(Reuters) - Seven years after Congress passed a new whistleblower law for the Internal Revenue Service, the tax-collecting agency stands accused of not doing enough, or of not acting swiftly enough, to reward informants who expose tax improprieties.

On Wednesday, under growing pressure from the senator who spearheaded the 2006 legislation, the IRS holds a hearing on proposals it has crafted only now for implementing elements of the law.

Separately, come June, in the first hearing of its kind, the Tax Court is demanding that the IRS explain whether it has made a decision on the claims of a former banker who asserts that six years on, he still is waiting for the IRS to tell him the status of his whistleblower claims against a former employer.

The new proposals to be debated on Wednesday include rules for submitting information to the IRS and the criteria for determining the size of an informant award, among others. In a nod to delays, the new rules include allowing whistleblowers, should they die during the process, to leave any award recovery to heirs. After the hearing, the IRS will weigh the feedback it received before putting in place final regulations.

The senator who pushed for the 2006 law, Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, complains the IRS risks alienating informants by taking years to process claims and then keeping them in the dark. He takes issue with provisions in the regulations which he feels wrongly limit potential whistleblower awards.

The IRS declined to comment, but in a February 11 letter to the senator, Acting Commissioner Steven Miller said the IRS had "made significant progress in implementing the law" and that while the number of awards made is "relatively small," he expects the pace of award grants to increase.

The 2006 law required the IRS to pay awards of 15 to 30 percent for information leading to additional tax collection on disputes involving $2 million or more, and establishing a new whistleblower office reporting directly to the IRS commissioner. Prior to the 2006 law whistleblowers were rewarded but awards to informants were at the IRS's discretion, and generally small.

MIXED PERFORMANCE

In broad terms, the IRS whistleblower program has brought in more tax revenue under the new rules than it had prior to 2006, but its performance has been mixed.

Whistleblower tips last year led to $592 million in additional IRS tax collections, nearly four times as much as the $156 million collected in 2008, according to the agency.

The IRS does not disclose how many whistleblower awards it has made based on the 2006 rules, arguing that to do so could jeopardize taxpayer privacy. Lawyers who represent whistleblowers estimated that the number of awards has been 10 or fewer.

The IRS's only public whistleblower award was September's record-setting $104-million payment to former UBS AG banker Bradley Birkenfeld. A convicted felon, Birkenfeld turned in clients he had formerly helped to stash money in secret Swiss accounts. His work helped the IRS collect hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes.

New whistleblower tips to the IRS fell to 332 last year from a 2009 high of 472, according to the IRS, at a time when whistleblowing tips at other agencies have been on the rise.

For instance, a newly relaunched SEC whistleblower program got more than 3,000 tips in 2012, alleging securities and other types of frauds. At the Justice Department, new whistleblower cases rose 71 percent to 647 in 2012, from 379 in 2008. The IRS declined comment on the comparison.

Compared to programs at the Justice Department, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the IRS program offers the fewest protections for whistleblowers, said Tom Devine, of the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit group that advocates for whistleblowers.

IRS whistleblowers have no legal protection against retaliation by former employers, something the proposed regulations don't take on. Unlike other programs, there are no deadlines by which the IRS must decide a case, and no requirement that it communicate with the whistleblower after submission of a tip.

TAX COURT CASE

In the case of the whistleblower whose complaint will be heard in Tax Court, Joe Insinga, 62, alleges that his former employer Rabobank Group, a Dutch financial concern, helped a number of large corporate clients lower their taxes inappropriately. To support the case, which he brought to the IRS in 2007, he says he provided the tax agency with loan applications, an internal audit report and other documents.

Frustrated for not knowing the status of his case or whether he will ever get the monetary reward he had hoped for, Insinga went to Tax Court in March 2012.

He asked the court to compel the IRS to indicate whether a reward would be forthcoming or not. The IRS responded by arguing that the Tax Court had no jurisdiction in the case. But the court rejected this and last month set a hearing for June 18.

In his order calling for the hearing, Tax Court Judge David Gustafson wrote that could include trying to find out whether the IRS has completed its consideration of Insinga's claim, and if not, what it is still doing on the claim and what it plans to do in the future.

Insinga's case could have wide implications if the Tax Court upholds his position and forces the IRS to be more forthcoming with the more than 1,000 informants the IRS says are actively involved in its program.

The validity of Insinga's claims about Rabobank could not be determined. Rabobank declined a request for an interview, but a spokeswoman said in a statement that Insinga's assertions mischaracterize the facts.

Rabobank does not engage in activities to mislead tax authorities and has always cooperated with all government requests, she said. It is unknown whether the IRS has acted on Insinga's information against Rabobank or any other party.

Some former IRS staffers said it was not surprising that some cases stretch out as long as seven years, given that time-consuming audits can be involved.

After seeing companies he had identified settling tax issues with the IRS for hundreds of millions of dollars, Insinga says the long wait has caused regrets. "If I knew in 2007 what I know today, I would never do it again," he said in an interview.

(Additional reporting by Patrick Temple-West in Washington; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Howard Goller and Phil Berlowitz)

The biggest change: a five-page short form that single people can fill out. That total includes a cover page with instructions, and an extra page to fill out if you want to designate someone to help you through the process.

But the application form for families still runs to 12 pages, although most households will not have to fill out each and every page.

The paperwork takes on added importance because Americans remain confused about what President Barack Obama's health care overhaul will mean for them. A Kaiser Family Foundation poll released Tuesday found that 4 in 10 are unaware it's the law of the land. Some think it's been repealed by Congress, but in fact, it's still on track.

At his news conference Tuesday, Obama hailed the simplified forms as an example of how his team listened to criticism from consumer groups and made a fix. The law's benefits will be available to all Americans, he emphasized, even if Republicans in Congress still insist on repeal, and many GOP governors won't help put it into place.

When the first draft of the application turned out to be a clunker, "immediately, everybody sat around the table and said, 'Well, this is too long, especially...in this age of the Internet,'" Obama recounted. "'People aren't going to have the patience to sit there for hours on end. Let's streamline this thing.'"

His administration is open to making improvements, Obama added: "Those kinds of refinements, we're going to be working on."

Consumers will start getting familiar with the new applications less than six months from now, on Oct. 1, when new insurance markets open for enrollment in every state. Most people with job-based benefits will not have to bother with the applications, only the uninsured.

Under the law, middle-class people who don't get coverage through their jobs will be able to purchase private insurance. Most will be able to get tax credits, based on their incomes, to make their premiums more affordable. Low-income uninsured people will be steered to government programs like Medicaid.

Benefits begin Jan. 1, and nearly 30 million uninsured Americans are eventually expected to get coverage.

While the first drafts of the applications were widely panned, the new forms were seen as an improvement. Still, consumers must provide a snapshot of their finances to see if they qualify for help. That potentially includes multiple sources of income, from alimony, to tips, to regular paychecks.

"Given the amount of information necessary to determine eligibility, it's hard to see how the forms could be any shorter," said Robert Laszewski, a former insurance executive turned industry consultant.

Activist Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, is an administration ally who had openly criticized the first draft of the forms, worrying that consumers would get discouraged just trying to fill them out. He called the changes "very positive."

"There has got to be a balance to between getting adequate (financial) information to make sure everybody gets the help they're entitled to under the law, while at the same time trying to keep the process consumer-friendly," saidPollack.

Although the new forms are shorter, the administration wasn't able to get rid of all the complexity. Individuals will have to gather tax returns, pay stubs and other financial records before filling out the application.

Administration officials expect most consumers to apply online through the new insurance marketplaces in each state. A single application process will serve to route consumers to either private plans or the Medicaid program. Identification, citizenship and immigration status, as well as income details, are supposed to be verified in close to real time through a federal "data hub" that will involve pinging Social Security, Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service.

Currently, applying for health insurance individually entails filling out a lengthy questionnaire about your health. Under Obama's overhaul, insurers will no longer be able to turn away the sick, or charge them more. The health care questions will disappear, but they'll be replaced by questions about your income. Consumers who underestimate their incomes could be in for an unwelcome surprise later on in the form of smaller tax refunds.

"Consumers will have a simple-easy to understand way to apply for health coverage later this year," said Medicare chief Marilyn Tavenner, also overseeing the rollout of the health care law. She said the application is "significantly shorter than industry standards."

Among the sections eliminated in the new form was one that asked applicants if they also wanted to register to vote. Some congressional Republicans had criticized that, calling it politically motivated.

, which counts Google execs Larry Page and Eric Schmidt among its investors, plans to loft a set of tiny "cubesats" to Earth orbit in early 2014, to test out gear for its first line of asteroid-prospecting spacecraft.

"Our belief and our philosophy is that the best testbed is space itself," Chris Voorhees, Planetary Resources' vice president of spacecraft development, said Wednesday (April 24) during a Google+ Hangout event. []

"Despite the fact that we're a deep-space company, we're going to use Earth orbit as much as possible," Voorhees added. "For us, it's a valuable learning experience, and that's what we plan on doing one year hence."

The cubesats slated for launch in 2014 will measure 12 inches long by 4 inches wide by 4 inches tall (30 by 10 by 10 centimeters), company officials said. These "Arkyd-3" satellites will test out technologies for Planetary Resources' Arkyd-100 scouts,which the firm hopes to launch to low-Earth orbit on asteroid-hunting missions in 2015.

The Arkyd-3 "is the testbed manifestation of our.It just happens to be flying," Voorhees said.

A series of other robotic probes beyond the 33-pound (15 kilograms) Arkyd-100 will investigate near-Earth asteroids up close, eventually mining suitable ones for resources such as water and precious metals. Water is the key focus at first, because it is the key enabler of off-Earth living, Planetary Resources officials said.

Water can keep astronauts hydrated, obviously, and serve as a shield against dangerous radiation. Split into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen, it can also provide breathable air and rocket fuel, allowing voyaging spaceships to fill up on the go.

Sourcing water in space will make space travel much cheaper and more efficient, Planetary Resources president Chris Lewicki said, noting that it currently costs about $10,000 to launch 1 liter (0.26 gallons) of water to low-Earth orbit.

"Water is the gateway drug of space. It's the enabler in a good way, though," Lewicki said.

Planetary Resources held Wednesday's Google+ Hangout partly to mark the one-year anniversary of the company's public unveiling. After Planetary Resources announced its existence and intentions last year, another asteroid-mining firm calledmade its presence known as well.

Both companies hope their activities help spur humanity's push out into the solar system, officials have said.

Follow Mike Wall on Twitterand.Follow us,or. Originally published on

But amid the debates over morality and choice, there stood yesterday, one small victory. A federal judge ordered that , otherwise known as emergency contraception, must be made available over-the-counter, to all ages, without a prescription, or any other restrictions, starting within the next 30 days.

The FDA still has the option of appealing that ruling, though whether or not they will is up for debate.

New roles for females have been doled out fitfully, whenever commanders have gotten in binds and realized they needed women's help.

"The main driver is that it's been militarily necessary," says retired Capt. Lory Manning, a 25-year Navy veteran who leads military studies for the Women's Research & Education Institute. She points, for example, to creation of the Army Nurse Corps in response to the struggle against disease in the Spanish-American War.

Some milestones on the way to this week's lifting of the ban on women in ground combat jobs:

___

FROM THE FIRST

They didn't wear uniforms, but the Army hired women as nurses, cooks and laundresses during the American Revolution. Women were also spies and saboteurs. They carried George Washington's messages across enemy lines to his generals.

Many "camp followers" went to war with their soldier husbands, sometimes bringing children along. Some stepped into the places of fallen men in battle. Other women disguised themselves as young men to join the fighting.

A few hundred women secretly served as Civil War soldiers, historians estimate. There are records of some who were discovered only after they were wounded or killed.

For her service as a Civil War surgeon, Dr. Mary E. Walker was awarded her era's Medal of Honor. Harriet Tubman led a group of former slaves who spied on Confederate troops in the South and helped the Union Army free more slaves. A Virginia woman, Elizabeth Van Lew, ran one of the war's most sophisticated spy rings for the Union. Clara Barton's experiences tending battlefield wounded led her to found the American Red Cross.

___

NURSES NEEDED

Despite their record as volunteers and contract workers, women were denied a place within military service until 1901, when the Army Nurse Corps was created. Navy nurses followed in 1908.

What prompted the creation of the Nurse Corps? The devastating toll of typhoid, malaria and other diseases that killed far more soldiers than the fighting during the Spanish-American War.

Overwhelmed by the tropical diseases, the military rushed to find more than 1,500 female contract nurses to serve at military hospitals and aboard ships. Twenty-one nurses died in the line of duty. After the war, the Army's surgeon general called for creation of a permanent nurse corps with reserves at the ready for future wars.

___

OVER THERE

The world wars brought large-scale proof that women could handle many of the military's noncombat jobs. They were recruited to "Free a man to fight!"

For the first time in World War I, women other than nurses were allowed to enlist in the Navy and Marines. They worked as telephone operators, accountants, draftsmen, clerks. Some went to Europe. Still, only about 35,000 women, the majority of them nurses, served among nearly 5 million U.S. men.They were promptly sent home after the armistice.

They were the advance troops for the wave of women to come in the next world war, including the Navy's WAVES and the Army's WACS. There were even civilian pilots the WASPS who repositioned planes and towed gunners' targets but were denied Air Force status.

The demands of a huge military buildup and a diminishing pool of male draftees crumpled resistance to enlisting large numbers of women for World War II.

More than 400,000 women served, at home and overseas, stepping into nearly all types of noncombat jobs. Retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Wilma L. Vaught, a teenager then, remembers women's eagerness to help.

"America was attacked," said Vaught, president of the Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation. "Women felt, 'This is my country, I've got to help defend my country.' They wanted to be part of it."

World War II was the turning point that earned women full-fledged military status. In 1948, after fierce debate, Congress approved allowing women to serve in the regular forces of all branches of the service all the time, not just in war.

___

WELCOME BACK

In peacetime, the Pentagon retreated back to assigning females to "women's work." They got few chances at promotion and couldn't be admirals or generals. Although military nurses risked their lives in Korea and Vietnam, the military insisted women weren't fit for combat conditions.

The equal rights movement prompted some changes in 1967, Congress got rid of a law limiting women to 2 percent of the military and opened up promotions to higher service grades.

But the armed services didn't welcome women back in a big way until the nation cut off its guaranteed supply of men.

In 1973, the draft ended and the all-volunteer military was born. Short on male volunteers, the Defense Department began seriously recruiting women and assigning them a wider range of jobs. In 1975, the service academies were opened to women.

Women grew to more than 10 percent of America's force by the 1980s.

___

FRONT LINES BLUR

More than 40,000 women deployed for the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991. They worked alongside men, flying helicopters, driving trucks, guarding bases and firing missiles as Americans at home watched on television news.

Officially women were banned from combat. But there were no clear front lines. Women soldiers and Marines were at risk wherever Scud missiles fell.

"They always said the American public will not live with women coming back in body bags," said Vaught. "Well, they did. We found out there wasn't a big reaction from the public. They recognized that these women were there doing their jobs. We have adjusted to that as a people."

After the Gulf War, jobs flying combat planes and serving on warships were opened to women. And some restrictions on combat-related jobs in the Army and Marines were eased.

___

AFTER 9/11

More than 200,000 women serve in the military now 15 percent of a force of 1.4 million. And the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have obliterated any remaining notion that they can be kept out of the fight.

With the military straining to staff two wars at once, everyone was needed. But battle lines were jagged; insurgents could be anywhere. Women in support jobs found themselves in firefights and blasted by roadside bombs. And their gender made them especially valuable on some patrols: They could search and interview Muslim women whose culture forbid such contact with men.

In 2012, to reflect the new realities, the Defense Department changed its rules to officially allow women into many jobs they were already doing, but in units closer to the fighting. They were still banned from the most dangerous jobs, such as being infantry soldiers or Special Operations commandos.

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced an end to the ban on women in combat. Women have become an integral part of the service, fighting and dying alongside men, Panetta said. In fact, 152 women in uniform have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The time has come," he said, "for our policies to recognize that reality."

___

Associated Press writer Pauline Jelinek contributed to this report.

Follow Connie Cass on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ConnieCass

Iran said Monday that it had successfullyand brought it home alive, according to Iranian state TV. The report included photos of a small, gray-tufted monkey strapped into a pod resembling an infant car-seat. The U.S. and its allies are worried that Iran is using its space program as cover for an effort to build long-range missiles that could carry nuclear warheads. Still, several countries, including the U.S., sent animals into space decades ago in the early days of their exploration of space. Here, a look at some of the animals that went where no human had gone before:

1. Albert (I through V)The first living beings shot into space were fruit flies, in 1947. A year later, NASA put a male rhesus monkey, Albert, into a V-2 rocket. Albert died, possibly suffocating before launch, but a year later his successor, Albert II, would become the . Sadly, Albert II died on landing because a parachute failed. Alberts III, IV, and V also died on impact or during flight.

2. Laika, the first dog in space Soviet scientists sent mice, rabbits, and rats aloft in their early rocket tests. None made it back alive. In 1954, they sent two dogs, Dezik and Tsygan, on suborbital flights on the theory they would move around less than monkeys. Both made it back alive. Then, in 1957, they put a dog named Laika on the Sputnik 2 flight. , which they figured would make her strong enough to survive the harsh conditions. For years, the Soviets maintained that Laika survived until her oxygen ran out on day 6. Documents uncovered in 2002, however, suggest she probably died from overheating after just a few hours.

3. Ham the AstrochimpPerhaps the best-known of the animals blasted into space by the U.S. space program was . Ham, named for the Holloman Aerospace Medical Center where he was prepared for his flight, was one of 40 chimpanzees the Air Force used in tests at the New Mexico facility. At the height of America's space race with the Soviets, Ham was launched into space aboard a Mercury-Redstone rocket. He soared 160 miles above Earth, allowing engineers to test his vital signs to prepare for putting humans in space. He returned a hero, and lived the rest of his years in zoos, including the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. He died in 1983.

4. Iran's space monkeySeveral nations followed America's example of putting monkeys into space. France launched two pig-tailed macaques, Martine and Pierrette, on suborbital flights in 1967. The Soviet/Russian Bion program put a parade of rhesus monkeys into space in the 1980s and '90s. The monkeys of Bion 9 Zhakonya and Zabiyaka set the monkey-space endurance record at 13 days, 17 hours. Then better late than never came . The Iranian-built rocket called Pishgam (Pioneer, in Farsi) reached a height of 72 miles, according to Iranian state TV. If the flight really was successful, it's a step forward for Iran. Its first attempt to put a monkey in space failed in 2011. A year earlier, however, it did manage to send up a mouse, a turtle, and several worms.

View this article onGetIssues of The Week

Other stories from this topic:

The ailing Finnish company gave a poor outlook saying it expects operating margins in the first quarter 2013 to be "approximately negative 2 percent, plus or minus four percentage points," citing increased competition as it struggles against the dominance of market leaders Samsung and Apple Inc.'s iPhone.

Nokia said it sold 15.9 million smartphones in the quarter, down from 19.6 million a year earlier.

The company's share price was up some 3 percent at 3.62 in Helsinki.

The view may look bright at the top GOP echelon, but that does not appear to be the attitude of the rank and file. If anything, there is deep unease among activist conservativesthe sort who trudge to the polls in the bitter winters of Iowa and New Hampshireabout the state of the race. At several recent functions in Washington, attendees expressed great enthusiasm for unseating Obama, but hardly anyone was thrilled with their likely standard bearers.

Is it time for the GOP to start panicking yet?

Cains tortured and contradictory response to sexual-harassment allegations was made even worse by the reckless, not-ready-for-prime-time effort at deflection. Rick Perry was behind this! No, it was Rahm Emanuel! No, it was a massive media conspiracy! No, it was Professor Plum with the lead pipe in the billiards room. That Cain remains floating atop the GOP field is less a tribute to his staying power than a cruel indictment of the remaining field of frivolous flops. When you cannot lure voters away from a man who is accused of several counts of disreputable behavior and who seems to lack an understanding of many basic issues, fromto , youve got yourself a problem.

As for Romney, he has finally started to outline some specifics to his proposals, most notably courageous plans to . But even this effort posed an interesting problem for him. If another candidate had talked freely about raising the retirement age for Medicare and Social Security and turning Medicaid into block grants, there might have been a larger outcry. With Romney, there really wasnt. Even the media seem to have decided that nothing the risk-averse, milquetoast Romney says really has anything to do with his presidency. All his ideas feel like consultant-fed pablum free to be ignored the minute the polls turn. When 72 percent of Romneys own voters say they could easily , youve got a problem.

Which means the GOP nominating process may yet take some surprising turns. Overall, about half of Republicans surveyed in a recent Washington PostABC News poll said they may yet change their allegiance in the race. That feels about right. In fact, the number may even grow higher as voters continue to shop for the least unacceptable of the lot.

Of the main contenders, only Perry and Newt Gingrich have demonstrated any signs of resurgence. Since the GOP debates commenced, Gingrich has steadily crept back into double digits in most polls, based on something surprising: ideas. He has little money, he has few ground troops, he has unleashed no attack ads, but he has answered questions clearly, forthrightly, and knowledgeably. And it is not inconceivable that otherseven a Bachmann or a Santorum or a Huntsmanmay finally find their day in the sun.

This year feels very different, as if anything could happen. Who knows: if an establishment favorite like Romney falters early, it is always possible that an entirely new candidate might yet decide to jump into the contest. Hoover, FDR, Kennedy, Nixon, and LBJ each won presidential primaries as write-in candidates. If things continue to be so unsettled, its not impossible that someone may decide to repeat that feat in 2012. Just dont anybody give that idea to Donald Trump.

Robert Ben Garant, who co-created "Reno 911!" and is directing "Baywatch," told TheWrap that Hader will play the Hasselhoff character.

Hasselhoff will make a cameo in the film, which like "Reno 911!" will take a faux serious tone to an absurd subject. Just as "Reno" parodied the over-dramatization of shows like "Cops," this will parody the 1990s hit TV show set on the beach.

Yes, Pamela Anderson also will have a cameo.

The plot follows lifeguards exploring an oil rig of the Malibu coast that turns out to be a meth lab. Jeremy Garelick and Peter Tolan both wrote drafts of the script, which Ben Garant has revisited.

"They're so excited they made us shoot a trailer and the script isn't even done," Ben Garant said.

Ben Garant said they are aiming for an April start date.

The director is at Sundance for "Hell Baby," a mock horror film he co-wrote and co-directed with "Reno 911!" co-creator Thomas Lennon, who stars alongside Leslie Bibb and Rob Corddry. He and Lennon also have written the "Night at the Museum" films together.

Hader is in his eighth season on "Saturday Night Live" and has a number of movies primed for 2013 release. He plays a supporting role in "The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: His" and "Hers," a two film-project about a troubled marriage where one film is told from each person's perspective. He also has a supporting role in CBS Films' "The Do List," due for a summer release, and he has lent his voice to atrio of animated films - "Turbo," "Cloudy 2: Revenge of the Leftovers" and "Me and My Shadow."

He is also starring in "The Skeleton Twins" with former "SNL" castmate Kristin Wiig, a project shooting now in New York.

As they have in the U.S., some critics accused the filmmakers of implying that enhanced interrogation techniques could be a useful form of intelligence gathering, while others believed that Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal were more ambiguous in their portrayal of torture's efficacy.

Most reviewers were floored by the propulsive storyline, the performance of star Jessica Chastain and the gripping dramatization of the raid on bin Laden's compound in Pakistan.

In the Evening Standard, David Sexton argues that the film is ambivalent about waterboarding and other brutal methods, noting that a key piece of information is only discovered after interrogators ply a detainee with food and kindness.

"This has proved offensive to those who, to avoid having to accept there may be negative consequences from taking the moral high ground, prefer to believe that torture must always be ineffective as well as wrong," Sexton writes. "Some of these critics - most notably nitwit Naomi Wolf, who has tastefully compared Bigelow to Leni Riefensthal and dubbed her 'torture's handmaiden' - have claimed the film's disturbing representation of torture amounts to a blithe commendation of the practice, not really a possible interpretation for those who have actually seen the movie."

In a four-star review, Sexton went on to hail "Zero Dark Thirty" as "terrifically good" and said the depiction of the raid was a "masterclass in action filmmaking."

In The Independent, Anthony Quinn praised the film for avoiding simplistic conclusions about America's controversial interrogation methods.

"The waterboarding, the beatings, the dog collars, all the stuff you've heard about is here, and perhaps some you haven't - the spectacle of a man being forced inside a small wooden box is as harrowing as any," Quinn writes. "Is this an abhorrent crime? Would the information be impossible to gain by other means? The film isn't saying either way; it is asking us to make up our own minds."

Quinn also argued that the film is more effective because it was directed by a woman and that because of her gender, Bigelow has a less "gung-ho" relationship to violence than a Ridley Scott or Michael Mann might bring to the same material (he may not have seen "Point Break")

Robbie Collins maintains in his review of the film in the Telegraph that Bigelow and Boal leave it to audiences to decide whether torture is right or wrong.

"These scenes are every bit as hellish to watch as they should be, and Bigelow's genius is to make them feel at once gratuitous and necessary," Collins writes.

He also praised the film for eschewing jingoism and for having the courage to end on a deflated note.

"Where, then, does Zero Dark Thirty leave us?" Collins asks.

"In the same place it leaves Maya: with our thirst for justice quenched, but our sense of rightness shaken. "Where do you want to go?" a pilot asks her, and she starts shedding tear after tear. This, finally, is what victory looks like, and its likeness to defeat is terrifying."

Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian was more unsettled by the film's relationship with torture and seemed to wish it had taken a firmer position.

"There is nothing in Zero Dark Thirty comparable to Gavin Hood's soul-searching 2007 movie, Rendition, in which Jake Gyllenhaal's CIA agent denounces waterboarding information as valueless; he quotes Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice and says torture victims 'speak upon the rack,/ Where men enforced do speak anything,'" Bradshaw writes. "I can well believe that, but for me the most sinister depiction of torture is non-depiction. Many Hollywood movies about the war on terror have managed to ignore the subject, implying non-existence. Despite its fence-sitting, I prefer Bigelow's account."

Bradshaw was also less enamored of the film on an artistic level, writing that "It is well made, with a relentless, dour drumbeat of tension and a great final sequence, but nowhere near as good as the first season of Homeland."

Empire Magazine's Kim Newman mostly skirted the political debate surrounding "Zero Dark Thirty," but was ecstatic about Bigelow's directing, the film's pacing and star turns.

"Like Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, it's a relatively new kind of American patriotic war movie, counterprogramming jaded paranoid fantasies like the Bourne movies or the liberal horror stories (Redacted, Rendition, In The Valley Of Elah, Green Zone etc.) thrown up by the War On Terror," Newman writes. "It's measured, seething with suppressed emotion, unafraid of slow stretches and false trails, snapping shut like a mantrap when blood is shed. If it grips in a more intellectual, journalistic manner than its Oscar-winning predecessor, it's because Chastain's character is necessarily absent during the climax - though she has a terrific post-traumatic outburst when the case is closed."