Battle of Algiers and prison torture/rape.

I haven't seen this connection made yet, but I think it's probably the most important thing about the prison torture/rape story.

Do people here remember how, when the invasion started, there were dozens of stories in the press and on NPR about the US using the film The Battle of Algiers as an instructional video on how to win the war in Iraq.

When I read those stories, I was stunned. That movie was made by an Italian director who fought in the resistance during WWII. He was equating French imperialism with fascism (the movie was banned in France). The movie is a true story about the French defeating the Algerian resistance in Algers. The French destroyed the organization -- they won the battle in the casbah -- but, even though they killed all the leaders and destroyed the operation, the movie ends with the resistance winning. The French won the battle, but lost the war. They had to pull out of Algeria and the army is gone today.

The lesson in the movie is basically the story we all know (and the story which Edwards Said writes about in the introduction to Culture and Imperialism -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679750541/qid=1084468677/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/104-9735327-8803944?v=glance&s=books&n=507846): imperialists cannot win guerrilla wars. They never have and never will.

Now, the relevant point is that in the Battle of Algiers, there is a great deal made of the interrogation techniques: TORTURE. That's how they fight the guerrillas. The important thing about this is that these techniques are a part of imperial wars that cannot be separated.

I'm not explaining this well, but the point is the torture is something that cannot be separated from the kind of war that America is fighting in Iraq, and that we have to use it is a big sign that we're in an unwinnable, immoral war, and because we're in this kind of war, torture is inevitable.

I saw McCain on Letterman last night, and I get this impression that there's this kind of discourse where the government desperately wants us to separate out this torture thing as being something out of character with the war. But it can't be separated out. It is what this war is for America.

Furthermore, I'm surprised that, after reading so many stories about the government using the Battle of Algiers as their instructional video, the media isn't now saying, 'oh, wait a minute, torture was the main interrogative (is that the right word?) technique used in that movie. Perhaps torture in Iraq isn't an aberration. Perhaps that's why the government was using that movie as an instructional video."

Battle of Algiers: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684134330/qid=1084469822/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9735327-8803944?v=glance&s=books

it was playing at the Film Forum in SoHo (I had saw it earlier in college almost by accident - I was learning French and the Professor recommended seeing French-speaking film to get the "ear" for the language ... I never did, but I saw a bunch of great film though)

Clearly the brass saw an edited version with the ending cut because if anything that film will teach you how to LOSE Iraq

a police unit were torturing suspects in a Chicago police station for years!!no one knows how many confessions were beat out of people and just how many were innocent. close to half the people in il. death row maybe innocent or should have sentences reviewed for errors. that`s just il.-think of the numbers in texas where little georgie oversaw the most people murdered by any one in the united states and all civilized countries in the world..
oh yes texas has the worst prison in the united states and george now has one in iraq..see he has accomplished something -the two worst prisons in "his countries"

so I can't comment much, but This Slate piece from Aug 2003 is very prescient:

This is where The Battle of Algiers is potentially most valuable and most dangerous as a point of comparison for the U.S. military. While The Battle of Algiers has next to nothing to say about overall French strategy in Algeria, its most obvious military lesson—that torture is an efficient countermeasure to terror—is a dangerous one in this particular instance. Aside from its moral horror, torture may not even elicit accurate information, though the film seems to suggest it is foolproof.

The French military view of torture is articulated by Col. Mathieu in the course of a series of exchanges with French journalists. As reports of torture spread, the issue becomes a scandal in France. Mathieu, however, is unwavering in defense of the practice: To him it is a military necessity. Informed that Jean-Paul Sartre is condemning French tactics, for example, Mathieu responds with a question that would warm Ann Coulter's heart: "Why are the liberals always on the other side?"

At one point Mathieu challenges the hostile French reporters with a question of his own: "Should France remain in Algeria? If you answer 'yes,' you must accept all the necessary consequences." Mathieu might as well be addressing the American military and the American public. Is the United States to remain in the Middle East? If so, what are the "necessary consequences"? Do they include working with former members of the Baathist secret police, as recent news stories have suggested? Do they include the night-time invasion of Iraqi homes and the inevitable shooting of innocent civilians?

To raise such issues is not necessarily to condemn the continued presence of troops in Iraq; there would be disastrous "necessary consequences" to an American withdrawal, too. But moral compromise, according to the film, was inherent in France's position in Algeria. The United States is not France, Iraq is not Algeria, and whatever the sources of resistance in Iraq, none is the equivalent of the FLN. But to listen to Mathieu is nevertheless to be challenged on whether moral compromise is also inherent in the American role in Iraq.

This is an interesting point you raise, AP.

A few times, they mention the French guy confronting hostile reporters... there ain't many of those here!

of the film is slightly off. The movie is definitely NOT arguing that torture is the most effective countermeasure to "terror" (which is so obviously NOT an argument a man who fought in the Italian resistance against fascists would make).

In fact, from the juxtapostion between the scene the slate reporter quoted and the one that follows, I think the directors argument about the value of torture is pretty clear. He's saying that no matter how justified you think the methods of furthering imperialism are, you are totally fucked up if you have to use torture to achieve your political goals.

Matthieu is so obviously not the hero in the movie, and the things that come out of his mouth aren't supposed to be the films arguments about how the world works. Matthieu is handsome and stylish and a hero, but that's all a comentary on how fascism operates. It's sad that some people are so clueless that they'd watch the movie and sympathize with Matthieu rather than with LaPointe and the resistance.

Also, it's strange that the Slate reviewer takes the Matthieu quote and tries to apply it to Iraq, introducing it with the statement "To raise such issues is not necessarily to condemn the continued presence of troops in Iraq." The entire argument of the movie is that if you need to torture people in their own country, you don't belong in their country (as you'll see from the script below).

You can't take Matthieu's quote and try to break it down into a moral conundrum for deciding what you do when you're occupying a country. It misses the point. As I said, the film is arguing that if you're confronted with moral conundrums at all, you don't belong in the country you're occupying.

Here's the script:

MATHIEU
And those who explode bombs in public
places, do they perhaps respect the law?
When you asked that question to Ben
M'Hidi, remember what he said? No,
gentlemen, believe me, it is a vicious
circle. And we could discuss the problem
for hours without reaching any
conclusions. Because the problem does
not lie here. The problem is: the NLF
wants us to leave Algeria and we want to
remain. Now, it seems to me that, despite
varying shades of opinion, you all agree
that we must remain. When the rebellion
first began, there were not even shades
of opinion. All the newspapers, even the
left-wing ones wanted the rebellion
suppressed. And we were sent here for
this very reason. And we are neither
madmen nor sadists, gentlemen. Those who
call us fascists today, forget the
contribution that many of us made to the
Resistance. Those who call us Nazis, do
not know that among us there are
survivors of Dachau and Buchenwald. We
are soldiers and our only duty is to
win. Therefore, to be precise, I would
now like to ask you a question: Should
France remain in Algeria? If you answer
"yes," then you must accept all the
necessary consequences.


113 CASBAH HOUSES. TORTURE SEQUENCE. INSIDE. DAY.

Casbah, bedrooms, kitchens, bathrooms.

Sharp, white light; motionless faces, figures paused midway in
gestures.

Women, children ... glassy eyes ...

Background motionless like in a landscape.

Algerians ... wild eyes ... animals being led to slaughter.

Paras, their every gesture measured exactly, perfection achieved.

An Algerian is lying down on the table, his arms and ankles bound with
belts.

An Algerian, in the form of a wheel, an iron bar in the curvature of
his knees, his ankles tied to his wrists.

Electrical wires wrenched from their outlets, a generator with crank,
extended pliers with their prongs open wide, the tops of the wires held
between two prongs, the pliers applied to a naked body, the most
sensitive parts: lips, tongue, ears, nipples, heart, sexual organs ...

Faucets, tubing, buckets, funnels, a mouth forced open, held open, with
a wooden wedge, tubing in the mouth, rags scattered around, water, a
belly that is swelling . .. The torture is precise in every detail, and
every detail points to a technique that is taken apart and reassembled.

that any worthwhile information must be gathered within the first 24 hours of interrogation. Cell members are instructed to hold out for just one day, in order to give the organization time to cover their tracks, and render anything said completely useless.

That being stated, the U.S. occupation force is likely using very gruesome methods, far beyond the humiliation we've seen on our television screens. Child's play, is what we are seeing.

in their own country in order to suppress resistance to your occupation, you don't belong in their country.

Not only have you lost any moral highground (as if imperialism has much to begin with) but there's really no lower ground that you could be on.

I'm simply baffled as to how anyone could read this as a how-to film for imperialism.

Nay... we have failed.

Guess we have something in common with the French, after all.