joined the CIA just as the Cold War was ending. In the mid-1990s she was one of the first CIA officers who started worrying about the plans of a man named "Osama bin Laden."

A devout Christian and the mother of three children, Matthews knew Islamic history cold, and how al Qaeda believed it fit into that history, which made her a formidable interrogator of al Qaeda detainees, some of whom found the fact that she was a well-informed female particularly disconcerting.

First strategic warning

Another female intelligence analyst who spotted the threat from al Qaeda long before anyone else is Gina Bennett, who in August 1993, while working at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research inside the State Department, wrote a paper that was the first strategic warning about Bin Laden.

When bin Laden was expelled to Afghanistan in May 1996 from the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, Bennett also wrote a prescient analysis, warning, "His prolonged stay in Afghanistan — where hundreds of 'Arab Mujahidin' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate — could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum."

In the years after the attacks on New York and Washington, Bennett helped draft key National Intelligence Estimates on the state of al Qaeda. Bennett is still at the CIA and has been publicly identified on a number of occasions, which is why her real name is used here.

After 9/11, women continued to play a key role in the hunt for bin Laden. In 2005, a CIA analyst named Rebecca (a pseudonym), who had worked the bin Laden "account" for years, wrote an important paper titled "Inroads" that would help guide the hunt in the years to come.

Given the absence of any real leads on bin Laden, how could you plausibly find him? she asked. Rebecca then came up with four "pillars" upon which the search had to be built. The first pillar was locating al Qaeda's leader through his courier network. The second was locating him through his family members, either those who might be with him or anyone in his family who might try to get in touch with him. The third was communications that he might have with what the CIA termed AQSL (al Qaeda senior leadership). The final pillar was tracking bin Laden's occasional outreach to the media.

These four pillars became the "grid" through which CIA analysts would from now on sift all the intelligence that had been gathered on al Qaeda that might be relevant to the hunt for bin Laden, and also helped to inform the collection of new intelligence.

A promising lead

An especially promising lead in the search for al Qaeda's leadership came four years after Rebecca wrote her memo and it came in the form of Humam al-Balawi, a Jordanian pediatrician in his early 30s who had become radicalized by the Iraq war and had subsequently become an important voice on militant jihadist websites.

Balawi was arrested in early 2009 by Jordan's General Intelligence Department, with which the CIA enjoyed exceptionally close relations. After offering the doctor the possibility of earning substantial sums of money, General Intelligence Department officials believed they had "turned" Balawi, who said he was willing to go to the tribal regions of Pakistan to spy on the Taliban and al Qaeda.

However, no one at the CIA had met Balawi, and pressure was mounting to get some agency eyes on him. That task fell to Jennifer Matthews, who had worked for the bin Laden unit almost from its inception. Matthews arranged for the Jordanian doctor to slip over the border from Pakistan's tribal areas to meet with her and a considerable team from the CIA in Khost in eastern Afghanistan.

Determined that this first meeting with this golden source be warm and friendly, Matthews did not have Balawi searched when he entered the CIA section of Forward Operating Base Chapman in Khost on December 30, 2009. She had even arranged for a cake to be made for Balawi, whose birthday had been only five days earlier.

But there was to be no opportunity to celebrate. As he met with the CIA team, the Jordanian doctor began muttering to himself in Arabic, reached inside his coat, and then detonated a bomb that killed Matthews, 45, and six other CIA officers and contractors who had gathered to meet him.
Balawi also died in the attack. The doctor from Jordan had not been spying on al Qaeda's leaders; he had, in fact, been recruited by them.

"Zero Dark Thirty" does a brilliant job of reconstructing this tragic episode.

In the movie, the death at the hands of al Qaeda of her friend Jessica, the character who is modeled to some degree on the real-life Jennifer Matthews, makes Maya all the more determined to track bin Laden down. She explains, "I believe I was spared so I could finish the job."

'Creative choices'

"Zero Dark Thirty" is a movie and that meant screenplay writer Mark Boal and Bigelow had to make what Boal told CNN were "creative choices." The key creative choice was to place a female CIA analyst at the center of the film. As we have seen from the historical record, it's a very defensible choice.

That said, there were scores of other analysts and operators at the CIA of both sexes who played important roles in the hunt for bin Laden. The founder of the bin Laden unit at the CIA was Michael Scheuer, and before 9/11 he pushed obsessively for operations that would eliminate bin Laden. So great was his zeal that Scheuer would regularly arrive at work at 3 a.m.

After 9/11, John (a pseudonym), a CIA analyst with the tall, lanky physique of the avid basketball player he had been in both high school and college, played a critical role in the hunt for bin Laden.
John joined the CIA's Counterterrorism Center in 2003 and stayed there, even though he could have taken promotions to go elsewhere, because he was fixated on finding bin Laden. He had pushed for more CIA drone strikes in the tribal regions of Pakistan in 2007, when he noticed that more Westerners were showing up there for terrorist training.

Like the Maya character in "Zero Dark Thirty," John was consistently certain that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad, but he put the odds at around 90% rather than the 100% that Maya puts it in the movie. John and other male CIA analysts barely feature in the film.
In the book "No Easy Day" by "Mark Owen," the Navy SEAL who went on the raid that killed bin Laden, he describes a CIA analyst he names "Jen" who corresponds to Maya. Like Maya, Jen is 100% sure bin Laden is living in Abbottabad.

In "Zero Dark Thirty," when the SEALs return to base with bin Laden's body, Maya calmly opens the body bag containing his remains and simply nods that it is, indeed, al Qaeda's leader.
But in real life, when the SEALs returned to base after bin Laden's death, they found "Jen" in the fetal position sobbing uncontrollably.
Sometimes the facts are even stranger and more interesting than the fictionalized version.

________

(Full disclosure: Along with other national security experts, as an unpaid adviser I screened an early cut of "Zero Dark Thirty." We advised that the torture scenes were overwrought. Al Qaeda detainees held at secret CIA prison sites overseas were certainly abused, but they were not beaten to a pulp, as was presented in this early cut. Screenwriter Mark Boal told CNN that as a result of this critique, some of the bloodier scenes were "toned down" in the final cut of the film. I also saw this final version of the film. Finally, HBO is making a theatrical release documentary that will be out in 2013 based on my book about the hunt for bin Laden entitled "Manhunt." This film features a number of the real-life female analysts and "targeters" at the CIA who hunted al Qaeda's leaders.)
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:44 pm

Bad history, bad dialog, bad photography, bad movie. Honestly, Seal Team Six was more entertaining, although certainly not for the intended reasons. (Knowing that half the cast was gay vastly enhanced my viewing enjoyment, plus the lines were straight MST3K.) It was, to their credit, less terrible than Act of Valor.

I really don't think this movie had the gravitas (or action (or acting)) to even count as a psyop. Just like that 9/11 movie Nick Cage was in: nobody...fucking...cared.

Besides, Seal Team Six was seen by way more people. As intended.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby MinM » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:59 pm

‏@ggreenwald: In the Atlantic, Peter Maass is superb on how Zero Dark Thirty is embedded CIA propaganda http://is.gd/BXa0Ht

Don't Trust 'Zero Dark Thirty'

The acclaimed new thriller represents a troubling phenomenon: government-embedded filmmaking.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/2 ... 3493042177

Maass' presumption that Seymour Hersh is not on CIA speed dial not withstanding.. It's a fairly perceptive piece.
Image
...I am a journalist of the quotes-are-sacred sort, which means this is the point in the story where I should begin tearing into Boal and Bigelow. But I don't think the problem rests with them. They set out to create a feature film based on real events, and they have done so, making very clear that the film's heroine and other characters, while based on real people, are composites or complete inventions. I was hardly the only person who received the it's-a-movie-not-a-documentary line; the web is filled with instances of that quote from Boal and Bigelow. They are quite literally telling us to not believe every word we hear.

The fundamental problem is that our government has again gotten away with offering privileged access to carefully selected individuals and getting a flattering story in return. Embeds, officially begun during the invasion of Iraq, are deeply troubling because not every journalist or filmmaker can get these coveted invitations (Seymour Hersh and Matt Taibbi are probably not on the CIA press office's speed dial), and once you get one, you face the quandary of keeping a critical distance from sympathetic people whom you get to know and who are probably quite convincing. That's the reason the embed or special invitation exists; the government does its best to keep journalists, even friendly ones, away from disgruntled officials who have unflattering stories to tell.

Don't get me wrong—some good journalism has emerged from embedded or invitation-only reporting. I was embedded on two occasions in Iraq, and I would like to think my stories were critical and worthwhile. But the new and odd rub in the case of Zero Dark Thirty is that the product of this privileged access is not just-the-facts journalism but a feature film that merges fact and fiction. An already problematic practice—giving special access to vetted journalists—is now deployed for the larger goal of creating cinematic myths that are favorable to the sponsoring entity (in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA). If the access that Boal and Bigelow received was in addition to access that nonfiction writers and documentarians received, I would be a bit less troubled, because at least the quotes in history's first draft would be reliable, and that means a lot. But as it stands, we're getting the myth of history before getting the actual history...

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainmen ... y/266253/#

What is up with Sy Hersh?
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3286
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby thatsmystory » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:41 pm

MinM wrote:@ggreenwald: In the Atlantic, Peter Maass is superb on how Zero Dark Thirty is embedded CIA propaganda

Don't get me wrong—some good journalism has emerged from embedded or invitation-only reporting. I was embedded on two occasions in Iraq, and I would like to think my stories were critical and worthwhile. But the new and odd rub in the case of Zero Dark Thirty is that the product of this privileged access is not just-the-facts journalism but a feature film that merges fact and fiction. An already problematic practice—giving special access to vetted journalists—is now deployed for the larger goal of creating cinematic myths that are favorable to the sponsoring entity (in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA). If the access that Boal and Bigelow received was in addition to access that nonfiction writers and documentarians received, I would be a bit less troubled, because at least the quotes in history's first draft would be reliable, and that means a lot. But as it stands, we're getting the myth of history before getting the actual history...

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainmen ... y/266253/#


Journalists that care about the actual history don't get access. For example look at Kurt Eichenwald's recent book 500 Days. He wrote that the CIA did their job before 9/11 only to be scapegoated by distracted Bush administration officials who were really responsible for dropping the ball. How did Eichenwald overlook the bizarre conduct of the CIA in regard to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar? If you are unwilling to get answers to obvious questions then stop pretending to be a serious journalist.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby thatsmystory » Wed Dec 19, 2012 3:30 am

Greenwald:

As it turns out, the most pernicious propagandistic aspect of this film is not its pro-torture message. It is its overarching, suffocating jingoism. This film has only one perspective of the world - the CIA's - and it uncritically presents it for its entire 2 1/2 hour duration.


In all the discussion there is little questioning of the big picture. If the torture was not really intended to get intelligence then why shouldn't other aspects of CIA conduct be questioned? For example is the years long hunt narrative true? The ISI had no idea Bin Laden was in Abbottabad? The CIA was likewise completely fooled? It's similar to the argument that the Bush administration lied about Iraq but told the truth about 9/11. Evidently the movie covers the Khost suicide bomber attack that killed Jennifer Matthews. This is another CIA story that doesn't ring true. We are supposed to believe that Matthews didn't want to offend the double agent and thus let him into the base with no physical pat down. OTOH we are told that agents like Matthews were obsessed with Bin Laden and al Qaeda. So why would an agent like Matthews give a shit about offending a double agent? Again this is another incident where the public is supposed to accept the CIA narrative simply based on an assumption that there is no reason to think it is not true. I guess the fact that such a security breakdown was embarrassing to the CIA is enough of a reason to take the account at face value. I'm not even suggesting the reasons for a possible Khost coverup are sinister. Just that when it comes to the CIA there is little reason to accept their accounts without question. Yet the fact that Boal and Bigelow had insider access is supposed to be proof that their film is more accurate than it otherwise would be.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:52 am

thatsmystory wrote:
Greenwald:

As it turns out, the most pernicious propagandistic aspect of this film is not its pro-torture message. It is its overarching, suffocating jingoism. This film has only one perspective of the world - the CIA's - and it uncritically presents it for its entire 2 1/2 hour duration.


In all the discussion there is little questioning of the big picture. If the torture was not really intended to get intelligence then why shouldn't other aspects of CIA conduct be questioned? For example is the years long hunt narrative true? The ISI had no idea Bin Laden was in Abbottabad? The CIA was likewise completely fooled? It's similar to the argument that the Bush administration lied about Iraq but told the truth about 9/11. Evidently the movie covers the Khost suicide bomber attack that killed Jennifer Matthews. This is another CIA story that doesn't ring true. We are supposed to believe that Matthews didn't want to offend the double agent and thus let him into the base with no physical pat down. OTOH we are told that agents like Matthews were obsessed with Bin Laden and al Qaeda. So why would an agent like Matthews give a shit about offending a double agent? Again this is another incident where the public is supposed to accept the CIA narrative simply based on an assumption that there is no reason to think it is not true. I guess the fact that such a security breakdown was embarrassing to the CIA is enough of a reason to take the account at face value. I'm not even suggesting the reasons for a possible Khost coverup are sinister. Just that when it comes to the CIA there is little reason to accept their accounts without question. Yet the fact that Boal and Bigelow had insider access is supposed to be proof that their film is more accurate than it otherwise would be.


I still plan on seeing it, even thought I know it's yet another example of sickening government propaganda psy op masquerading as faux feminist Oscar bait.

What's curious about the ISI, is that the US government itself will all but blame the ISI for this or that terror attack/NATO attack in recent years and then mysteriously back pedal. However before 2008 such strong condemnation of the ISI was rare.

The ISI is strongly tied to the assassination of Mahsud the Lion, beloved leader of the Northern Alliance and thus further showing a link between Pakistan and 9/11. What stares us right in the face is that as every knit wit college kid was out cheering cuz "WE DUN GOT BIN LADEN!", a lot of Americans still didn't figure out the joke of bin Laden being "found" in a large compound right smack dab in the middle of a Pakistani militant/ISI garrison across the street from their main military academy. Let alone evidence that ISI officials not only knew he was there, but were protecting him. My guess is that bin Laden was freely traveling in Baluchistan into Iran for falconry and then back to Pakistan proper. It's frustrating as a "conspiracy theorist" because for awhile I was saying bin Laden was most likely being kept safe in a large ISI protected safehouse until the powers that be wanted to take him out for a big publicity stunt. My reason was is that there was no freaking way he was in Afghanistan, and certainly no way he was in Tribal Frontier Pakistan. I thought maybe Kandahar wearing disguises. And definitely not taking the risk to go to Yemen. Ultimately bin Laden was just kept in a small enclosure like a gerbil waiting to be someone's snake's lunch. That's ALL these Islamic jihadists are. They are little manchurian windup toys. Once in awhile you *may* have a dandelion spore go where it's not suppose to(ie: the occassional non staged attack, like the assassination attempt of the head of Saudi intel) but the big shit(like 9/11 or Madrid 3/11) I assume to be completely staged managed.

Btw isnt both the ISI and an American DEA asset tied to the Mumbai Massacre of 2008?

This entire narrative of the road to 9/11 and since then that we've all exhausted endless kilobytes dissecting over the years..too neat. Too neat. Way too neat.

1990. Rabbi Mayer Khahane was killed by al Qaeda/MAK's splinter group in New York. 1993 WTC. 1998 Twin African Embassy. All three events utilizing Ali Mohamed. He gets arrested in 1998, then all the sudden
the media starts talking about "Usama" as Ali Mohamed is put into witness protection. Meanwhile Ramzi Yousef is allowed to make calls to KSM in a mid 90's Manhattan holding cell by the FBI as the NSA listens in on bin Laden's SATphone calls. USS Cole 2000. Usama! Usama! 9/11 happens and it's suddenly Osama. Then at the 2004 DNC we get "Obama".
And ten years after 9/11 "Obama gets Osama". Puh-lease.

When you look at the 1990-2011 timeframe it's painfully scripted. By whom? I'm not even sure anymore. all I know is that bin Laden is killed as is "neo bin Laden" Anwar Awlaki, and it feels like the whole decade of "Islamic jihadism" is closed just as curiously as the PTB brought it to us. Since then we've gotten mostly angry white guys with guns, from Norway to Connecticut.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby 82_28 » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:08 am

thatsmystory wrote:
Greenwald:

As it turns out, the most pernicious propagandistic aspect of this film is not its pro-torture message. It is its overarching, suffocating jingoism. This film has only one perspective of the world - the CIA's - and it uncritically presents it for its entire 2 1/2 hour duration.


In all the discussion there is little questioning of the big picture. If the torture was not really intended to get intelligence then why shouldn't other aspects of CIA conduct be questioned? For example is the years long hunt narrative true? The ISI had no idea Bin Laden was in Abbottabad? The CIA was likewise completely fooled? It's similar to the argument that the Bush administration lied about Iraq but told the truth about 9/11. Evidently the movie covers the Khost suicide bomber attack that killed Jennifer Matthews. This is another CIA story that doesn't ring true. We are supposed to believe that Matthews didn't want to offend the double agent and thus let him into the base with no physical pat down. OTOH we are told that agents like Matthews were obsessed with Bin Laden and al Qaeda. So why would an agent like Matthews give a shit about offending a double agent? Again this is another incident where the public is supposed to accept the CIA narrative simply based on an assumption that there is no reason to think it is not true. I guess the fact that such a security breakdown was embarrassing to the CIA is enough of a reason to take the account at face value. I'm not even suggesting the reasons for a possible Khost coverup are sinister. Just that when it comes to the CIA there is little reason to accept their accounts without question. Yet the fact that Boal and Bigelow had insider access is supposed to be proof that their film is more accurate than it otherwise would be.


My take has always been that the torture thing is a non-starter and never was meant to be. It was rather, introduced in order to build a further narrative. Torture as a rite and a right. A double bind. Don't want it, nothing you can do about it and if "we" have to do it we will. Pansies VS Sadists, yet all on the same "team".
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby vanlose kid » Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:07 am

brekin wrote:You guys are missing the point, this is a feminist movie.

A feminist film epic and the real women of the CIA
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/13/opinion/b ... =allsearch
Editor's note: Peter Bergen is CNN's National Security Analyst and author of "Manhunt: The Ten-Year Search for bin Laden, from 9/11 to Abbottabad," which this story, in part, draws upon.

(CNN) -- The star of the new film "Zero Dark Thirty" is a flame-haired female CIA analyst Maya (played by Jessica Chastain) who is obsessed with finding Osama bin Laden.
Maya sits in on brutal interrogations of al Qaeda detainees without a qualm ...


what's new here?

Image

"There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."

- Madeleine Albright , Former U.S. Secretary of State,Comment at the discussion session of A Powerful Noise Event on March 5th.

Priceless.

As the first woman Secretary of State under Bill Clinton's administration (who was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate 99-0! No big deal!) she is as badass as a feminist as they come!

Thank you Ms. Albright - I couldn't agree more!


Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)


flame haired whotsit?

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby crikkett » Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:08 pm

Belligerent Savant wrote:.

F#CK this movie and all the beasts associated with it.

Propaganda Porn.

It is porn. So was the TV series '24'. I won't watch either.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby MinM » Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:04 am


“Zero Dark Thirty” And The CIA's Hollywood Coup

How the invisible hand of the premiere American intelligence agency produced an Oscar contender
.
Image
Michael Hastings BuzzFeed Staff

During President Obama’s 100 or so campaign trail speeches this past year, he usually received the biggest applause for mentioning the killing of Osama Bin Laden. The lines were real crowd pleasers. Zero Dark Thirty picks up where the cheers from the Obama rallies died off. Rather than casting Obama and the White House as heroes, though, the film lets the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency play the protagonists with the true claim to Bin Laden’s scalp.

This is not a coincidence. The CIA played a key role in shaping the film’s narrative, corresponding with the filmmakers to negotiate favorable access to a movie that one CIA official described as “get[ting] behind the winning horse” of the “first and biggest” movie about the Bin Laden raid, according to internal CIA emails obtained by Judicial Watch. The White House gave its blessing as well, calling it the most “high profile” project to date, and suggesting it get more “visibility,” as one White House official wrote. When the screenwriter, Mark Boal, met with the CIA at their headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for a meeting scheduled on Friday, 9:30 AM on May 20th, only 19 days after the assassination, he was accompanied by Michael Feldman of the Glover Park Group, a Washington consulting firm specializing in “strategic communications,” according to the CIA emails. The director, Kathryn Bigelow, also visited Langley to “meet the people Mark had been talking too,” another CIA official noted.

The result of this collaboration between the filmmakers, public relations experts, and the intelligence world has been unevenly received by viewers who are familiar with the actual historical record. Academy Award winning documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney, who made Taxi To The Dark Side, said that Boal and Bigelow were “seduced by their sources” at CIA. The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, who has spent the last few years examining the underbelly of the War On Terror, wrote the film “milks the U.S. torture program for drama while sidestepping the political and ethical debate that it provoked.” And author Brett Easton Ellis famously trashed ZDT as “the most morally dubious, obtuse, overrated” movie of 2012.

How to package the Bin Laden story has been a preoccupation with the Obama White House, the Pentagon, and the CIA. The White House, administration officials have told me, immediately recognized, and seized upon, the demand to get the Bin Laden narrative out to the public, immediately declassifying large chunks of the operation. The White House's first draft put President Obama at the center of the action; then, the Navy Seals claimed their turf with a piece in The New Yorker, followed by No Easy Day a year later. ZDT is the CIA's turn. Administration officials I've spoken to bristle at the suggestion that these efforts are meant to "exploit" the killing of Bin Laden. "This was one of the biggest stories, or historic events of American history," one administration official told me. "Of course we're going to be talking about it, and working with the media to get it out there."

Historically, it’s been the U.S. military that has maintained a symbiotic and mutually beneficial relationship with the entertainment industry, from The Longest Day to Green Berets to Iron Man to Acts of Valor. There’s a special division set up at the Pentagon to handle film requests, the Film Liaison Office. Favored projects are granted access; films with a more critical take, like Apocalypse Now, are not. The movies that get assistance are those that, in the end, make military violence and action look really cool. The CIA beat the Pentagon to the punch on this one, moving quickly and using their direct influence on the filmmakers to glorify torture and the agency’s own actions.

In reality, the CIA officials engaged in torture were so ashamed and fearful that their real-life behavior could not stand up under scrutiny, they destroyed the actual tapes documenting the torture sessions. Now, though, ZDT has done the agency a huge public service: providing the CIA with its own Top Gun, a film that military officials consider one of the most successful recruitment vehicles of all time...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/the-c ... ywood-coup

"Zero Dark Thirty"-- Prime Hollywood/al-CIA-duh Propaganda

Psyops season: Pro-war, pro-Obama. Same thing.

Why the Oscars are a Con

I Have a DreamWorks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?c ... id=1445551
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3286
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby justdrew » Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:31 am

what's that red shit on their wrists in the above picture? friendship bracelets?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby Skunkboy » Wed Jan 09, 2013 3:42 am

Nordic said:
Kathryn Bigelow. Leni Riefenstahl.

Both talented filmmakers.


Nordic, you called it before Naomi did.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... NTCMP=SRCH

A letter to Kathryn Bigelow on Zero Dark Thirty's apology for torture

By peddling the lie that CIA detentions led to Bin Laden's killing, you have become a Leni Riefenstahl-like propagandist of torture
By Naomi Wolf.

Dear Kathryn Bigelow,

The Hurt Locker was a beautiful, brave film; many young women in film were inspired as they watched you become the first woman ever to win an Oscar for directing. But with Zero Dark Thirty, you have attained a different kind of distinction.

Your film Zero Dark Thirty is a huge hit here. But in falsely justifying, in scene after scene, the torture of detainees in "the global war on terror", Zero Dark Thirty is a gorgeously-shot, two-hour ad for keeping intelligence agents who committed crimes against Guantánamo prisoners out of jail. It makes heroes and heroines out of people who committed violent crimes against other people based on their race – something that has historical precedent.

Your film claims, in many scenes, that CIA torture was redeemed by the "information" it "secured", information that, according to your script, led to Bin Laden's capture. This narrative is a form of manufacture of innocence to mask a great crime: what your script blithely calls "the detainee program".

What led to this amoral compromising of your film-making?

Could some of the seduction be financing? It is very hard to get a film without a pro-military message, such as The Hurt Locker, funded and financed. But according to sources in the film industry, the more pro-military your message is, the more kinds of help you currently can get: from personnel, to sets, to technology – a point I made in my argument about the recent militarized Katy Perry video.

It seems implausible that scenes such as those involving two top-secret, futuristic helicopters could be made without Pentagon help, for example. If the film received that kind of undisclosed, in-kind support from the defense department, then that would free up million of dollars for the gigantic ad campaign that a film like this needs to compete to win audience.

This also sets a dangerous precedent: we can be sure, with the "propaganda amendment" of the 2013 NDAA, just signed into law by the president, that the future will hold much more overt corruption of Hollywood and the rest of US pop culture. This amendment legalizes something that has been illegal for decades: the direct funding of pro-government or pro-military messaging in media, without disclosure, aimed at American citizens.

Then, there is the James Frey factor. You claim that your film is "based on real events", and in interviews, you insist that it is a mixture of fact and fiction, "part documentary". "Real", "true", and even "documentary", are big and important words. By claiming such terms, you generate media and sales traction – on a mendacious basis. There are filmmakers who work very hard to produce films that are actually "based on real events": they are called documentarians. Alex Gibney, in Taxi to the Dark Side, and Rory Kennedy, in Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, have both produced true and sourceable documentary films about what your script blithely calls "the detainee program" – that is, the regime of torture to generate false confessions at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib – which your script claims led straight to Bin Laden.

Fine, fellow reporter: produce your sources. Provide your evidence that torture produced lifesaving – or any – worthwhile intelligence.

But you can't present evidence for this claim. Because it does not exist.

Five decades of research, cited in the 2008 documentary The End of America, confirm that torture does not work. Robert Fisk provides another summary of that categorical conclusion. And this 2011 account from Human Rights First rebuts the very premise of Zero Dark Thirty.

Your actors complain about detainees' representation by lawyers – suggesting that these do-gooders in suits endanger the rest of us. I have been to see your "detainee program" firsthand. The prisoners, whom your film describes as being "lawyered up", meet with those lawyers in rooms that are wired for sound; yet, those lawyers can't tell the world what happened to their clients – because the descriptions of the very torture these men endured are classified.

I have seen the room where the military tribunal takes the "testimony" from people swept up in a program that gave $5,000 bounties to desperately poor Afghanis to incentivize their turning-in innocent neighbors. The chairs have shackles to the floor, and are placed in twos, so that one prisoner can be threatened to make him falsely condemn the second.

I have seen the expensive video system in the courtroom where – though Guantánamo spokesmen have told the world's press since its opening that witnesses' accounts are brought in "whenever reasonable" – the monitor on the system has never been turned on once: a monitor that could actually let someone in Pakistan testify to say, "hey, that is the wrong guy". (By the way, you left out the scene where the CIA dude sodomizes the wrong guy: Khaled el-Masri, "the German citizen unfortunate enough to have a similar name to a militant named Khaled al-Masri.")

In a time of darkness in America, you are being feted by Hollywood, and hailed by major media. But to me, the path your career has now taken reminds of no one so much as that other female film pioneer who became, eventually, an apologist for evil: Leni Riefenstahl. Riefenstahl's 1935 Triumph of the Will, which glorified Nazi military power, was a massive hit in Germany. Riefenstahl was the first female film director to be hailed worldwide.
Leni Riefenstahl directing her crew at the Nazi part rally in Nuremberg, 1934, for her film Triumph of the Will. Photograph: Friedrich Rohrmann/EPA
It may seem extreme to make comparison with this other great, but profoundly compromised film-maker, but there are real echoes. When Riefenstahl began to glamorize the National Socialists, in the early 1930s, the Nazis' worst atrocities had not yet begun; yet abusive detention camps had already been opened to house political dissidents beyond the rule of law – the equivalent of today's Guantánamo, Bagram base, and other unnameable CIA "black sites". And Riefenstahl was lionised by the German elites and acclaimed for her propaganda on behalf of Hitler's regime.

But the world changed. The ugliness of what she did could not, over time, be hidden. Americans, too, will wake up and see through Zero Dark Thirty's apologia for the regime's standard lies that this brutality is somehow necessary. When that happens, the same community that now applauds you will recoil.

Like Riefenstahl, you are a great artist. But now you will be remembered forever as torture's handmaiden.
If every man helped his neighbor, no man would be without help.

-Bruce Lee
User avatar
Skunkboy
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: The High Lonesome
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby Skunkboy » Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:37 am

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 2697.story

The CIA's greatest hits

Blood, torture, assassination and death — beyond the exploits in 'Zero Dark Thirty,' there are other CIA plots and fiascoes that would make compelling cinema.

By Tom Engelhardt
January 10, 2013


We got Osama bin Laden — and now we'll be getting him again on cinema screens across the nation, as "Zero Dark Thirty" hits neighborhood multiplexes. Lauded and criticized, that film's the talk of the town. Is it also the first of a new genre? If so, here are my five nominations for other CIA films.

Let's start with the CIA's 1953 coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, whose democratically elected government had nationalized the country's oil industry. It couldn't be oilier, involving BP in an earlier incarnation, the CIA, British intelligence, bribery, secretly funded street demonstrations and (lest you think there'd be no torture in the film) the installation of an autocratic regime that went on to create a fearsome secret police that tortured opponents for decades after. All of this was done in the name of what used to be called "the Free World." That "successful" coup was the point of origin for just about every disaster and bit of "blowback" — a term first used in the CIA's secret history of the coup — in U.S.-Iranian relations to this day. Many of the documents have been released, and what a story it is!

Or here's another superb candidate: the CIA's Phoenix Program in Vietnam. If you're into torture porn, this is the clandestine operation for you! Meant to wipe out the Viet Cong's political infrastructure, it managed to knock off an estimated 20,000 Vietnamese, remarkably few of whom actually were classified as "senior NLF cadres." (Reportedly, the program was regularly used by locals to settle grudges.) It was knee-deep — maybe waist-deep — in blood, torture, assassination and death, and it was all courtesy of the agency we've come to know and love.

For a change of pace, how about a CIA-inspired torture comedy? We're talking about the rollicking secret kidnapping of a radical Muslim cleric off the streets of Milan in early 2003, his transport via U.S. air bases in Italy and Germany to Egypt, and his handoff to Egyptian torturers. What makes this an enticing barrel of laughs was the way the CIA types involved in the covert operation rang up almost $150,000 in five-star hotel bills as they gallivanted around Italy. They ate at five-star restaurants, vacationed in Venice after the kidnapping, ran up impressive tabs on forged credit cards for their fake identities, and were such bunglers that they were identified and charged for the abduction in absentia by the Italian government. Most, including the CIA chief of station in Milan, were convicted and given stiff jail sentences, again in absentia. (No more Venetian holidays for them.) It's a story that screams for the Hollywood treatment.

Or what about a torture tragedy? None can top the story of Khaled El-Masri, an unemployed car salesman from Germany on vacation in Macedonia, who, on New Year's Eve 2003, was pulled off a bus and kidnapped by the CIA because his name was similar to that of an Al Qaeda suspect. After spending five months under brutal conditions, in part in an "Afghan" prison called "the Salt Pit" (run by the CIA), he was left at the side of a road in Albania. In between, his life was a catalog of horrors, torture and abuse.

Finally, who doesn't like the idea of a torture biopic? The perfect subject's out there, and he was just profiled on the front page of the New York Times. Former CIA agent John Kiriakou led the team that captured Al Qaeda's logistics specialist Abu Zubaydah, and he is the only CIA agent in any way associated with the agency's torture activities likely to go to jail. And here's the sort of twist that any moviemaker should love: He never tortured anyone. Not only that, but he spoke out publicly against torture. His crime? He leaked information, including the name of an undercover agent, to journalists. Russell Crowe would be perfect in the role.

Adventure, blood, torture, injustice, irony — what more could you ask for?

Tom Engelhardt, cofounder of the American Empire Project and author of "The End of Victory Culture," runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com.
If every man helped his neighbor, no man would be without help.

-Bruce Lee
User avatar
Skunkboy
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:43 pm
Location: The High Lonesome
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby thatsmystory » Fri Jan 11, 2013 4:52 am

There haven't been many articles that go beyond the issue of torture to question the entire premise of the movie. It appears the Senate/CIA drama effectively channeled most of the discussion to the issue of torture. Even the torture discussion is limited as most US journalists assume the CIA acted in good faith. There is little discussion as to why the torture was implemented in the first place. Are we to believe a torture program was needed because Tenet thought it was necessary? Is George Tenet credible on anything related to al Qaeda? A bunch of government officials who never explained their bizarre conduct before 9/11 met in secret and decided a torture program would be a good idea. One would like to think journalists would question this sort of thing.
thatsmystory
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 7:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Zero Dark Thirty

Postby 8bitagent » Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:39 am

Just saw the film, yes in theaters even though I downloaded it. I wanted to experience this Oscar bait propaganda film with a packed house. As expected, cheers whenever an Arab got shot.
It's funny how they, in Forest Gump manner, try and link every major terror attack to 9/11.

What's striking is that the brutal torture isn't glossed over...surely a government/CIA propaganda film wouldnt show it right? Yet, it's shown in a "yes its ugly, but its something you gotta do" sort of thing.
Every sickening action is wrapped in the trojan horse of "the spunky girl taking on the boys club". Which would be fine, if she was fighting for good. Throughout the film most of the uglyness is committed by
the CIA and their proxies.

One of the most striking things however, is that the film paints the Saudi intelligence and Pakistani ISI as either on the good guy American side or neutral...yet for a film that focuses
on 9/11 money trails, it completely ignores the deep Saudi and ISI government ties to the 9/11 money.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests