24 and the Tortuous Politics of Torture
"Jack Bauer is on his own," declared promos for the hit show's just concluded seventh season. Maybe not.
The longtime hit TV series 24 has just wrapped a tumultuous seventh season in the midst of national debate about the past national policy of interrogation by torture of terror suspects. And, while 24 returned to past form as a crackling thriller, it's done it in the midst of presenting a running debate about torture, mostly coming down on the side of torture.
Which, in its way, is appalling. There's one thing, though. Torture may be more popular than many of us would like to think.
At the end of April, the Gallup Poll found that a slight majority of Americans wants a full investigation into the use of torture in interrogation. But that a bigger majority says that torture was justified in defense of national security. (Gallup, incidentally, is not an anti-Barack Obama poll. The president consistently ranks in the 60s in job approval.)
The poll on the controversy over the use of torture in the interrogation of suspected terrorists brings very mixed tidings for critics. By a 51% to 42% margin, Americans want an investigation into the the use of torture, a crusade-level issue for much of the left. But by a 55% to 36% margin, Americans say that torture is justified in defense of national security.
I think the poll is too broadly framed. I don't believe that 55% of Americans support torture as a matter of national policy. A better way of asking would focus on the question of torture as a national policy, which it became in the Bush/Cheney Administration, as distinguished from torture in certain circumstances, and of course a strict abolition on torture in any circumstances. But either way, the results probably wouldn't make a lot of people happy.
Perhaps this is one reason why the Obama administration, after releasing highly revelatory Bush/Cheney era memos justifying torture in interrogations as a national policy from the highest levels on down, doesn't seem very interested in making this a central issue.
Speaking Monday before the Pacific Council on International Policy in Los Angeles, CIA Director Leon Panetta said that the focus should be kept on the future in discussing the interrogation of terror suspects.
Decrying "hyper-partisanship" on both sides, Panetta said: "If they start to use these issues as political clubs to beat each other up with, then that's when we not only pay a price, but this country pays a price."
"As a creature of the Congress," the longtime California congressman and former Clinton White House chief of staff said, "I don't deny them the opportunity to learn the lessons from that period. I think it's important to learn those lessons, so that we can move into the future. But in doing that, we have to be very careful that we don't forget our responsibility to the present and to the future."
John McCain -- a big 24 fan who did a cameo on the show -- said that interrogation in the real world isn't like 24.
Panetta declared that Al Qaeda remains "the most serious security threat" to America. "We are a nation at war. We have to confront that reality every day, and while it's important to learn the lessons of the past, we must not do it in a way that sacrifices our capability to stay focused on the present, stay focused on the future and stay focused on those who threaten the United States of America."
Panetta said he's working with Congress to reveal the abuses that occurred when torture was a national policy, which it no longer is. But he doesn't want the Obama Administration's policies to become sidetracked.
"What I'm most concerned about," he said, "is that this stuff doesn't become the kind of political issue that everything else becomes in Washington, D.C., where it becomes so divisive that it begins to interfere with the ability of the intelligence agencies to do our primary job, which is to focus on the threats that face us today and tomorrow."
Jon Voight, a peacenik movie star in the 1970s who is now a staunch conservative, played the head of Starkwood, a Blackwater-like mercenary outfit launching terrorist attacks inside the United States.
There's also the not-so-little matter of what top Democrats knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in more than a bit of pickle over when she knew about waterboarding. She has been backed by former Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Bob Graham about briefings in 2002. CIA records claim that officials told both of them about the practice of torture. Pelosi denies it, and Graham backed her up. In any event, Pelosi acknowledges knowing in 2003, though not as a result of being briefed by CIA. And her response to knowing? Not a national anti-torture crusade, but her customary effort to elect more Democrats.
Nevertheless, there was a critical revelation in last month's Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees. Namely, that torture was used to elicit what we know to be false information -- the fictitious Saddam Hussein/Al Qaeda alliance -- as a means of selling the invasion of Iraq. That reminds of us of something very important.
All you know for sure about information elicited by torture is that the answer is intended to make you stop.
Which gets us to the question of efficacy, and back to 24.
In January, just days before President Obama's inauguration, the show kicked off its just concluded seventh season with Kiefer Sutherland's darkly iconic Jack Bauer character testifying before a Senate committee busy investigating and decrying his ruthless anti-terror methods. But he was soon back in the thick of the action, working to foil what turned out to be a nested series of conspiracies by various elements of the military industry to stampede the country into turning over national power to them.
A new FBI agent, Annie Wersching's sharply played Renee Walker -- Bauer was with the fictional Counter-Terrorist Unit before chucking it all to help people in Africa, only to be (naturally) caught up in a genocidal civil war -- begins as something of a stand-in for the audience. She thinks Bauer can help figure out how terrorists have seized control of the air traffic control system, but questions his methods. Only to be drawn in, all too quickly, by, if you will, the dark side of the force.
Still, during typically brief respites between the byzantine plotting and frenetic action, the two wonder about the morality of the ruthless, brutal methods they employ during this very long day.
Which is actually beside the point.
24 producer Howard Gordon discussed season 7 and the show's role in the torture debate.
If 24's producers were really serious, they would show Bauer, a throwback to the classic anti-heroes of the '70s, using torture as usual to elicit the information needed to save the day.
Only to find out the hard way that the information is false, the bomb does go off, the innocents die, and Bauer has been played as much by his belief in his own infallibility as by the terrorist who finally realized the obvious, that all he had to do to succeed was to con Jack Bauer for half an hour with misdirection.
Notwithstanding his increasing angst and the overall verisimilitude of Sutherland's performance, which more than updates Inspector Harry Callahan, Bauer is such an unrealistic paragon that he makes James T. Kirk look like a semi-competent mope. Not only can he size everyone up in a moment, and nearly always get the information he needs, he himself is utterly immune to torture, even after years in a Chinese prison.
A big splash of the skepticism of Britain's fine series about the MI5 counter-terrorism agency, Spooks, would do wonders for 24.
Bauer can still win the day. It is, after all, a show. But making Bauer's dilemmas a bit less preposterous -- his problem isn't his own fallibility, it's the fallibility of the rest of the US government and the endless waves of fiendishly clever and resourceful opponents the writers throw at him -- would be a breath of fresh air.
Far right talk show host Laura Ingraham, who thought McCain was a dangerous liberal, says the popularity of 24 is "a national referendum" in favor of torture.
And it might do something about the problem of right-wing politicians who seem to think that Jack Bauer is real. And who either don't get, or choose to ignore, that the ultimate baddies on the show generally turn out to be power-hungry conservatives or profiteering capitalists.
The Republican presidential candidates actually debated a 24 scenario. There's a ticking bomb, you have only a few minutes, what do you do? Gee, I don't know. Call the ACLU? It's a non-serious question.
The Bush/Cheney administration essentially adopted the action thriller approach to politics. What underlies that? The knowledge that most anything seems plausible if you keep things moving too fast for the audience to think about it.
It's all spelled out in Jack Bauer's typical line: ''You're running out of time -- you don't have a better option.''
If that's how you define the logic of the situation, then extreme measures always seem more plausible.
The entire premise of the show is that a terrorist disaster is just about to happen, in fact several disasters in the same day.
Powers Boothe, who narrated the McCain campaign commercials, played a nefarious Cheney-like vice president on 24.
That became, in essence, the metaphorical rationale for the Bush/Cheney administration's policy of torture. It was Vice President Dick Cheney's notion that if there's a one percent chance of a terror plot existing, it should be treated as if it is a certainty.
That's hysteria masquerading as rationality, a stampede to suspend disbelief.
It's one thing when that sort of manipulation is employed to entertain, and quite another when it's used to govern.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Every Preacher, in ever church, every Sunday,
Must denounce Torture
Or stop calling themselves Christian.
NOW I am disgusted over half of my nation's people.
Sick, Sick, Sick,
Bill
Even If the torturer were a hero as in the "24" show,, this hero violated basic laws that distinguish American society. Should he be punished? In many cultures including the Greek/Japanese the Hero confronts a dilema of opposing moral choices. The Hero chooses to do his heoric deed, thus putting himself in the position of "outlaw", the consequence of which he does not shirk. This theme is seldom in modern American movies.
If “necessary” torture exists, it is consistant and proper that our American hero may have to accept his punishment as a law violator.
The prosecution of this "hero torturerer" upholds the proper horror in which society views torture. A trial would reveal, specific tortures applied, discover whether "the bomb was actually ticking" ,and whether torture was the only feasible choice. It would allow us to quantify casualties and trade offs.
What constitutes a "ticking time bomb"? John McCain ,, was captured when the North Vietnamese were being bombed. He had access to Admirals. Probably he had knowledge of the factors (and weights given them) in deciding when and where to bomb, the next bombing foray date, from what altitude, at what speed, what weapons system, urgent information that could be used by the North Vietnamese in preventing imanent predictable and enourmous casualties
. Is the torture of our captured soldiers frequently "necessary" in this moral view?
Full article at http://p0p
Unfortunately, as the show evolved, and its leading man became increasingly indestructable (he's been brought back from the dead more times than Kenny on South Park), the politics of '24' began to take precedence.
Out went the ingenious plotting and smart characterisation, and in its place came a depressingly samey parade of torture scenes until the show started to look like one of Lynndie England's home movies.
So when 24 returned after a year out, caused by the writers' strike, everyone was watching closely to see how the show would handle its responsibility to air both sides of the torture argument. However, this was not the subtle exploration that we might have hoped for. Jack's by-the-book counterpart looked as though she was itching to force a wet towel down a suspect's throat by the end of the third episode. So much for a fair and balanced analysis of the issues.
So now as the US reels from the latest season-ending cliff-hanger the whole format is starting to feel a little tired and repetitive. There's a saying in TV that when a show passes its prime it has 'jumped the shark'. I think '24' has dragged the shark out of its tank, shot its wife, electocuted its genitals and glued its gills together. After single-handedly killing 230 people, maybe Jack Bauer has finally earned a day off.
Obama ended the torture policy, which is great.
I wonder if he has the time or even the ability to change public opinion so drastically about the past when he's reviving the economy, trying to get of Iraq, promoting universal health care, changing energy policy, changing the auto industry, etc.
There is something missing from the American dialog on this subject.
What is missing is the rest of the story. The mainstream media has obsessed with waterboarding which may be the absolute LEAST of the evils in Cheney's little program.
Documents are now public that detail the torture deaths of detainees in our military-run prison in Bagram, Afghanistan. These prisoners were shackled, hand and foot, hung from the ceiling and chained to the floor.. and then beaten to death.
Information is now coming to the front that children were taken into Abu Ghraib and were raped and sodomized in front of their mothers to make the adults to "confess". See the following link:
http://the
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NOT HEARD THE ENTIRE STORY!!! While the republicans have been blaming Nancy Pelosi and denying that torture was being used, we have been distracted from the issue!
For all those supporters of torture out there, how would you feel if one of the children at Abu Ghraib was yours? Would you hate your captors? Would you do everything you could to bring down the Americans? Would you, too, become a terrorist, even if you had not ever been one before?
I ask all the torture supporters to read and reflect on this...the
Being your average older, ex-hippie boomer, I truly enjoy "24"; just like I enjoyed Star Trek, Seinfeld and numerous other TV shows, because they're FICTION. If only the empty-headed Right could have made that distinction! Hello, Laura-
The way the Bush Administration used the appropriations committees to bypass oversight by the intelligence committees in Congress (and get away with torture):
http://emp
You make a great point, but don't really take it far enough. "it might do something about the problem of right-wing politicians who seem to think that Jack Bauer is real". The statement goes for a much broader audience. Sadly, there are many in the general populace that - though they may not believe Jack Bauer is real - they DO believe that what happens on the show actually happens in real life. These are the Fox News die-hards that go from Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly straight to 24 and as far as they are concerned, torture WORKS. I mean, they must be so scared shitless that it is a wonder they can sleep at night. So, let's be blunt and stop worrying about the "level" of the conversation. Call these people out for what they are:
Cowards
Ignorant
Un-American
And if you are against torture, then be informed. Understand all the arguments FOR torture and how to use it most effectively came directly from evil regimes of the past who knew that the most valuable outcome of torture was to elicit FALSE information from detainees that would be useful in furthering your own cause. And, it still works, if that is your definition of "toture works".
Thanks for the post, Bill.
See William Bradley's Profile
Thank you.
However, I don't think it's wise politics to simply dismiss majority opinion in America as the product of Fox News scaring and conning people.
For one thing, FNC simply isn't that big, and 24 doesn't have that kind of audience, either.
24 was brought to you by the FOX network. 24 is nothing more subliminal propaganda. It's dressed as drama, thriller.
The purpose of torture is to elicit what you want to know. That may not have any relationship to what is true. But what does the torturer care if the confession validates what he wants to know?
The torturer cares if he's trying to find out stuff, which he usually is.
I see a hysterical stampede here of people desperately trying to convince themselves.
It seems that when I made a conscious decision not to start watching 24, I was making a very big mistake. But, your descriptions here, Bill, may have made it impossible for me to resist purchasing the DVD collection!
Just to make my position clear, in 50 words or less...tor
As for the efficacy question, here is a link to the written testimony of one of the USAF interrogators, Matthew Alexander, to the senate judiciary subcommittee hearing on harsh interrogation techniques
http://vet
and here is the video link for the entire hearing...
http://www
This is very interesting stuff and well worth the time for anyone interested in the torture debate.
I wouldn't shy away from the DVDs. 24 is actually an enjoyable series (as long as you skip season 6). It's only a measure of the silliness of much of our political rhetoric that it ever gets mentioned in the same breath as the deadly serious conversation about torture. The show should be watched in the way that old time Saturday afternoon movie serials were watched. Lots of silly action and a cliffhanger every week.
I’m a little confused by what point DCI Panetta was trying to make...wit
Or, does he believe, as I do, that Congress and DoJ should uncover the abuses that occurred when torture became a national policy and that accountability will be determined on the basis of these bipartisan reviews?
There are very long quotes of Panetta. He thinks that it's a big mistake to dwell on past torture.
See William Bradley's Profile
Actually, Liz, I may have spent too much space quoting Panetta.
I'd say he wants to turn the page, to borrow a phrase ...
I'm all for turning the page, Bill...but
Polls are strange animals that don't always engender a lot of faith. Still, the Gallup polls you cite are very disturbing. These results probably have something to do with most of us not having the prerequisite knowledge to give an informed opinion on the use of torture. At least, I would hope that an overwhelming majority of informed opinion would come down on the side that says torture should NEVER be justified, under ANY circumstances.
If this is why the administration is trying to distance itself from the torture debate, then that would be even more disturbing. I'm still hopeful that the new administration is simply trying to avoid an atmosphere of rabid partisanship that would severely distract, if not derail, its vast and critical agenda. Instead, they are allowing the hearings in Congress and the investigations at DoJ - perhaps, even a bipartisan ‘truth commission’ - to unfold, letting the chips fall where they may.
I've noticed, happily, that there are no longer any references to how these poll results may be interpreted by ‘liberals’. I was trying to understand why liberals, in particular, would see this general issue of torture any differently from any other group. Maybe it’s because I'm an outsider looking in, but the torture debate just seems to me to be one that should transcend party politics. Of course, if the debate is JUST about what the previous administration did and what accountability should be visited upon it, then that’s a whole other can of
worms...li
See William Bradley's Profile
Why would liberals tend to view torture differently? Because liberals are generally less supportive of the military and more opposed to violence.
You're generalizing about people's attitudes from your personal moral standpoint.
I'm confident that the Obama team believes that polls like this are generally accurate representations of American public opinion.
Well, team Obama may believe that polls like this are generally accurate, even if those polls are based on ill-informed opinions. But, I would just hope that their actions, or inertia, on this issue are not dictated by such polls.
This torture debate is way too important - what we are talking about here is no less critical than whether or not the US can restore its credibility in the world and reclaim its rightful global leadership role. The new administration's achievement of its foreign policy and national security objectives depends on both!
Apparently Mr. Bradley and I watched two different shows.
First of all it's FICTION, ok? Everyone should understand that by now. If a Republican or otherwise is not intelligent enough to understand this, then they should not speak about the show "and its effects."
Second, Jack Bauer does not "embrace" torture nor does he advocate it. In fact, he says that he knows that what he has done was wrong. He seeks to atone for his sins. (Sure he has performed it a few times, I am not denying that).
Third, it is very clearly pointed out how torture doesn't work and how it gives you the wrong results. It is also very clear within the show when Jack gets straightforward results -- WITHOUT torture.
I have watched this show since day one, episode 1 (the first hour). It is a lot more nuanced than you describe. And just as life is not black and white neither is the show. Finally, I, personally am against torture in all its forms, and would disagree with the ticking time bomb scenario. But if that's the case, why do I keep watching 24 every year? The appeal goes beyond the simple platitudes offered in your column or discussed by Right Wing extremist radio host.
See William Bradley's Profile
I've seen every episode of 24, folks know better than to disturb me when it's on, and I have all the seasons on DVD. I've been displeased by the show's increasing reliance on torture to move the plot along.
What is NOT nuanced is that Bauer's choice is always whether to torture and save lives or not to torture and lose those lives.
In real life, it is understood that information given up under torture is inherently unreliable.
Whenever somebody writes "it is understood," that means the writer is trying to pass off his/her personal opinion as fact.
>>>>In real life, it is understood that information given up under torture is inherently unreliable.
See William Bradley's Profile
I believe it was a longstanding practice in police departments around America to beat information out of suspects.
While it's undoubtedly true that some false confessions resulted, it's probably not true that all the information gained from those sessions was wrong.
That doesn't make it right, by a long shot.
GROSS DISHONESTY IN POLLING
One of the misuses of polling of the Bush years has been the abusive asking of loaded questions:
CNN are masters of this. Example: Do you think there are too many foreigners in America?
This is gross manipulation of public opinion-but there is no limit to media shamelessness.
It's all about mind-numbing repetition of gutter demagoguery.
Same thing about framing leading questions on torture: they can make people support torture by asking the right question. The PR man turned Bush pollster-thought guru Peter Lunz is a "master" of this black art. He knows how to frame the question that gets the desired answer.
Where is democracy, freedom, human rights, fairness, respect in all this?
Zilch! None. This is making the bed for dictatorship-the police state.
There must be good faith and honesty in polling!
See William Bradley's Profile
Denial is not just a river.
There is no Peter Luntz. There is a Frank Luntz.
He has nothing to do with the Gallup Poll, which is highly reputable and which shows Obama's job approval well into the 60s. As I've already written.
Right, attack the Gallup Poll. The fringe right attacks it all the time.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
