There's a Deeper Problem with "Path to 9/11"
Well, I watched the first half of ABC's controversial miniseries The Path to 9/11. Part of me felt that by doing so I was only contributing to a ratings spike that ABC doesn't deserve. But, alas, I can't comment intelligently about something I haven't seen.
It was much worse than I imagined. And not so much because of the historical inaccuracies or the gratuitous potshots at Clinton and his cabinet--though those were there, in spades--but because of something more deeply embedded in the film's DNA: namely, an intense disdain for process. If there's a theme to the film, it's that our quaint notions of process and legality are simply not compatible with a world in which terrorists want to blow us up. The film goes out of its way to hammer this point home, even to the point of glorifying those who are not similarly constrained, like the Pakistani special forces and the Afghani Northern Alliance.
At one point, an hour or so into the film, U.S. agents are riding with World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef after his arrest in Pakistan. Just before the arrest, Yousef is seen talking about his planned trip to Afghanistan with Khalid Sheik Muhammad (his uncle) to visit "the Tall One" (Osama bin Laden). The agents in the car ask Yousef who is financing his efforts, who he works for. He says nothing. At that point, the head of the Pakistani special forces, who is seated in the front of the car, turns around and says "give me one hour with him and I'll give you all the answers you want."
The screen briefly flashes to an image of a torture chamber. The agent then tells the Pakistani general that he is under orders to bring Yousef back for trial. The clear implication is that by bringing Yousef back to America to stand trial (instead of allowing him to be tortured by the Pakistanis), we missed a key opportunity to strike a blow against al Qaeda.
This point is then driven home by the subsequent scenes of Yousef being tried in federal court. He mocks our judicial system. A judge then reluctantly sentences him to life in prison, lamenting that federal law does not permit him to impose the death penalty. Again, implicit in the scene is the quaintness of our criminal justice system and the rule of law.
Another good example of this theme is an earlier scene shortly after Yousef's laptop is discovered in the Philippines. In that scence, the following exchange takes place between John O'Neill (Harvey Keitel) and one of his FBI colleagues:
Again, the implication is crystal clear. Our quaint rules are holding us back. This is a new kind of war, and to win it we need to do away with the rules that constrain us. This particular bit of dialogue, however, seems utterly forced and inaccurate. Why wouldn't we be able to look at Yousef's laptop? He was, after all, the FBI's most wanted man. And we routinely search computers for evidence.
Anyway, this exchange is fairly typical of the film as a whole, which seems intent on making a political point about the need to cut through all the rules and just kill the enemy. At one point, Donnie Wahlberg's character screams "War is about killing the enemy and destroying his property. It's not about sitting around in a conference room and covering your own asses."
That line pretty well sums up the message of the film, at least so far. And that's fine to a point. 9/11 was a huge wake up call. We certainly were guilty of underestimating our enemy and we were complacent, at least in retrospect. But what the film utterly lacks is any attempt to show the redeeming value of concepts such as the rule of law. Yes, following a system of laws and democratic processes can tie our hands and render us unable to respond to threats with the same alacrity as those who are not similarly constrained. But you get the feeling that the writers of this film only see the downside of that tradeoff.
More tomorrow . . .
It was much worse than I imagined. And not so much because of the historical inaccuracies or the gratuitous potshots at Clinton and his cabinet--though those were there, in spades--but because of something more deeply embedded in the film's DNA: namely, an intense disdain for process. If there's a theme to the film, it's that our quaint notions of process and legality are simply not compatible with a world in which terrorists want to blow us up. The film goes out of its way to hammer this point home, even to the point of glorifying those who are not similarly constrained, like the Pakistani special forces and the Afghani Northern Alliance.
At one point, an hour or so into the film, U.S. agents are riding with World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef after his arrest in Pakistan. Just before the arrest, Yousef is seen talking about his planned trip to Afghanistan with Khalid Sheik Muhammad (his uncle) to visit "the Tall One" (Osama bin Laden). The agents in the car ask Yousef who is financing his efforts, who he works for. He says nothing. At that point, the head of the Pakistani special forces, who is seated in the front of the car, turns around and says "give me one hour with him and I'll give you all the answers you want."
The screen briefly flashes to an image of a torture chamber. The agent then tells the Pakistani general that he is under orders to bring Yousef back for trial. The clear implication is that by bringing Yousef back to America to stand trial (instead of allowing him to be tortured by the Pakistanis), we missed a key opportunity to strike a blow against al Qaeda.
This point is then driven home by the subsequent scenes of Yousef being tried in federal court. He mocks our judicial system. A judge then reluctantly sentences him to life in prison, lamenting that federal law does not permit him to impose the death penalty. Again, implicit in the scene is the quaintness of our criminal justice system and the rule of law.
Another good example of this theme is an earlier scene shortly after Yousef's laptop is discovered in the Philippines. In that scence, the following exchange takes place between John O'Neill (Harvey Keitel) and one of his FBI colleagues:
Colleague: "Tell you what, John, if that happened here, there is no way in hell that we could ever look at that laptop. All that evidence, inadmissible."
O'Neill: "What's your point?"
Colleague: "It's a new kind of war, and if prevention is our duty . . ."
Again, the implication is crystal clear. Our quaint rules are holding us back. This is a new kind of war, and to win it we need to do away with the rules that constrain us. This particular bit of dialogue, however, seems utterly forced and inaccurate. Why wouldn't we be able to look at Yousef's laptop? He was, after all, the FBI's most wanted man. And we routinely search computers for evidence.
Anyway, this exchange is fairly typical of the film as a whole, which seems intent on making a political point about the need to cut through all the rules and just kill the enemy. At one point, Donnie Wahlberg's character screams "War is about killing the enemy and destroying his property. It's not about sitting around in a conference room and covering your own asses."
That line pretty well sums up the message of the film, at least so far. And that's fine to a point. 9/11 was a huge wake up call. We certainly were guilty of underestimating our enemy and we were complacent, at least in retrospect. But what the film utterly lacks is any attempt to show the redeeming value of concepts such as the rule of law. Yes, following a system of laws and democratic processes can tie our hands and render us unable to respond to threats with the same alacrity as those who are not similarly constrained. But you get the feeling that the writers of this film only see the downside of that tradeoff.
More tomorrow . . .
posted by A.L. at 11:20 PM
23 Comments:
Since everything GWB says or does is politically motivated, I would guess that his 9-11-06 speech to the nation (during the second half of this movie), will further expound on the issues raised in this column; the recent court rulings to the contrary; and subliminally show that GWB really does think that the Constitution is 'nothing but a goddamned piece of paper.'
Frankly, my conscience would not allow me to rationalize or justify watching the propaganda.
Great observations - I didn't want to watch and support abc/mickey mouse, but am glad you did.
I have not seen any of the other blogs pick up on this theme - unfortunately, it is too easy to get wrapped up in the propaganda and motives and overlook the subtle ways this piece of disinformation is designed to function.
IMHO, this is clearly about helping chimpy cover his ass over his failure to uphold his sworn duties of office - upholding the US Constitution. This will become an important theme in the coming weeks - chimpy is demanding that congress covers his ass now.
While I have seen many dismiss this piece as just a poorly done film - I have to disagree - this will be shown repeatedly over the years and will be released on DVD. It will make its ways into schools and eventually much of the disinformation will become part of the curriculum.
It is already being shown globally, apparently with different edits and promotions (THE OFFICIAL TRUE STORY).
In time, it will be like those crappy holiday specials that people just expect to see each and every year - each time, reinforcing the themes you have pointed out.
Good catch - thanks A.L.
But, this disgust of process is so typical, especially on cop shows. Now, we have a new prosecutor show ... with James Woods ... where a former defense atty finds out his nihilistic ways of protecting people's 6A's rights were wrong (some tragedy occurs) and he works for the prosecutors now. Promos suggest he uses his nihilism for the forces of good now.
Even S. Vowell admits to liking 24 ... so much easier to torture ... others unlike her want it to be reality as well.
Ted Koppel's special last night on Discovery, Security and Civil Rights (may have name wrong) had several interviews with John Yoo who could barely keep the snear off his face regarding the naive notion that Dems have that in a time of war process can remain relevant. Koppel has one of the few laser beam intellects in the industry and without coming over the desk and wringing Yoo's neck, he did a credible push back. Couldn't watch ABC
As an aside, everyone saying that "they don't want to contribute to ABC's ratings" is being a little silly here. The only way to contribute to ABC's ratings is to tell AC Nielsen or whoever else should call to poll about this that you watched the show. Just say "no comment" should this happen and take note of the sponsors that will be on this evening.
Rush Limbaugh makes the argument that his listeners should listen to him rather than read the "liberal media." Let's not fall in the same trap.
Anonymous Liberal, your point of view is spot on, and it is being linked on some other blogs. I picked you up by a post at Firedoglake: http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/09/11/in-memorium-2/#comment-288860
This contempt for rules and for process and for restraint when taking action runs far back in our history...our romantic view of the Western outlaws illustrates this...see also our mythmaking with regard to trappers and hunters such as Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone who roamed the American wilderness, unwilling or unable to abide by society's constraints...later, during the Depression, movie audiences cheered the lawlessness of the gangsters depicted by Bogart, Cagney, and Robinson...more recently, we have loved Dirty Harry and other legions of "street wise" cops for their flouting of "department regulations" so they could beat, shoot, and abuse the bad guys as they chose, and as, we are all meant to feel, as the bad guys deserve.
Our popular music has always idealized those who "stick it to the man" or who otherwise ignore any notion that one should check one's behavior out of respect for other people.
I just recently read that high school students are not required to take Civics classes, which startled me. As the writer who made the point said, without any familiarity with how American government works, citizens have no way of knowing WHY our system was designed as it was, and neither can citizens know when the government has violated the rules or even why that is objectionable.
David Baker: the viewership tallies nowadays, thanks to cable & dish are a bit more sophisticated. Viewership is available at the push of a button 24/7. On my sister's dish set up, she can see a viewership count of 4 stations simultaneously at any given time.
I have been trying to write a piece about these felon's sneering at the rule of law for years, but I can never make it work. Go ahead, ask a few people what they think the rule of law is; you just can't proclaim to the reader what the mighty truth is and how we've fucked up. It doesn't work that way.
Know what my Father replied? "A social contract obviating the vindication of Hobbes."
Try that in 750 words for modern Americans.
There is one poignant scene for this piece I'll prolly never write, and that's Al Gore explaining that he accepted Bush vs. Gore becuase he believes in the rule of law. Can you believe that shit? It had just been smashed at his feet, the rule of law was just empirically demonstrated to be a total fucking joke by the Supreme Court, but there we was anyway, saying he believed in it.
I can never decide if it's one of the saddest things I've ever seen, or one of the most noble. I guess that's why I can't write it, I don't know if this is some sick joke or a ghreat stride of Humanity.
Don't get all snide, either. The rule of law is a fucking joke, and for at least half the country it means nothing except a cruel jab reminding them what inequality really gets you. I've discussed this before with lawyers and have been dismayed by this great arrogance, this total inability to see how their profession has profoundly fucked us all up. The law? To lawyers it's as if God hisself wrote it. Just ain't so, and the legal profession in the states is often a toal disgrace; George Bush is #1 for eternity, fucking lawyers, and I will not forget.
Some are like that, never you, AN.
I trackbacked from "Unclaimed Territory", where you wondered why the MSM didn't sandbag weak contradictory arguments.
Let's remember that the media is deluged with fake ads, threatened with "loss of access" for straight talk, and weakened financially by readership going webwards. All that said, I'm taking seriously the idea of paid trolls on major political comment blogs and masssive controlling of radio/TV reporting. "Liberal Media" my ass ! They're owned by Big Business.
Very interesting point about the glorification on non-process players. \
However, this - "But, this disgust of process is so typical, especially on cop shows..." is also right - Hollywood has always loved the maverick - think of Sgt Bilko, Hogan's heros, M*A*S*H, Dirty Harry, Miami Vice - all the best cops, soldiers and doctors know when to throw away "the book". In Hollywoodland, anyway.
My takeon the specific scene you cite: I have always admired the professionalism and restraint of the cops/CIA types who don't engage in vigilantism.
Tom Maguire
However, this - "But, this disgust of process is so typical, especially on cop shows..." is also right - Hollywood has always loved the maverick - think of Sgt Bilko, Hogan's heros, M*A*S*H, Dirty Harry, Miami Vice - all the best cops, soldiers and doctors know when to throw away "the book". In Hollywoodland, anyway.
I totally agree. And the latest and perhaps most troubling incarnation of this phenomenon is agent Jack Bauer of '24'.
That said, the fact that PT9/11 is supposed to be historical, not fictional, makes it quite a bit more disturbing, at least for me.
It's one thing to suspend disbelief and watch a fictional character break all the rules to get the bad guy. It's another thing to watch the same impulses dominate a film that claims to depict actual historical events from recent history.
I fully agree that this general contempt for the rule of law is longstanding and rampant. To me the supreme example is Mississippi Burning which glorifies police brutality as the perfect mechanism to defend the civil rights movement!
AL,
I understand your general disdain for Path to 9/11, but I don't think I follow this crique. It seems like you don't like the message the show imparts regarding respect for process and the rule of law, but the begs the question: don't the writers have a point?
I think most people belive that they do, and that terrorism cannot be combated with due process and the 4-6th amendments. While both processes have their drawbacks, there is strong argument to be made that you will prevent more bombings and attacks if you give the suspect the Pakistani torture team rather than a lawyer.
This doesn't really seem to be that big of a deal to be upset over, at the end of the day. So you disagree with the political viewpoint of the writers -- that's fine. Not every show on tv has to trumped the bill of rights, and the supremacy of process in american law. I say disagree with the Path to 9/11 writers if they are misrepresenting something, but we should hold off with the outrage if they are merely expressing an alternate -- and compelling -- viewpoint.
I understand your general disdain for Path to 9/11, but I don't think I follow this crique. It seems like you don't like the message the show imparts regarding respect for process and the rule of law, but the begs the question: don't the writers have a point?
I think most people belive that they do, and that terrorism cannot be combated with due process and the 4-6th amendments. While both processes have their drawbacks, there is strong argument to be made that you will prevent more bombings and attacks if you give the suspect the Pakistani torture team rather than a lawyer.
By that rational, becoming a totalitarian police state would be an even better strategy because that would really reduce the threat of terrorism. Or perhaps we should round up all young Muslim men and throw them in camps.
Look, of course this line of reasoning has a point. Fighting terrorism would be easier if those charged with doing it were free to operate with less constraints. And to the extent these constraints are unreasonable or unnecessary, we should try to do away with them.
But what bothers me about the film is how one-sided this argument is. Only the drawbacks of the rule of law are emphasized, not the redeeming qualities. There's no balance, or at least not enough.
And frankly, it's not ABC's job to be using a history project to make a controversial political point. I firmly believe that if we embrace torture and other methods, we lose much of what we are trying to protect.
AL,
ABC's job is to entertain, nothing more or less. But if this history product makes a controversial political point and is effective, than what is wrong with that? That's free expression.
I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand your point. There was a movie in 1998, the siege, in which Denzel Washington delivers what seemed at the time a melodramatic speech, fighting against what seemed an entirely implausible scenario -- the emergence of a police state in the U.S. But now, it seems you, A.L., and others like Greenwald, are constantly forced to deliver this very same speech. How did we become a country that debates the nuances of torture? How did we so easily get to the point where this is even a debate at all? If we are not fighting for the principles that made America worth fighting for (even with all her failures to live up to these principles), then what, exactly, are we fighting for? Simply to be alive? And, sadly, as the Brownbacks and other nut-jobs are so willing to admit, the answer seems to be yes. We are fighting either solely to stay alive, solely to exact bloody vengeance, or both. Where are the principles? What is the point?
ABC's job is to entertain, nothing more or less. But if this history product makes a controversial political point and is effective, than what is wrong with that? That's free expression.
I disagree. ABC is not just some company. It's a television network that has been granted the extraordinary privilege of being able to use the public airwaves. That comes with a responsibility, especially around election time. We've long realized that. Now I don't think the government should be stepping in and dictating what ABC is allowed to broadcast (though they certainly do that with respect to issues like obscenity). But I think it's perfectly fair for members of the public, including myself, to criticize ABC for abusing the public trust by airing propoganda just before a crucial election. I think that's irresponsible.
That's fine. Members of the public should criticize, threaten to boycott, etc. But I don't think ABC has violated any public trust, or any crap like them. I don't think they have any repsonsibiltiy other than too the market. And critics of the network can make their presence felt through the marekt -- alerting advertisers, etc. That's the free, democratic way.
There are plenty of other people who think ABC does have responsibilities beyond the Market and that in a free democracy pressure via the market or dollar is not our only recourse to make our views heard and acted upon. The government of The People can rightly bring pressure to bear on ABC. We just need to get the government back from the corporations.
There is a God and it is not unfettered Capitalism.
PS. Anonymous could you check your posts for spelling before you hit Publish. They will read easier.
The corporations get the airwaves for free. How is that "determined by the markets"? Also, did ABC not essentially provide this propaganda piece for free, by not including advertising on the first night? That's a massive giveaway. What do you suppose it was, a public service? That's not very capitalistic of them.
- JLB
I don't think they have any repsonsibiltiy other than too the market.
Hey you moron - THERE IS NO "MARKET" WHEN YOU ARE GRANTED EXCLUSIVE USE OF A SPECIFIC SEGMENT OF THE PUBLIC AIRWAYS!!!
Nothing worse than hearing idiots parrot the crap about the "invisible hand" being the answer to all problems when they don't even understand what a "free market" is!
READ ADAM SMITH YOU JERK AND THEN COME BACK AND LECTURE US WHEN YOU CAN EXPLAIN HOW MARKET MECHANIS WORK!
Until then, you are just sprewing ignorant crap.
Anonymous could you check your posts for spelling before you hit Publish. They will read easier.
Please, don't be so condenscending - its the idiot parroting of "free market" principals that absolutely don't apply that really make those posts hard to read.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home