Torture, Terrorism, and the film "The Battle of Algiers"

I've just watched the film "The Battle of Algiers" and the movie raises so many fascinating issues that I want to share here. These questions/issues are especially relevant with the war in Iraq and the prison torture/death scandals. First is the question of the use of terror as a means of resistance. In the film, the F.L.N. organized and lead a terrorist campaign against the French. This campaign included bombings, shootings and stabbings. The French initially responded by increasing their patrols and later calling in Paramilitary forces led by Colonel Marthineu. There are a couple of intriquing scenes regarding the police. First is when the Commissioner, in the face of bombings (a cafe, a bar and a subway or train or bus station, I'm not sure which) decides to comply officially with orders from Paris that call for closing off the Moslem section and setting up checkpoints. Unofficially however, he also goes (with friends) into the Moslem section and places a bomb that kills countless civilians. This action increases the violence which leads to the military presence, the use of torture to acquire information and the blurring of police power (investigation/security) verses military force (tanks, soldiers, better weaponry). There are also very fascinating depictions of the French Colonel authorizing brutal force (bombings, torture, imprisonment) coupled with humane regard for the Arabs. On the one hand, he's willing to authorize the use of torture to find out the information on 'terror cells' and to maintain French control over Algeria. On the other hand, he tells his soldiers to use a long fuse on the bombs they set up to force members of the F.L.N to surrender. He tries on several occasions in the film to spare civilians or at the very least, keep their deaths at a minimum. That said, he also uses the F.L.N. authorized strike and refrain from violence during the six day U.N. conference to consider the plight of Algeria (and the Algerian request for independence) to raid the already fenced off Moslem quarter and round up countless people (it seemed to be mainly men and older boys) for "questioning." This questioning of course included water torture, electric shock, suspension by one's arms and beatings galore. So I found it hard to understand what role the Colonel truly plays in all of this. Where does the conscience of the human being become seperated from doing one's "duty" especially in a military action? The "terrorist" leaders also held this duality. The film centers on the main character Ali who witnesses the execution of one of the resistence leaders while in prison and later becomes one of the last leaders to die. This chronology of violence made me wonder if it is the act of witnessing both the injustice of the other man's execution and living under the daily injustice of occupation that led Ali to resort to wage his own personal war against any and all occupiers, as well as to carry out "death sentences" on someone he knew. At what point then does terrorism become the last resort...the last actualization of a desperation that has no other means of expression? Both sides, after all, terrorized each other. One simply had better fire power than the other and the other found ways (through guerrilla warfare) to make terror a sort of equalizer. Torture, according to my understanding of Elaine Scarry's book, is also a sort of equalizer. It strips the tortured of all ability to resist, of voice, of agency, of language. She explains in her book that torture (physical or mental) destroys the world of the tortured. The pain replaces memory, identity, cause. The torturer does not have to endure this pain (obviously) because it is not in his/her body nor necessarily in his/her consciousness. For example, in the film, the use of torture is "justified" as a means of gathering information. The tortured "confesses" to end his/her suffering. This confession betrays whomever they may name or whatever they may disclose. Scarry examines the role of the tortured/confessor in the light of such "betrayal" yet she argues that the torturer is less concerned with the question or the answer the confessor gives. The act of torture is not motivated by such. Instead it is to show the power the torturer has over his/her victim to ask the question and to expect/get the desired answer. To render the victim voiceless and assert complete power over their body? This is my understanding of Scarry's work thusfar. I'll post more on this later, after I've had time to get further through her book and to reflect upon both the film as well. Peace!