Historical truth in films

Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln," Catherine Bigelow's "Zero Dark Thirty," and Ben Affleck's "Argo" are all nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award.   Each for a time was deemed a favorite to win, and we'll know in a few hours (probably by the time anyone reads this).  At present "Argo" is considered the most likely win (92%) with "Lincoln" in second (6.4%) and "Zero Dark Thirty" trailing in a tie for fifth at 0.1%, according to predictions calculated by Huffington Post.

It's interesting that all three deal with actual historical events involving the United States government, and each plays a bit loose with the historical facts.    Several people have pointed out minor problems with "Lincoln" and "Argo," but nobody seems particularly upset about them, relegating their deviations to the kind of dramatic license we grant to such films.

In fact, President Jimmy Carter, who was president at the time of the "Argo" incident, was interviewed about it.   He pointed out that the film gave most of the credit for the daring rescue of U. S. hostiges in Iran to the CIA, when in fact the Canadian ambassador and his government were the real heros.    However, Pres. Carter went on to say that he thought it was a good film and he hopes it wins the award.

"Lincoln" simply makes the final voting on the 13th constitutional amendment, and the events leading up to it and to ending the Civil War, seems more suspenseful and dramatic than they actually were.   Like Argo, it does not change what happened;   just the balance or the drama with which the story is told.

"Zero Dark Thirty" is more problematic and has provoked quite a controversy, because it implies that waterboarding of one accused terrorist was important in gaining information that led to the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden years later.  It is known that they had some government insiders advising them, which implies authenticity.  But several other highly placed government officials have said that that was not true, and studies have concluded that torture is not a useful mode of interrogation, in addition to being a war crime.

Now in today's New York Times, Ali H. Soufan, a former FBI agent who interrogated Qaeda detainees and is the author of The Black Banners:  The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda writes that "torture led us away from Bin Laden.   After Mr. Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times, he actually played down the importance of the courier who ultimately led us to Bin Laden."

He goes on to say:

Numerous investigations, most recently a 6,300-page classified report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have reached the same conclusion:  enhanced interrogation didn't work.  Portraying torture as effective risks misleading the next generation of Americans that one of our government's greatest successes came about because of the efficacy of torture.  It's a disservice both to our history and our national security.

But Mr. Soufan does not blame the makers of "Zero Dark Thirty."   He says they were misled by some government officials, who had an agenda concerning waterboarding, advised them based on their selective release of information from classified documents that gave this impression.

In fact, according to Mr. Soufan, senior officials, right up to President Bush himself, were misled about the enhanced interrogation program.   One example he gives of this misinformation is that a Justice Department memo from 2005 claimed that waterboarding  led to the capture of Jose Padilla in 2003;  but actually Padilla was arrested in 2002, months before the waterboarding program began.  But that unchecked fact was repeated by government officials as truth.  Just like the false yellow cake from Niger, which supposedly justified invading Iraq.

But here is the really shocking thing revealed by Mr. Soufan:

When agents heard senior officials citing information we knew was false, we were barred from speaking out.  After President George W. Bush gave a speech containing falsehoods in 2006 . . . I was told by my superiors:  'This is still classified.  Just because the president is talking about it doesn't mean that we can.' . . .

Meanwhile, promoters of torture get to hoodwink journalists, authors and Hollywood producers while selectively declassifying material and providing false information that fits their narrative. . . . 

The filmmakers took the 'firsthand accounts' of a few current and former officials with an agenda and amplified their message worldwide -- suggesting to Americans in cinemas around the country, and regimes overseas, that torture is effective and helped lead to Bin Laden.   There is no suggestion in the movie that another narrative exists.

So who are we talking about here?    Soufan does not name names.   My leading suspects, however, are Vice President Dick Cheney, along with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld -- and their minions.

Is it too late to charge them with war crimes?

Ralph