abugrahib4_gallery__470x3750.jpg

Sadism at Work

Taxi to the Dark Side / Phillip Stephens

Film Reviews | January 18, 2008 | Comments (35)


Four years ago, Steps International, a humanitarian non-profit, began producing a series of documentary films called Why Democracy? Ten different films were helmed by an international cadre of independent directors, with each piece posing a question toward contemporary democracy in various global contexts. The question for the United States, embodied in the film Taxi to the Dark Side was this: Can terrorism destroy democracy?

Given the subject matter — the abduction and torture of an innocent Afghan taxi driver at Begram Air Base — and the director, Alex Gibney, who produced, co-wrote, and directed Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, it’s not hard to see where this is going. And where Gibney goes isn’t pretty; starting with Dilawar, the unassuming young cabbie who falls victim to events impossibly out of his grasp, Taxi climbs upward, slowly and inexorably, toward the origins of human cruelty. Over 100 prisoners have died under suspicious circumstances in American custody during the War on Terror, likely victims of a ghastly new rationalization of torture. Dilawar died, an autopsy would later reveal, due to hideous injuries inflicted on his legs, themselves a mere part of a protracted sequence of abuse.

Gibney then presents us with the torturers themselves, a handful of grunts who were later court-martialed, who movingly recount what they did to Dilawar and why. These aren’t the eagerly malicious monsters indulged by our imagination, but soft-spoken men who maintain they thought they were carrying out their duty against a bitter enemy. It’s easy to condemn them for the atrocity they’ve spawned, but Gibney shows us that it shouldn’t be a simple condemnation. The Geneva-skirting “interrogation” techniques used at Bagram and, later, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, included waterboarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation, and a variety of hellish others, which were explicitly approved, if not encouraged by a bureaucratic chain leading directly into the White House. The soldiers carrying out their orders come across as cruel pawns maneuvered by gnarled hands who then offer them up as martyrs to the resultant moral outcry.

The Bush Administration, the film contends, was directly behind a series of rationalizations, wielded with obfuscatory malice, which would legalize the use of certain tortures against prisoners of war. Why? As another way of eroding the legalities of their authority. Gibney’s power in crafting the film lies in the slow and steady climb toward Bush and Rumsfeld, and the seemingly trivial changes they introduce that have murderous consequences on the ground level, echoing the bureaucracy-as-nightmare vantage of No End in Sight without its bombast. The most devastating element, other than those chilling White House sound bites of Rumsfeld’s dissembling, is the testimony of the soldiers who had to carry out their brutal tasks, and the reflection that nine out of ten normal human beings would’ve done the same in their place. It wasn’t as if right and wrong didn’t factor into their actions, it was that it somehow didn’t apply in the situation they found themselves.

Does terrorism destroy democracy? Taxi to the Dark Side seems to answer yes, but not by the face value forces the question implies. Religious zealots don’t pose the more profound threat to the United States, Gibney suggests, because in a country that takes steps to dehumanize others, democracy may be a foregone conclusion.

Phillip Stephens is the lead critic and books editor for Pajiba. He lives in Fayetteville, AR, and will probably vote for Nader again this year, whether or not he runs.









Pajiba Love 01/17/08 | Mad Money













Comments

Huh, I've never even heard of this movie, but it sounds interesting.

What were some of the other movies in this 10 movie set?

Posted by: Jim at January 18, 2008 8:35 AM

I definitely want to see this movie, but I already think that torture is wrong. I just wonder how I could get people who might think it is a grey area or who think it is ok to watch it. They are the people who need to see this kind of thing.

Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 8:52 AM

Technically, democracy only exists in the people's minds and; therefore, cannot be "destroyed." I don't believe the idea of democracy can ever be destroyed, it can only be denied. Terrorism cannot deny democracy, it can only serve as a tool for others to deny it, as we see by Bush & Co., in the name of protecting us from terrorism.

It all comes down to Ben Franklin, say it with me now: "Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Posted by: Duane at January 18, 2008 9:11 AM

I'm assuming what you mean, Erin, when you allude to "people who might think [torture] is a grey area or who think it is ok to watch it" you are talking about people who watch torture porn (right?). I agree that a lot of people totally miss what I perceive as the 'moral' of those movies and just watch them because they like the grisly torture scenes, which actually emphasizes what I think that point of those movies and of this one, it seems: it doesn't just take violent psychopaths to administer torture and inflict pain upon others but, under duress, otherwise normal people become capable of torturing human beings. This suggests that there is something in human nature that drives us against our moral impulse not to inflict harm upon others. Further, when you consider yourself a normal person and you are watching torture porn, it's hard to disagree with this conceit because you are watching it for entertainment. The problem is that people are fucking idiots. It is true that maybe this realistic depiction of the brutality of what is actually going on in the world will be more effective at getting through to people. But, inevitably, some douchefaces will only be attracted to this film because it more realistically satisfies their jones for torture.

Posted by: Lobstersurprise at January 18, 2008 9:24 AM

I think you guys may have just hit the nail on the head of why "torture porn" has become and continues to be (even if it's in apparent decline--one can hope)such a popular genre. It's not so much that "people are fucking idiots," as Lobstersurprise puts it (though we tend to be) so much as that we are wired to act towards self-preservation. I would bet that the nine out of ten people who would be willing to carry out torture in the same situation would do so for fear, whether conscious or subconscious, of losing their jobs, their status or having to face jail time and perhaps even the same treatment they've been asked to inflict on others. In that sense, I suppose, yes, "people are fucking idiots."

Terry Gilliam was making this argument 25 years ago when he made the official state interrogator/torturer in _Brazil_ such a charming, funny and unimposing man (Michael Palin was PERFECTLY cast in that role). He intended to show what true evil looks like (in comparison to what he calls the charicature of evil that is Darth Vader): charming, attractive, friendly and ultimately more than willing to stab you in the back if it meets its purposes. When we sit back and allow our government to engage in these acts in our name, we are complicit in this evil and indeed deserve neither liberty nor security. Half-assed "debates" as to whether or not "waterboarding" (I prefer the term some news organizations have started using: partial drowning. Doesn't mince any words and deflects the entire question in one fell swoop) is torture are meaningless and ultimately rob us not just of our freedom but of our very humanity. And it's all born from a sense of following along, not ruffling any feathers and hoping that it'll all pass soon enough.

As Woody Allen said about _Zelig_: complacency leads to fascism.

Posted by: Armando at January 18, 2008 9:40 AM

It is amazing what people are capable of, when given the authority to act (this can be from a government or by assuming that the rules no longer apply to you). A prime example would be The Invisible Man. Instead of becoming invisible, the soldiers portrayed here, were given carte blanche to extract whatever information they needed. Thus enabled, they did what they thought was necessary. Nuremburg proved that that is not an excuse, by any means, but it shows what happens when people have some stronger power to hide behind.

Posted by: ScarletKnight at January 18, 2008 9:42 AM

Okay, I know this will be an unpopular comment, but I really believe there's a connection between the calm acceptance of techniques such as waterboarding and the success of 24 as a TV show. Whenever I engage people in debate on this topic, I get the example of Jack Bauer torturing some guy in the interests of stopping a nuclear bomb exploding in Los Angeles (which they think makes it okay). I'm not one of thse people who wants video games banned because they might lead to violence, but this one bothers me. There is no mass public outrage against what we have learned is going on: rendition anyone? Does anyone really think torture would have prevented 9/11? If a guy is willing to fly himself into a building and go up in flames in the interests of his warped beliefs, he's not going to tell the truth under torture.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 18, 2008 9:42 AM

Oh, I meant that people are fucking idiots because they are incapable of getting the correct message from the torture movies and they just enjoy the torture sequences without trying to analyze why they are enjoying them. Sorry for the confusion!

Posted by: Lobstersurprise at January 18, 2008 9:46 AM

They banned the original poster for this film as it had a man (in the distance) wearing a hood being lead away by two American soldiers.

The reason for this ban?

"However the MPAA has ordered the poster be changed on the grounds that the image of the hood was unsuitable for all audiences because it can evoke gruesome images of horror films such as Saw and Hostel, the film's distributor's told Variety."

Here's a link to the story on an Australian news site, including the "unsuitable" poster.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/20/2123962.htm

Posted by: Godsbane at January 18, 2008 9:50 AM

I agree with you PaddyDog, but I also believe that the "calm acceptance" as Armando puts it, is also a major factor. The fat and happy citizens of the US aren't going to care about torturing the so-called enemy, as long as it doesn't interfere with their watching of Two and a Half Men (and I refuse to italicize those words because it really isn't worth it). And to answer your question about preventing 9/11: nothing short of erecting a force field around the WTC would have prevented its demise.

Posted by: ScarletKnight at January 18, 2008 9:51 AM

ScarletKnight: Yeah, no disagreement with you and Armando. There's also the insidious "they're not like us" mantra that has been used for centuries to justify doing bad things to people (Heretics, Jews, Blacks, dissenters, etc.). As long as the comfortable masses believe that the people being tortured are "animals" or lesser beings, they're okay with it. Also interesting to me that there's been no outcry from the powerful Evangelical lobby about this because I seem to remember something about "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Ho hum!

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 18, 2008 10:15 AM

What I meant by people thinking torture is a grey area was that some people think it is ok in certain circumstances. Like I have talked to some people who think it is ok because maybe it will help people in the end. But I don't feel like it is ever ok. I probably worded that sentencing really strangely, but I do think it is weird that people want to watch someone get tortured as entertainment. I think that is pretty sick.

Posted by: Erin at January 18, 2008 10:26 AM

It's been proven over and over in psychological experiments that people, given authority and/or orders, will carry them out brutally. The "Stanford Prison Experiment," where college students were separated into "guards" and "prisoners," had to be stopped after a few days because of the brutality witnessed. In another experiment, subjects were told to flip labeled switches on a board to give people in an adjacent room "electric shocks," and would continue to do so even when the switches were labeled "DANGEROUS" and the person in the next room (an actor) was screaming and begging to be let out.

This phenomenon doesn't surprise me, but it definitely shows that people need to have more accountability for their actions towards others, especially their inferiors (in any sense of the word).

Posted by: That Girl at January 18, 2008 10:54 AM

I remember when I saw Resevoir Dogs in theaters and getting really uncomfortable when the ear scene happened. Really uncomfortable. Kinda squirmy actually.

Nowadays, that's nothing.

It's frightening the level of acceptance that seems to have taken place in regards to not only torture, but torture as a form of entertainment, especially in the amount of time it has. Makes one wonder what's next, given that we live in a culture dominated by "reality" television and a generation growing up with torture-porn as a readily available source of entertainment (I use that term very loosely).

Posted by: Skittimus Maximus at January 18, 2008 11:12 AM

I believe exposing the truth about the prevalence of torture, whether used towards some supposedly moralistic end of curbing terrorism or not, is essential. But, I think that for these media to be effective, and it seems that this film is, they need to emphasize that it doesn't take evil people to carry out these acts. Rather than watching this film and thinking *ohh that's terrible, but I would never be able to do that to someone* the more successful reaction the film would get should be *ohh that's terrible. Could I be capable of doing that to someone?* So, those people who think they can just detach themselves from the people who torture presumably innocent people are naïve to me. Sorry for commenting so much. Slow work day.

Posted by: Lobstersurprise at January 18, 2008 11:12 AM

I completely agree with the comments that have been posted thus far on the topic, but inherent in this agreement is part of a larger problem--who sees films such as this one. Clearly this documentary raises important questions and will hopefully push those who view it, as lobstersurprise noted, to think more about the capability of individuals to go to those limits with another human being. But my guess is, the people who view this film will be like many of the commenters on this site, those against such treatment (whether or not is is "officially" deemed torture or not) and those who recognize that these soldiers were merely pawns in the larger game against the "war against terror" played by GW and his cronies (aside: this certainly does not in any way excuse these soldiers' actions/choices). The real question is how to get films such as these and messages such as these to people like my mother-in-law, a woman who is quite certain that terrorists are going to strike Ft. Wayne, IN at any given moment. Until we can do that, we remain preaching to choir.

Sorry for the rambling, but it's something that I struggle with/think about a lot (:

Posted by: aprileee at January 18, 2008 12:18 PM

I remember when I saw Resevoir Dogs in theaters and getting really uncomfortable when the ear scene happened. Really uncomfortable. Kinda squirmy actually.

Nowadays, that's nothing.

I sort of had the opposite experience, in that I didn't see Reservoir Dogs until just this Christmas (it was one of my presents). I'd heard it was brutal and such, and there was a nasty torture scene. And then I watched it and thought, 'that's it?' Back in '92 or whenever it was released, that was a big deal. These days, you're right, it's nothing.

Posted by: Cuno at January 18, 2008 1:18 PM

Paddydog: "If a guy is willing to fly himself into a building and go up in flames in the interests of his warped beliefs, he's not going to tell the truth under torture."

There's also the problem that torture does not necessarily lead to the extraction of truth. At the end, torture leads to the victim saying whatever he thinks his captors want to hear to end the torture, true or false. It is for this reason that torture is illegal when interrogating criminal suspects in this country; partially drown someone often enough, or shock them with electricity, or cut their skin, or deprive them of sleep, or abuse them in the most humiliating way, and eventually they'll say "yes, yes I killed the guy" just to make it stop. Torture does not find truth; it subverts truth. Torture does not bring justice; it subverts justice. And if We The People don't get our act together, stand up and demand that our leaders stop these inhumane acts, we're going to wake up one day in a nationalist, facist society where there's nothing left of freedom and liberty, and wonder "how did it get to this?"

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but the idea that people are being tortured in my name, in the name of my people, horrifies me to no end, and I think it's just a matter of time before the line between "those people" and "all people" dissolves entirely.

Posted by: Cady at January 18, 2008 2:28 PM

Cady: Amen to everything you just posted.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 18, 2008 2:35 PM

Looks like I'm the lone voice of opposition.

Personally, I don't want to live in a country that sees everything in black or white. As in "no torture is acceptable in any circumstance" or "no murderer deserves the death penalty" If I have the ability to save multiple innocent lives at the expense of a single individual that knows how to save those lives, I want to be able to use it. Indiscriminate use of those tactics, I do not support but I do want my government to have the option do what is needed when it is needed.

Posted by: djganesh at January 18, 2008 3:07 PM

I believe the question was posited in Swordfish, "Here's a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world's diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?" Who among us would be willing to do that? I agree, djganesh, that extreme times call for extreme measures and believe me, for the safety of my family I would do unimaginable things to ensure that. Or at least I think I would. But when should I stop? You start on the slippery slope of "it had to be done to ensure our safety" and you then begin to eliminate other potential threats resulting in the indiscriminate usage we all fear. Paranoia only has to be validated once for every thing done in its name, to be worth it.

Posted by: ScarletKnight at January 18, 2008 3:57 PM

"Here's a scenario. You have the power to cure all the world's diseases but the price for this is that you must kill a single innocent child, could you kill that child Stanley?"

I understand your position. As for when would you stop? That is why we have to trust the people we elect and entrust with our safty are diciplined enough to know when to stop. The quote is deeply flawed since we already have killed probably hunderds, maybe more, just curing deseases one at a time due to alergies and the like. I wouldn't stop vaccines for that reason and I wouldn't stop doing what is called called for the save American lives.

Posted by: djganesh at January 18, 2008 4:25 PM

"At the end, torture leads to the victim saying whatever he thinks his captors want to hear to end the torture"

Posted by Cady Jan. 18 @ 2:28 pm

My mom would call that common sense 101. Too bad GWB never took that class. And yes, I think the buck stops there.

Posted by: Phat girl at January 18, 2008 4:27 PM

PaddyDog - I once saw the "Jack Bauer saves LA!" example used as an actual, serious, pro-torture argument. I wish I could remember where it was - a speech, I think, or an op-ed in a newspaper. I could maybe find it with some dedicated googling, but I'm swamped at work today. Anyway, I remember reading it and wanting to throw my computer across the room. Do people not realize that it is NOT REAL? That it is SCRIPTED? You can't argue in favor of something by making up (or citing) a fictional situation in which that something is good. "I am in favor of requiring all citizens to wear tin foil hats at all times. Why? Because in this story that I just made up, the protagonist wears a tin foil hat and it helps him save a kitty that's stuck in a tree." I mean, seriously? Seriously?!

Sorry, I really get my back up about that. [/rant]

Anyway, bless you Phillip for posting this review - I heard a blurb about this movie on NPR this morning but was too sleepy to fully comprehend it, so I was left with only the knowledge that there was a really good movie I needed to see.

Also, Cady, I'll second PaddyDog's "Amen".

Posted by: alanna at January 18, 2008 4:33 PM

"It's frightening the level of acceptance that seems to have taken place in regards to not only torture, but torture as a form of entertainment, especially in the amount of time it has. Makes one wonder what's next, given that we live in a culture dominated by "reality" television and a generation growing up with torture-porn as a readily available source of entertainment (I use that term very loosely)."

"Personally, I don't want to live in a country that sees everything in black or white. As in "no torture is acceptable in any circumstance" or "no murderer deserves the death penalty" If I have the ability to save multiple innocent lives at the expense of a single individual that knows how to save those lives, I want to be able to use it. Indiscriminate use of those tactics, I do not support but I do want my government to have the option do what is needed when it is needed. "

Djganesh, I think that's just giving the government too much credit AND assuming that torture will yield the truth. As Cady pointed out, torture seldom, if ever, leads to truthful statements. After a while, the torture victim ends up confessing to anything, simply to make the pain stop.

I agree with you that I don't want to live in a country where everything is either black or white. With this issue, however, I think it's best to err in that direction in order to save our collective soul. America is supposed to be an example. We're supposed to be ABOVE these things. We fought WWII in large part because of it and it has informed a great deal of our foreign policy, at least how we conduct ourselves on it (with some glaring excemptions--cough, Cambodia, cough). I think the ultimate price we pay for the (very limited, if not downright illusory) security such an approach would provide is simply too high for us to contemplate as a nation.

Posted by: Armando at January 18, 2008 5:24 PM

By the way, aprilee, I think you have a good point about the intended audience for a film like this. This is why I'm a big fan of Battlestar Galactica (as I know several Pajibans are), because it brings issues like this to light within the "safe" context of science fiction. I think shows like that ultimately do more good than documentaries that preach to the choir, but those documentaries are important to have anyway. Y'know?

One more thing to djganesh: TRUST THE GOVERNMENT?!?!? Are you fucking kidding me? I've been spewing a lot about the "price" of democracy, but its cost is vigilance. We, as a populace, CANNOT implicitly trust the governmnent to do anything for our well being as individuals, as citizens and as a community. We have to watch them closely in order to assure that they act in a way that is responsible to their constituents and not solely based on the interests of a few individuals with power. I realize that whenever we vote for a candidate running for elected office we are, indeed, placing a trust upon them to act on our behalf. If that is what you mean, I apologize for my outburst above. If it isn't, however, I would argue that a good look at the history of our government since the Nixon administration is warranted.

Apologies all around for the two posts in a row.

Posted by: Armando at January 18, 2008 5:31 PM

It seems increasingly clear that torture has been our unofficial official policy since the outset of the Iraq War. It's just a matter of time before the investigation finally leads to where we all know its going. Too bad everyone responsible will be playing golf in Dubai by then.

Posted by: alexis at January 18, 2008 6:36 PM

Gibney's "Enron" lays out the media-approved narrative, the so-called 'scandal' that was more accurately a huge criminal enterprise. The filmmaker tacitly accepts the phony excuse that since modern business is 'highly complex' or some such obfuscation, that no wrongdoing or culprit can readily be found.

In describing the new film, the review reflects an assertion that I do not accept, the same kind of attitude found in the Enron film:

"These aren't the eagerly malicious monsters indulged by our imagination, but soft-spoken men who maintain they thought they were carrying out their duty against a bitter enemy."

No, no, no. They are soul-frozen, dead-stupid psychotics, and so are all the people who helped them get that way, systematically. If the filmmaker lets anyone in the picture seem more 'human' than is absolutely necessary, he's done wrong and scuttled the whole subject.

Posted by: Mr. Copeland at January 18, 2008 7:57 PM

If you ask me, we're still a very brutal, often regressive species (yes, species and no more than that) that is driven by the obvious motivators in a world in which the majority of our natural fears/threats have been eradicated.

It is an uncomfortable time, in which we hustle to elevate ourselves into a new order of response to conflict - a set of moral codes that allow us to feel disgust at such things as torture or oppression of others. It is slow going (see the deep-seated gestalt rumblings that some people have for torture porn movies) and is often completely misguided and co-opted by 'leader-types' to achieve a personal goal (power over the masses by championing anti-abortion, or 'intelligent design' theory or whatnot).

If there was ever a time for the somewhat self-aware, somewhat ready to sacrifice time/money/effort, general blokes and blokettes of the world to get organized and vote, agree to be taxed out the wazoo for green initiatives, volunteer, and drag thier friends kicking and screaming into conversations about matters of import - for land's sake - it's now.

Yah?

Posted by: Rebeccah at January 19, 2008 5:37 PM

Mr. Copeland, I found no shortage of culprits in Enron, and your assertion that it was a criminal enterprise instead of a scandal is a distinction without a difference, as it was universally found to be both. Skilling and Lay were both tried and convicted, and everyone at Enron and Arthur Anderson lost their jobs. The people who were ripped off cannot be made whole, as there's nobody to pay them.

Do I read in your post a desire for criminal prosecution of those lower in the Enron food chain?

That Girl mentioned the old shock experiments of the 1960s. Ethics considerations prevent this sort of experiment being done nowadays (unfortunately, the same can't be said for the real-life equivalent), but it was extremely enlightening and valuable. Here are some conclusions drawn by the experimenter, Stanley Milgram:

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

Go Wiki "Milgram experiment" -- my hope is that it will challenge your assumptions about the torturing soldiers.

Posted by: sansho1 at January 20, 2008 5:44 AM

When we accept torture by our 'side' of those on the other, eventually we will accept it as a weapon against our own. And we have already, so it's too late.

How long will it be until we allow the torture and unlawful detention of United States citizens who speak out against their government or some big business?

1.) The Patriot Act gave the president sole discretion to declare anyone (US citizen included) an 'enemy combatant'.

2.) The Military Commissions Act eradicated habeas corpus for anyone determined by the president to be an 'enemy combatant'.

3.) The Violent Radicalization and Home Grown Terrorism Prevention Act in Congress right now is legislation that forms an at large committee to investigate disgruntled citizens, then it will turn over their findings and recommendations to be carried out by a contractor (Blackwater perhaps?) employed by the government.

What democracy? Read this great post by Matt Stoller and you can see regardless of party, it's the politicians against the people:

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2979

Posted by: Clevelandchick at January 20, 2008 4:02 PM

Sansho I think we all agree that blaming the blunt tools is a dubious proposition at best and a self-destructive one at worst. We don't want the soldiers "being offered up as martyrs by the architects" to rephrase a sentence from this page somewhere. Milgram's experiment illuminates many dark places in our psychology but doesn't quite get to the heart of the matter here.

Torture is, for all the reasons listed above, plain wrong. It is:
-Impractical
-Regressive/Backwards
-IMMORAL

The only possible way of rationalizing it is in thought-experiment, such as the Swordfish-scenario, in fiction, such as 24, and in rhetoric, such as the arrogant, sterile, vague and ultimately inhuman arguments made by the politicos.

Find me the "one innocent child" who I can kill to cure disease.

There is nonesuch! To even imagine such a scenario is to be intellectually dishonest. Philosophy class is one thing but REAL policy, REAL politics, and REAL leadership require consideration of reality, note theory. And the reality is that it is impossible to justify torture without resorting to the 24-scenario. It doesn't exist, people. It doesn't exist.

I wish as many people were commenting on this board as they are on Cloverfield. If only we cared.

IF YOU AGREE with me and with those who have intelligently, eloquently, and lucidly posted similar opinions before me, DO NOT HESITATE TO REPEAT "the obvious" or "what's already been said." Sometimes all it takes is a chorus of voices stating the one thing that needs to be said and said again. Say it. See this movie and say it and spread the word and thank you Pajiba for helping us start to do that.

Posted by: Nathan at January 21, 2008 9:27 PM

Damn, you guys are nuts. To use the phrase of the moment, Bat Shit Crazy. I'm going to make a huge assumption that most of you are early mid 20s and the only solace I take in that is that I was once as you were.

as much as I hate to quote a Frenchman...

"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is
proof of want of head." Francois Guisot (1787-1874)

Posted by: djganesh at January 21, 2008 10:56 PM

djganesh, make a salient point and I'll try my best to engage in a discussion with you.

Guisot referred to socialists, not republicans, by the way. I've always hated that quote, and the presumption that self-interest should govern one's political and philosophical beliefs. Tres gauche.

Posted by: sansho1 at January 22, 2008 7:13 PM

Djganesh, are you seriously advocating torture and human rights abuses as an unavoidable constituent of democratic society? I'm studying counter-terrorism and it's fairly well established that the only societies that can completely control or eradicate terrorism are totalitarian societies or dictatorships because they have no problem using violent repression to keep their populations in line. If that's the way you want your country to go, then by all means, keep supporting these kind of abuses. It won't be long.

As an Aussie, I can tell you it's this kind of brutal thinking that has soured a lot of countries on the US of late. I don't know how any citizen of the US can feel safe; your government has made it clear that rendition, torture and withholding of your constitutional rights is something it will do. What makes you think it won't happen to you? Or is it ok if it's just happening to brown people and taxi drivers?

I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, but it really amazes me that you would brand people on this board as immature, stick-it-to-the-man teenage rebels because they are disgusted by the use of torture.

Posted by: Lex at January 24, 2008 10:23 PM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time