I don't know

This article was really helpful à http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/002/film/reviews/0007.html

           

            Zero Dark Thirty presents multiple ethical dilemmas with the questionable interrogation techniques and instances of torture that occur throughout the film. The first one we see is “waterboarding”, which was apparently, “one of the most heatedly debated aspects of the Bush-era War on Terror.” It was definitely painful to watch, as was the other torture techniques used by the American interrogators. In my opinion, the worst technique Dan used to get the main detainee to talk was the locking him in that tiny box. I can’t even imagine. I’m pretty claustrophobic and even 5 minutes in there would be hell.

That article brought up a lot of great questions: 

·       Should techniques such as waterboarding be classified as torture, which is illegal under U.S. and international law?

·       Are such techniques both necessary and effective, or are there other and more reliable ways to obtain information?

·       And, legal or not, are we betraying our moral values by using such techniques, whatever we decide to call them?

·       Where should we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation? Who should have final say? 

                                                                                                                                                

The film had to throw the clip of Obama claiming, “The US will not participate in nor condone torture as a method of obtaining information,” which I believe was followed by the scene where Dan is telling Maya to watch her back for the organization that was searching the Black Sites for violent interrogations. So to answer the first question, I definitely think these techniques should be classified as torture. That’s why that organization was formed to stop these types of interrogations. For the second question- we can see how these methods were eventually effective with obtaining information, but even the interrogators were second-guessing themselves. What if the prisoners were just giving false information to avoid being tortured? Such a mind game. As far as the next two questions, I’m honestly not really sure. Eventually the film resolves in the assassination of Bin-Laden, leaving us feeling satisfied? Maybe? Should we have captured him alive? Can the interrogators live with themselves knowing they’ve done horrible things for their cause? Could we have found Bin-Laden without the use of such mentally and physically painful techniques? It’s a lot to think about.