Zero Dark Thirty

[justdrew]

the counterpunch article hinges entirely on this graph:

Actually, I’d like to believe a scene like the one you wrote did take place, Mike, but it’s more like wishful thinking on your part. After all, what exactly has Obama done to bring these torturing incompetents to justice?

the counterpuncher wold have us agree that even though we know Obama ended torture practices, he can take no credit for that since he hasn't prosecuted both the people who ordered it, Woo, cheny, bush on down and the people who were ordered to do it. Nonsense. Once again we see the divide between people who live in the real world, and "leftists" in la-la land. It was not remotely politically possible for Obama to go after those people for torture. It's foolish to constantly expect a precariously elected president, who BARELY has public opinion on his side and who's party DOESN'T come close to House majority to undertake prosecutions of previous elected leaders. That would have been unprecedented in the history of the United States. Massive numbers of people would not support it, no tv channel would endorse it, just the opposite, and radio would have been calling for assassination. At the very least democrats would have lost power entirely, impeachment would have been assured and a second term impossible. More likely there would have been even more serious consequences.

get real. this is a fucked up country in which a substantial percentage of the voting populace supported torture and would have supported it's continuance, in fact, prominent voices were on tv DEMANDING it's continuance... We were damn lucky to get a guy in who called a halt to it.

we can maintain moral positions, as against torture, without expecting politicians to commit political suicide.

Anyway, it is not the 'leaders' to be mad at, as much as the population of American's who gladly give their consent and demanded such policies. Unless and until those minds are changed, you can't be surprised when elected politicians take public opinion into consideration. Would we want it any other way? really? You know there's people who consider abortion just as morally reprehensible as torture. and others who consider being 'soft on communism' just as bad, etc. Taking a "moral stance" on something doesn't grant the magic power to force others to see things your way.

thankfully, it seems the torture era is over, let's make sure it stays that way.

I like to live in la-la land too and consider all sorts of impossible things possible, but politics in a nation of hundreds of millions, in the complex modern situation we find ourselves in, demands I make some accommodations with those who live across the border.

[JackRiddler]

I disagree.

Going large in prosecuting the crimes of a prior administration, beginning by throwing open the books, is the only means you will ever see for a government to end the dominance of the national security state and uproot the deep state and parapolitics. As long as criminality is rewarded, it is also promoted. Ambitions expand. This struggle could have been won, but only by exposing all truths about essentially criminal institutions and cabal histories on a much grander scale than prosecution for torture.

.

[justdrew]

I disagree.

Going large in prosecuting the crimes of a prior administration, beginning by throwing open the books, is the only means you will ever see for a government to end the dominance of the national security state and uproot the deep state and parapolitics. As long as criminality is rewarded, it is also promoted. Ambitions expand. This struggle could have been won, but only by exposing all truths about essentially criminal institutions and cabal histories on a much grander scale than prosecution for torture.

.

that day may yet come. It's just a little further out than was hoped

---

consider the transcript I posted back a page or two. This unknown 'cia woman' read that transcript. Why would she not be allowed to say why she was recruited right out of high school? Think about that, this person, their whole life went into finding bin laden? She was ready, willing and able to participate in torture within a year or two or joining the agency? Is it a stretch to take from that that there may have been some 'training' going on long before recruitment?

I suspect a full investigation of the everything around the torture activities would lead into some unspeakable areas. and yeah, hopefully the time is coming when all that comes out.

[justdrew]

but I should also say, I think the argument that something isn't politically do-able due to the consequences, can be misused and shouldn't be a blanket excuse for avoiding conflict. I'm not saying we should always "go-slow" but current political realities are very strange. So many believe that everything is controlled and predetermined, and so many others just get their marching orders from fox news and the like, it's hard to see how political leaderships, as we've mostly seen it done, can work these days, it's going to be hard going for politicians to lead public opinion on some things. I suppose we have to rely on the cultural sector to lead public opinion on these sorts of things. Seems to have worked fairly well on gay rights, but it may work better for personal issues than complex public policy issues.

[thatsmystory]

Here is a review of the documentary that notes a key aspect:

Knowing the operational secrecy within the CIA, it's astounding to see these analysts, as well as case officers like the majestically cocky Marty Martin, talking on-camera, using their real names and being this frank.

Or are they being frank? While the CIA had no official involvement with "Manhunt," the availability of all of these agency figures guarantees that the CIA, through individuals rather than the institution, controls the information flow in Barker's documentary. As a result, this becomes a version of the story that's so CIA-slanted that verges on propagandistic at times. The poor CIA analysts became scapegoats for politicians after 9/11. The CIA was also scapegoated by the 9/11 Commission, even though all of the commission's recommendations had already been implemented.

Sundance Review: 'Manhunt' examines the search for Osama Bin Laden

The three CIA operatives were given a standing ovation at the last screening of the film. I would guess this is because the documentary makes the case that the CIA connected the dots and the real blame lies with the politicians.

The Kidman incident is telling as well:

"Suddenly, all these heavy guys ... are like, 'Get out of the way!' And they started pushing them, pushing them, forcing them through this narrow opening. It's Nicole Kidman, you know," Barker said, laughing.

"So clearly, we're here talking about taking out bin Laden, and the CIA, it does not matter compared to Nicole Kidman. I get it."

Former CIA analyst Bakos joked:"Now I know where we stand in the totem pole.

"'Thank you for your service, but get out of the way, because Nicole Kidman's gotta come through'."

The intended meaning is to call into question a society that values movie stars more than CIA heroes. But the "CIA as heroes" depiction only works if the public is presented with a CIA take on events. Have these people never heard of Rich Blee, the chief of Alec Station in the lead up to 9/11? Are they not familiar with accusations of CIA withholding detailed in mainstream books like The Looming Tower? Senator Bob Graham and the redacted 28 pages of the JI report? Helgerson's CIA IG 9/11 internal review report which called for accountability panels? Evidently director Greg Barker is unfamiliar with all of this information. What good were all the dire warnings of attack when the CIA was deliberately withholding information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar at the same time?

[8bitagent]

the counterpunch article hinges entirely on this graph:

Actually, I’d like to believe a scene like the one you wrote did take place, Mike, but it’s more like wishful thinking on your part. After all, what exactly has Obama done to bring these torturing incompetents to justice?

the counterpuncher wold have us agree that even though we know Obama ended torture practices, he can take no credit for that since he hasn't prosecuted both the people who ordered it, Woo, cheny, bush on down and the people who were ordered to do it. Nonsense. Once again we see the divide between people who live in the real world, and "leftists" in la-la land. It was not remotely politically possible for Obama to go after those people for torture. It's foolish to constantly expect a precariously elected president, who BARELY has public opinion on his side and who's party DOESN'T come close to House majority to undertake prosecutions of previous elected leaders. That would have been unprecedented in the history of the United States. Massive numbers of people would not support it, no tv channel would endorse it, just the opposite, and radio would have been calling for assassination. At the very least democrats would have lost power entirely, impeachment would have been assured and a second term impossible. More likely there would have been even more serious consequences.

get real. this is a fucked up country in which a substantial percentage of the voting populace supported torture and would have supported it's continuance, in fact, prominent voices were on tv DEMANDING it's continuance... We were damn lucky to get a guy in who called a halt to it.

we can maintain moral positions, as against torture, without expecting politicians to commit political suicide.

Anyway, it is not the 'leaders' to be mad at, as much as the population of American's who gladly give their consent and demanded such policies. Unless and until those minds are changed, you can't be surprised when elected politicians take public opinion into consideration. Would we want it any other way? really? You know there's people who consider abortion just as morally reprehensible as torture. and others who consider being 'soft on communism' just as bad, etc. Taking a "moral stance" on something doesn't grant the magic power to force others to see things your way.

thankfully, it seems the torture era is over, let's make sure it stays that way.

I like to live in la-la land too and consider all sorts of impossible things possible, but politics in a nation of hundreds of millions, in the complex modern situation we find ourselves in, demands I make some accommodations with those who live across the border.

What makes me upset still, and hardly anyone even talks about it, is that "torture" simply got limited hung out to "waterboarding" and "enhanced interrogations".
You read about what was going on to Abu Zubaida, some of the other al Qaeda suspects, at the hands of Iraqi cops under US agreement, Eastern Europe black sites, Abu Gharib, Bagram...
that shit was right out of Hostel or Saw, not mere "Waterboarding"...a watered down talking point if there ever was one.

[Richard Charnin]

Every one of you is falling for the false premise: that Bin Laden was killed in the raid.
It was a major Psyop. Torture is a red-herring - a distraction. Obama died in 2001 from kidney failure.
Everything in the media about 9/11 and Osama bin Laden is a lie.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Os ... 6-408.html

There is no longer a debate. The scientific evidence is irrefutable.
It's this simple. Osama did not wire the WTC.

http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/

Who do you believe: Bigelow or these guys?
http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 2XV3Edd2dc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba9czzwfOCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=x_4 ... =endscreen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7l_bwxaGwU

What is the probability that….

- William Rodriguez, a janitor at the WTC on 9/11, would hear a loud explosion in the basement of the WTC seconds before the plane hit.
- The NIST would fail to correctly calculate free-fall before David Chandler pointed it out to them.
- The collapse of WTC 7 would occur due to the structural failure of one weakened beam.
- The 9/11 Commission would fail to mention WTC 7 in the hearings or note it the Report
- Three steel-framed buildings would collapse due to office fires when not one ever did prior to 9/11.
-
- Airline fuel fires (burning at 1000F) would burn at the 2700F required to melt steel.
- April Gallop would hear a loud explosion just a few yards from her desk at the Pentagon and not see any aircraft debris.
- The NIST would conduct an investigation of the collapse but not consider explosives as a possible cause.
- The NIST would determine that there was no evidence of explosives but also admit that they never looked for any evidence of explosives.
- There would be traces of nano-thermite in the lungs of first responders.
-
- Over 100 firefighters, witnesses and TV reporters would imagine that they heard explosions.
- Furniture would be ejected laterally 600 feet from WTC due to office fires.
- Firefighters would have foreknowledge that WTC 7 would collapse from just a few office fires.
- When Larry Silverstein said “pull-it” he did not mean demolish WTC 7.
- BBC would report live that WTC7 fell at 5pm, when it actually fell at 5:20pm.
-
- The passport of an alleged hijacker would be found intact in the rubble of the WTC.
- There would be no record on the airline manifests that any of the hijackers actually boarded the planes.
- Put options on the airline stocks would rise dramatically a few days before 9/11.
- Osama Bin Laden would not be on the FBI most wanted list for 9/11 yet immediately be accused as the perpetrator.
- 9/11 Commission heads Kean and Hamilton would disavow their own report.
-
- There would be air defense exercises conducted on the morning of 9/11 in the Northeast.
- Government officials who did not follow up on warnings and failed to perform standard response procedures would be promoted.
- Not one of the four flight recorders would be retrieved.
- There would not be a video or debris or human remains from the alleged plane hitting the Pentagon.
- There would not be a video or debris or human remains of the plane which crashed in Pennsylvania.
-
- The media would not investigate to determine the answers to these questions.
1

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Huh.

If Osama bin Laden wasn't killed in the raid, who was?

[Nordic]

Huh.

If Osama bin Laden wasn't killed in the raid, who was?

Maybe that shitty body double they used for those fake "Osama" videos.

Maybe the assets the CIA worked with when they were LIVING RIGHT NEXT DOOR to the fucking place.

Who knows?

The people on the ground who witnessed the raid have a completely different story than the Pentagon and the CIA and fucking Hollywood.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

I watched Zero Dark Thirty last night. I wasn't that impressed by it, just as a movie. Meh, was my immediate response. I for one believe Bin Laden died in a bombing raid or of kidney failure circa Oct - Dec 2001. I wonder if the Maya character truly believed OBL was still alive and hunted him with that belief.

Another thing struck while watching, Kyle Chandler's character yells at Maya "He could be dead for all we know. Who cares?!?" (paraphrasing) I thought "That's them laughing at us."

And what about the story Seal Team Six was killed on a mission in Afganistan? Not a single member of the OBL assassin team is alive. True?

[8bitagent]

Huh.

If Osama bin Laden wasn't killed in the raid, who was?

It was Osama bin Laden. The whole Steve Pecheiknik/Bin Laden had renal kidney failure/Bin Laden died in 2001 stuff is pure disinfo.

As far as I can tell, bin Laden was intentionally allowed to escape Tora Bora in late 2001, slipped into Pakistan, went falcon hunting in Iran for years from crossing from Baluchistan province and ended up in an ISI
safe house compound til the globalists decided they needed a little PR stunt. I always knew bin Laden was being protected and housed like veel waiting for the slaughter.

[8bitagent]

I watched Zero Dark Thirty last night. I wasn't that impressed by it, just as a movie. Meh, was my immediate response. I for one believe Bin Laden died in a bombing raid or of kidney failure circa Oct - Dec 2001. I wonder if the Maya character truly believed OBL was still alive and hunted him with that belief.

Another thing struck while watching, Kyle Chandler's character yells at Maya "He could be dead for all we know. Who cares?!?" (paraphrasing) I thought "That's them laughing at us."

And what about the story Seal Team Six was killed on a mission in Afganistan? Not a single member of the OBL assassin team is alive. True?

26 members of Seal Team 6 died in a really retarded "Taliban" raid shortly after the bin Laden raid, but as far as I know all of the bin Laden raid members are still alive. They may have been chewed, spit out and forgotten by Uncle Sam and stripped of VA benefits but they're still alive. The 26 dead seals were part of Seals 6 but not part of the raid.

[thatsmystory]

I watched Zero Dark Thirty last night. I wasn't that impressed by it, just as a movie. Meh, was my immediate response. I for one believe Bin Laden died in a bombing raid or of kidney failure circa Oct - Dec 2001. I wonder if the Maya character truly believed OBL was still alive and hunted him with that belief.

The Maya character believed Bin Laden was still directing terrorist attacks. The exchange between Maya and the station chief was bizarre. "Protect the homeland!" WTF? Nobody talks like this.

The al-Balawi suicide attack at Camp Chapman is premised on the notion that Jennifer Matthews (Jessica in the movie) was so fixated on finding al-Zawahiri that she decided not to order a physical pat down of her asset lest she offend him. Did she really believe her asset found al-Zawahiri in the tribal area of Pakistan? Were she and her colleagues really fixated on al-Zawahiri in 2009?

IMO the movie was without question pro torture. I thought Chastain was cast mainly because she made the viewer more sympathetic to the use of torture. The movie is a tunnel vision CIA narrative.

[thatsmystory]

May 1st is the HBO premiere broadcast for "the real story." Manhunt is a documentary based on Peter Bergen's book. I've been following the coverage. The media is fully on board. As is the public that attends the screenings. One guy in a Q & A said he didn't have a question he just wanted to thank everyone for their service.

I read Bergen's book. He described CIA conduct before 9/11 in regard to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar as inexplicable. Later he called it a policy failure. It is unfucking believable how these people get a pass for this bullshit. Bergen's analysis tracks with that of Kurt Eichenwald (author of 500 Days). The both come to the conclusion that the CIA was on point but were unfairly blamed by out of touch politicians. Conveniently there is nobody at the Q & A's or media interviews to bring up the fact that the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar investigation was obstructed.

Recently Rachel Maddow had a segment in which she denounced right wing conspiracy garbage. Specifically she talked about 9/11 and praised the 9/11 Commission report. This is a good example of how the media gets away with a pathetic standard of conduct. AFAIK she has never reported on obstructed al Qaeda investigations at Alec Station and the FBI UBLU.

[MinM]

@ggreenwald: Good job, @AdrianChen: Newly Declassified Memo Shows CIA Shaped Zero Dark Thirty's Narrative

Newly Declassified Memo Shows CIA Shaped Zero Dark Thirty's Narrative

Kathryn Bigelow's Osama bin Laden revenge-porn flick Zero Dark Thirty was the biggest publicity coup for the CIA this century outside of the actual killing of Osama bin Laden. But the extent to which the CIA shaped the film has remained unclear. Now, a memo obtained by Gawker shows that the CIA actively, and apparently successfully, pressured Mark Boal to remove scenes that made them look bad from the Zero Dark Thirty script.

The CIA's whitewashing effort is revealed in a cache of documents newly released under a Freedom of Information Act request about the CIA's cooperation with Bigelow and Boal. The documents include a 2012 memo—initially classified "SECRET"—summarizing five conference calls between Boal and the CIA's Office of Public Affairs in late 2011. "The purpose for these discussions was for OPA officers to help promote an appropriate portrayal of the Agency and the Bin Ladin operation," according to the memo. (Hundreds of pages of CIA documents about the film were released last year; the memo obtained by Gawker was approved for release late last month.)

During these calls, Boal "verbally shared the screenplay" for Zero Dark Thirty in order to get the CIA's feedback, and the CIA's public affairs department verbally asked Boal to take out parts that they objected to. According to the memo, he did.

Here are the key changes:

The much-discussed opening scene of Zero Dark Thirty features the main character Maya, played by Jessica Chastain, observing a detainee at a CIA black site as he is water-boarded and shoved into a tiny box during an interrogation. It appears that an early version had Maya participating in the torture. But during their conference calls, the CIA told Boal that this was not true to life. The memo reads: "For this scene we emphasized that substantive debriefers [i.e. Maya] did not administer [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] because in this scene he had a non-interrogator, substantive debriefer assisting in a dosing technique."

According to the memo, "Boal said he would fix this." Indeed, in the final film Maya doesn't touch the prisoner during this scene. The decision to have Maya abstain from the torture was as significant artistically as it was factually. Her ambivalence was a key part of her character, and critics picked over every detail of the torture scenes, including Maya's status as an observer rather than a participant, for meaning in the debate over torture that the movie sparked.

Wired's Spencer Ackerman, for example, interpreted Maya's complex relationship to on-screen torture as a sign of a complex inner life: "Maya is... a cipher: she is shown coming close to puking when observing the torture. But she also doesn’t object to it." Of course, the scene reads a bit differently if the choice was dictated by a CIA propaganda officer...

http://gawker.com/declassified-memo-sho ... -493174407

The Rancid Honeytrap ‏@ohtarzie: The CIA wasn't shaping the narrative. They simply wanted to make sure the film accurately depicted the CIA's unassailable virtue.
Retweeted by emptywheel

@ggreenwald: The worst part of ZDT wasn`t its depiction of torture (awful) but its servitude as mindless vehicle of CIA worldview