Martij only pretended beeing a terrorist in order to satisfy his torturers. Acutally he really wanted to star a good food project. This clue is what makes me really like the film all though i have seen all of the actors do better in other films.
sharetrue - but this is about 87 up until now!
The plotline got mixed up...Hassan was a kid who poisoned others,
later to be poisoned himself. How clever, huh?!
Anyways...solutions were later to be made.
So if he wasn't a terrorist how come that he knew the names of the other dutch menbers?
We never know the truth. That's the point of the film...that subjects under torture will eventually say almost anything to get it to stop, telling you what you want to hear. For all we know, Martijn supplied him with a list of his drycleaner, druggist, and grocer. Or it could be a list of people he believed were members of a Dutch "cell" but were in reality just activists. He wants to please them so that they will stop tormenting him and let him go.
One can speculate that Laurence Fishburne's character, who eventually claims to be Martijn's Moroccan contact, was a plant to lure Martijn. Therefore, one can also speculate that the whole food poison deal was a scam set up by the CIA to entrap sympathetic but otherwise innocent people like Martijn.
If that's true, just who are the terrorists? We only see violence originating from one side throughout the film, justified by preventing a violence that is only implied.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
I have only watched it once, dozed for a few minutes...but I am reasonably sure that Martijn contacted the known chemist precisely for the purpose of securing the bacteria. Did I miss something...cause otherwise it would be far too much of a stretch for him to be innocently associating with someone in possession of a biological weapon just by coincidence.
And even if Hassan Fikree didn't exist except as a model created by the CIA as a bio terrorist, if Martijn had contact, or attempted contact with him, it would only be for one purpose.
His link to him wasn't happenstance.
I watched it again today. There is definitely a switch 3/4 of the way through the film. Up til that time, Martijn is someone over his head, a stooge for his girlfriend and her "friends". I don't know if it's a rewrite or a poor edit. But from the part that he loses his 4th finger on, the focus changes.
Before that scene he was the naive victim of extremists. After that scene he is a conniving terrorist. Basically a 180 degree turn. I don't know if the filmmakers wanted us to switch up in our loyalties or if the construct was that poor. I think it was the former, based on something Fishburne says in the DVD feature. But it is the primary weakness of the film.
I think Five Fingers would have been improved by more ambiguity. I suspect that it didn't get a release because it seems to be saying that the CIA are the heroes here and that torture has its place. A more ambiguous plot line would have left us guessing...and been more interesting.
This film needed a script doctor. And I suspect you might have dozed off during the background stuff with Martijn and his girlfriend. The link between those scenes and the rest of the film should have been tightened up.
But the acting is first rate. I very much enjoy it for that.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
I think that all along he was a cold blooded ideologue whose only hope was to implement his scheme.
When playing the innocent, I believe he played that to the hilt. When it became clear that was no longer a hand he could play...the true came to the fore.
The movies I like best are the ones that create conversations, like this one does.
Yours is a very valid opinion. It is certainly one supported by the script. So the next question is, believing what you believe, do you think the treatment he endured was justified?
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
That's a great question, perhaps THE question for the ages...what can a man do to preserve his own life?
Agree with you, it is THE question of the ages. What activities do we justify to preserve the safety of the masses? And how is our safety assured by such behavior?
I'm going to go with the Judeo-Christian perspective that one man establishes the worth of the many. In other words, how we treat each other one on one is the standard we project out to the entire world. It is no use to say that torture is OK because it is done selectively and only to a few for the greater good. Good and torture are mutually exclusive. Once that pandora's box is open, it is open overall.
Laurence Fishburne says in his little making of feature that there is a cost for our lifestyle of consumption, and that this film examines that cost in moral terms.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Since you mention the Judeo-Christian perspective, I would stay there.
The ends never justify the means.
A christian is one who has abandoned any hope that this world will change for the better, but who instead, has laid hope on the one who pulls them out of this world. The best a christian can do is point to the lifeboat and encourage everyone to get off this sinking hulk. I know it sounds severe to many, but I can make no apologies for what the Lord has said will be this world's end...fire.
That a new heaven and new earth are promised for those who seek it may sound counter-intuitive...like "shouldn't we try to make this a better place?" All any individual can do is seek to be as his master, but even then the Lord promises..."what they have done to me, they will do to you also".
Now, as to Fishburne's comments...it may be easy to lay off the inequities and injustices on those who have much...but the point is this, for any group that complains of being the underdog there is no evidence in all of history that if granted a big enough gun, and an unlimited access to the world's resources, they would behave any better.
Morally, I do not believe there are any "groups" who lack the requisite avarice to turn paradise into a barbed wire stockade.
The knife at the throat of the domineering infidel is not better than the knife of the "christian" who set forth to conquer with a cross on his banner.
Being in the world, but not of it is something I frequently fail to live up to, but that does not diminish the calling nor the truth of the one who is (calling).
I have to disagree with your summation of Christian theology, specifically that, "A christian is one who has abandoned any hope that this world will change for the better, but who instead, has laid hope on the one who pulls them out of this world." I could get into a scripture debate with you, but I adhor when people use scripture as proof text for their arguments. Let me just say that Christianity rests equally upon faith, love and hope. Not a deadening hope that has no life in this world, but an affirming daily hope for the change that faith and love can achieve in this world.
Yes, if there is something that history has taught us it is that, "Morally, I do not believe there are any 'groups' who lack the requisite avarice to turn paradise into a barbed wire stockade."
One of the things I liked about this film is that it is not a conflict between cultures or religions. It uses the guise of cultural/religious conflict as a story vehicle but it evolves clearly into a human standard for civilization. Do we draw the line, or do we rationalize our behavior?
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Yeah, I don't want to get into a "scriptural" debate, either.
If I left you the impression, however, that faith, hope and love alive in a disciple lack the power of God to change darkness to light, I didn't express myself well.
As to your observation about the ends and means thing, the justifications and rationalizations that accompany our efforts to preserve our own lives and, no less, our way of life...I am not convinced the movie makers set out to address that.
But, then again, I didn't watch the commentaries or extras.
That such a discussion would, of course, inevitably arise I sense as incidental to their intent. (and I am glad you raise it)
Please don't misunderstand because I do feel that this consideration is paramount...only that I got the sense the movie was more structured as a shocker/twist...oh look the "good" guy is the terrorist, and the terrorists are the good guys.
Kinda like the old Twilight Zone when the bandages are removed off the woman that had the plastic surgery...and she's beautiful...and the doctors and nurses turn away in revulsion at the failed procedure cause their a bunch o'pig noses.
But like I said, I may be selling them short in their intent.
Maybe Rod Serling really wanted us to consider "what is beauty"...and these movie makers wanted us to wonder...who is a terrorist.
Perspective makes all the difference, no?
I am indeed happy that I misunderstood you. And I am even happier that we can have this discussion.
One of the signs of a good film, as far as I'm concerned, is one that gets me to thinking and pondering. Granted sometimes all I'm thinking after I see a film is, "Why?" as in why did they bother to make this junk, but discounting that reaction. I have been thinking about this film on my rides back and forth to and from work every day.
I'm asking myself just what their reasoning was when they were pitching this film. Was it, "And the blond, blue eyed, innocent looking guy is the bad person in the end, but the two that look like Arabs are the good guys." That would be that twist you spoke about. Part of me is thinking that could have been their intent. And a shallower intent would be harder to find.
I think they got lost somewhere between the filming and trying to distribute this film. Someone thought we should absolutely know that Martijn is a bad guy and not a helpless dupe. It changed the focus of the film and really ruined any possibility of it being a good film. That bathing scene looks tacked on. The performances are outstanding in that scene, but it doesn't flow with the characterizations up to that point. Suddenly Martijn is aggressive and belligerent like we have not seen him before. And that he trusts the girl after everything she's put him through is unbelievable. But that scene links us to his reveal later, so someone deemed it necessary.
But, for me anyway, the performances still make this very much worth seeing. And I can still see the thoughtful intelligence in most of the film.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Funny how things take on a life of their own, so to speak.
I didn't want to make it sound as though I was discounting what may be your opinion as to "intent" when the film was made.
There is one thing the film makers never have control over, and that is the viewer.
We all come to things from a different perspective, and although the film maker may think himself God in the creation as he is the originator of any "intent" or the giver of the raison d'etre...he is still a man. And once he speaks he may be of the opinion that his words can mean no more than what he says they mean. But there is the place where he actually loses control of what he has said. For each of us is free to dig as deeply as we care to into anything...and surpass what even a man may say was his "message" when he spoke.
Look at us.
I would be very surprised to discover if the film maker once had the phrase "Judeo-Christian" pass his lips during the whole of its creation. I would be equally surprised to learn he remotely considered the Heisenberg uncertainty principle...yet I could easily see us discussing that in relationship to this movie.
So, I'm even going to go way out here on this very fragile appearing limb so lazily swaying in the faint breeze. At this moment it appears to be the very topmost branch visible to me...but I will not claim to see all things clearly.
Bereshit bara Elohim...
This movie was made.
You and I saw it.
But from the beginning, the only intent of any of it was so that you and I would meet, speak, and come to know him who was from the beginning...and see him in all things.
Man, would I be delighted to discover that indeed was the film maker's intent.
There have been few conversations I've enjoyed more than the one we have been having. Thank you.
Reading a book and watching a movie can be a very personally evocative experience. I believe that many of the loud, superhero movies are so popular because people don't want that experience. They want to exist outside of themselves, "Get away from it all." But although I do sometimes enjoy a comically driven escape, my favorite films are ones that bounce off my own experience and give me a new perspective. The best filmmakers (directors, actors, designers, cinematographers, costumers, editors, etc.) are able to take a script and make something more than what is scripted. They breathe real life into it. The audience becomes their collaborator.
However, as for the intent of the film. I believe in the joyfully serendiptious encounters this life affords. Laurence Fishburne be damned.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
You must have heard phrases such as the following: "Oh this organization is founded upon very Christian values" - The word "Christian" is often used as a euphamism to mean good/sincere, etc... Muslims do the same thing.. "Oh he's a very Islamic man... very fair and just..." Sometimes, the usage of this langauge even occurs in secular contexts... and what we're doing is that we're assigning value. We're saying that "We are the way. We are the norm."
Similarly, the term "Judeo-Christian" sounds pretty damn silly.. unless you're going to say "Judeo-Christian-Muslim" (*Gasp!*) and mention the monotheistic perspective in its entirety.
But no... Islam will continue to be portrayed as "the other"... For example, in the film the lead character asks his female interrogator whether she's a good Muslim or not. And if so, why did she remove her veil? It is universally understood within the muslim world that while "covering-up" modestly and perhaps wearing a head-sacarf is recommended.... the face-covering veil is definitely culture-specific and has little to do with being a "good muslim."
So back to my point... Can we all seek to further increase our knowledge and play less into the inaccurate/dogmatic categorizations? thank you.
Yours is a very valid opinion. It is certainly one supported by the script.no, it is not.
I don't think he was guilty. I don't think he had friends involved. The terrorist thing was just to make the torture stop. If you notice at the end when they both are allegedly writing names, Martijn is watching Fishburne and is trying to copy them. We don't know what was on Martijn's paper. We only know what was on the other one. He honestly didn't know what to write that is why he asked the guy to write them first and then decided to write them together. He probably did embezzle the money. But actually you know what, his girlfriend was in on the whole thing. Martijn just didn't know what it was all about. He thought it was for the food program when in turn had nothing to do with it. His girlfriend should have been killed, not him.
share[deleted]
I don't think he was guilty. I don't think he had friends involved. The terrorist thing was just to make the torture stop. If you notice at the end when they both are allegedly writing names, Martijn is watching Fishburne and is trying to copy them. We don't know what was on Martijn's paper. We only know what was on the other one. He honestly didn't know what to write that is why he asked the guy to write them first and then decided to write them together. He probably did embezzle the money. But actually you know what, his girlfriend was in on the whole thing. Martijn just didn't know what it was all about. He thought it was for the food program when in turn had nothing to do with it. His girlfriend should have been killed, not him.
Actually what this shows is that the CIA screwed up and killed an innocent person and you can tell because the female didn't agree with it and neither did colm meaney character. I think it was all bs because they knew they couldn't let him go since he had seen their faces. It was the CIA trying to get information about about something going on in Morocco so they can have a reason to go over there and start bs.
I am American but I am willing to believe we promote more terrorist attacks than prevent and people can thank Bush for that. Another great movie that dealt with this kind of issue ironically cast Reese Witherspoon, (Phillippe's ex wife) but it was made clear in that movie that the suspected terrorist really was innocent. Somebody also mentioned above that a tortured man will say anything in order to get it to stop. Rendition - 2007
CIA OFFICIAL - "I fear you speak upon the rack...where men enforced do speak anything.' Saeed. (name of character being spoken to) In all the years you've been doing this...how often can you say...that we've produced truly legitimate intelligence? Once? Twice? Ten Times? I mean, just give me a statistic. Give me a number. Give me--Give me a *beep* pie chart. I love pie charts. Anything. Anything that outweighs the fact...that if you torture one person...you create ten, a hundred, a thousand new enemies."
In Five Fingers, they executed an innocent man of terrorism. I honestly don't think Phillippe's character knew exactly how he got the money just what HE was going to use it for.
I agree he was a terrorists and as they said throughout "he was trained well". When he believed he had made his contact he revealed himself. He looked genuinely surprised when he realized they were not on his side.
share"When it became clear that was no longer a hand he could play."
Well of course, without fingers...
I think that all along he was a cold blooded ideologue whose only hope was to implement his scheme.that makes no sense! you think he was a Muslim extremist/terrorist, who didn't want to tell other Muslim extremists/terrorists that he, too, is a Muslim extremist/terrorist, even if that means losing a couple of fingers ... go figure. share
When playing the innocent, I believe he played that to the hilt. When it became clear that was no longer a hand he could play...the true came to the fore.
about 10 min in, I realized that we have no idea who this guy is. CIA? bystander?, philanthopost? terrorist? dupe?
halfway through, when they ask about the money, it's clear that he has been lying and knows more than he has been saying
[deleted]
Really surprised to like this movie, and especially enjoyed the ambiguity of "good guys / bad guys." It brought up many philosophical questions I wasn't expecting...
shareif he really wasn't a terrorist then why did they shoot him?he gave them the exact names of all the people in the dutch cell.he was so a terrorist
sharered ruddy:
Are you serious?
What did you think they were going to do with him? After torturing him and removing his fingers, what'd you think? They could just let him go? The CIA grabs someone, there's no arrest, no trial, and they cut off his fingers. Whether or not he was a terrorist, they had to kill him.
What would they put him on trial for? What do you think he'd be charged with? He didn't actually DO anything, he only attempted to do something, he made a phone call. And even if they could find something TO charge him with, they'd already tortured him and cut off his fingers. Allowing him to live would mean they'd have to explain what happened to his fingers. The only way this was going to end was in his death, whether he was guilty or not.
Did we watch the same movie?
I agree that no matter what they were probably going to kill him, but I think the people thinking he was innocent are stretching. That would have been cool since it would be a double twist, but there's absolutely no reason to think he was innocent. If he was innocent I think one of them (maybe the British guy or Arab guy) would have said something like "Sorry for the mix-up blah blah blah" then killed him. Since nothing like that happened, I think it's just people's imagination thinking he could have been innocent.
"I never saved anything for the swim back."
You could be right, but I don't think "the British guy or Arab guy" would have said anything after what they did to him.
Innocent? I don't think he was innocent but I do think he was sucked in, "entrapment" is what they call it here. That's when the authorities (the CIA in this case) put out a feeler offering to facilitate a crime and then arrest the person who responds. In this case they did a bit more than arrest him.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Martijn was the one who called the 'chemist'. Not the other way around. So, not entrapment.
One of the interesting 'tells' was Martijn's surprised reaction to his girlfriend's description of "an American who thinks like you." With Martijn's worldview, we know this to be nihilistic and destructive of all social, political and economic institutions.
I believe Martijn was definitely involved with the Dutch terrorist cell.
Whether he was a hardcore cell member or not, is not fully explained.
But his knowledge about "Hassan Fikri"s deadly bacteria and his story about how the bacteria would be used were not some made up story, invented to try and save his own skin.
Martijn was definitely involved somehow.
Also, the scene where Martijn writes the names of the other cell contacts he knows of, shows that Martijn probably was guilty of consorting with known terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. If the names he wrote down had no meaning at all, or did not coincide with other names that the CIA's intelligence operations had produced, there is no way that the false Hassan Fikri and his CIA comrades would have been finished with Martijn. Until they got reasonable confirmation on the intel that Martijn produced, it stands to reason that they would have kept him alive. However, with just a glance at what Martijn has written down, the CIA operatives know that Martijn has just confirmed their suspicions with both his story and his list of names, and Martijn is summarily executed.
Whether the CIA's outside intel and Martijn's corresponding information are both correct is irrelevant. The fact is that they both coincided with each other, thus confirming the suspicions of the CIA in their minds.
From the beginning, they knew Martijn was one of them . . . the ruse in which they accuse Martijn of being CIA is just a ploy to get him to admit to being the terrorist they suspect him to be. Martijn's knowledge of the food contamination plot and the names on the list only confirmed it.
It is my understanding that, not only was Martijn involved with the Dutch terrorist cell, he was truly dedicated to the cause -- he would have to be, to wait until they had cut off four of his fingers before finally giving up his cover story and convincing them that he was a terrorist, too.
If Martijn were really only out save his own skin, he would have folded a long time ago. Also, people who are tortured for information they don't have do not miraculously produce the correct intelligence out of thin air.
Martijn was absolutely a terrorist.
You hit it perfectly thank you.
shareDo we know that he gave the names of the people in the dutch cell? We don't know that at all. It was never shown what exactly Martijn wrote. For all we know he could have given the list of people that work at a restaurant.
shareThe giveaway to his psychological makeup is the flashback to the beach where he's playing the electric piano....
Go back and listen...the piece reveals his true nature...
Huh?
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
He's a nihilist. He was playing free-form jazz, no structure. Even though he is a classically trained musician who can sight-read, he has no interest in staying "within the rules" of music, or civilization. (Classical music, and jazz, are western music forms and his rejection of the rules of this music is a metaphor for his rejection of society). It would be a great thing for him, or any nihilist, to wipe the slate clean and let everything start from scratch. He views the domination of western culture as a bad thing, needed to be eliminated by any means necessary.
The small smile exchanged with the Muslim child says a great deal. Music can bring people together, and all that.;-)
That was well expressed, JayCeezy. I'm not entirely sure that you're not giving the film too much credit, but it does tie that scene into the rest of the film. Heretofore I've found that scene bizarrely random.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Not to push the envelope, but there's more. The scene took place at the seashore, on an outing with his girlfriend and a bunch of children. The ocean is a literary shorthand for "edge of the world" or where the known and unknown meet. It has been awhile since I saw this, but even though I admired the writing, story twists, acting, etc. But perhaps I am giving the movie too much credit.;-)
However, the point-of-view that there is some kind of moral equivalence between terrorists and the U.S. government really disturbed me. There are U.S. soldiers in prison for going to far; the implication that someone acting on behalf of the U.S. would cut off fingers is crazy. Here is a news story about a U.S. interrogator convicted and imprisoned for crossing the line. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10950946. Maybe you, or someone who comes upon this thread, will find it of interest. Fictional movies like this have a slowly corrosive impact on the image of the United States and those who work to protect it, and that bothers me a great deal. Well, thanks for your comments. Cheers!
Other people on this board have come on and make remarks similar to yours, "Fictional movies like this have a slowly corrosive impact on the image of the United States and those who work to protect it, and that bothers me a great deal." However, there is no doubt that when this was filmed, and for a long time, that the U.S. has reversed a policy long held dear and instead rationalized itself into a position of instigating torture. And there will forevermore be a wide base of American citizens who continue to support the use use of torture based upon fear instead of logic.
This film did not directly confront the logic of torture, that is, the question of the reliability of the results. In fact, I wonder if 5F had been re-edited to that end. I found some of the scenes whereby it becomes clear that Martjin was knowingly participating in anarachy targeting human lives weren't added on later. I particulary question the bathing scene...to my eyes it was filmed later. However, 5F does bring to the forefront the human story of torture and give one a look at the human reality it represents instead of just a dry line in a policy statement.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
by noagenda (Sat Feb 6 2010 09:56:35)
However, there is no doubt that when this was filmed, and for a long time, that the U.S. has reversed a policy long held dear and instead rationalized itself into a position of instigating torture. And there will forevermore be a wide base of American citizens who continue to support the use use of torture based upon fear instead of logic.
It's no secret. Our policy condones its use...we have just stopped short of torturing on U.S. soil, which of course makes that part of this film fictional...done, as it was, for affect. But you are correct in that there is a two tiered system whereby individual soldiers are held to a different standard than CIA and other officially designated parties. For the most part, the stories that I have heard or read over the years have been to the affect that a U.S. official was present in the room during torture but did not actually conduct the torure.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
Thanks for your reply. I do understand your position that US policy condones torture and it seems to be no secret. My question was not what your position is, but how you reasoned your way to that belief.
I disagree that there is a two-tiered system, and can find no evidence of it. I have heard and read these stories about "a U.S. official in the room" too, and they pop up in fiction quite often, but can't be documented. The link you included is some White House correspondence from 2004 in which Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld is questioning the limit of having prisoners stand by stating "I stand 8 - 10 hours a day, why is standing limited to four hours?" It is a good question, I don't have an answer, any supermarket checker stands for a full shift, and whether standing is torture is arguable. Do you have an answer to his question?
These stories also come from people who claim to have been tortured at the behest of the U.S. They tell a story, and DailyKos publishes it and Keith Olberman talks about it, and suddenly it goes from an unproven assertion to proof that the U.S. tortures. Somehow, the guy tortured always claims to be an innocent tea-seller or shepard; it is never anyone picked up on the battlefield that was really trying to kill Americans.;-)
If you can name a U.S. official, point out a news story where this actually happened, show how this is U.S. approved policy, or show some kind of accountability, I would appreciate learning. I am open to the possibility that this might exist, but I have never seen it. The documentation I have seen, and know of from my relatives (one military, one not) show that there are firm rules to be followed, no physical damage, and there are consequences if the rules are broken. Otherwise, it seems to be the kind of unsubstantiated opinion that is influenced by movies like "Five Fingers". In any event, thanks again, and please have the last word if you wish. Cheers.
Just read a brief writeup of another new book 'Courting Disaster' by Marc Thiessen. It talks frankly about CIA interrogation program, and the people administrate and participate in it. A very worthwhile read, it is just facts and not some imaginary ooga-booga 'dark ops'. The CIA interrogation program was classified until summer of 2009 because of fears of leaks that would help Al Queda resist the techniques. Democrats demanded a CIA briefing, and immediately the leaks began; apparently the CIA trying to get information from Al Queda and Taliban picked up on the battlefield was considered a scandal by those who leaked (presumably Democrats).
For those who open to learning the truth about this subject, hope you find it of interest. http://dailycaller.com/2010/02/15/former-cia-director-hayden-thiessens -courting-disaster-a-must-read/
Um . . . I don't know if I'm willing to arbitrarily blame "leaks" on the Democrats.
First of all, it is the CIA.
Maybe I just have a little more faith in their ingenuity than I should, but I honestly do not believe that they would allow any "leaks" to occur, that they could not get out in front of, or did not control.
Second, I don't believe politicians or partisanship has anything to do with the price of water. Politics is just that, politics. It has absolutely nothing to do with the business of gathering information. The only issue we (from an intelligence standpoint) need be concerned about is the acquisition of more intel. "What's that? We can't use this method to obtain intelligence, anymore?" Fine. We've got 9 other ways to generate reliable intelligence, and we're coming up with 90 more.
That is the mentality I want from my nation's intelligence community. Not one that follows or obey the smokescreen we call politics. If anyone tells you that we need torture for our national security to main intact, they are blowing smoke, my friend.
The world is, as it is. Not how we want it to be.
re: CIA - did you hear/read/see the news story about the suicide bomber that walked right into the CIA hq in Afghanistan and killed seven (including the base chief heading up counterterrorism)? That was just in December. The CIA was caught completely flatfooted on 9/11, last summer's Jakarta hotel attack, mistakenly thought (with the rest of the world) that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, knew nothing about India's nuclear tests until the explosions, were unaware for 18 years that Iran was developing nuclear capability, and were recently accused by House Speaker Democrat Nancy Pelosi of lying to her. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/14/nancy-pelosi-cia-lied-to_n_20 3507.html If these examples don't make you question your faith in their ingenuity, please google "Aldrich Ames".
So, let's review. CIA doesn't want to brief Democrats because they are afraid the politicians will leak to the press. Political pressure forces the CIA to brief Democrats. Leaks ensue. You draw your own conclusions.;-)
Politics is everywhere, in the car you drive, the gas you pump, food you eat, sales tax you pay, TV and movies you watch, etc.
I'm sorry, but I disagree.
9/11 is a prime example, as is the pretext for the War in Iraq.
Before 9/11, the CIA was far from flatfooted. It actually generated reliable intel regarding an imminent threat against the U.S., involving multiple, coordinated hijackings.
The White House simply chose to disregard it.
Then, with the Iraq war, the CIA again came through. It could find no evidence that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. But again, the intel was disregarded, and the decision was made to invade Iraq under precisely that pretext.
These are but two major instances where the intelligence was spot on, but where the executives who make the decisions chose to act against that intel.
I could argue that politics were a factor in the decision not to follow that intelligence (in both instances, the bad decision was made by a Republican executive office), but politics had absolutely nothing to do with the acquisition or the accuracy of that intelligence.
As far as the fear of leaks . . . well, doesn't that come with the territory? Doesn't it stand to reason that, as a forward-thinking agency dedicated to the control of intelligence, that measures and counter-measures would be in place to securely inform, misinform or disinform as is needed?
I'm not saying that there are no leaks. I'm not even saying that there aren't cases where something slips through the cracks and gets away from them. I just think it stands to reason that, most of the time, they are on top of, and can get ahead of, anything that starts to turn sour.
Because that is their job.
I don't know . . . I guess I'm just not that afraid of the need for the Speaker of the House to be briefed on certain things, regardless of whether the Speaker be Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. If it is the political affiliation of the person in question that worries you, you might want to ask Valerie Plame if she thinks Republicans are any more closed-mouthed than Democrats are.
by glocktwentyseven (Mon Mar 1 2010 15:44:31)
I'm sorry, but I disagree.
9/11 is a prime example, as is the pretext for the War in Iraq.
Before 9/11, the CIA was far from flatfooted. It actually generated reliable intel regarding an imminent threat against the U.S., involving multiple, coordinated hijackings.
The White House simply chose to disregard it.
Then, with the Iraq war, the CIA again came through. It could find no evidence that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. But again, the intel was disregarded, and the decision was made to invade Iraq under precisely that pretext.
These are but two major instances where the intelligence was spot on, but where the executives who make the decisions chose to act against that intel.<continues>
JayCeezy,
I am suprised that someone actually sees this for what it is, namely: Fictional movies like this have a slowly corrosive impact on the image of the United States and those who work to protect it, and that bothers me a great deal. Well, thanks for your comments. Cheers!
How many movies have we seen over the years that portray the US government, military, the conservative politicians, as evil manipulators and scoundrels.
Which in the end cause mistrust of our institutions. We never hear in the movies how the USSR via Stalin starved the Ukraine, or of how the Nazis inculcated the Arabs to hate of the Jews. NEVER!
So much of this film is unclear. Was he working in collaboration with his girlfriend or only, upon realizing what her aim must have been, and loving her, trying to deflect the blame? After all, he's caught and she's free. If Ahmat (Fishburne) was the "chemist," then was there ever a real threat? Was this entire scenerio a set up by CIA from the beginning?
And IMO the film is the strongest when it maintains that ambiguity. Once Martijn clarifies his malice, the film loses its message and veers toward torture porn, although still much more interesting than that genre.
I agree that overall this is a really good flick but I think it's primarily because of the strength of the performances. Too bad it never went anywhere.
"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."
No I got it.
He was a terrorist.
NO evidence to suggest otherwise... film wasn't ambiguous about this fact.
Take your anti- troll potions and seal up your troll food. They feed on your rage.
the guy knew arabic he acquired money through uncertain means, his food program was impossible to confirm, he tried to find hassan fakir. i think there is enough evidence to prove his intentions, but t is only circumstantial. on the other hand though the detailed plan about poisoning fast food chains was rather impressive, besides i think one of the messages of the film was to state that white people can be terrorists too, and that the world is not as simple as good guys vs bad guys,
if martijn was innocent he would have attempted to get his captors to contact people on his behalf, i know i would have
You make a fair point, i also agree that touture is in many cases pointless.
And if ANY other actor had chose the role Phillippe played id maybe agree with you, but ive noticed a trend in Phillippes work as of the past 5 or 6 years, and thats a kind of anti-establishment stance, i think he took this specific role in order to show just how bad we in the west can be compared to how we like to portray ourselves, the hero riding in wearing the white hat, and its just not true.
We are, HAVE to be every bit as ruthless as our latest enemies.
This film dealt with that issue more so than who was right or wrong.
He was definitly part of some terrorist group. How did he know the right names?, Why wouldn't he give up his friends names? Someone whose innocent is going to beg you to call their friends and family just so you know they are innocent.
Very good film.
What proof is there that he knew the right names? We don't know what he wrote and he could have written any names at all. The CIA may not have actually known anhy names in advance - what proof is there in the film that they did other than the fact that they said it to him?
And who said that the CIA were "the good guys"? How are savages who torture people the "good guys"? The whole point of the film was to indict the CIA for their alleged secret torture tactics. If your argument is that thousands of people were in imminent danger of eating poisoned hamburgers and the urgency justified torturing and killing a man that is equally absurd. The CIA already knew everything about it and would have been a million miles out in front of any potential food contamination plot.
The whole alleged plot to slip bacteria into McDonald's hamburgers was preposterous. If they CIA thought that then they could have added extra inspections of the food supply. Actually, I don't see how the food would have made its way into Western countries in the first place. How would the poisoned meat get from Morocco into the Netherlands and to McDonalds without McDonalds knowing where it came from? Or was he going to smuggle bacteria into Holland and poison beef that he knew was going to be used by McDonald's? How is some little amateur group of student anarchists going to pull off something so far fetched?
It seems likely that the CIA had some of the names. They must have had a plant who recommended the biochemist and furnished his phone number. That plant would have had at least one contact. Martijn's list would help to fill in the blanks although he wouldn't necessarily know the same cell members as the plant.
Martijn said he had collaborators throughout the food distribution network. The meat wouldn't have had to come from Morocco - only the bacteria. It could be mixed in wherever the processing took place. That being said, I tend to think that McDonalds has its own inspectors wherever its foods are being processed. They have far too much to lose if their products are contaminated and they are wise enough not to rely on government inspectors.
Where did you get the idea that the plan came from a "little amateur group of student anarchists." The only person we know is in the cell is Martijn, the banker.
Hmm, I don't remember now. I thought it came out in the interrogation that he had been part of a group of radicalized students who cooked up this plot. I will have to go back and watch again.
The CIA may have had some of the names, but we don't actually know that. I am not sure I trust any of what they said in this. Too much doubt was thrown on every character in this to feel that one person had "the whole truth."
"What proof is there that he knew the right names?"
His reaction when he realized they had tricked him.
"If they CIA thought that then they could have added extra inspections of the food supply."
Well, first off, the CIA doesn't have any legal jurisdiction to do that, but, putting that aside, the CIA invented the plot in order to draw out potential terrorists. It's true that the poisoning the food supply plot itself would be difficult, if not impossible, to execute -- but they were looking for people who were both crazy enough to want to do it and had access to high-level financing, because those are the sorts of people who eventually *will* execute some form of damaging terror attack. The entrapment is being used pre-emptively because anybody who would be entrapped by such a plot is too dangerous to leave acting on their own.