'You're incapable of secrets because you are a democracy' - Body of Lies (2008) Discussion

[–] lightninggirl 15 years ago

the US is a republic, not a democracy.

reply

[–] aaron2786 15 years ago

...Democratic Republic

reply

[–] dgordon-9 14 years ago

You mean every 4 years you elect a new monarch...

reply

[–] ikke_for_let 15 years ago

"the US is a republic, not a democracy."

Only in theory. The constitution has not been enforced for 50 years. In reality the supreme court is stacked with political appointees ignoring the constitution and basing their rulings on political views in line with the democratically elected lawmakers in congress. Alas in all but theory the US is a democracy.

reply

[–] caroms2051 15 years ago

Agree it was a thought-provoking line. Did it help the former Soviet Union or the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) that they were NOT 'democracies' and that they presumably could 'keep secrets.'? They met their demise anyway.

reply

[–] greenbananas 15 years ago

Haven't you realized that the military and others use the abundance of information and/or the inability to keep a secret to their advantage. There is not just an information overload but it is de rigueur in America to simply deny, deny, deny. We have become a society where there is no truth, there are just versions of truth, and I believe science has shown that we, as humans, process information according to that which is in tune with our own reality. In other words, we believe what we want to believe. In a world without truth, what does it matter if things remain secret?

Case in point is how the CIA vets books of their employees and yet these books reveal plenty. The CIA knows they can't keep things secret but they use the advance reading to set their message. They can then bury things and blur things just enough to cause confusion or at least leave things in dispute, especially when it is often the first impression that is lasting.

reply

[–] RParmly-3 15 years ago

The line "We [authoritarian non-democratic countries] are more efficient at this than you" has been used for so long it's become a bad joke. I don't see it as anything more than excess testosterone coming out the political way.

It goes back to Hitler boasting that he would beat the Allies because democracies are inherently inefficient and dictatorships inherently efficient. In real life, his dictatorship, by derailing, politicizing and micromanaging the German army, ended up helping the Allies rather than his own men - everything from the sleeping pill on D-Day to trying to turn the Me 262 into a bomber.

As concerns intelligence in democratic countries? The Mossad is lean, mean and deadly, as Hani of all people should know. The other Western agencies might not be as badass (not working under as much pressure) but they aren't half bad either. Yes, I'd say we can hold our own.

Denny Crane.

reply

[–] matthewpeel 15 years ago

Not to mention Stalins Russia not being allowed to send their planes stationed at the border in the air unless under direct order from Stalin himself, causing them to lose almost all their airforce at the start of the Russian invasion because Stalin didn't believe they were under attack.

reply

[–] AtheistRevolution 15 years ago

He never said any of that. Just that they couldn't keep secrets. Most likely because they have more control over their media,people,etc. We learned about things like Watergate,abu ghraib,etc through the media. If the government controlled the media we wouldn't know half the things the government was doing. It comes with positives and negatives.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

[–] GrifterZed 15 years ago

Hani Pasha also says right before this quote that, "Intelligence operations should remain a secret forever." Which, of course, is another way of looking at it. As someone said earlier, that because of the media, the US doesn't really have that as a COMPLTETE option. But, the idea that the US can't keep secrets is absurd. Presidents, senators, congressmen, they all come and go. The intelligence community stays, and clandestine operations must remain constant, no matter who "heads" the executive branch. Point being, there are more secrets that we shall EVER, EVER know. However, despite this fact, we do have that whole media thing as forementioned, and the answer to that was already said: to FLOOD public consciousness with so much information that they can't tell what is what. Pair with that the idea that the "truth is subjective" crap, and voila! Instant confusion on demand. There is one other utility of keeping secrets not mentioned... and that is the fact that intelligence agencies USE the media (and in fact DO control the media, at least when necessary), intentionally letting the public be aware of types of operations to produce fear, or the "hyper-competetant governenment" scenario, and for propaganda functions. But I'm sure if we really had the ability to never let anything out, we wouldn't. The only real issue is that the US, both government and its people, pride itself on its liberties and governance by citizens. So, if the public wants to know something, it tends to go against ideology to just say "too *beep* bad," as that sorta smacks of dictatorship... Though it works more often than it should.

reply

[–] Toby_gibson002 13 years ago

I think in the script he was probably talking about the CIA and it's administrative ties (Crowe's character in particular) and their inability to keep from *beep* things up by serving their own agenda. Obviously the U.S. can keep secrets- otherwise we'd know more about 9-11, Vietnam, The FBI and the Weather Underground (or the Panthers), and what happened to John Trudell's wife and son (for instance.)

reply

[–] Jnbfwc 14 years ago

Oh, I'm sorry, I was somewhere else. The government DOESN'T control the media?

reply

[–] dwarol 15 years ago

The CIA has the right to keep classified secrets classified and can order revisions to books if necessary. That's why books by former agents are vetted by the CIA before publishing. Even when someone leaves the CIA, they are still legally bound to keep all classified info they have secret.

What's been a lot more revealing lately is the battle raging between the CIA and the Obama administration over whether or not operatives involved in interrogations can be prosecuted. Several times I have heard former CIA operatives who left before 9/11 and Gitmo "leak" facts about what was learned from these interrogations. All this stuff was highly classified before, but suddenly it's coming out into the open. Obviously these former CIA agents are being fed facts from inside the CIA itself to help the CIA in it's battle with Obama.

reply

[–] forever_mclaren 15 years ago

Lol I don't see what makes that statement so special. What has democracy to do with anything in this particular regard? A democracy is a form of political organization, not a law that governs how secrets are kept. A democratic government is not mandated to inform its public or to be honest, it is mandated to listen to its people and that is all.

Let me put it this way. Israel is a democracy. And it has survived thanks to the most secretive intelligence agency in the world. So let's not get too excited about that one-liner.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] paveld78 12 years ago

What Hani Pasha was referring to is the notion "3 people can keep a secret if 2 of them are dead". If there's one King of Jordan and the chief of their secret service answers to him, there may be secrets. If the head of CIA has to reveal secrets to 5 different presidents within 20 years, there may be no secrets.

reply

[–] xav-jacob-IMDB 15 years ago

Don't worry, in spite of being a democracy, we illegally torture and wiretape people all the time, and don't disclose this easily as well.

Since 9-11, we are becoming closer to one of those backward Arab nations that we so love to despise.

reply

[–] GreyHunter 15 years ago

Actually, it's an extraordinarily naive statement. Even if we limit the discussion to legal issues, the governments of most "democracies" (we'll just lump in republics and parliamentary systems under that label) are quite able to legally withhold information under their own laws. "Top Secret," "classified," and "redacted" aren't just words used in movies -- they are actual systems for keeping governmental and military information and operations secret in the real world.

And that's just the legal aspect. It would be quite foolish to assume that there are numerous operations being carried out clandestinely *behind* the scenes, including illegal ones. Simply being a democracy doesn't prevent a country's intelligence and governmental agencies from doing things they would never allow the public to know about.

reply

[–] guitarblues 15 years ago

I think Guantanamo is pretty damn brilliant. "Hey, we can't do bad stuff over here, so let's move those *beep* to a country where they don't give a sh*t".

And don't kid yourself, Guantanamo is the one everyone just happen to know about. I can pretty much guarantee you that secret services of many countries that are a democracy do all sorts of things that you and I don't wanna know about. James Bond is for real, only probably much less glamorous in real life.

And you know what, I'm fine with all of that. I don't plan on doing crazy things where lots of innocent people die, so I don't worry about anything. The people that do plan on doing such things, need to be stopped. By all, and I do mean all, means necessary. I really don't care about pussy 'human rights' bullsh*t when it comes to terrorists. It's us or them, and if it takes some torture to get information that's nessecairy to prevent an attack, be my guest.

reply

[–] Chief_Watches-Many 15 years ago

Democracy? Republic? Oligarchy more like.

My TV, Films & Stand-Up - http://www.imdb.com/user/ur11529350/boards/profile

reply

[–] koris-guy 15 years ago

That's right. It doesn't matter if innocent people are tortured, as long as you're not one of them.

reply

[–] redneck7 14 years ago

It was the most stupid line in the movie. As if Jordanian intelligence would say that to a CIA operative.

I can't see how being a so-called democracy allows the citizens to know what is happening behind the scenes. That is why we hear that rhetorical phrase so often:

National Security

A phrase which is well over used to keep secret the true machinations of big government and their true friends.

If you care to check it out, there is enough information on the web relating to the CIA as an organisation involved in terrorist activity by helping to overthrow elected politicians in South America and Iran in the 50's.

Look at CIA directors over the last 20 or 30 years and the links to financial institutions.
It suggests the possible motives of the organisation.
From what I've looked into about the CIA - they are the hatchet men for Wall St. What can't be done legally by big business is done illegally by the CIA.

reply

[–] ciprianl 14 years ago

And would you maintain your opinion even in the, improbable but not impossible case, that a misguided paper pusher, but one being in a position of power, reaches the conclusion that YOU may be a terrorist? Take heed that you have forfeited your "bullsh*t human rights" in such a case, where the suspicion of terrorism is raised.

reply

[–] Odilwerk 14 years ago

Personally I found this statement to be the only bad line of the film, and shows how nieve some people are about how much they actually know about their governments.

reply