[Ed. Note: “Unthinkable” went straight-to-DVD and hits stores tomorrow. Here’s a sneak peek so you know better what you’re spending your hard-earned money on.]
I’ve only been in “Hollywood” the past few years. My experience is limited to a couple of TV writing credits, serving as the technical advisor for two series, consulting on several projects, and pitching a spec pilot around town. I’ve found a little more success in having two books published: a recently released thriller and a true-crime autobiography of my undercover work in the FBI. But even with my limited experience, I realize what you read in a script is not necessarily what makes it to the big screen. All this to say, I have not seen “Unthinkable” starring Samuel L. Jackson, but I have read a late version of London-born and British-educated Peter Woodward’s script.
——
I always hated it in high school English when the teacher wanted to know the poet’s intent for a particular verse. I never saw any deeper meaning than he wanted the words to rhyme, so I don’t pretend to question why this script was written or produced. The screenplay has a lot of action and will probably stimulate controversy on both sides of the aisle. It asks the question “to what length do we go to obtain information which will potentially save hundreds possibly thousands of lives?”
Maybe as a caveat before reading any further I should tell you: my son is a Marine; I have no problem with the enhanced interrogation techniques as employed by the Bush administration; there is a lot I would do to save the lives of our servicemen and women who risk their lives daily because our nation asked; I have fired my service weapon in the heat of battle; and have absolutely no issue with defending myself or others who are in grave physical danger.
There’s a maxim in the law: Bad cases make bad law. In other words many Supreme Court decisions were made as the result of egregious behavior where someone overstepped his bounds and now everyone is saddled with the overly-broad court-imposed restrictions. This movie certainly paints a worse case scenario for invoking both the law and the most extreme interrogation techniques. A Muslim terrorist threatens to detonate not one, not two, but three nuclear bombs in the United States, and a team of federal officials from the various alphabet agencies and the military, as well as some private contractors, are tasked with protecting America.
In August, 2005 Hurricane Katrina devastated much of the Gulf Coast. It was one of the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history. President Bush was criticized for his handling of the disaster, especially in Louisiana, even though the governor of any state has the initial responsibility for insuring that state’s security. As a result of the disaster, Congress in a short paragraph hidden within a much larger bill provided the president with expanded authority.
“Unthinkable” is centered around that tiny paragraph in the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 specifically the provisions at Title X, subtitle H, Section 1076 which in summary:
Revises federal provisions allowing the President to utilize the Armed Forces in connection with interference with federal and state law to allow the President to employ the Armed Forces and National Guard in federal service to restore public order in cases of natural disaster, epidemic or other public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or domestic violence. Requires the President to notify Congress within 14 days of the exercise of such authority. Authorizes the President, when exercising such authority, to direct the Secretary to provide supplies, services, and equipment to persons affected by the situation.
The problem from a reality standpoint for the “Unthinkable” script is this section was repealed in 2008 so it’s no longer relevant but Hollywood would never let that stand in the way of a project.
Like most Hollywood thrillers, it’s over-the-top but raises some interesting issues if you want to be more than entertained.
I applaud Woodward for making the terrorist a Muslim who according to intelligence sources was paid by the Iranians to smuggle nuclear material out of Russia. The now rogue terrorist living in the United States is a naturalized U.S. citizen who has his citizenship revoked by the President. He allows himself to be captured after releasing a video threat to detonate three nuclear devices.
Initially, the FBI is tasked to “bring them all in…all of them, talk to their families…every single contact you have in every single file.” Later in the screenplay we learn the FBI rounds up 120 residents and holds them in some facility where they are to be interrogated after being Mirandized…yeah right, that happened just about every other day during my twenty-six year career. (For those of you on both ends of the political spectrum, I’m being sarcastic).
The Bureau goes to the home of Samuel L. Jackson and his family who are in some kind of Witness Protection Program. The powers-to-be inadvertently put him on a list of possible people of interest, thus the FBI’s misguided interest in him as part of this round-up of residents to be interrogated. During the confrontation, Jackson shoots an FBI agent. Just as the FBI commences its investigation, the military steps in, invoking the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 which, as I said, has been repealed. A bit confusing but it’s Hollywood and we need to get to the meat of the problem…since Jackson, a civilian contractor, is apparently the only one who can conduct this most important interrogation, how far do we let him go to save American lives?
My guess is Eric Holder would read the terrorist his rights and hope the bad-boy cooperates after consultation with his court-appointed attorney who more than likely will tell his client to shut up until the government has a deal on the table. Others would cheer Jackson on and encourage him to go well beyond the tactics he employs in the script which can best be described as “brutal.”
The question I have is why do so many in Hollywood insist on painting the United States in the darkest hue? The interrogation techniques Jackson uses are heinous, far outside those permissible under even the most liberal interpretation of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) policy of the Bush administration which like the provisions of the Defense Authorization Act of 2007 have been revoked. John Helgerson, the former CIA Inspector General, whose 2004 report on the use of EIT cites nothing even close to Jackson’s actions in the script. Yet Hollywood wants us to believe our military and law enforcement personnel would stand by and allow this brutality to happen.
So we have a script based upon a law which has been revoked and a policy no longer in effect. Even when both were viable, nothing even close to what is to be portrayed on the big screen ever happened. I am certain there will be those who watch this and believe all this is business as usual for our military and law enforcement personnel and seek to have even further restrictions placed on our public servants.
After four years on active duty in the Marine Corps, after twenty-six years as an FBI agent, after numerous discussions with my son and his men, after repeated conversations with high-ranking military and government officials, I still believe this to be the greatest nation in the world, defended by some of the most honorable men and women ever to serve. Maybe at least once or twice a year Hollywood would remember in a positive way those who risk so much for the far too many who have forgotten.