Re: Your second point. I don't personally believe the CIA when they say that they didn't use torture for key intel to get Bin Laden, I'm 99.9% sure that they said that because they didn't want to put a damper on what people saw as a victory for the US. But her source of information for this movie was the CIA, and her movie is not consistent with what they say happened, so it's still not "historically accurate" according to the version of history presented by her sources.

Do you see what I mean? It would be another thing entirely if she had unearthed all this other evidence that went against the CIA's account of things, and then incorporated that into her movie. One of my problems with the movie is that she got her research from pretty much the most biased source imaginable in the first place, and then on top of that she took some creative liberties with their account of things, but still tries to defend her depiction of torture as useful in the script because it's "accurate."

It's more problematic because the viewer is clearly meant to empathize with the torturers throughout the movie anyway. They aren't punished for what they did, they are rewarded with a successful mission even if someone wants to claim victory is portrayed as hollow.