Terrorism is a central topic faced by most security forces in the United States. Policies, laws, and procedures have been enacted to provide a conducive environment for law enforcement agencies in undertaking this vital role in protecting the nation against terror attacks. However, these laws are often deemed insufficient, especially when the threat is looming or after the occurrence of a terror attack. The consequences of the war on terror are implemented to rehabilitate the international legal framework but too often weigh into the political, social, and ethical domains. These facets thus make terrorism an all-encompassing factor in the modern political landscape. The storyline of the film Unthinkable revolves around a ticking time bomb scenario in which information is necessary to stop terror incidences (Jordan, 2010). The film contains counterterrorism actions representing the moral dilemma of choosing between saving lives from a potential threat and physically abusing an individual possessing the relevant information.
The film presents a dire situation constrained by limited time, making the counterterrorism agency employ more exceptional techniques to interrogate the uncooperative captive. When the military realizes that it is not getting the job done, it brings in Agent H, a shady contractor boasting of medieval and brutal torture. The setting of the interrogation further reveals that it is a covert operation approved mainly by the highest ranks of the military authority. Agent H is forced to cope with the uncooperative captive while employing gruesome torture tactics (Jordan, 2010). However, the crescendo of the interrogation is reached when the nuclear explosions are about to occur, and the interrogator threatens the victim’s family in a bid to stop the explosion by locating the bombs; the interrogator, H, extents his torture of the innocent civilians made of the captives wives and children. Therefore, the ethical dilemma presented anchors on the consequential and idealist philosophies to expose moral actions around interrogations.
Whereas there are laws entitled to every citizen, including terrorists from foreign lands, these laws face a test of their tenacity when terror acts loom. The terrorist in the movie is an American citizen protected by the American Constitution. Moreover, he is entitled as a human being to the prohibition of torture according to the Geneva Convention and other well-established international legal framework (Jordan, 2010). These legal frameworks are particularly against torture and various cruel, degrading, inhumane treatment of persons. The ticking time bomb metaphor gradually makes Agent H oblivious of these laws through his monomaniacal tendency to save lives. He intensifies the interrogation techniques as time goes by, extending his harmful interrogation to the innocent family members of the captive. H is a consequalist; he is fixated on the consequences of the explosion and is willing to take extra mile to halt it. He is provoked by the terrorist’s moves, especially his willful surrender and acceptance of the harmful procedures used to make him give information. H is driven by the consequentialist ethical philosophy where he believes the end justifies the means. Therefore, he is willing to stretch the terrorist’s limits and get the information to abort the terror attack.
The entire milliary authority seems to back agent H in his torture tactics to avoid terror acts. However, they are not willing to go all-in, seeing that H is entirely determined to have the results delivered and nothing short of that. H is a consequalist who believes that a good outcome measures a morally right action. Some agents and officers share the same standpoint but find a moral threshold where they are reluctant to go past a certain point. To effectively obtain his results and justify his actions, H needs Brody, an idealist who believes that reality is founded upon values, essence, and ideas (Jordan, 2010). Brody is critical to the interrogation tactics employed since H uses her to indicate that the idealists or the real world justify torture. A tactic aimed at creating a personal crisis within the captive who believes that the real world is governed by laws and does not support inhumane treatment of people at whatever cost.
The entire film revolves around limited time, thus heightening the value of the information the captive possesses. Subsequently, the national security advisors are cognizant of this fact and have resorted to the military, known for their ability to carry out orders, especially under unique circumstances. The FBI Department of counterterrorism is inclined towards the Constitution, primarily stating that the Constitution prohibits torture alongside the U.S Criminal Courts, but the officers tend to let H carry on with his inhumane acts to get the desired results (Jordan, 2010). In addition, they willfully take part in learning that the captive has been stripped of his American citizenship and was arrested under the military jurisdiction and labeled as an enemy combatant. Nevertheless, the FBI officers are willing to go in, given that the law protects them and that the outcome of the interrogation will not fall back on them. Furthermore, exceptionalism is depicted by the film through the Military Commission Act that stripped the captive of his citizenship, making him an object of torture.
Through the stripping of citizenship, the military operation of interrogating the captive provides H the impetus to produce the required results primarily through torture. H has been provided with a conducive environment to operate, and he is able to follow through to the end, even threatening the captive children. When provided with the power and protection by the highest authority, it is impossible to tell just how far one can go in undertaking their duty. Interestingly, Agent Brody tells H to do whatever it takes and get the address for the location of the bombs after realizing that the captive is not bluffing (Jordan, 2010). Many would support such sentiments, having faced the consequences of withholding information. One can go too far than expected in the interrogation when they are faced with the reality of the outcomes of the incidences. In addition, higher authorities trigger much obedience among the officers leading to undertaking their duties with no questions asked.
The film showcases humans’ inability to experience their moral actions when given opportunities in a scenario with dire consequences. Morality is never experienced amongst most humans; it is merely fantasized upon making one feel good about themselves. Few individuals have what it takes to deal with immoral actions by terrorists by going against the established norms. Whereas this is the case, morally upright individuals will have one person take it on their behalf. H is an instrument in the hand of fellow officers who permit him to perform his inhumane acts on the captive (Jordan, 2010). When Brody’s tactics of questioning the captive’s wife fails, she willingly lets her into the interrogation chamber. H would have been stopped by he enjoys the support and the audience of fellow officers who cannot do what he can. He is provided with the captives’ children to give him information about the fourth bomb’s whereabouts. At this point, every officer in the room seems glad that they have the desired outcome, but H sniffs the fourth bomb and demands the captive’s children be brought into the interrogation room.
Our moral actions and beliefs are brought to the limelight by the existence of the fourth bomb, which might or might not be existent. Having taken a break from the exercise that was against their ethics, the officers are presented with the saying, “there is always another bomb” (Jordan, 2010, 1:24:00- 1:25:35). According to H, this means that moral actions will constantly be tested; celebrating the three bombs is children’s play. Given the time constraint and unproductive procedure, the real test is how far they can go to locate the fourth bomb. H was willing to have the captive’s kids killed if that would make him talk, seeing that he loved his family so much. Fellow officers would have sided with him again because they had morals but desired outcomes. Whereas H might be considered unethical in his approach, we are brought to the awareness of our ethics and their impacts, especially whether we can live with the consequences.
Ethical dilemmas are man’s daily interactions in decision-making that might mean life or death. These dilemmas present an alternative view of actions where right and wrong cannot be fully accommodated. The film Unthinkable exemplifies a moral grey area where counterterrorism operations are undertaken, where brutal practices are a resounding horror in the war against terror, particularly when permitted to operate outside of the law. Despite the unequivocal prohibition of torture by domestic and international law globally, it enjoys the favor of those willing to make use of it and those advocating for its legitimization. The situation questions our morality and concepts of the war on terror and protection.
Reference
Jordan, G. (Director). (2010). Unthinkable [Film]. Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. Web.