初三英语_百度文库
两大类热门资源免费畅读
续费一年阅读会员，立省24元！
上传于|0|0|文档简介
阅读已结束，如果下载本文需要使用1下载券
想免费下载本文？
定制HR最喜欢的简历
下载文档到电脑，查找使用更方便
还剩2页未读，继续阅读
定制HR最喜欢的简历
你可能喜欢当前位置：
＞＞＞Soccer is played by millions of people all over the world, b..
Soccer is played by millions of people all over the world, but there have only been few players who were truly great. How did these players get that way---was it through training and practice, or are great players “born, not made”? First, these players came from places that have had famous stars in the past---players that a young boy can look up to and try to imitate(模仿). In the history of soccer, only seven countries have ever won the World Cup---three from South America and four from western Europe. There has never been a great national team---or a really great player---from North America or from Asia. Second, these players have all had years of practice in the game. Alfredo Di Stefano was the son of a soccer player, as was Pele. Most players begin playing the game at the age of three or four.Finally, many great players come from the same kind of neighbourhood---a poor, crowded area where a boy’s dream is not to be a doctor, lawyer, or businessman, but to become a rich, famous athlete or entertainer(艺人). For example, Liverpool, which produced the Beatles, had one of the best English soccer teams in recent years. Pele practiced in the street with a “ball” made of rags(破布). And George Best learned the tricks that made him famous by bouncing the ball off a wall(对着墙壁踢球) in the slums(贫民窟) of Belfast.All great players have a lot in common, but that doesn’t explain why they are great. Hundreds of boys played in those Brazilian streets, but only one became Pele. The greatest players are born with some unique quality that sets them apart from all the others.46. According to the writer, which of the following statements is true?A. Soccer is popular all over the world, but truly great players are few.B. Millions of people all over the world are playing soccer, but only seven countries have ever had famous stars.C. Soccer is played by millions of people all over the world, but only seven countries from South America and western Europe have ever had great national teams.D. Soccer is one of the most popular games all over the world, but it seems the least popular in North America and Asia.47. The world “tricks” at the end of Paragraph 2 is closest in meaning to ______.A. experience&&&&&&B. cheating&&&&&&&& C. skills&&&&&&&&&&D. training48. The Brazilian streets are mentioned to illustrate that ______.A. famous soccer players live in slum areasB. people in poor areas are born with some unique qualityC. children in poor areas start playing football at the age of three or fourD. a great soccer player may be born in a slum area49. In the last paragraph the statement “…but only one became Pele” indicates that ______.A. Pele is the greatest soccer playerB. the greatest players are born with some unique qualityC. Pele’s birthplace sets him apart from all the othersD. the success of a soccer player has everything to do with the family background50. The writer mentions all the factors that may affect a soccer player’s success except ______.A. his family background&&&&&&&&&&&&&& B. his neighbourhoodC. his practice&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& D. his character
题型：阅读理解难度：偏易来源：不详
46---50&& ACDBD&&略
马上分享给同学
据魔方格专家权威分析，试题“Soccer is played by millions of people all over the world, b..”主要考查你对&&政治经济类阅读，历史文化类阅读&&等考点的理解。关于这些考点的“档案”如下：
现在没空？点击收藏，以后再看。
因为篇幅有限，只列出部分考点，详细请访问。
政治经济类阅读历史文化类阅读
政治经济类文章的概念：
要做好这类阅读，平时就要注意了解国内外发生的政治经济大事，掌握一定背景知识，对这类文章的叙述特点及内容安排有一定了解，还要扩展这方面的词汇。阅读这类文章，要抓住文章的核心，即文章整体和各段主要在说什么，也要注意段落之间的逻辑关系。如何备考政治经济类阅读理解题：
【题型说明】政治经济类阅读文章是高考常选材料之一。该类文章时代气息浓郁，语言鲜活，但熟字新义词、超纲词及专业词语多，长句、难句多。政治类文章大多数是同学们感性趣的内容，读起来倒有似曾相识的感觉，经济类文章读起来就像是雾里看花，文章看完，一头雾水。再加之这类文章的命题侧重于词义猜测、推理判断和文章主旨，同学们对这类题材是望而生畏。 【备考策略】建立心理优势。针对不同体裁的文章，我们要采取相应的阅读方法和技巧。政治类文章多采用记叙文形式，我们可采取“顺读法”，以便抓关键语句，领会文章主旨；而经济类文章则多采用说明文形式，我们则可以采取“逆读法”，先读试题，再从文章中查找有用信息。若遇到的确难读的材料。千万不用着急，因为你觉得难，其他人也一定是同感。在高考前，我们就要有这种心理准备，高考试卷肯定有一、两篇难以阅读的材料。不过，我们平时可以有意识地从报刊杂志上找一些较难的阅读材料来阅读，以培养自己迎难而上的心理素质。 【答题方法】 1、寻找主干：根据英语中五种基本句型结构，把句子中的主语、谓语、宾语、表语等主要成分找出来，其他成分如定语、状语、补语等则易于理解。找到了句子主干，句子的意思至少明白了一半。 2、剔除从句：在一个长句中可能会出现若干个从句，在理解时，如果把各个从句剔除出来单独理解，然后把大意拼凑起来，整个长句的意思就会明白六、七分。 3、辨别分句：一个长句如果是由几个并列、转折、递进、对比关系的分句组成，句中往往有表示这些分句关系的连接词，只要能弄清楚分句和分句之间的逻辑关系，再把各层分句的意思加以连贯，整个长句的句意基本上能跃然脑中。 4、寻找关键词：如果一个句子看完，一点句意的感觉也没有，下下策就是抓住句中的关键词，通过关键词大体弄懂这个长句的意思。 什么是历史文化类阅读：
本类题型常用的方式是夹叙夹议。叙述的目的是为了议，所以要把握其议才是主要方面。阅读这类文章，先弄清其引入的话题，再弄清里面人物对其不同的看法，然后理解作者本身对话题的观点看法或思考。 历史文化类阅读技巧：
【题型说明】历史文化类阅读理解文章属高考常选材料之一。这类文章常涉及历史、文化、法制、宗教等方面的文学艺术、发明创造、文化遗产保护、宗教与文化、风俗与习惯、道德与法制、中外文学名著节选、等等。这类材料的命题点往往落在主旨大意题、事实细节题上。 【答题方法】在做这类阅读理解题时，我们应注意以下几个方面： 1、采用先题后文：先读题目，再带着问题读文章。这类阅读理解文章相对来说事实细节题稍多一点，如果带着问题读文章，有利于我们抓细节。 2、先做细节题。因为做完了局部性的事实细节题后，自然会加深我们对文章的理解，这样更有利于做主旨大意题。 3、重点敲定主旨题。主旨大意题提问的形式主要有两大类：一类是Main idea型；一类是Topic或Title型。在解答这类试题时应注意以下几点： a．读首句抓大意。文化教育类阅读理解文章多采用说明文、议论文体裁，而这类文章大都采用文章段落的中心，即主题句在文章开头。因此，要寻找这类文章的主旨大意就需要研究文章的首句。 b．读尾句抓大意。有时这类文章的主题句安排在文章的结尾，作为对全篇的总结。 c．读首段抓大意。有些文章或段落的开头和结尾部分都有主题句。这种结构是为了突出主题思想而使用两次点题的写作方法。这两个主题句在句子结构和用词上有所不同，而且在内容上前句和后句也不重复。 d．从段落中抓大意。有些文章或段落的主题句在文章中，这种文章或段落往往以一句话或几句话引出要表达的主题，在主题句出现后，再举例子陈述细节或继续论证。 e．归纳要点抓大意。有些文章或段落无明显的主题句，只是暗示性地体现主题。这就要求同学们在阅读过程中根据文中所叙述的事实或线索来概括总结主旨大意。
发现相似题
与“Soccer is played by millions of people all over the world, b..”考查相似的试题有：
431636397765384097409941454102339878A Good Teacher is a Strict Teacher
One of the most important parts in the healthy development of a child is played by education. But the way in which education is understood has changed completely, as we must not forget that the severe and unfeeling way of bringing up a child in the past was primarily based on cruel grounding（基础）and strict rules that were supposed to create accomplished individuals, the typical gentlemen. Nowdays, society is much more open-minded and it does not put a great value on being strict, although this doesn’t mean that opinions regarding this subject do not differ. On the one hand, there are also people who believe that there has got to be a bound between teacher and student if any satisfying results are awaited. Luckily for us, more and more teachers are understanding this fact and are doing their best to get over the strict rules and get in touch with us. My opinion is that only by having a friendly attitude and accepting other opinions, especially those of your pupils, you are truly able to do your job at high standards. However, this does not mean that a teacher shouldn’t be a bit more rough when he feels that things are getting out of hand. All in all, I must say that a good teacher is the teacher that has the ability to be kind and strict at the same time, thus achieving to gain his students respect and interest.小题1:The aim of education in the past was to
.A．create perfect personsB．create open-minded personsC．bring up a childD．build a cruel grounding小题2:According to the passage, the narrow-minded people think
.A．a pupil is always interested in what he is learningB．a pupil himself will improve his studiesC．children should be made to studyD．children don’t like a rough hand小题3:The underlined word “job” in the last paragraph can be replaced by
.A．controllingB．teachingC．learningD．punishing小题4:The author thinks a good teacher should be
.A．kind and strictB．skilled and cleverC．rough and cruelD．friendly and practical小题5:It can be inferred from the passage that
.A．society is much more open-minded and being strict is out dateB．as long as the teachers are strict with students, the students will certainly get good marksC．most people are in favor of strict teachers because they have strict grounding and strict rulesD．if we expect students to develop in a healthy way, the good relationship between teachers and students is important - 跟谁学
跟谁学学生版:genshuixue_student精品好课等你领在线咨询下载客户端关注微信公众号
搜索你想学的科目、老师试试搜索吉安
跟谁学学生版:genshuixue_student精品好课等你领在线咨询下载客户端关注微信公众号&&&分类：A Good Teacher is a Strict Teacher
One of the most important parts in the healthy development of a child is played by education. But the way in which education is understood has changed completely, as we must not forget that the severe and unfeeling way of bringing up a child in the past was primarily based on cruel grounding（基础）and strict rules that were supposed to create accomplished individuals, the typical gentlemen. Nowdays, society is much more open-minded and it does not put a great value on being strict, although this doesn’t mean that opinions regarding this subject do not differ. On the one hand, there are also people who believe that there has got to be a bound between teacher and student if any satisfying results are awaited. Luckily for us, more and more teachers are understanding this fact and are doing their best to get over the strict rules and get in touch with us. My opinion is that only by having a friendly attitude and accepting other opinions, especially those of your pupils, you are truly able to do your job at high standards. However, this does not mean that a teacher shouldn’t be a bit more rough when he feels that things are getting out of hand. All in all, I must say that a good teacher is the teacher that has the ability to be kind and strict at the same time, thus achieving to gain his students respect and interest.小题1:The aim of education in the past was to
.A．create perfect personsB．create open-minded personsC．bring up a childD．build a cruel grounding小题2:According to the passage, the narrow-minded people think
.A．a pupil is always interested in what he is learningB．a pupil himself will improve his studiesC．children should be made to studyD．children don’t like a rough hand小题3:The underlined word “job” in the last paragraph can be replaced by
.A．controllingB．teachingC．learningD．punishing小题4:The author thinks a good teacher should be
.A．kind and strictB．skilled and cleverC．rough and cruelD．friendly and practical小题5:It can be inferred from the passage that
.A．society is much more open-minded and being strict is out dateB．as long as the teachers are strict with students, the students will certainly get good marksC．most people are in favor of strict teachers because they have strict grounding and strict rulesD．if we expect students to develop in a healthy way, the good relationship between teachers and students is importantA Good Teacher is a Strict Teacher
One of the most important parts in the healthy development of a child is played by education. But the way in which education is understood has changed completely, as we must not forget that the severe and unfeeling way of bringing up a child in the past was primarily based on cruel grounding（基础）and strict rules that were supposed to create accomplished individuals, the typical gentlemen. Nowdays, society is much more open-minded and it does not put a great value on being strict, although this doesn’t mean that opinions regarding this subject do not differ. On the one hand, there are also people who believe that there has got to be a bound between teacher and student if any satisfying results are awaited. Luckily for us, more and more teachers are understanding this fact and are doing their best to get over the strict rules and get in touch with us. My opinion is that only by having a friendly attitude and accepting other opinions, especially those of your pupils, you are truly able to do your job at high standards. However, this does not mean that a teacher shouldn’t be a bit more rough when he feels that things are getting out of hand. All in all, I must say that a good teacher is the teacher that has the ability to be kind and strict at the same time, thus achieving to gain his students respect and interest.小题1:The aim of education in the past was to
.A．create perfect personsB．create open-minded personsC．bring up a childD．build a cruel grounding小题2:According to the passage, the narrow-minded people think
.A．a pupil is always interested in what he is learningB．a pupil himself will improve his studiesC．children should be made to studyD．children don’t like a rough hand小题3:The underlined word “job” in the last paragraph can be replaced by
.A．controllingB．teachingC．learningD．punishing小题4:The author thinks a good teacher should be
.A．kind and strictB．skilled and cleverC．rough and cruelD．friendly and practical小题5:It can be inferred from the passage that
.A．society is much more open-minded and being strict is out dateB．as long as the teachers are strict with students, the students will certainly get good marksC．most people are in favor of strict teachers because they have strict grounding and strict rulesD．if we expect students to develop in a healthy way, the good relationship between teachers and students is important科目:最佳答案小题1:A小题2:C小题3:B小题4:A小题5:D解析
知识点:&&基础试题拔高试题热门知识点最新试题
关注我们官方微信关于跟谁学服务支持帮助中心Is played by Is acted by Is loved by 是什麼意思 要怎麽用_百度知道
Is played by Is acted by Is loved by 是什麼意思 要怎麽用
The leading actor is acted by the star例如. 主角由该明星扮演.She is loved by him.她受到他的爱戴：The violin is played by a girl这个姑娘弹小提琴
Is played by 也可以说 由谁扮演吗？
动词为什麼都要加ed
这是被动语态， 所以用过去分词.
我有很多问题 你有时间可以回ㄧ下
Is played by 也可以说 由谁扮演吗？
采纳率：89%
来自团队：
为您推荐：
其他类似问题
等待您来回答“Zero Dark Thirty” is indefensible
As a director, I respect "Zero Dark Thirty's" artistry. But its underlying message is wrong -- and dangerously so
Dianne Feinstein,
Editor's Picks,
Kathryn Bigelow,
mark boal,
Zero Dark Thirty,
Scene still from "Zero Dark Thirty"
This article originally appeared on . It’s difficult for one filmmaker to criticize another. That’s a job best left to critics. However, in the case of Zero Dark Thirty, about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, an issue that is central to the film — torture — is so important that I feel I must say something. Mark Boal and Kathryn Bigelow have been irresponsible and inaccurate in the way they have treated this issue in their film. I am not alone in that view. Senators Carl Levin, Dianne Feinstein and John McCain wrote a letter to Michael Lynton, the Chairman of Sony Pictures, accusing the studio of misrepresenting the facts and “perpetuating the myth that torture is effective,” and asking for the studio to correct the false impression created by the film. The film conveys the unmistakable conclusion that torture led to the death of bin Laden. That’s wrong and dangerously so, precisely because the film is so well made.Let me say, as many others have, that the film is a stylistic masterwork, an inspiration in terms of technique from the lighting, camera, acting and viscerally realistic production and costume design. Also, as a screen story, it is admirable for its refusal to funnel the hunt for bin Laden into a series of movie clichés — love interests, David versus Goliath struggles, etc. More than that, the film does an admirable job of showing how complex was the detective work that led to the death of bin Laden: a combination of tips from foreign intelligence, sleuthing through old files, monitoring signals from emails and cell phones (SIGINT) and mining human intelligence on the ground (HUMINT). It’s all the more infuriating therefore, because the film is so attentive to the accuracy of details — including the mechanism of brutal interrogations — that it is so sloppy when it comes to portraying the efficacy of torture. That may seem like a small thing, but it is not. Because when we go to war, our politicians will be guided by our popular will. And if we believe that torture “got” bin Laden, then we will be more prone to accept the view that a good “end” can justify brutal “means.”But torture did not lead us to bin Laden. For other analyses of the way the factual record diverges from Boal/Bigelow version, I recommend pieces by Jane Mayer and Peter Bergen, who are far more experienced journalists than I. In addition, one can also refer to the press release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s study of the CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program, which concludes that, following the examination of more than six million pages of records from the Intelligence Community, the CIA did not obtain its first clues about the identity of bin Laden’s courier from “CIA detainees subjected to coercive interrogation techniques.”I want to focus my concern on the way in which the film is fundamentally reckless when it comes to the subject of torture. It’s skillful, but not profound. The reason for this is threefold.1) The very style of the filmBeautifully lit, the film often shot with a handheld camera to emphasize the cinematic urgency of a cinema verite documentary, which lends a false sense of “truthiness” to the narrative. This is one of the reasons I bristled when Mark Boal told Dexter Filkins that he shouldn’t be held responsible for the content of the film because ZD30 is “a movie not a documentary.” Well, if the notion of a documentary is so distasteful, why shoot it like one?There are other mistakes in that careless remark. It implies that because “movies” (unlike Boal, I would include documentaries, for better and for worse, in that category) have an obligation to entertain, they don’t have to be nitpickers for accuracy. Yet, on the other hand, Bigelow says that this film is a “journalistic account.” So which one is it? You can’t have it both ways. After all, ZD30 is being promoted as a riveting and truthful account of the killing of UBL. Would it be as appealing to viewers if it were “just a movie” about the hunt for fictional terrorist named “Osama bin Bad Guy?”Every film is faced with the enemy of time. Only so much story can fit into the 90-150 minutes of time that moviegoers are willing to stay in their seats. Naturally, compression is necessary. So are the exclusion and amalgamation of characters so that the viewer does not become bewildered. To paraphrase Werner Herzog, filmmakers don’t need to pursue a bookkeeper’s truth in which every figure is accounted for. Rather they can seek a “poetic truth” is which essential meaning is revealed to viewers. But it’s a cop-out for Boal and Bigelow to say they shouldn’t be held to account for the meaning of their film because “it’s just a movie,” and/or because it’s a “journalistic account.” In the context of the final result, neither statement is credible. When it comes to torture, the film fails the truth test for both accountants and poets.2) The truth of the matterZD30 opens in darkness, with the soundtrack haunted by the voices of victims and rescue workers on 9/11. Then the film cuts to a CIA “black site,” where a man named Ammar is being tortured by a CIA agent named Dan (played by Jason Clarke) while another agent, Maya (well acted by Jessica Chastain) looks on. For me, along with the very ending, this was one of the best moments in the film. The juxtaposition of the agony of 9/11 with the payback that followed — waterboarding detainees, walking them around in dog collars (recall Lyndie England) and stuffing them in small plywood boxes — perfectly captured a bitter poetic truth about how members of the Bush Administration responded to tragedy. They built a hard-hearted and soft-headed program of state-sanctioned torture that was likely motivated by revenge, rather than legal precedents, moral principles and well-tested, tough-minded lawful techniques.So give points to Boal and Bigelow for not pussyfooting around. They make it clear that the CIA tortured people as part of a “detainee program.” But what’s distressing — given that tough-minded beginning — is that the filmmakers don’t ever question the efficacy of torture. We don’t see how corrupting it was, how many mistakes were made. Instead, the narrative engine of Boal’s detective story is kick-started by torture. In the film Dan uses a trick and the implied threat of torture to force “Ammar” to reveal the nickname of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, a man who ultimately helped lead investigators to bin Laden.Mark Boal has responded to critics by saying that, in the film, the actionable intelligence from Ammar, was obtained “over the civilized setting of a lunch.” But that’s disingenuous. Because the conversation occurs after brutal torture, the implication is that Ammar provides information because he doesn’t want to trade his hummus for a wet washcloth and a sojourn in a plywood box.“Ammar” is a composite character likely modeled after two characters. The first was probably Hassan Ghul, who was interrogated by the CIA in 2004 with coercive techniques (NOT including waterboarding) and who did provide some details about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. But according to Senator Dianne Feinstein (who has access to all of the classified files) all of the vital information was provided prior to the rough stuff. The first clues about al-Kuwaiti were obtained in 2002 through the use of traditional interrogation methods.The other possible source for the discovery of the name of al-Kuwaiti was Mohammed al-Qahtani, the so-called 20th hijacker, who was captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanamo, where he was interrogated first by the FBI and then by the military, who were given special permission by Donald Rumsfeld to use more aggressive techniques set out in the so-called “First Special Interrogation Plan.” According to documents revealed by WikiLeaks, al-Qahtani did mention the name of al-Kuwaiti. But according to the FBI, Al-Qahtani provided all his useful information prior to his “special interrogation.” Al-Qahtani was never waterboarded ,but he was subjected to a brutal and often bizarre 49-day interrogation at Gitmo, that was documented in logs revealed by Adam Zagorin in Time Magazine. (We portrayed portions of this interrogation in my film, “Taxi to the Dark Side.”)Many writers have focused on the brutality of the al-Qahtani interrogation. They were right to do so. After all, even Susan Crawford, a Bush Administration official, ultimately admitted that his treatment was, in fact, “torture.” Using techniques loosely based on the CIA’s Kubark Interrogation Manual, and influenced by CIA’s loony new playbook for questioning prisoners in the global war on terror, interrogators kept al-Qahtani from sleeping, force fed him liquids, which caused him to urinate on himself, and came close to killing him. But what many have overlooked is what happened to the interrogators during the al-Qahtani interrogation. They fell victim to what is called “force drift” (a tendency for interrogators to increase brutality when they don’t get answers) and resorted to increasingly bizarre techniques. What are we to make of the fact that interrogators tried to get al-Qahtani to crack by using authorized “techniques” such as “invasion of space by female,” putting panties on his head, making him wear a “smiley-face” mask (I’m not making this up), giving him dance lessons, making him watch puppet shows of him having sex with Osama bin Laden, administering forced enemas and making him crawl around like a dog.The point I’m making is that, when the full history of “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” is told, we will see that it was not only brutal and counterproductive but ridiculous. The CIA waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times. Considering the repetition, just how effective were those techniques? And how good does the CIA look for insisting on mindless repetition of useless tactics?But in ZD30, Boal and Bigelow have a problem. In the logic of a “movie,” it’s difficult for viewers root for people who are making terrible mistakes, have become corrupted or who are showcasing needless brutality. As a result, while the filmmakers do showcase American brutality, they suggest that it was necessary. Over and over again, Maya watches DVDs of interrogations using waterboarding and other forms of torture as if these were useful techniques which provided actionable intelligence. She herself uses a fellow operative to be her “muscle,” punching a detainee when she does not get the answer she’s looking for. Absent any other kind of interrogation, viewers of this film must conclude that beating the hell out of people is the only way to get answers. As one detainee says in the film, “I have no wish to be tortured again. Ask me a question and I will answer it.” Sounds like torture works, right? But as we know from the Senate and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, who wrote McCain in May 2011, that EITs did not play any more than an incidental role in the discovery of UBL.
No main characters in the film ever question the efficacy or corrupting effects of torture. Just the opposite. When Barack Obama appears — on television in a CIA conference room — he remarks that prohibiting torture is “part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world.” In the foreground, another female CIA agent, Jessica (played by Jennifer Ehle) shakes her head in disgust.Later, a CIA figure nicknamed “the Wolf” makes a speech on how his efforts to get bin Laden have been undermined by the sissies in Congress. “As you know,” he says, Abu Ghraib and Gitmo fucked us. The detainee program is now flat. We’ve got Senators jumping out of our asses …”This line not wrong, in the sense that, in the context of a movie, it conveys the views of a particular character and, further, accurately represents those in the CIA — and there were many — who defended EITs. But what is pernicious about it is that the statement exists in a vacuum, as if, for the tough-minded folks who had “boots on the ground,” to use the expression Bigelow likes so much, there was no other possible point of view. But that’s wrong.3) What is missingWhen it comes to torture, what is irresponsible about ZD30 is what it excludes.The FBI and a great many CIA agents vigorously opposed the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” introduced by the CIA at the behest of the Bush Administration. These techniques were derived from the SERE program (SERE stands for “Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape”) in which soldiers who are at risk of capture are administered “harsh techniques” they are likely to face at the hands of the enemy, including waterboarding. Originally, many of these “techniques” were derived from brutal interrogations used by Chinese and Soviet Communists, who most frequently used them to obtain false confessions for political purposes. As part of this CIA “program,” three individuals were waterboarded: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.Advocates of the CIA program like to cite Abu Zubaydah as an example of how waterboarding worked. But in fact, before Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times, he was interrogated by an FBI agent named Ali Soufan. After Soufan read Abu Zubaydah his Miranda rights, he used lawful interrogation techniques to get all the valuable information he had to offer, including the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. More relevant to this film is the fact that KSM, during his waterboarding program, vigorously denied the importance of al-Kuwaiti. So confident was the CIA in the effectiveness of waterboarding — despite all evidence to the contrary — that the CIA actually assumed that KSM was telling the truth about the unimportance of al-Kuwaiti, when he was actually lying. The CIA’s unjustified confidence in waterboarding likely derailed the hunt for bin Laden until the interrogation of Ghul.ZB30 also withholds how much damage was done by the false information obtained by waterboarding. Ibn al-Sheik al Libi was being interrogated successfully by the FBI when an impatient Bush Administration demanded that the CIA take over. The CIA wrapped him in duct tape and packed him in a wooden box to be shipped to Cairo where he was waterboarded. As a result, he offered up information linking al Qaeda with Saddam Hussein, which was used by Colin Powell when he gave his famous speech before the UN. Partially as a result, we invaded Iraq. Later on, the CIA admitted that al-Libi had given false information. But by then we already had “boots on the ground” in Iraq.Kathryn Bigelow must have been delighted when she discovered a female CIA agent was at the heart of the hunt for bin Laden. But compare Maya’s infallibility in the film with the case of another female CIA agent — a redhead like Jessica Chastain — who was such a fan of waterboarding that she asked to “sit in” on the slow motion drowning of KSM. (As Jane Mayer notes in her book, “The Dark Side,” she was rebuffed by a superior who told her that waterboarding is not a spectator sport.) She supervised the kidnapping and torture of a man named Khaled el-Masri in the CIA’s “Salt Pit,” a black site in Afghanistan. Despite a valid German passport, the agent insisted on his continued torment and incarceration (despite the protests of Condelezza Rice) until it was finally revealed that the agent had mixed him up with another man named al-Masri. (Whoops, we tortured a man over a spelling mistake!) Without apology, he was then dropped on a lonely road in Albania to try to pick up the pieces of his life. Just this month, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg declared his treatment at the hands of the CIA to have been torture — the first time this has happened. Where did we see this kind of cruel incompetence treated in ZD30?If I am veering a bit far from the plot of the movie, I am doing so to make a point about a missed dramatic opportunity. Shaw once said that an argument between a right and a wrong is melodrama but that an argument between two rights is drama. When it came to the subject of torture in ZD30, there was no argument at all. And so a great dramatic opportunity was missed.
Manhola Dargis of the NY Times defends the accounts of torture in the film because they serve “as a claim — one made cinematically rather than with speeches — that these interrogation methods are unreliable when it comes to producing actionable information.” Then she says that to “omit [scenes of torture] from ZD30 would have been a reprehensible act of moral cowardice.” Whoa! I haven’t heard anyone argue that the scenes themselves should have been omitted. But despite Dargis’ vivid imagination, there is no cinematic evidence in the film that EITs led to false information — lies that were swallowed whole because of the misplaced confidence in the efficacy of torture. Most students of this subject admit that torture can lead to the truth. But what Boal/Bigelow fail to show is how often the CIA deluded itself into believing that torture was a magic bullet, with disastrous results.That raises a key question: With so much evidence of so many failures — practical, legal and moral — of the CIA’s “detainee program,” why did Boal and Bigelow fail to include it in the film?My theory — and it is just a theory — is that Boal and Bigelow were seduced by their sources. It’s a common problem. When a writer or filmmaker gets extraordinary access, one is inclined to believe the person(s) granting the access. There is a significant constituency at the CIA which would like to defend its use of EITs in the War on Terror. This group is exemplified by Jose Rodriguez, the man who was responsible for destroying the videotapes of the CIA’s interrogations — which included waterboarding — of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. There are many, including me, who believe that Rodriguez should have been prosecuted for destroying evidence of possible crimes. (The DOJ declined to prosecute him.) Instead, he is now promoting his book in which he claims that waterboarding worked.Many have been won over by the views of Rodriguez and those like him who suggest that what the CIA did was tough, but necessary and smart. It was none of those things. Yet by immersing us only in the world of the CIA, Boal and Bigelow don’t show us the perspective we need as viewers to see the lunacy of the CIA’s “detainee program.” If you want to reveal how tall a man is, you don’ you must show him in relation to others. Likewise, how can viewers of ZD30 judge the CIA’s record if they can’t see how others were shocked by its cruelty, cowardice and stupidity of EITs. In the film, long after the torture of “Ammar,” an agent hands Maya a file folder with the real name of al-Kuwaiti. “If only I had this years ago,” says Maya. Because Maya is the glamorous heroine of the film, we identify with her and wonder about the inefficiency of her colleagues. But where is the character who wonders if Maya had spent less time slapping detainees around and more time scanning actual evidence — as the FBI did — she might have got to bin Laden’s courier much sooner.I suspect that Boal and Bigelow’s sources at the CIA shared some of the views of Rodriguez. Of course, without knowing who those sources are, it’s impossible to say. What we do know, from correspondence that has been released, is that the CIA did grant extraordinary access to Boal and Bigelow.While there is nothing wrong with access per se, what is concerning is the way that the CIA — and other military agencies — grant selective access. Sometimes that’s because of the star status of the project. The letters show how much the agency loved Hurt Locker (one of the rare times I agree with the perspective of the CIA). Other times, it’s because the agency is satisfied that the filmmakers have a vision that is “consistent” with that of the CIA. Whatever the reason, this will become a bigger and bigger concern for movies based on factual events (be they films with actors or documentaries). Why not give all American citizens to declassified information?Whatever happened on ZD30, we can be sure of one thing. The CIA PR team must be delighted, particularly those who were supporters of the EIT “Program.” As former CIA director Michael Hayden noted, “I was happy the film was in the hands of such talent.”Boal and Bigelow, by all accounts, are frustrated that the discussion of their film has been bogged down in a political debate that they want no part of. I would say, in response, that the debate is not political at all. The subject of torture is one of the great moral issues of our time. Boal and Bigelow shouldn’t run from it. They should engage it.After all, the goal of Osama bin Laden was to provoke Americans to undermine our most fundamental values. Why is it not important — in a film about the hunt for bin Laden — to confront whether we, as Americans, allowed ourselves, in our lust for revenge, to lose our moral, legal and political bearings instead of trying, as Tony Lagouranis, an Army interrogator, told me, “to be as good as we can be.”
Your name will appear as
var shareEmbed = document.querySelectorAll('.svp-widget .share-embed')[0];
shareEmbed.setAttribute('value', '');
sidePlayer.on('adPlay',function() {
shareOverlayButton.style.visibility = 'hidden';
sidePlayer.on('play',function() {
shareOverlayButton.style.visibility = 'visible';
Watch This Next}