the nightmare part 3

So in my last two posts I have expressed conflicting opinions. In the first I expressed how much I enjoyed the first part and in the second I was highly critical of the means in which it was filmed. Now I find myself thinking critically about what I just watched. I have tried my best this time to watch this latest installment as neutrally as possible. What I took out of it has been a mix of my past two reviews.

I felt that this installment seemed less preachy then the previous but at the same time I do not feel it was particularly great. I believe they touched on some valid arguments but was incredibly one sided. I recall only one testimony from a former member of the Pentagon that expressed any sort of disagreement with the overall message of the film. Putting my feelings on the way in which the film was shot aside I feel that the film came to some interesting points that I am in no position to refute (I like to enter documentaries like this with a critical eye). One of the things that struck me was the idea that the war on terror was one built on a “network” of lies. The first being this creation of a terrorist organization that did not quite yet exist (or never did?). I think that the statement that stood out to me the most was one uttered by one of the defense lawyers from the sleeper cell trials who said something along the lines of the government started out with a conclusion and filled in the blanks later. This fits into the idea of the creation of the terrorist network and using questionable testimonies to build a case.

The last thing I wanted to touch on is one of the last things brought up in the series, which is the idea of a precautionary principle. The idea that a government will act in a way so as to prevent the imaginary scares me deeply. I truly believe that there needs to be a fully established justice system where evidence needs to be presented in each and every case and in a world where we act preemptively evidence does not play a role. The government’s role, in my opinion, is not to presume what will happen and act on thoughts lacking in solid proof or to manufacture proof. We deal with what we have and act on information we gather we should not fabricate information to prove a point, rather the other way around.