No doubt this film endorses torture

Rating: 5/10 (13 September 2013)

I'm deeply emotionally invested in the torture argument, chiefly because I can't believe there even is an argument. I would have placed it on a plane with say, lynching or slavery, as one of those things that is just known to be wrong. Yet some of my own family followed my government down the rabbit hole where "enhanced interrogation" might be OK, as long as it's only against terrorists. So it was with interest I followed the controversy over where Zero Dark Thirty stood on the issue.
Having (finally) seen the film, there is no doubt in my mind the film endorses torture; in fact, the first third revels in interrogation scenes, going beyond even what the CIA actually did (like the dog collar). The chief interrogator is sympathetically presented and is a good friend of Maya's. Maya helps him waterboard a suspect by handing him a bucket and repeatedly questions detainees undergoing torment. Nobody in the film questions the techniques, only expressing concern about the political climate changing and "you don't want to be the last one holding the dog collar". Most importantly, the vital clue of Bin Laden's courier is given up by a victim just after he's explicitly threatened with being returned to interrogation. The courier's photo and name is then confirmed by a montage of detainees undergoing or just after torture. A few years later, an official states he can't confirm a piece of information because now the detainees will just get "lawyered up".
However, the CIA has stated that the film is inaccurate as the courier's name was not found out through torture. So why the obsessive focus on this during the first third of the film, plainly stating that the techniques worked? It's a shame, because the rest of the film, especially the raid, is riveting.