Taxi to the Dark Side

It seems this film, which I saw a screening of a few months ago, is opening tonight in DC. I believe that means it's already been available in New York and LA, and may or may not be coming to a city near you. But if it is playing near you, you should definitely check it out. There've been a lot of dumb "war on terror"-related films released over the past couple of years; lame efforts to do fiction-as-polemic. This is different. It's a documentary, it's brilliantly well-executed, and it not only presents and argument but it does so in an emotionally searing way:

It's about torture, so it's not exactly the most fun Friday plan you could imagine, but it's a great, important film and you should really check it out.

Comments

In the short span of my young adulthood, we've moved from being a country that, for all of our terrible foreign policy machinations, tried to act with a sense of justice and due process. We are now not only just another country where the ruling junta disappears its enemies, tortures and murders; we're now a country where one of the two dominant political parties actively celebrates this fact at every occasion, while the other dominant party does next to nothing to oppose it. Congratulations, conservatives. Keep living the dream.

Posted by Freddie | February 8, 2008 11:55 AM

Now that you've denounced Friday night torture, you'll never be invited to speak at CPAC.

Seriously, this is a terrific film whatever your views on the US response to 9-11, islamofacism or related activities.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | February 8, 2008 12:07 PM

That unfortunately hits the nail on the head, Freddie. Human rights abuses occur in every war; I think the American record in general is pretty good on that score, but certainly not perfect. I could understand, if not agree, if the Right were taking the position of Col. Mathieu in The Battle of Algiers: that yes, we're talking about torture; yes, it's terrible; but it is sadly necessary if we want to achieve our aims. But instead, we have gleeful cheering for a regime of torture combined with a refusal to admit that this is what we are talking about. I'm pleased McCain is the nominee because, to some degree at least, he has objected to this development. But it's probably not enough.

Posted by Noah Millman | February 8, 2008 12:18 PM

But instead, we have gleeful cheering for a regime of torture combined with a refusal to admit that this is what we are talking about.

No, what they're properly refusing to admit is that your absurd hyperbole bears any relationship to reality. You're probably not going to win over many hearts and minds as long as you keep saying such ridiculous things.

Posted by Mixner | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM

You're probably not going to win over many hearts and minds as long as you keep saying such ridiculous things

That is some dark humor right there.

Posted by hum | February 8, 2008 12:39 PM

Mixner: which part of the quoted sentence was absurd hyperbole: "gleeful cheering", "regime of torture", or "refusal to admit"? Just curious.

Posted by Noah Millman | February 8, 2008 12:41 PM

"Gleeful cheering" and "regime of torture" are absurd hyperbole. "Refusal to admit" is simply wrong. Hope that helps.

Posted by Mixner | February 8, 2008 12:45 PM

"Gleeful cheering" and "regime of torture" are absurd hyperbole. "Refusal to admit" is simply wrong."

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Posted by Mark | February 8, 2008 2:01 PM

Via Atrios, check this out:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/08/gibney-taxi-discovery/

Discovery Channel bought the rights to show it, but now it's too controversial.

Posted by Evan | February 8, 2008 2:04 PM

Mixner, I take it you haven't seen any video from the last few CPACs or gone to a Republican stump speech lately. This absolutely is a party that has embraced torture not as some terrible necessity but as a rallying cry. The torture test has become the acid test among far too many conservatives; if you don't enthusiastically cheerlead for ever more torture by America, you aren't a real conservative. Look don't take my word for it, read the Corner, read the comments at Red State. It's all there.

Posted by Freddie | February 8, 2008 2:30 PM

You seem to be contradicting yourself.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

This absolutely is a party that has embraced torture not as some terrible necessity but as a rallying cry.

"Rallying cry." Where do you get this nonsense? Your fevered imagination is working overtime.

Posted by Mixner | February 8, 2008 2:48 PM

I thought Charlie Wilson's War was a pretty good political film, too. Ironically, some reviewers I read said it wasn't relevant today. But the message at the end couldn't have been more clear unless it was a punch in the face.

Posted by mpowell | February 8, 2008 3:14 PM

Mixner: We've waterboarded at least 3 prisoners. If a poll were taken on September 10, 2001, I'm confident that a super-majority of republicans and democrats would have agreed that waterboarding is a form of torture. Now a substantial component of the republican party now denies that waterboarding is torture. Another component of the Republican party thinks opposition to torture is a sign of weakness. These are ugly, ugly developments for the republican party and the country.

Posted by Led | February 8, 2008 3:45 PM

let the troll and his comments waft delicately into the ether, and pay him no more mind.

Posted by looj | February 8, 2008 5:32 PM

Mixner: We've waterboarded at least 3 prisoners. If a poll were taken on September 10, 2001, I'm confident that a super-majority of republicans and democrats would have agreed that waterboarding is a form of torture. Now a substantial component of the republican party now denies that waterboarding is torture.

I seriously doubt that even a simple majority of Repubs and Dems would have agreed before 9/11 that waterboarding is torture. This is partly because there is no clear agreement over what the term "torture" even really means. The vague and incoherent United Nations definition certainly isn't much help.

And of course, the ethics of waterboarding do not depend on what you call it. If it was okay for us to blow up thousands of innocent German and Japanese children by dropping bombs on them during WWII, it's hard to see the grounds for an absolute prohibition on waterboarding.

Posted by Mixner | February 8, 2008 9:23 PM

Making someone think and feel as if they are about to die for the purpose of extracting information is torture. I never heard anyone argue otherwise until the US government started doing it.

Posted by Led | February 8, 2008 10:00 PM

Making someone think and feel as if they are about to die for the purpose of extracting information is torture.

So if they don't think they're about to die, or if you do it for some other purpose than extracting information, it's not torture?

I think we need a clear definition. Good luck with that.

Posted by Mixner | February 8, 2008 10:07 PM

I find it amusing that Mixner denies that Republicans embrace torture - but every time the subject comes up, up he pops. Clearly he has a major emotional investment in the issue.

Led, you're not quite correct. Threatening to kill someone unless they talk is not torture. And it's effective provided you can prove that you actually will kill them - usually by killing someone else in front of them.

Torture OTOH entails putting someone in various degrees of physical pain and discomfort in an effort to make them talk or confess something.

Threatening to kill someone is strictly psychological. There is no physical effort or physical pain or discomfort involved. Its effectiveness depends entirely on the mind of the victim. A victim who truly isn't afraid to die for his beliefs will render it ineffective. Fortunately, not many people qualify, even in terrorist circles.

Mind you, this technique is STILL not as effective as other interrogation techniques, but it's much more effective than torture.

You could, I suppose, argue that any form of "psychological pressure" is torture. But that would eliminate most conventional interrogation techniques as well, so I don't think that definition is correct.

The international laws against torture DO specify that any mental "pain and suffering" constitutes torture. This definition seems to be unclear, as virtually any interrogation method other than the most delicate is going to induce some sort of mental "suffering" - if just to keep one's lies straight.

However, the international laws also specify that "It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions to the extent consistent with the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners."

That would seem to allow most conventional interrogation techniques, but still omit threatening to kill someone.

My stance is that conventional interrogation techniques are the only ones that should be allowed in a counterintelligence or law enforcement circumstance. But in a military combat situation - and by that I mean actually in an area where ongoing combat operations exist, not in Guantanamo thousands of miles away - threatening to kill an enemy combatant to force him to reveal tactically or strategically immediately valuable information should be permitted.

You don't actually kill the victim, although you might well kill his comrade to convince him you would.

This in fact is what most military torture has been about in most societies: forcing people to reveal information that is immediately useful, actionable intelligence - not general intelligence gathering.

If the enemy combatant clearly calls your bluff, or does not have actionable, immediately valuable intelligence, you don't bother to kill him. He becomes a prisoner of war.

As an aside, last Monday night's episode of "Terminator" had an example of good vs bad interrogation methods:

Sarah Connor has captured an employee of an enemy Terminator. She's beating him up while strapped in a chair to convince him to tell her where the Terminator is going with her son. He refuses. Cameron, the "good" Terminator, says, "If you beat him to death, he can't tell us anything."

So Sarah takes a knife and cuts the captive's restraints, telling him, "You can go - if you can get past her."

Next scene, the guy is REAL cooperative...because Cameron has scared the crap out of him. No violence necessary - or at least none was shown; presumably he needed some "demonstrations" that did inflict considerable pain and suffering.

Of course, then they left him stranded in a mine field, Cameron complaining that it would have been "more efficient to kill him". I'd say that should be out of bounds by law - but then they were in a combat situation and outside the law anyway.

Bottom line: torture doesn't work. Execution threats do. Other interrogation methods are better than both.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 9, 2008 12:44 AM