Is Jack Bauer a war criminal?

13 Responses to "Is Jack Bauer a war criminal?"

• Comment by: David H

  1 10/15/07 11:25 AM | Comment Link |

  Last question first: Do the show’s producers have a moral responsibility. I think we can probably stop there and not add the rest. The answer would largely be: No. They are in the entertainment business. There is no inherent need for morality in that. What may be ironic, though, is that many conservative Christians are big fans of ‘24′. The CC belief system asks for proper morality in many forms of entertainment. The morality behind ‘24′ — anything is good if it achieves the proper results — should be anathema to Christians. If nothing more, those types should remember all the stuff about persecution I frequently hear. They expect the world to torture them and feel it is not right. Why is it OK then for them to support torture.

  I attend a Mennonite church. A favorite Mennonite book is “The Martyr’s Mirror.” It is full of tales from the early days of the counter-reformation when Catholics and Lutherans hunted down early Mennonites because of their faith. The book is full of torture and death. One story tells of a father who allowed his entire family to be tortured and executed rather than refute his faith. He died last.

  The stories are horrible. I have a bit of troubled with the book. But it should certainly be educational to Christians on the subject of torture. If it is wrong to use against believers how can it possibly be OK for believers to condone its use against anyone?

  I corresponded a few years back with an Iranian man who had taken my same first name. He was tortured twice in Iran for his conversion. He was turned in by his parents on one occasion even though they knew what would happen. He was hung suspended from his thumbs in a cell for days. He had fingernails pulled out. He was beaten senseless. None of those things would necessarily cause permanent injury. So they should all be acceptable according to the secret memos from the Department of Justice.

  I have watched “24″ and found it mildly entertaining. But it’s accounts of torture seem tame compared to actual descriptions I have read and heard. When reading about torture performed by Nazis and Soviets and the North Vietnamese, one of the things frequently mentioned is that torture often isn’t useful for getting information, but it is great for keeping a population in line. The problem with using it for information is that eventually, according to many experts, the subject will say anything so that the torture will stop. Most experts say everyone breaks under physical torture. But that breakdown doesn’t necessarily lead to anything useful other than getting the person to read statements on TV or sign confessions about the crimes they have committed (whether they did them or not). If a lie will stop the pain, then the person being tortured will tell you that lie. The most unfortunate torture subject is the one who can’t figure out what you want to hear.

  The show does show bad behavior in a good light. And because that leads to the proper conclusion — America is saved — it is probably promoting such activities. However, the real problem is that people in our government and intelligence/military community take this stuff and treat it like gospel. It is fricking entertainment folks and not particularly accurate. NPR just had a trained interrogator who had successfully completed many actual interrogations and he said he frequently faced hostile students because they wouldn’t believe him when he said torture was not only bad it was ineffective. He has often heard people cite a TV show as proof of tortures efficacy.

  What the US proposes to do with torture is and should be illegal. At violates treaties we have signed and US laws. Legal experts have noted that one of the reasons so many terror suspects are being held without trial is that once we have tortured them we can’t try them. Their confession is worthless and our treatment of them will become subject for discussion in open court. So we leave them to rot in secret prisons. That is not how a democracy should operate.

  But in the end this is not the responsibility of those making the show. Our leaders know the law and they have experts telling them the truth about torture. If they choose to ignore those things then they should be held to account by the American people. If the people of this country are too afraid to stand up for the laws and principals of democracy, if they would trade those things for a perception of safety in the world, then what they are fighting to save is already gone. Democracy is dead and what you are fighting for isn’t peace or or justice or good government, it is to keep what you have from everyone else. And as torturers throughout history have taught — whether they did it for the Inquisition, Nazi Germany or a Banana republic — such coercion can be effective for keeping people fearfully in line, at least for a time.

• Comment by: Rachel

  2 10/15/07 11:53 AM | Comment Link |

  What may be ironic, though, is that many conservative Christians are big fans of ‘24?. The CC belief system asks for proper morality in many forms of entertainment. The morality behind ‘24? — anything is good if it achieves the proper results — should be anathema to Christians. If nothing more, those types should remember all the stuff about persecution I frequently hear. They expect the world to torture them and feel it is not right. Why is it OK then for them to support torture.

  David, I believe it is because their highest allegiance is to the American Empire and to conservative political philosophy, not to the teachings of Christ. I know this mindset well because I was immersed in it for most of my life.

  A favorite Mennonite book is “The Martyr’s Mirror.” It is full of tales from the early days of the counter-reformation when Catholics and Lutherans hunted down early Mennonites because of their faith.

  David, I remember being read to from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and having to put my head down between my knees because I felt like I was going to pass out.

  But in the end this is not the responsibility of those making the show.

  My opinion is that the producers do have a moral responsibility to refrain from glorifying violent and immoral behavior. But there is no controlling authority to prevent them from doing so nor would I want there to be. So I can only hope and wish that the producers would honor the requests of distinguished military officers who have asked them to make changes.

  I won’t be holding my breath.

  If the people of this country are too afraid to stand up for the laws and principals of democracy, if they would trade those things for a perception of safety in the world, then what they are fighting to save is already gone.

  Indeed!

• Comment by: Staci

  3 10/15/07 4:36 PM | Comment Link |

  The biggest impact I see is that due to the secrecy surrounding what exactly is happening some people believe that what happens on “24″ is what is supposed to happen. Although, personally, I think that would be like me thinking that I know what school in England is like because I’ve seen the Harry Potter movies and know they use wands and have classes in potion and defense against the dark arts.

• Comment by: David H

  4 10/15/07 4:48 PM | Comment Link |

  Just to restate something mentioned earlier. Torture is a great tool for coercion. Used effectively it can get people — even those not being tortured — to do things. Torture is not a great tool for intelligence. You can’t trust the tortured to tell the truth so it is only effective in getting people to admit something that the torturer already knows. It can be useful in getting confessions, but one can only be certain those confessions are true if they already know most of the details. But in a society based on the rule of law, that nullifies the ability to use those confessions for anything else.

  My guess is the attractiveness of torture for many Americans has nothing to do with coercion or intelligence, it has to do with revenge. The rationale that it would help to stop terrorist attacks only provides an acceptable justification for doing to them what they do to us. People I hear talking about torture very frequently say: “We have to use the same things against them that they use against us.” But “they”, whoever they are, don’t torture to get information, they torture to elicit propaganda confessions and the like. We are supposedly attempting to achieve a different end.

  The linking of supposed Christians to torture is extra ironic because it, like so many other things, becomes an issue of confrontation between core principals and protecting “what’s mine.” Jesus said do no harm, love your enemies, help those who hurt you. Or you can torture/kill those you designate as foes. Why does torture/kill win out over love/help? I hear loads of excuses from real people and pundits on this score. But it seems clear to me this is a question of masters. Do you serve Jesus or do you serve yourself?

• Comment by: Rachel

  5 10/15/07 5:26 PM | Comment Link |

  Torture is a great tool for coercion. Used effectively it can get people — even those not being tortured — to do things.

  Yes, the threat of torture is a very effective way to instill fear. The Romans understood this. That was why they would crucify people on top of hillsides near well-traveled roadways, sometimes dozens or even hundreds at a time. The sights, sounds, and smells of a crucifiction would send a clear message to anyone who dared even think about questioning the power of Rome.

• Comment by: Benjamin Ady

  6 10/15/07 6:22 PM | Comment Link |

  It seems to me that a show like 24 (which, by the way, I’ve never seen–alas–only heard of and read about) can only be so popular because we are, as a culture, enormously good at objectification, dehumanization, and … totaly lack of empathy. Doesn’t it have to do with just totally being convinced that “the other” is indeed “other” in some fundamental sense? I mean if we can identify “the other” as “actually one of us”, i.e. a fellow human being, and thus empathize, doesn’t that sort of preclude torture?

  This dehumanization/objectification of “the other” doesn’t, in my opinion, take place so much on the individual level. Perhaps that’s why we are, in a sense, so blind to it–because we are *so* focused on indivualism rather than on the collective.

• Comment by: Staci

  7 10/16/07 1:28 PM | Comment Link |

  I did watch much of the first season of 24. I was drawn for the concept of the show being “in real time” - meaning an hour of show only covers a hour of time. I was intrigued by that since it would be different, but the level of violence was too much for me so I stopped watching. I know the fast pace does suck many people in who wouldn’t otherwise watch. However that “real time” might also contribute to people thinking the plot is real. (Though frankly, I didn’t think the “real time” took into consideration the real traffic in LA.)

• Comment by: Janice

  8 10/18/07 9:02 AM | Comment Link |

  I’ve hesitated commenting on this topic for many reasons..but I’ll toss my thoughts out there and reveal that I’m a ‘24′ ‘addict’. I began watching on the second episode of the first season and I’ve watched ever since. I don’t think I’m numb to the violence or that I embrace it, I think that I trend towards topics etc of a serious nature. I am also intrigued by the psychology of it all.

  “24″, I believe, delves into issues like “the other” and how quickly friends can be viewed as enemies. Last season one of Jack Bauer’s team was ‘turned on’ due to her ethnic origin, though she was never a mole or working against the US. Another season had a situation involving a high school student of another nationality living in the US with his parents (who turned out to be plotting against the US) and it was interesting, to me, to watch the relationships, and to see the justifications used on BOTH sides. Its an interesting perspective. (even if its not accurately portraying A real situation, it portrays many situations no one wants to talk about. Bias, racial prejudice, economic differences in countries and why people elsewhere may have reason to dislike the US)

  Is Jack Bauer a war criminal? Hmm, not sure the ‘war’ part is accurate….are his actions ‘criminal’? I don’t know all the legal boundaries, but suppose from my readings that yes, he could be accused, tried, and found guilty of criminal acts. Is he morally corrupt? Perhaps. Certainly he isn’t acting in accordance with Jesus’ commands, not that he is portrayed as a christian to begin with.

  What I see is a man caught in a situation that he doesn’t know how to get out of…….I think some of our soldiers are in the same situation. Kill or be killed. Us against them.

  In small ways the show deals with the impact on him psychologically. It deals with some of the ‘diplomatic’ BS that I do believe governments engage in…the manuevering, the posturing, the deals and side deals.

  I don’t attempt to justify the writing of the show, or the use of torture.

  The use of fear is a theme that runs through society on many levels. As is pain. Though I suppose not all uses constitute torture…but its coercive.

  And although I don’t believe the show necessarily is true to life, there ARE things going on in the world today that resemble the show in terms of situations people are put in and what they will do to justify the ends. I know, I’ve worked with rebel groups in Burma. I know how people doing ‘good’ cross boundaries in the name of justice.

  I’m not saying its right. I am saying that it does happen and what is of interest to me is the human psyche that resorts to behavior like this when what . . one feels there is no where else to turn - no other options. . ? Our cause is greater than . . something?

  I’m not sure rebel groups in Burma can see the regime there as anything but ‘the other’ in one sense. Although I see them as human beings, I can understand, even from my safe vantage point, the threat and it clouds my vision. Obscuring their humanity.

  Just to be clear, I’m not saying any of this is ‘right’. I am not saying I condone the use of violence. I’m just delving into some of the dynamics……

• Comment by: Rachel

  9 10/18/07 10:23 AM | Comment Link |

  Thanks for sharing your insights, Janice! You obviously watch the show from a critically engaged and thoughtful perspective.

• Comment by: David H

  10 10/18/07 7:56 PM | Comment Link |

  Just to be clear, I’m not saying any of this is ‘right’. I am not saying I condone the use of violence.

  I’m not a big watcher of “24″, but what Janice says addresses some of my concerns with pushing a moral agenda on the makers of such shows. I don’t know that the makers of “24″ have an agenda other than to make entertainment that is somewhat apropos to our time. I wonder what came first, Jack Bauer torturing prisoners on TV or the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Gharib? Don’t have time to check myself at the moment. But the question remains whether the makers of this show are catering to those who endorse torture or whether those who endorse torture (as is mentioned in the article that launched this thread) have embraced “24″ because it simply depicts torture.

  Popular entertainment can inform us of the psychology behind awful things without endorsing those things. Anyone who has watched “The Shield” knows that the starring police officers are terribly corrupt and have gotten away with torture and worse. Yet an episode of that show depicting torture was just given an award by Human Rights First because it accurately showed a torture session, including the false information given by the person being tortured (just heard about this on NPR). Likewise, “Battlestar Galactice,” a favorite of mine (the new version, not the old) has devoted full episodes to torture, the mindset behind suicide bombers, etc. The torture show was interesting because the humans (who had been depicted as the good guys until then) were the torturers and the half-robot Cylon came off as sympathetic. The show climaxed with the Cylon being put out an airlock after providing info that may or may not have been true. The suicide bomber story also had the humans as the suicide bombers. It did not take a moral position on whether they were doing right or wrong, but it gave voice to characters on all sides of that issue.

  Showing something is not the same as endorsing that thing. And torture, when realistically depicted (many argue that it is not shown in its true light on “24″) can be quite instructive to people who may not know exactly what that word means when discussed by our leaders.

  One of my top shows is Law & Order SVU. If showing things that are immoral is immoral then that show should have little in its favor. While it takes an overt position on the morality of its criminals, it has become increasingly nonjudgmental of the conduct of its cops (some of whom are increasingly pursuing harmful or illegal approaches toward their jobs).

  All of this is to say that the agenda being pushed by the makers of “24″ may affect the morality of their show. But if they are accurately portraying the moral dilemmas facing the characters (even if some of their actions aren’t realistically depicted) then the real problem may not be the show. It may be that some people, already predisposed to expedient, dehumanizing behavior like it because they can spin it as an endorsement of what they would do anyway.

• Comment by: David H

  11 10/18/07 8:55 PM | Comment Link |

  This discussion of popular entertainment brought up a blast from my past. My parents thought rock music was of the devil. One example I heard cited a lot when younger, as proof of rock’n rolls evils, was the Police song, “Murder By Numbers.” The song incites children to kill their parents, I was told. Obviously bad.

  However, years later I heard Sting talk about the song. He said the impetus for the song was a murder case from which he heard the young killer talking coldly about the process of planning and killing his parents. Rather than write something sobbing or moralistic, the songwriter felt it would be much more affective to try and capture the detached calculation without any outside judgment. The buoyant tune was meant to be a discordant contrast to the subject matter. Sting felt the resulting piece could have a much greater impact than anything he might write about how wrong it would be to kill your parents.

• Comment by: Pete

  12 10/24/07 7:32 PM | Comment Link |

  Well, can you watch something like boxing without having to punch someone?

  If yes, then that’s fine. If you have the urge to act out what you see, you probably need to avoid that type of media.

  Real torture issues are something the government should take a stand on and not the creators of a TV show obviously.

• Comment by: Rachel

  13 10/24/07 10:05 PM | Comment Link |

  Pete, I see your point. But I think that it is possible to watch dramatic depictions of torture and be desensitized by watching them, not in the sense that one imitates the behavior, but in the sense that one comes to think of it as normative and permissible. I don’t believe that people are going to go out and torture their neighbors because they watched 24. What I am afraid of is that they will be more likely to support this administration’s appalling policies on torture because they have been conditioned to believe that torture is a necessary and productive “tool in the war on terror.” One of the objections voiced by the dean of West Point is that the show repeatedly portrays torture as being effective when he insists that it is not. In that sense, I believe that the show’s producers are being irresponsible and I wish that they would make changes to the program.

Leave a Reply