Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) Online

This horrifying documentary won the Oscar for 2007. Using the case of an innocent Afghan taxi driver who were tortured to death by American interrogators in Bagram prison as the starting point, the film chronicles the atrocities committed by the Bush administration in the name of American people and an ill-defined 'war on terror'.

The film is written, directed and narrated by Alex Gibney, son of a high-ranking naval officer who was an interrogator in World War II. A great American and a true patriot, Frank Gibney's final disappointment of what became of the great nation of the United States in the hands of a few liars is heart-wrenching.

There is not a single frame in the film that is not supported by hard evidence. All of the investigation was conducted by Americans whose credentials of decency and patriotism are above suspicion. The film is a chronicle of how paranoia, self-serving deceit and mere stupidity can threaten the very values a great nation was built on. It should be impossible for anyone who watches this meticulous document to ever criticize the veracity of claims put forward by the recent films, Rendition, In the Valley of Elah, or Redacted - flawed as films though that they were.

Every person in the world, especially every American, that cares about the true nature of freedom and the sanctity of the individual (the basic tenets on which America was built) should see this film. How could anyone claim that it would be loved only by the supporters of Taliban is beyond me.

Too few have heard of Dilawar. Those who have will probably never forget him. Alex Gibney certainly will not. His latest film starts and ends with this poor innocent taxi driver who, in 2002, was taken to the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan. Five days later, he was dead.

Dilawar's death was the spark which ultimately led to the international awareness of what the Bush administration was doing to its detainees in the war on terror. Gibney's film, however, decides to look up the tree, not down, to discover who was really responsible for these unpleasant developments.

Gibney's film is bolstered by frank and interesting interviews with some of the troops on the ground. Their remorse is clear, as is their disgust. And disgust is the right word. This is, by no means, an easy watch. The use of the appalling footage which has been generated by the recent conflicts is necessary because, if anyone is in any doubt about how morally reprehensible these tactics are, this film will make it abundantly clear.

However, this film's real strength is the structure of its attack on the tactics that are employed. Gibney demonstrates that the tactics used are hopelessly inadequate and never yield effective information. There is a cutting and brilliant comparison with the old techniques and the new where an interviewee, a former FBI interrogator, uses his old tools of interrogation – words – and you can feel yourself being persuaded.

This is not just a polemic. It is a human story and a powerful and well-constructed argument. It should be essential viewing as what has happened at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu Ghraib should never be forgotten. This is excellent, important film-making.

4 Stars out of 5

There is something you need to know about this film: it is not about real insurgents or terrorists or about real soldiers, and it is certainly not an anti-American film.

It is about how senior military and civilian officials demand results from their subordinates, even if the results are to be obtained by unconscionable, immoral, and illegal means, up to, and including, torture and murder. The fact that many of these results - what the military like to call "the mission" - are faked or just wrong is of no particular concern to them. Naturally, you'll never find a document signed by any of those officials advocating torture and murder. The most you'll ever find is a reference to "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e., torture). And if a detainee dies, the senior officers and officials always benefit from "plausible deniability" and claim that it must be the fault of junior "bad apple" troops. If terrorists are murderers, some of our own troops have certainly engaged in murder, too. To reveal this is not anti-American; it's just a simple fact. Because the troops often do it in a group they think they're not murderers. Just as, I imagine, someone who participates in gang rape does not consider himself, individually, to be a rapist.

While most Military Police (MP) troops are fighting hard on the ground every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, one group of troops which this film examines are those Military Police who are used as prison guards. The other troops examined in the film are some military intelligence ("MI") troops employed as interrogators in prison camps.

If you don't know already, Military Police are usually despised by their own troops. If you give a soldier special power over his fellow soldiers he will often abuse it. I still recall an Australian friend of mine mentioning that many of the Aussie "Red Hats" (MPs) who sailed for home after WWII never made it back; their fellow troops threw them overboard.

The old saw about military intelligence being a contradiction in terms is never more apparent than in the case of interrogators. When you hear the word intelligence here you must forget all about spies, codes, and the stuff of James Bond novels. The interrogators of MI are an example of soldiers who are ill prepared, in general, to carry out work that would normally take years to master. They are mostly low-ranking enlisted men and women, privates and sergeants, almost none of whom speak with any proficiency the language of the detainees they're interrogating.

So, imagine the scenario: senior officials demanding intelligence, no matter how it's obtained; unqualified interrogators using whatever means they can think of to satisfy their superiors' demands; and MP prison guards who have the power of life and death over their detainees, with almost no restrictions on what they can do to them. Behind all this is the unwritten understanding that if something goes wrong, the troops will probably not be prosecuted. God help the innocent person swept up into this sadistic, bureaucratic system. But as we all know, if you've been arrested, you must be guilty. Right?

The elephant in the closet in all this is the Central Intelligence Agency, an organization that regards itself as above law, morality, and civilized behavior. It gets away with much of what it does by having the military, foreigners, and contractors to do its dirty work for it. And when somebody has to take a fall, well, that's what privates and sergeants are for. If your kids are MPs, interrogators, or just in the military, advise them always to watch their backs around those people.

This may be a disturbing film for civilians, but it won't include many surprises if you've served in the armed forces, or on a police force, or in a prison. Those are the people who know about this, but they're not about to tell you. No wander the USA has pulled out of the War Crimes Treaty. But what officials do not want to admit, even to themselves, is that war crimes are war crimes, no matter if you're a treaty signatory or not.

In 2002 taxi driver Dilawar was picked up by US forces with his passengers in the desert and taken to Bagram prison in Afghanistan. Five days later he was dead. Injuries to his legs were compared with those he would have sustained if he had been run over by a truck – had he lived it was likely that his legs would have had to have been amputated due to the damage. With this as the starting point, this documentary tells the story of the role of "torture" in the war on terror, from Abu Ghraid to Guantanamo.

Having put Gibney's documentary on Enron as one of my ten favourite films of 2005, I eagerly took up the opportunity the UK (and much of Europe) had to catch this on television ahead of the full release in the US in 2008. Shown as part of the BBC's excellent "Why Democracy" series of films, this one opened with the caption question "can terrorism destroy democracy?". To the casual listener the question appears to be about the ability of terrorists to bring down what we see as Government (ie by crashing planes into it) but really the question in regards this film appears to be more about whether our idea of freedom and democracy can survive the way we fight terrorism. As a result this film is about the use of "torture" against terrorist suspects, specifically focusing on the United States.

The reader may be wondering why the focus (in the title) on Dilawar. Well I did too because he died in Bagram and his story sadly ends there, while the vast majority of the film focuses on the infamous examples of torture and inhumane treatment in the other places. Well it turns out that Dilawar is a device and one that the film uses very well. The morality of the use of torture is not black and white and of course the usual "ticking time bomb" scenario is thrown up; the film does counter this by suggesting that the weekly scenarios in Fox's 24 are not the norm (to say the least) but the best answer to most of the moral questions are simply to refer back to a taxi driver who died after five days in captivity with horrific injuries – the film doesn't say he was innocent but it doesn't need to – nobody suggests he was evil or a key player either, but yet he is dead. This hangs over the film even though he is not the focus after the first twenty minutes.

What the film does from then on in is paint a picture of lack of respect for humanity, lack of respect for international laws, lack of accountability and lack of transparency. The film plays a clip of Rumsfeld speaking on the (then) allegations of mistreatment and says that it will be looked into so that "the world will see how a free system, a democratic system, functions and operates"; well he was right – and it is not pretty viewing. As with Enron, Gibney does betray his politics and the film has very little in the way of even handedness about the debate. This is a little disappointing in regards the debate but the overwhelming nature of the presentation of arrogance and carelessness did make wonder how you would balance these issues – certainly the quotes I have heard down the years from politicians have not been able to convince. Certainly a clip of Bush talking about "suspected terrorists" who have died, or as he says "put it this way – they're no longer a problem to the United States"; the fact that he acknowledges they are "suspects" rather than convicts but yet sees their death as a good thing says it all.

Considering this issue is everywhere in the media, Gibney does very well to structure his film to build it from the ground up. Not only does he use the words of the Bush administration against them ("the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people") but he also details the wider political picture beyond the blame that was dumped onto Lynndie England, Charles Graner and others. He does this very well, bringing in the input of John Yoo and the terribly smarmy Alberto Gonzales. Even after the photographs in the paper, seeing the unedited video and hearing firsthand accounts from both sides is shocking and disturbing affair – again, how would you set out to "balance" these? Beyond the issue of torture I found the lack of accountability and ownership to be just as shocking as privates are floated down the river while those in charge never face worse than early retirement. The biggest challenge with this material is to keep it as a valid piece of work even as the topic grows daily and that many will be tired of hearing about it – just this last week or so we have seen more debate and also the CIA deleting old tapes of interrogations (tapes that Bush has "no recollection" of existing); however Gibney brings the film to a close well, making it feel like something that can stand still and still work – the personal touch of his late father's comments at the end (himself a WWII Navy interrogator) talking about how "we" should be different than "them", making for a suitable summing up of why the film is important.

Another strong documentary from Gibney despite the lack of balance and the challenges with the topic. It deserves to be seen by a bigger audience than it has been, even if it won't make the difference it should do. Depressing to think that, decades from now people will look back on this and wonder how on earth we allowed our leaders to do this in our names and let them get away with it.

... at least not on Discovery Channel.

Said director Alex Gibney recently (on DemocracyNow): "Well, it turns out that the Discovery Channel isn't so interested in discovery. I mean, I heard that — I was told a little bit before my Academy Award nomination that they had no intention of airing the film..."

Discovery Channel has bought the exclusive TV rights for the next 3 years, but Gibney hopes they can be persuaded to sell them "for a profit".

And it is a powerful film. Although it reveals nothing new about the torture and degrading techniques we've become accustomed to over the last three years, it puts politician's faces and statements in context with a "real" victim and a name: young Afghan Taxi driver Dilawar, who was arrested at a checkpoint for alleged involvement in a rocket attack. Five days later he died at Bagram, after two days of continuous beatings, standing up in chains inside his solitary confinement cell. The American coroner checked "homicide" on his death certificate and handed it with the body to his family, who couldn't read English.

The film then takes us along the ride from Afghanistan to the present day. Dilawar was only the beginning, and one of two detainees who died from torture roughly at the same time. Today, about 180 people have died in custody, 38 with "homicide" on their death certificates. Dilawar's torturers tell their story. They took the rap, they repent, but is this justice? What's the bigger picture, the one that's usually glossed over, and the reason Discovery deems this documentary "controversial"?

Alex Gibney dismantles "Torture the American way" just like he did the Enron scandal in "Enron: The smartest guys in the room", from the inside to the bigger inside, like a Russian doll. You will hear the words "war crimes", see the infamous torture memo, Abu Ghraib photos and film, Kiefer Sutherland torturing with electric wires, Guantanamo, Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush and their lawyers wriggling around the t-word and egging on that "we must take our gloves off". "We have to work the dark side, if you will. We're going to spend time in the shadows", says Cheney.

"But... is the dark side stronger?"

"No. Quicker, easier, more seductive. Anger, fear, aggression, the dark side are they.

"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

Much like the director's Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, the subject of Taxi to the Dark Side carries the dual burdens of public burnout and simultaneous public smugness. We're tired of hearing of prisoner abuse, and moreover, we think we know all there is to know about it anyway.

I wouldn't have guessed that I could be affected by unedited imagery from Abu Gahrib but as it turns out, it's 24 hours since I saw TTTDS and I can't shake the images from my head. Many will want to hide their eyes from what our own tax dollars hath wrought, and perhaps some will be right to do so. This is a brutal, agonizing, blistering and exhausting journey that doesn't pull any punches. No digital scrambling or government double-speak to hide the unpleasant parts - just pure evil.

The screening audience was active with conversation when the lights came up and one was heard to say that this was a truer documentary than any created by Michael Moore. I don't know what that means, but without a doubt no documentary I have ever seen has gotten under my skin to such a degree. What makes it brilliant is that it captures, simultaneously, the evil that men (and women) do AND the faith that we all carry for greater human achievement.

A college professor once described "Schindler's List" as the story of God's grace in a godless place. What's agonizing about TTTDS is that for much of the film God is nowhere to be found, beyond the desperate screams of "Allah" as extricated from captives by US Soldiers given no direction and without a magnetic north in their moral compass.

Those who not only condone but advocate the horrors on display in this film are all here, in their own words, to justify their leadership with the talking points we've heard again and again over the past 5 years. In the context of Bagram and Guantanamo Bay their words take on a sinister edge I'd not heard before. I can't recommend this film highly enough, nor can I suggest more strongly that you do not know what you're in for.

Yep, it is another one of those Iraq and Afghanistan documentaries. I know the burnout rate is high on these, which is probably why I almost did not bother, but nothing else was showing. Man, was I happy I saw this! It has rekindled my hate for the Bush administration, which had turned to apathy over the last year. This tells the story of an Afghani taxi driver that is mistakenly picked up as a Taliban supporter, but before they find out he was innocent, he has been beaten to death by his American torturers.

This film has interviews from all of the guards that were responsible, JAG officers, FBI people, CIA agents on the ground etc. And you see that all of the blame lies with Ashcroft and the Bushies, who gave one vague order after another that they wanted confessions and they wanted them quickly, with a wink and a nod about what kind of methods to use. So you have these frustrated high school drop-outs presiding over these people thousands of miles from anywhere, and they won't confess. So, beatings and humiliations follow. And when the crap comes out, the Bush administration passes a bill that absolves all higher-ups from any responsibility and they start to bust the enlisted men and women, who were following orders. Pathetic. Of course, we also find out that over 95% of the prisoners being held, were captured by Pakistanis and Northern Alliance people, WHO were paid by the US government for each person they turned over, guilty or not guilty. And you wonder why meaningful confessions were so hard to come by. It reminds me of the scene from Full Metal Jacket, where the psycho army guy shoots the Vietnamese farmers from his helicopter. He says the ones that run are VC, the ones that don't run are well trained VC. Very tragic.

This film is a worthy attempt to bring what has become a familiar subject throughout the Bush years without necessarily giving the other side an opportunity to state their case. While I personally support what the film is saying about questionable, even criminal policies of the Bush Administration's view on "interrogation" as a betrayal of all this country holds dear, the film leaves itself open to attack which is unfortunate. Tidbits are cherry picked from interviews and Congressional testimony, and while it's understandable that major players didn't want to sit down and give an interview, it's glaring that they aren't given an chance to explain why they've said what they said. I'll acknowledge the filmmaker probably has it right, but nevertheless, it's an unfair tactic.

The chief first hand accounts of information are from U.S. Military personnel who have been convicted of crimes (with the exception of one British national who has a harrowing, convincing story to tell). While what they have to say is compelling, the absence of any testimony of those who gave them those orders is absent. We have their attorneys or third parties removed to interpret what happened...or might have happened. While I couldn't be more sympathetic to the bind we've placed our young men and women in, the last thing I wanted to hear from an individual who's been convicted of torture and "wrongful death" (labeled a homicide by the coroner) is "I'm financially ruined." The moral quandary raised by the film isn't nearly answered until the final credits roll.

And where is Congress? Where is the oversight they are obligated to perform? Oh, they're holding hearings on steroid use in baseball.

We're never sure exactly what we're looking at. "Reenactments" are identified briefly, but clearly there is a lot that isn't documentary footage, and the famous photos of Abu Ghrabib reappear over and over frequently out of context.

This is a shameful chapter in American history, and it needs a less doctrinaire film to expose what are, as pointed out, crimes of war. One of the most effective moments is when the filmmaker's father appears over the closing credits. He is a former interrogator in WWII. His outrage rings true, and it should be every American's cry as well.

Taxi to the Dark Side accomplishes what a documentary, or just a concise analysis, regarding all of the facts in one of the many nightmares the United States' involvement in the middle east should: to inspire the utmost disgust and condemnation of a system that has become as corrupt as it has (or rather always has been with this bunch). It's uncontainable to think how all of this started, grew exponentially, and resulted ultimately in the horrors at Abu Gharyb and Guantanamo Bay, in that it is nestled in the twisted, criminal (yes folks, criminal) 'policies' of the Bush administration. But Alex Gibney's approach isn't narrow-minded but multi-faceted: he's interested in what a complex, ugly organism torture has become, the psychological just as much as the physical, and he has a man at the center of it. Dilawar, an innocent taxi driver from a poor farm in Afghanistan, was swept up by three other Afghan soldiers and sent to Bagram prison, where along with other supposed terrorists or terrorist collaborators was tortured (in his case especially in brutal fashion, as we learn in graphic description from those who participated first-hand), and died from the trauma.

His death was a controversy, but not one that ever got the kind of attention it deserved; until this documentary I never even heard of Dilawar or even much about Bagram prison. Yet it was at this prison, as well as the first biggie interrogation of the would-be 20th hijacker of the plane on 9/11 to crash in Pennsylvania (which, by false confession, led to an over-excited but false-rooted assumption that Al Quaeda had links to Baghdad), that led to Abu Gharyb, which revealed the horrors of soldiers in unyielding terror over their subjects but, more importantly, the virus that spread through the chain of command. Gibney's approach is approximate and expertly probing: it's not enough to just focus of Dilawar (even as his story could make up a whole legitimate documentary alone), or on Abu Gharyb. As in his previous film, Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, it's essential to dissect this wretched beast from top to bottom, to see not simply the soldiers first-hand accounts, but straight from the horse's mouth the words from Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Bush himself.

Because, in reality, there is something to feel sorry for with these soldiers. It can be argued, and not without just cause, that what the soldiers did at Bagram, Abu Gharyb, and to an extent even at GITMO, was wrong and rotten and they could have said no and so on and so forth. However, as with the ground war situation in Iraq, it's all about the chain of command, and the fact that no matter what the parties initially responsible are not held accountable for any of their actions. It's almost frightening to forget the amount of footage available with these men like Rumsfeld and Gonzalez and Cheney where they not only admit to being fine with torture tactics - and whether or not it's psychological torture or not is besides the point as ALL torture IS torture, albeit a facet that Gibney brilliantly chronicles in the history of the CIA to its 'logical' extension in recent years - but set it up in legal wrangling so as to not get it any trouble for what they've done which is, of course, breaking Geneva conventions and whatnot.

If I sound like I'm sounding bias with this, then you should leave this review right now. There is no bias when it comes to this issue (or rather there SHOULD be no bias, as for a split second McCain showed until he relented recently that torture isn't as bad as he used to think). What one sees as the line between what is proper interrogation of a subject and outright abuse to get that "ticking time-bomb" is revealed by Kloogman from the FBI, who paraphrases how an interrogation would usually be done and lays it on the line that this form has actually had results - not pain and death or, at best, a bull**** court at GITMO where it's like a joke Kafka wouldn't write. Gibney presents all the information with the bluntness that's required, with testimony, footage from press conferences and commissions (i.e. that cringe-inducing bit with Gonzalez where he has a horrible pause when trying to answer a simple question about whether or not to condone torture), and it's presented lucidly, edited for a cumulative effect and with the skill of a filmmaker in total trust with his subject(s) to take all of the pieces into a whole that shakes one to the core.

And all of this would be powerful enough to make an impact, but with the recent explosion of news coverage on water-boarding - and that the CIA has admitted to torturing three subjects - Taxi to the Dark Side remains startlingly relevant. In fact, it's even more tragically relevant than last year's Sicko or even No End in Sight. From the tragedy of Dilawar to the tragedy of Abu Gharyb, which was like Salo turned into as shockingly real as could never be imaginable, the Bush administration has put the US into even more danger than ever before by resorting to the lowest form of humanity, condoning acts to the soldiers that sixty years ago would never be committed in the harshest of circumstances on our side. This, again, isn't some silly bias, this is just fact. It's enough to make one sick to one's stomach, and as long as a film such as this exists, the pain can't be brushed aside or dulled by diverting network news.

Taxi to the Dark Side doesn't contain anything wholly new, just more complete detail and important clarifications, such as the fact that Guantanamo uses very much the same basic methods to Abu Ghraib, though the location is cleaner and of course was not formerly used by Saddam Hussein. Dilawar, the Afghan taxi driver, was essentially beaten to death by American soldiers in the Bagram prison. He did not live long once his ill-trained but plainly-directed captors got hold of him, but his final hours were terrifying and horrible. They kicked his legs till they turned to pulp and would have had to be amputated, had he lived. A heart condition caused an embolism that went to his brain and was the cause of death, which on the official US papers given to Dilawar's family, in English so they did not know what they meant, was "homicide," but the officer in charge of the prison denied this when queried. Gibney, who was responsible previously for the documentary Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room, presents interviews with some of the American soldiers responsible for Dilawar's death. They were, of course, only following orders. Other talking heads clarify the fact that the "gloves are off" policy by US authorities following 9/11/01 goes back to Cheney, approved by Bush, carried out with gusto by Rumsfeld, and sent directly down the line to the low-ranking and inexperienced people whose behavior after the Abu Ghraib scandal emerged was claimed by authorities to be that of people on the "night shift" or "a few bad apples." This film thoroughly disproves that claim.

Gibney shows how the US administration has become willing to blatantly disregard the rule of law, domestic as well as international, to fight their "war on terror" in ways that involved extreme cruelty and murder. In doing this they had the assistance of various corrupt or immoral--or, if you prefer, simply very misguided--men of the law and the judiciary.

The practices have been illegal. They may also have been variously unwise. The photos of Americans mistreating Muslim prisoners at Abu Ghraib are good recruiting material for anti-US terrorists. But torture also simply doesn't work, accomplishes nothing useful. Much time is given to Alfred McCoy, author of a book called 'The Question of Torture' and a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin. McCoy recounts that the CIA has been working on methods of coercion for all the decades of its existence, but their experiments have yielded little except lawsuits from victimized guinea pigs. Another authority, a former CIA operative, asserts that the best method to obtain information is to gain the confidence of the prisoner and convince him you can help him.

But post 9/11 "high value" prisoners were clearly tortured with anything their captors could think of--and then confessed to anything they could think of. The film clarifies that psychological experiments by Donald Hobb at McGill University in the Seventies proved sensory deprivation is the most effective means of torture; at least according to Hobb it can induce psychosis within 48 hours. The film shows that basically all "terrorism" suspects here and abroad have been subjected to sensory deprivation. That is what covering the ears, head, and hands does; and it was and is standard treatment to continue this for hours and days. This is more effective than pain. But effective at doing what? Breaking down the prisoner, not obtaining reliable information, or any information, for that matter.

Hence the widely spread US policies are not only harmful, dangerous, immoral, and illegal, but stupid and, in intelligence-gathering terms, worthless.

The "extraordinary rendition," waterboarding, sensory deprivation, etc. don't work in practical terms, but they have a political purpose. They convince people that the US is "getting tough" on its enemies. But the US has not been holding real enemies. If it were, the useless prisoners or wrongly captured would be filtered out, as Dilawar ought to have been. He was innocent. And now the US authorities are in a bad position. They cannot acquit even those few Guantanamo prisoners they are putting up for show trials, because to do so would reveal that they had been held for six years for no reason. That would look bad. Varieties of Orwellian terminology have been devised to describe these prisoners. The film also shows "tours" of Guantanamo and deflates the claims of the tour guides.

One reason for all this is who's been in charge: a group of draft dodgers who never served in a war. Senator McCain is shown in the film as a man who opposes torture for good reason: because he experienced it during his years in a North Vietnam prison.

Another issue: American has a developed a culture of guilty-as-charged, of hysterical attacks on imagined enemies. An example: the popular jingoistic TV program "24," starring Kiefer Sutherland as a CIA agent who "saves" millions by torturing mad terrorists with ticking bombs in Times Square. A Dark Side talking head says that there has never been such a person captured, and suggests that if there were, such a person would have the commitment to die rather than reveal information about his plot.

I do not know if torture never gets you information, though the assertion that insinuating oneself into the confidence of a prisoner is more effective makes sense. What is clear enough from Gibney's powerful and disturbing film (which contains many images not for the squeamish) is that the torture and wrongful imprisonment and lawlessness of the US as a nation post-9/11 indicate a country that has become very cruel and very stupid.

Andrew O'Hehir of Salon.com recounts that at a post-screening Q&A when Gibney was asked what he would like his film to accomplish, he said "I hope it provokes some rage." "Well," says O'Hehir, "it worked on me." May it work on everyone who sees it.

There is ample evidence of torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghirab and Bargam Airforce Base. This is undisputed. It embarrassed the Bush administration when evidence of their secret was finally leaked to the public in the form of photographs. Would it have been better if these photographs of American soldiers committing torture had never come to light?

This documentary is substantiated with facts. Yet some still find the truth too much to bear.

On IMDb a "reviewer" wrote:

"Stupid biased Anti-American and unbalanced.... Those who hate the USA, Israel and are sympathisers with the Taliban, and Muslim extremists will love this film."

So to document American "War Crimes" is anti-American? Can this opinion really be held?

Another "reviewer" wrote:

"Where were the American suicide bombers - did I miss them? I was also waiting to see how the evil Americans use suicide bombers to kill innocent men, women and children in markets, on buses, in schools, and any and every other public place. Oh wait, silly me. Americans don't use suicide bombers."

In fact, there is documented evidence that British SAS working for British Intelligence, dressed in local Arab clothing, tried to explode a car bomb in Basra in 2005. (BBC) The British Government apologised to Iraq over the incident. Also in 2005, American Soldiers disguised in Arab dress were captured in the act of setting off a car bomb in a Bagdad residential area. (Mirror World). I am sure these "soldiers" had no intention of killing themselves in the blasts but the objective is clear, cause chaos and bloodshed then blame your enemy.

Another "reviewer" that states he served in Iraq had this to say:

"It's War The liberals will have you believe that America is and always will be the cause of so much unrest in the world today. We aren't. Rogue nuclear nations and terrorists without borders are as much to blame.

I am sure some detainees at Guantanamo were in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and I am sure that some were members of Al Queda. Again, consider the events of 9/11 and consider how difficult it is for the foot soldier to identify friends and foes in the "fog of war." Let them do their jobs as best as they can, or else there may be another 9/11."

He continues:

"The documentary ignored the yield of interrogations. Did they save American lives on the battlefield or at home? Did they make a difference? I personally served in Iraq and I consider myself well-versed in modern media trickery. Had the documentary given any attention to what resulted on the battlefield from any intelligence obtained, then HBO's anti-war meaning would have been lost."

So America is not "the cause of so much unrest in the world today?" Then who is?

With the preemptive and some would say illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, millions have died, mostly civilians and as a result, the credibility of America has suffered considerably. With the American use of torture, the Bush administration legitimised "rogue" states to use the same methods with impunity. What is made clear in this documentary is that torture almost assures that prisoners once released will seek revenge. What effect carpet bombing, phosphorous bombs, daisy-cutters, napalm and tons of incendiary bombs will have on recruiting more terrorists is uncertain.

"I am sure some detainees at Guantanamo were in the "wrong place at the wrong time" and I am sure that some were members of Al Queda."

So that is 50/50? Half are terrorists and half are not. Not really a sure thing is it? This equates to gamble rather than a concerted effort to find real suspects.

Brigadier Roger Lane, Commander of British forces in Afghanistan stated that his troops had yet to find, capture or kill one member of Al Qaeda. "We haven't captured any Al Qaeda. We haven't killed any." he said to the BBC. Top US commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal said that he sees no indication of any large Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan. So the existence of this "phantom enemy" popularised as Al Queda is itself in question.

"Let them (the Soldiers..) do their jobs as best as they can, or else there may be another 9/11."

So, soldiers should be "unhindered" by media scrutiny because it will affect their "performance" and so result in another attack of the magnitude of September 11th 2001? I don't think so. What is needed is sound intelligence, military leadership and considered plans of operations. Requirements that seem to have had been of little consequence for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

"The documentary ignored the yield of interrogations. Did they save American lives on the battlefield or at home?"

The documentary did in fact show the yield of torturous interrogations. That prisoners undergoing torture will say anything to stop the suffering. As was shown by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitting a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden when clearly there was none, simply to stop induced drowning by "water-boarding". Colin Powell later admitted the information taken from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "incorrect". As a side note Khalid Sheikh Mohammed interrogations are mentioned as a source in the 9/11 Commission report 211 times.

Saving "American lives" is no more important than saving anyone else's and history has proved that information taken under torture is totally unreliable.

I find it hard to understand how anyone would not want their armed forces to perform with the highest principles of bravery and honour. To apologise for the use of torture is inexcusable and if these "tortures" become institutionalised then it will only be a matter of time before they will be used on citizens at home.

With a title like Taxi to the Dark Side, you know it's not going to be a light-and-fluffy film, but it's a film that needed to be made, and should be seen by everyone.

The measure of a nation is how well it lives up to its ideals in the worst of times. 9/11 was that trial for America, and America failed. If you do not believe that former U.S. president George W. Bush, former vice president Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, White House Council John Yoo, and at least a half dozen other members of the Bush Administration are guilty of war crimes, you must see this documentary.

Even if you suspect they do, but have lingering doubts – you must see this documentary.

And especially if you don't know either way, and know nothing about this issue – you must see this documentary.

This is not some sort of Michael Moore propaganda piece. This transcends partisan politics. It deals with a broader issue. It focuses on the treatment of just one detainee and will probably make you sick to your stomach – if you can stomach it at all. And then reminds you that this happened not to just one guy, but to 83,000 others too.

Hell yes, its difficult to watch - there is graphic photos of torture – but is that an excuse not to watch it? The fact is they are presented because showing them is necessary to fully understand the extent of what went on. And guess what? If you are an American, you damn well should sit through this, because you are guilty too – this is what your elected officials did.

Of course when word finally got out, and they got blowback for it, in an outrageous act of cowardice, they left their own subordinates out to dry.

The film makes the case, clearly, efficiently and thoroughly. Which makes it not only an excellent documentary, but an important one too.

In addition to objectively painting a portrait of a given subject matter, a documentary is usually expected to be an exposé of said subject matter; a story you've never heard, or a story you've heard before, but not in "this way." Though engrossing and often gross, the real weakness of Taxi to the Dark Side is the fact that it's the same story told in pretty much the same way we've always heard: poor leadership within the U.S. administration led to poor decision-making on the ground, which led to poor detainees being treated poorly. Everyone's guilty but no one is to blame. This circuitous chaos is the subject matter and not the fault of Alex Gibney, but I hold him accountable for not telling me anything I didn't already know about it (and for thoroughly confusing me with years and locations). If there was ever an instance of preaching to the choir, this was it. Why did I expect more? Because Gibney's Enron was a triumph - as much as you knew about that scandal (which was probably not much), he laid out a linear, exacting argument that left no room for debate. As ironic as it seems to say so, Taxi to the Dark Side is not going to convince anyone of anything. You either think torture is bad, or you think torture is good. I really don't see a middle ground, and if you're in the second group you won't change your mind from what Gibney presents, you'll just shrug your shoulders. For a brief moment he actually starts to get creative as we hear from a former FBI interrogator whose interrogation techniques were effective and peaceful (as much as he exaggerated). That started to be convincing, so why did it end? And what about the 30 second insight into how torture has been embraced by the American public thanks to the likes of 24? That's an interesting place to go, but we're left with more polarizing soundbites from Bush. How about the flash-quick glimpse into the future repercussions from torture survivors? Gibney even pushes his own personal connection to torture to the credits. Where was that the whole time? The short of it is, by focusing on the same old details and using some pretty tired arguments, Gibney prevents his merely good work from achieving real excellence. Though it's a good excuse to get angry for a few hours, Taxi to the Dark Side can really only be recommended for anyone who has had their head in the sand for the last five years.

A bomb went off, and we looked away. The medieval tableaux of Abu Ghraib did manage to shock us for a while. Then, some people were punished, and we convinced ourselves that was all of them.

According to the Global Views survey, in 2010, 42 percent of Americans were in favor of "using torture to extract information from suspected terrorists." This is 6 points higher than in 2008; 12 points higher than in 2004. Could this become a majority soon? Are these people who have seen and remember those photographs? Have they reconciled themselves to such scenes? Could I? "Taxi to the Dark Side" is an exceptionally meticulous documentary that takes the case of an Afghan taxi driver who was beaten to death by interrogators at Bagram base in 2006, and puts it in the context of American anti-terror policy. It shows young soldiers with no training in interrogation, given vague instructions and strong expectations of results - and when the story goes public, they are hung out to dry. One interview, one document at a time, the fog of legal and moral ambiguity is dispelled, until televised denials by administration officials shrink to nothing next to a stark red pillar of human suffering.

Maybe our culture won't let us believe that the good guys can do such things to innocent people. The detective throws down his badge and solves the case outside the system. He hits a man in the face; he gets a name. He pistol-whips another man; the man is reluctant, and he gets shot in the leg. A bartender gets dunked into dishwater. He almost dies, but gives up his contact.

There was ambiguity in movies like The French Connection, but at some point, the detective stopped ever being wrong. This documentary makes a compelling suggestion that popular entertainment has helped spread the idea of justified and reliable torture.

Taxi to the Dark Side won the Oscar for best documentary, and nobody saw it. It barely made a quarter of its budget. That's really too bad. It's a good idea for citizens to see it, then think about whether they believe that everything's OK.

I often complain about the lopsidedness of documentaries. And more often than not, whenever I mention this, people pepper me with insults because they believe "that's what documentaries are designed to do." I beg to differ. Let me show you what I mean.

There are some seriously stilted documentaries that look at one side (and ONLY one side) of an issue and never give credence to the other. How about an interview with someone who opposes the views that the documentarians are putting forth? How about some information that might refute what is being told? This one-sidedness is just too easy to find. Things like AFTER INNOCENCE, THE FUTURE OF FOOD, and RELIGULOUS are prime examples (there are tons more but I don't have the time nor inclination to mention them).

Occasionally – if not extremely rarely – a documentary will come along that allows both sides to speak. And such is the case with the Academy Award winner TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE.

The story starts and ends with the murder of Dilawar, a taxi cab driver in Afghanistan who is mistakenly picked up by U.S. forces and sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for interrogation. Once there, he soon dies from injuries sustained at the hands of his captors. The middle of this documentary is the meat and potatoes of what went horribly wrong with the U.S.'s war on terror. It's a serious eye-opener. Not because it focuses on the problems the U.S. had with its detainees after 9/11, but because it allows everyone to speak about the successes and failures of torture. Yes, torture.

From the men on the ground (staff sergeants and privates) to the President's advisory attorney at the U.S. Dept. of Justice (John Woo), we get to hear from just about everyone on the topic of the incarcerated detainees and their treatment at the hands of untrained and unprepared interrogators. It is astonishing, too, to learn that not a single person above the rank of sergeant was punished for the death of Dilawar (nor any other detainee who was abused). You mean to tell me that these grunts were responsible for ...everything? Give me a break! I don't delude myself any longer. The U.S. (either overtly or covertly) now uses "enhanced interrogation techniques" (e.g. torture). Make no doubt about it. We do it because we want to protect ourselves. But at what cost to our own moral compass? We claim to follow The Geneva Convention, but do we? Not as far as I can tell. And don't take my word for it. Watch ALL of the people in this documentary talk about this very subject and come to your own conclusions.

Winner of the 2008 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, 'Taxi to the dark side' portrays a disturbing; in depth look of highly questionable interrogation practices used by US military guards on prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq & Guantanamo Bay in the aftermath of 9/11.

Produced, Directed, Written & Narrated by Alex Gibney, the film begins with the tale of young innocent Dilawar who was working as a taxi driver in Afghanistan. After the Special Forces suspected him as Taliban in Bagram, he was interrogated by US soldiers in the most inhuman ways & died within next 5 days. The movie raised a pertinent question of military torture on innocent civilians who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda sponsor global terrorism. With shocking photos, footage, expert commentary & interviews with several soldiers stationed at prisons in Afghanistan & Iraq the documentary also shows that how certain bad apples of US military clearly violated the humanitarian rules outlined in Geneva conventions & treated these prisoners in the most savage ways using severe & cruel inhuman techniques such as sodomising, stripping humiliation, sleep deprivation, electrocute the testicles, ceiling handcuffing & many other atrocities in Bagram, Abu Ghraib prisons. It also shows clearly that how President Bush along with Rumsfeld & Cheney gave unwritten orders to use any means necessary. It's hard to get evidences against the held detainees & so US forces used harsher & harsher techniques of torture to get their false confession to report their units & made their head held high in front of military. Some of them got medals for it also. It's sad to know about the utter insanity made by US & allied arm forces backed up by US Government besides the reported fact that only 7 percentages of held detainees were found really guilty. What about their fundamental legal rights of liberty for these other 93 percent held innocent detainees who also became scapegoats & tortured incessantly in the cells.

As on September, 2006 the number of detainees reached 83,000 & out of them less than one percent are found guilty. Watching this documentary raised certain pertinent questions like- # Do we call it the loss of American ideals & standards in pursuit of national security? (It occurred in Vietnam & Iraq in the past & still they are pursuing the same blunder.) # How long does the common civilians has to pay the price for living in the country where Al Qaeda & Taliban are operating? # How valid is it to interrogate these prisoners debunking all legality & Geneva Convention & torture them in such a way that leads to organ failure or the death in certain cases? # What about the dignity & morality of human life for an innocent person held as a suspected terrorist without any confirmation? # How to remove this dark side from the minds of chaos stricken military?

"Torturing people is not the best way to get information. Breaking down the barriers between you & them, getting their confidence is the best way to get it", admitted retired Judge Advocate General John Hutson. And that's where I like to corroborate.

Ratings- 9/10

I just saw this program in Australia and am writing to say thankyou a million times. I can't congratulate ALL involved in this enough and it offers us the opportunity to remedy an horrendous universally dangerous & immoral evil.... and I suspect immoral behaviour/torture is not only a major cause of "terrorism" but also a danger to out troops and "a totalitarian noose around our own necks" in future? If they can do this stuff to poor peasants & Innocent farmers etc in the third world why could they not do it to ANYONE? I doubt the Nazis were this inhumane? Has there been a "scheme" to circumvent "law" by Bush, Cheney, Addington, Libby, Rumsfeld, Wolforwitz, Pearle et al (or perhaps those who have bought them??) & "Media lies"?? .... Investigate & prosecute ALL war criminals I think....or say hello to a police state at home very soon perhaps?

This outstanding film, the Oscar winner for Best Documentary this year, is a clear indictment that the Bush Administration should be held accountable for war crimes.

Unfortunately, as it is also pointed out in the film, they managed to insert some clause of immunity in a law. The fact that they did this - for the administration, not the soldiers who actually carried out the prisoner abuse in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay - is a clear indication that they knew what they were ordering was inhumane and against the Geneva Convention.

The taxi driver that was the starting point of this film lasted only five months in prison before he was dead. A simple taxi driver, caught up in an overzealous attempt to cover for the fact that they could not get Osama bin Laden, and had to round up anyone to justify their jobs.

It is clear throughout the film that the military higher-ups have convinced themselves that what they were doing was right. Maybe it will sooth their consciences, but if there is a god, they will suffer forever for their crimes.

This torture that is well illustrated in the film will be stain on America for some time to come.

Because this is a documentary, I have to go about writing this review differently. First I will write about how it's constructed and the information it provides, then I will write my own personal response to the film.

Alex Gibney's "Taxi to the Dark Side" is a tell-all about how the U.S. government's position on torture really operates. There is no doubt that this is a controversial subject, but it is essential viewing.

Credit has to go to Gibney for not trying to make an attack on the Bush Administration and its practices. Unlike Michael Moore, he lets the information speak for itself. If there is something that deflects blame from someone that we previously thought should be held accountable, he still uses it. On the flip side, he lets no one who is guilty of something get away with it.

The information comes fast and furiously, but it is clearly illustrated. Voiceovers, images, and interviews are used to great effect. "Taxi to the Dark Side" is a tad long, but Gibney has a lot to say.

Now for my thoughts...

"You put people in a crazy situation and people do crazy things."--one of the former interrogators interviewed.

Indeed, the times we live in are "crazy," especially for the armed forces fighting overseas. It seemed that after 9/11 everything changed. The terrorist attacks on that day shocked the world, and the American people wanted justice. As an American, I can't blame them.

But the question I ask is, at what cost do we want justice? If we don't uphold the values that we are governed by, then what are we protecting? What's the point of fighting if we can't live the way we want to, and the way that millions have given their lives for us to be able to live like in the past? After viewing the film, it seems to me that this stemmed from us wanting quick justice even though it couldn't be obtained. The pressure to do so caused us to act irrationally, and this is the result. Everyone knows that torture doesn't work, as victims are more likely to say what their abusers want to hear than that we simply don't know. But we bypass all the laws to get answers to prove that we're doing something.

Yet this answer seems like incomplete reasoning. If this is the case, than why would John Yoo, who authored memos that exploited loopholes to give Bush and his cabinet expansive powers on this issue, and to give us leverage to disregard the Geneva Convention, which is supposed to protect people from these kinds of interrogation. Just because they may not be protected by the Geneva Convention, does that mean that we can torture them? Do they not have the same rights as someone who is? While we can blame people like Lyndie England, who committed the torture, Gibney says while their actions were reprehensible, and they did take their actions too far (and I think they should have been punished), he also portrays them as scapegoats. The soldiers had no real training, and were given vague, at best, guidelines at how to interrogate them.

Furthermore, Gibney proves how important our right to a trial is. A shocking number of terrorists are kept in detention and tortured because they were handed over to the US by the Pakistanis and Iraqi army. But they were put in detention without a trial, and most with no evidence (and sometimes they were given a huge bounty in exchange). So how can we really know that these people are actually insurgents? Some are, but how many? Even if you're liberal or a conservative, this is a must see.

Directed and written by the acclaimed Alex Gibney is the 2007 Academy Award winning documentary feature. No matter your opinion of President George W. Bush or the current fighting in the Middle East, TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE is a deliberate and meticulous examination of torture used as a weapon in the war against terror and proof positive that the Bush administration had full knowledge and of it being employed at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan and at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons. Lighting the fuse of exposure is the disturbing torture and killing of an innocent Afghan taxi driver. Stunningly crafted expose of reckless abuses of government power out of control. Recommended viewing.

Originally filmed to be one of the documentaries to take part in BBC (British Broadcasting Service) 'Why Democracy?' 2004 film series, which consists of ten documentary films from around the world questioning and examining contemporary democracy. Taxi to the Dark Side really outshine the other films, to become one of the best documentary films ever. Directed by filmmaker Alex Gibney, the film examines the USA's policy on torture and interrogation in general, specifically the CIA's use of torture and their research into sensory deprivation, by showcasing the story of an Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar, whom was beaten to death by American soldiers while being held in extrajudicial detention at the Parwan Detention Facility, during the first years of War in Afghanistan (2001-2014). However, due to its controversial nature of opposition to the use of torture from political and military opponents, and its failure to gain a television station to broadcast after its production end; its message was shelf for years. It wasn't until 2007 that people got to see it, in limited theaters. Even with that, not a lot of people saw it. It wasn't until 2009, that this documentary finally got broadcast with Discovery Channel to the majority of main-steam audiences with warnings of disturbing images, and content involving torture and graphic nudity. It was here, that I finally got to see it. Without spoiling the movie, too much, I have to say, Taxi to the Dark Side accomplishes what a documentary like this, is supposed to do. It shows the utmost disgusting things about the war in multi-faceted way. The film approach isn't as narrow-minded as some critics make it, out to be. It shows a lot of things. While, the movie is mostly about the 2002's Bagram torture and prisoner abuse, it also showcase the facts that lead to the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse in Iraq in 2003, and the abuse at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. It also displays the legal loopholes that upper government officers were doing, so not to allow capture terrorists to have the same rights of normal capture soldiers which is protect under the standards of the Geneva Convention. Yes, I do understand the film would seem a bit one-sided and bias to certain audience members, since some of the rigorous interrogation tactual, do work. However, in my opinion, all these crude acts is morality wrong, no matter, how much, they say that torture works. Also, this movie also shows the flaws of torture. What makes this story even more tragic, is how Dilawar was an innocent man, who was at the wrong street at the wrong time, who had no information about any attack or terrorists. It's sad to hear that, brutal things happen to him, for a crime, he didn't committed. This shows that sometimes, the information gather by torture victims is un-liable, and full of mistakes. It's also sucks to hear that most of the higher ups, that allowed this torture to happen on these bases, were never prosecuted for their crimes. Many of them, were pardon by laws, they made or by blaming the blame on lower enlisted personnel scapegoats. Despite that, in my opinion, the best thing about this movie is how it shows positive solution to the problems, such as asking for stronger methods to the government uphold the standards of the Geneva Convention forbidding torture and allowing more peaceful negotiation. I also love how this film was able to get interviews from most of the people involve with these cases. All of the talking heads, gave some very important information. I also how well-edited, 'Taxi to the Dark Side' was. All of the reenactments mixed with archive footage was well-crafted. It's hard to find a fault about this film. If anything, I didn't like how certain imagery were reappear over and over again frequently out of context. Another is how badly structure, the film points are. Its message seem to jump around, a lot. Despite that, it was a good movie. The film was so good, that it won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 2007. Overall: I have to say, this complex well-researched & well-documented film is a real eye opener. It's a must-watch for anybody whom is interested in what happening in the world, today. I highly recommended 'Taxi to the Dark Side'. Go see it.

The Nuremburg trials left us two legacies. First, no matter what your rank, you are responsible for your actions. As one Nazi after another said, "I was just following orders", we made it clear this was no excuse for war crimes. Second, given the winners get to write history, we have a deluded mindset that war crimes are things other people commit, not us.

Alex Gibney has tried to send a message about America's hypocritical sacrifice of longstanding principles by focusing on a single man, a taxi driver tortured to death by American forces in Afghanistan. This focus never allows us to forget that these victims are people just like us, and they are the victims of terrible crimes for which no one has been held accountable.

Gibney reveals how high up knowledge and sanction of these crimes goes. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield are directly responsible for the official policy allowing torture, increasing the number of people who have never faced war crimes charges but should do so.

It is confronting, saddening and maddening to watch. But what undermines Gibney's effort is that he doesn't give us the full context. Instead he allows the soldiers' own words to absolve them of responsibility by allowing claims of "just following orders" to go unchallenged. Worse, he allows the miserable excuse of being "poorly trained", as if an adult needs to be told that torturing people, especially people they know are innocent, is wrong.

This is a cop-out. Our failed humanitarian intervention in Somalia revealed that torturing civilians (often to death) for sport and photographing it is a popular hobby among many military forces, and those of many Western democracies including the US are no exception. Yet we insist on seeing them as one-off instances of "a few bad apples" out of control, rather than an indication of a systemic, ingrained culture that urgently needs to be dealt with. All Bush and Co did was sanction activities many soldiers were already engaging in, but Gibney cannot or will not acknowledge this.

I can't fault his technical skills, it's methodical and well-edited. But I cannot add "well researched" or "thorough". By not giving us the broader context and by not looking at the culture that encourages war crimes among US soldiers, he let these guys off lightly.

I don't have the knowledge to question the authenticity of this documentary and I definitely disagree what the US government did around the world in the name of the so-called "liberation" and "anti-terrorism".

But at least the making of this movie gives me a faith of hope, that this country is still one of the best, simply because the government would have no authority to stop people from making this sort of movies, to disclose the dark side of the government, to expose the hypocrisy of the military presence, to criticize the whole policy of anti-terrorism.

The US government may not be perfect, but at least the people should have a faith of hope, and this is what make them proud.

Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)

**** (out of 4)

Excellent, Oscar-winning documentary taking a look at the use of torture during the Bush administration. The documentary takes a look at a couple men who were beaten to death at the Bagram Prison including an Afghan taxi driver who picked up three passengers and was never heard of again until he was murdered inside the prison. Throughout the documentary we get interviews with experts on torture, journalists who broke the story and also with actual soldiers who were involved with the torture. Director Alex Gibney does a terrific job at looking at everything involved in this including the political and moral sides of it. The torture aspect is something that there are so many rules around that it would seem like an obvious thing not to do but we then learn about various loopholes that were used so that terrorists could be abused in order to get more information about terror plots. We also get to know how many of the soldiers who were arrested were made to look like bad apples yet they said they were just following orders. The documentary takes a look at all the torture acts ranging from water boarding, sexual humiliations and of course the actual physical abuse. The film shows some pretty graphic photos and videos so those squeamish will certainly want to be prepared to look away from the screen. The documentary is broken into several different segments with each looking at a different aspect of the story. One of the most interesting pieces involves the taxi driver because it turned out he was an innocent man who had no connection to terrorism. The documentary is one that really makes you think because if you go into it feeling that terrorists do deserve to be tortured, you're quickly reminded that several innocent people were being tortured and killed. The film even admits that many people believe that torture should be allowed under certain circumstances. TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE is a very disturbing documentary that shows some ugly images and makes you wonder who was in charge of all of this stuff. It's not an easy film to sit through but it's worth watching and discussing.

(This film review coincides with John Cafferty & The Beaver Brown Band 80's hit single "On The Dark Side")

"Taxi To The Dark Side" is calling now, everything is real You will know how sick you'll feel From out of the shadows, this documentary feels like a bad dream Makes Americans feel so crazy, makes them look so mean

Ain't nothing gonna save us from torture that is blind When American brutalize, they have crossed that line Taxi To The Dark Side, oh yeah Taxi To The Dark Side, oh yeah

OK, that's enough! What this wickedly dark musical adaptation is trying to inform you is that documentary filmmaker's Alex Gibney's Oscar-winning documentary "Taxi To The Dark Side" takes a cerebral investigative journey into American soldiers brutalizing innocent Afghani victims through torturous interrogative techniques. And Gibney also depicts the big boys in Washington headed by the W as the ones that spearheaded the orchestration of the torturous interrogative initiative. Let's just say that Gibney does not beat around the Bush with that one! The real-life narrative focus of this documentary though is on the torture and murder of an innocent Afghanistan taxi driver by American military interrogators. I just wished that Gibney would have Gibney more, I mean gimme more, on Afghanistan and Taliban torturous techniques on American victims. There are two sides to every coin, Alex! Nonetheless, "Taxi To The Dark Side" is a gripping documentary that is not checkered with elongated ennui but instead with insightful staleness. Take a cinematic ride on the "Taxi To The Dark Side". **** Good