MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Leon Panetta Acknowledging The “Enhanced Interrogration Techniques” That Led To Finding Bin Laden

This footage was posted by a hater of liberals, it seems. But that doesn’t make what Panetta admits, at the time of the events, false.

Panetta does say, at the end of this interview, that there may have been better ways to get the intel. But he doesn’t deny that “enhancer interrogation” was used and that some fo the bin Laden information came from those who were interrogated.

3 Responses to “Leon Panetta Acknowledging The “Enhanced Interrogration Techniques” That Led To Finding Bin Laden”

  1. spassky says:

    Saw ‘ZD30′ today.

    I can’t believe actual critics are getting their intellectual panties in a twist about the early interrogation scenes. As you have said David, it is incredibly condescending to say the average viewer can’t read between the lines and realize that this is depicting a culture of torture, which inevitably has to be regarded as a piece of the puzzle in terms of getting the intel that led to UBL.

    That being said, I’m surprised that politicians on the right are actually making a big deal about this (McCain I’m assuming just rolled of his heated back pad and decided he wanted to be in the spotlight for a day or two). While perhaps they’re making a play at calling hypocrisy on the left-leaning film community (I’m sure they have a battle plan involving the spin they’re putting on the Newtown tragedies) and the officials that (supposedly) enabled them to make this film, there is just one thing I cannot get past: The only way to somewhat legitimize the advanced interrogation techniques of the past decade is to make it seem as if they led to the intel which led to UBL. McCain goes on and on about how torture makes us seem in the eyes of the world, but newsflash you old fucktard: everyone in the entire world knows we tortured detainees (and probably most assumed it before abu ghraib etc), so why not make it seem like we actually got somewhere with it but realized it was a bad and corrupting technique?

    And now I realize I just said the word “fucktard” referring to John McCain. And I apologize for that.

  2. Mike says:

    McCain was tortured while a POW. He’s been extremely anti-torture ever since. It’s one of his few good traits. It’s also why it’s so important for him that torture not be shown to have worked.

  3. tbunny says:

    It would be shocking if no information came out of torture, given how much of it was done. I mean they rounded up and blacksited thousands of people. Along with the small amount of legitimate info they got, they got blood on their hands and millions of hours of human anguish, which I’m sure was satisfying to important people who appear on Sunday talk shows.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies

Quote Unquotesee all »

“Yes, good movies sprout up, inevitably, in the cracks and seams between the tectonic plates on which all of these franchises stay balanced, and we are reassured of their hardiness. But we don’t see what we don’t see; we don’t see the effort, or the cost of the effort, or the movies of which we’re deprived because of the cost of the effort. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Inherent Vice may have come from a studio, but it still required a substantial chunk of outside financing, and at $35 million, it’s not even that expensive. No studio could find the $8.5 million it cost Dan Gilroy to make Nightcrawler. Birdman cost a mere $18 million and still had to scrape that together at the last minute. Imagine American movie culture for the last few years without Her or Foxcatcher or American Hustle or The Master or Zero Dark Thirty and it suddenly looks markedly more frail—and those movies exist only because of the fairy godmothership of independent producer Megan Ellison. The grace of billionaires is not a great business model on which to hang the hopes of an art form.”
~ Mark Harris On The State Of The Movies

How do you make a Top Ten list? For tax and organizational purposes, I keep a log of every movie I see (Title, year, director, exhibition format, and location the film was viewed in). Anything with an asterisk to the left of its title means it’s a 2014 release (or something I saw at a festival which is somehow in play for the year). If there’s a performance, or sequence, or line of dialogue, even, that strikes me in a certain way, I’ll make a note of it. So when year end consideration time (that is, the month and change out of the year where I feel valued) rolls around, it’s a little easier to go through and pull some contenders for categories. For 2014, I’m voting in three polls: Indiewire, SEFCA (my critics’ guild), and the Muriels. Since Indiewire was first, it required the most consternation. There were lots of films that I simply never had a chance to see, so I just went with my gut. SEFCA requires a lot of hemming and hawing and trying to be strategic, even though there’s none of the in-person skullduggery that I hear of from folk whose critics’ guild is all in the same city. The Muriels is the most fun to contribute to because it’s after the meat market phase of awards season. Also, because it’s at the beginning of next year, I’ll generally have been able to see everything I wanted to by then. I love making hierarchical lists, partially because they are so subjective and mercurial. Every critical proclamation is based on who you are at that moment and what experiences you’ve had up until that point. So they change, and that’s okay. It’s all a weird game of timing and emotional waveforms, and I’m sure a scientist could do an in-depth dissection of the process that leads to the discovery of shocking trends in collective evaluation. But I love the year end awards crush, because I feel somewhat respected and because I have a wild-and-wooly work schedule that has me bouncing around the city to screenings, or power viewing the screeners I get sent.
Jason Shawhan of Nashville Scene Answers CriticWire