I saw the movie yesterday and was shocked by it, but even more shocked by some of the comments I have read here. One person wrote that it was ambiguous if the victim of the torture was guilty or not--therefore... One person wrote that since he wasn't an American citizen, therefore... Some people comment that the people in the Middle East hate us and want us dead, therefore... So are we saying then that it is right to torture someone who is guilty of a crime? Are we saying it is right to torture someone who is not an American Citizen? Are we saying that it is right to torture someone who may hate us and want us dead? Are we saying that, as is written in the Geneva Convention, the Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution of the United States that "torture is wrong, but some torture is less wrong than others?" When does it become "right" to torture? THAT is why this movie is powerful-- it is ambiguous, but not about torture. Torture is always wrong, and if we are willing to do it, even in the name of justice and "National Security" or "freedom and democracy" then we are wrong and we are evil; we are doing exactly what we are accusing our enemies of doing (and we are calling them "wrong" in the same breath.) My favorite line in the film was "if you don't want to compromise join Amnesty International." Right on.
movie reviews