
How the CIA Helped Produce 'Zero Dark Thirty' - dsr12
https://news.vice.com/article/tequila-painted-pearls-and-prada-how-the-cia-helped-produce-zero-dark-thirty
======
Spooky23
Shouldn't be a surprise, the CIA has been involved in the art and media world
for a very long time. Here's what the first Google search turned up:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-
cia-w...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-
weapon-1578808.html)

"For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is
confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art
- including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell,
Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner
of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and
promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more
than 20 years."

Of course modern art also is a great means to throw lots of money around,
which is probably a bonus for these sorts of programs.

~~~
sandworm101
They used the art. The difference here is that the CIA is actually painting
the pictures.

While rare for a group like the CIA to actually create content, a great many
movies have been influenced. The US military supports many productions, from
StarTrek to Battleship, reducing costs and increasing accuracy. But when asked
they have failed to support others, notably Independence Day. Influence and
persuasion has always been there in hollywood. Zero-Dark is just that much
closer to the line between legitimate art and propaganda.

 __ok, TopGun was pure propaganda, but USN wasn 't actually writing the
scripts.

~~~
Spooky23
> ok, TopGun was pure propaganda, but USN wasn't actually writing the scripts.

That's a big assumption. How many recruits were attracted to naval service by
that movie?

Tom Clancy was another example of likely propaganda from that era. How likely
is it for a random insurance agent who likes to play Harpoon to write
dramatization of war plans, and then get the type of access that Clancy had?

~~~
Zach_the_Lizard
>How likely is it for a random insurance agent who likes to play Harpoon to
write dramatization of war plans, and then get the type of access that Clancy
had?

Tom Clancy was from and hung out around the Baltimore-Washington metro area,
home of the CIA (VA), NSA (MD), DoD (VA), FBI (DC), NGA (VA), NRO (VA), State
Department (DC), DIA (DC), and a whole host of military bases and
installations.

His native Baltimore is relatively close to the NSA HQ at Ft. Meade, the naval
academy in Annapolis, and the Aberdeen proving grounds. Just sticking to
Baltimore and its environs it's likely he would have met many military
personnel and folks in the intelligence world.

Having lived in the DC metro area for a few years, I certainly find it within
the realm of possibility that someone such as Clancy would have met these
kinds of people. It's hard to miss them here given the insane number of
driveways with armed guards and no signs. Get a few sailors and intelligence
officers drunk, take notes, and piece things together over the years. There's
a whole bunch of resources to research military equipment and procedures, and
a lot of this stuff was in print back in ye olden days too, so one could ask
intelligent questions.

It wouldn't surprise me if, after his financial success, the Feds did provide
some sort of assistance considering his support of the military and
intelligence agencies. It would also not surprise me if said agencies didn't
like him for revealing certain things; he was after all talked to by the FBI.

~~~
patio11
As something of a Clancy fan: he reported in interviews that he developed a
strong working relationship with members of the intelligence community,
circulated drafts, and was occasionally asked "WTF Tom who gave you that
one?!" about things he had created for fictional convenience.

~~~
gadders
A similar thing happened with Vince Flynn and George Bush:

>"His fans included George W. Bush, who called Flynn "a little too accurate"
because Flynn's books >are often so true to CIA actions around the world.
Once, while catching a ride in Bush's limo from >Andrews Air Force Base, Flynn
was grilled by the then-president on where he gets his information.

>"I started to stutter," Flynn said."

Apparently it was a joke by Bush.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2013/06/19/best-
sel...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/books/2013/06/19/best-selling-
author-vince-flynn-dies-at-age-47/2437951/)

------
mynewtb
The movie left me so disgusted as its message was that torture works.

~~~
chroma
I haven't seen the movie and I don't know what's depicted in it, but I'm
pretty sure torture can be morally justified in some cases. Consider a real-
life example of torture described in the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy.[1] At a gas station, a woman briefly leaves her car to pay for
fuel. In the minute she's gone, a man hops in and drives away. Unbeknownst to
the car thief, the woman's infant is sleeping in the back seat. The thief soon
discovers this and ditches the car. Police quickly catch him at a nearby train
station. He's carrying valuables from the car. There is video of him stealing
the car. Despite his denials, there is no question this man is the car thief.
It's over 100ºF out. The police need to find the car before the baby dies of
heat stroke. A police officer describes the incident:

> In the police truck on the way to the police station: “Where did you leave
> the Hyundai?” Denial instead of dissimulation: “It wasn't me.” It
> was—property stolen from the car was found in his pockets. In the
> detectives' office: “It's been twenty minutes since you took the car—little
> tin box like that car—It will heat up like an oven under this sun. Another
> twenty minutes and the child's dead or brain damaged. Where did you dump the
> car?” Again: “It wasn't me.”

> Appeals to decency, to reason, to self-interest: “It's not too late; tell us
> where you left the car and you will only be charged with Take-and-Use.
> That's just a six month extension of your recognizance.” Threats: “If the
> child dies I will charge you with Manslaughter!” Sneering, defiant and
> belligerent; he made no secret of his contempt for the police. Part-way
> through his umpteenth, “It wasn't me”, a questioner clipped him across the
> ear as if he were a child, an insult calculated to bring the Islander to his
> feet to fight, there a body-punch elicited a roar of pain, but he fought
> back until he lapsed into semi-consciousness under a rain of blows. He quite
> enjoyed handing out a bit of biffo, but now, kneeling on hands and knees in
> his own urine, in pain he had never known, he finally realised the beating
> would go on until he told the police where he had abandoned the child and
> the car.

> The police officers' statements in the prosecution brief made no mention of
> the beating; the location of the stolen vehicle and the infant inside it was
> portrayed as having been volunteered by the defendant. The defendant's
> counsel availed himself of this falsehood in his plea in mitigation. When
> found, the stolen child was dehydrated, too weak to cry; there were ice
> packs and dehydration in the casualty ward but no long-time prognosis on
> brain damage.

I think the actions of the police are unimpeachable. Had they not tortured the
thief, an innocent child would be dead. Now, does that mean I think torture
should be legal? Of course not. Do I think the CIA has committed atrocities
and violated human rights? Yes! But that doesn't mean torture doesn't work.

1\.
[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuBea](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#CasStuBea)

~~~
ridgeguy
"I think the actions of the police are unimpeachable." No, they're not.

Their actions were effective but illegal. Effective in that they forced
disclosure of the child's location. Illegal for excessive force, denial of due
process, etc. Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on.

More broadly, we'd probably convict more criminals if we ditched the legal
presumption of innocence and other defendant protections. And of course, it
can be heartbreaking and enraging when a palpably guilty defendant escapes
justice because of prosecutorial error or other "technicality". Just as those
cops were heartbroken and enraged at the arrestee's callous disregard of the
child's life. I can imagine how they felt, and I don't know if in their place
I'd have had the courage to follow the law.

My point is that the rights we've agreed any of us should have as a defendant
in a state criminal action do lead to occasional awful circumstances like
those cops faced. I think the more awful the circumstance, the more important
it is to uphold those rights. They're fundamentally important, and they're not
much use if we only enforce them when it's easy or convenient.

~~~
chroma
> Their illegal behavior weakened the rights all of us depend on.

I disagree. It's good to be wary of this sort of thing, but Australia (where
this happened) doesn't seem to have a police brutality problem. Had the police
done the legal thing, an innocent child would have been cooked alive. So in
this case, I'm glad they broke the law.

Laws and morals don't always agree. When they disagree, that is a failing of
laws, not morals. Many things are illegal, but moral. For example, it may be
necessary to steal or trespass to help save a life. Sometimes, despite your
best efforts, those actions are for naught, and the person dies anyway. Does
that make those actions wrong? No. And in those cases, you'd be hard-pressed
to find a DA willing to prosecute. I'm OK with that.

Again, I think torture should be illegal. I think programs like the CIA's
extraordinary rendition are abhorrent. I think Guantanamo Bay will be
rightfully condemned by future generations. I'm certain the post-9/11
institutionalization of torture has caused far more harm than good. But I
_also_ think that torture can, in some cases, be morally justified. And I
think my example demonstrates that.

~~~
ridgeguy
I'd feel better about the Stanford example you cited if the cops' use of
torture had been disclosed - that is, if they had been held accountable for
using illegal methods.

The law recognizes extenuating circumstances such as those in the example, and
provides reasonable outcomes - the DA/Grand Jury could have declined to
charge, a jury could have declined to convict, a judge could have vacated a
jury's conviction, and/or the governor could have pardoned them if they were
sentenced. Under the circumstances, I think the cops would not have been
punished. I'd endorse that outcome, given the facts.

But instead, the cops committed crimes and covered them up. That's bad for us,
because it reduces transparency of state conduct. Basically, it's bad for our
society if its police use illegal force without accountability.

If the right thing, the moral thing to do in a particular situation involves
breaking a law, well ok, but we all (through the law) should know about it and
we should all (through the law) hold accountable those who acted illegally.
That doesn't mean they'll be punished - but IMO moral conduct must include
accountability.

I think a better view of these types of situations is to affirm that torture
is never legal, nor is it moral - but it might on rare occasion be an
effective tactic to achieve a better outcome. But accountability has to be
part of the picture.

I think if we had held that as our standard of conduct following 9/11, we
would not have Guantanamo as a national shame today. The law can help when
morality drifts due to fear and panic.

------
golergka
Read half of it and haven't found anything newsworthy. So far they describe
that (1) one of movie authors was present during the secret award ceremony
without getting a proper security clearance and (2) the officer the movie was
based on ordered fries in movie guy's hotel, got cheap knock-off earrings as a
present and declined offers to go to a Prada show and attend private movie
screening with family.

Is there anything actually worth the time in the second half?

~~~
jallmann
The "behind the scenes" information is interesting, but you are right, there
is nothing particularly scandalous here. This article is meant to feed into
the backlash over the thematic narrative of Zero Dark Thirty (probably the
reason for the FOIA lawsuit in the first place).

In fact, I can't help but feel for civil servants (in general, not just for
the CIA) who apparently have to walk on tip-toes, lest the smallest details of
their lives be scrutinized under a microscope every time there is a bit of
attention from a controversy-hungry media. This is an issue with local
reporting (at least, here in San Diego) and it is bothersome, especially when
there is really nothing to report, for the sake of column inches.

------
wukerplank
Watching Zero Dark Thirty, I immediately thought that this was an attempt to
write history. With the flair of historical accuracy and lots of pathos.

~~~
rasz_pl
Argo (2012) also did this.

------
cryoshon
Yeah, at the time people like Sy Hersh called out ZDT as being a completely
fabricated propaganda piece. Of course, if you watch the movie, it's obviously
fictitious, but the veneer of realism is enough to implant ZDT as the cultural
"canon" story.

That's the problem. We let them define what the canon is.

------
mtgx
Many if not most of the TV shows or movies where you see heavy army gear and
equipment that wouldn't be there without the government's cooperation, will be
heavily influenced by the government and in what light it shows the US
government.

It's why I stopped watching shows like 24, Homeland, Person of Interest, and
so on, after the first season or two. I couldn't stomach the propaganda
anymore.

~~~
Gustomaximus
Is Homeland propaganda? They convey the CIA in a bad light quite often. The
whole anti-drone strike message is very blatant.

~~~
hartpuff
Homeland seems pretty critical of US policy in Season One, perhaps too much
so. After Season One (which should have been the only season) it becomes
laughably transparent pro-Israel/anti-Iran propaganda rather than pro-CIA.

It's even more brainless and nonsensical than 24, but unlike that show,
Homeland actually seems to take itself seriously.

------
anonbanker
The american public would be _astounded_ if they knew how much of their
entertainment was literally war propaganda.

You know, if you could get them to pay attention long enough to believe it.

~~~
toomanybeersies
It's been that way ever since film was a viable medium.

------
joesmo
I have little respect for any director or producer who produces propaganda and
absolutely no respect for any director or producer who does so at the behest
of the government. Also, the movie itself was terrible, even seen as the far
fetched fiction it is.

------
SN76477
I see a lot of movies like this as a sort of propaganda. what it does is shows
that our heros are hard working american soldiers that defeat that worst of
the worst.

In reality I think that it is much more grey.

~~~
toomanybeersies
It's interesting contrasting American/UK films against other western films.

I'm a big fan of the Hamilton movies, which are basically Swedish James Bond
movies. In them, the PLO are actually the good guys, and the Americans are the
bad guys. It's an interesting contrast.

------
rrggrr
Angry about this? Director Panetta tried to throw the book at Ishmael Jones
for his 2010 CIA memoir, The Human Factor. Suitable method of protest and
entertaining read would be to buy the book:

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Factor-Dysfunctional-
Intelli...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Factor-Dysfunctional-
Intelligence/dp/159403382X)

------
1337biz
I always wondered if Kathryn Bigelow is somehow related to Robert Bigelow of
Bigelow Airospace. Later has long been the center of a bunch of conspiracy
theories.

~~~
psykovsky
You haven't wondered very much, I guess, or you would've cleared your doubts
by now.

From wikipedia, after a 5 sec search:

    
    
       Bigelow was born in San Carlos, California,
     the only child of Gertrude Kathryn (née Larson; 1917–1994),
     a librarian, and Ronald Elliot Bigelow (1915–1992),
     a paint factory manager.
    

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Bigelow#Early_life_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Bigelow#Early_life_and_education)

~~~
pessimizer
That two of the people most closely related to her are not Robert Bigelow of
Bigelow Aerospace is not in any way evidence that she is not related to Robert
Bigelow of Bigelow Aerospace.

Never heard of the conspiracy theory or Bigelow Aerospace, just about how
logic works.

