The Politics of 24
Season seven of 24 begins tonight, so I thought it was an appropriate time to discuss it.
For years it has been slammed by anti-torture activists as a show that could only be produced during the Bush years, for its alleged promotion of torture. There can be little doubt that the show does often portray tortures as a means to an end, and its morality is rarely questioned. Jack Bauer is always right, after all, and few argue with his methods for long.
However, the portrayal of torture is just one element of the show. Each season also typically has an underlying political struggle going on with those who are in power and those who want to be in power. Now, with the torture element, surely this is a show that portrays Republicans as the heroes, strong and protecting the country first, and the Democrats as weak and betraying the country.
Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.
Consider that the most celebrated president on the show was David Palmer, a Democrat. A hawkish one, to be sure, but a Democrat none-the-less. Palmer was also a very strong-willed president, not often bowing to pressure from others, even after he was temporarily removed from power during season two. Palmer canceled his re-election campaign in season 3 due to a scandal that could get too close to him, but continued to be portrayed as honorable and noble until his death in season five.
Contrast this portrayal with that of Charles Logan, a major player in seasons four and five. Logan was a Republican who was initially portrayed as weak-willed, but then later shown as the mastermind behind many of the events of season five. Logan’s involvement in the Sentox nerve gas conspiracy almost got him charge with treason, though he ended up being convicted of obstruction of justice.
The other major president of the series thus far, Wayne Palmer, is a Democrat portrayed as weak and unable to make decisions, until he sends off a dud missle as if preparing to nuke a Middle Eastern country thought to be harboring terrorists who set off a suitcase nuke in Season 6. Though Palmer’s missle was a fake, he did it to prevent his vice-president from trying to take power.
There are other things to consider besides government figures on the show. This upcoming season will have Jon Voight portray a major villain who works for a “Blackwater-type organization.” Blackwater is a private military services and security company routinely bashed by liberals for their actions in Iraq.
So, with all this, I’d have to say that politics wise, 24 is either pretty even handed, or perhaps even a tad in favor of Democrats, given the continued glorification of David Palmer.
Or maybe we should stop thinking of such a TV show in terms of politics and just sit down and enjoy the entertainment is provides for an hour a week (four hours in the next two days), as Michael O’Rourke, writing for the San Antonio Express-News suggested on Friday.
Hehehe, when I watched 24, I was thinking. This show is so politically neutral.
2 Black Democratic presidents (who are good at anti-terrorsim). And portrayed as righteous men.
Constant criticism of co-workers of Jack Bauers torture methods etc.
Sure Jack Bauer turns out to be right, but that’s just reality. Terrorists are not easy to deal with.
Hehehe, when I watched 24, I was thinking. This show is so politically neutral.
Is is as silly as saying:
Hehehe, when I watched “last episode of MASH”, I was thinking. This show is so politically neutral.
You’re silly, go watch it. I gave you examples and good arguments. You gave me a very bad analogy.
I separate the torture elements from the political struggles from season to season. It’s another issue entirely to me. There are plenty of people, even real military types, who say that it doesn’t work in the real world.
It is a political issue, but of a different type, rather than how people of different parties are treated by the showrunners and writers.
The show’s creator is a fairly hardcore Republican, so that he lets his writers take great pains to keep it politically neutral is a good thing.
Torture does work. It’s not true that it is inaccurate. Proper techniques can get proper results. Miscalculated techniques can get improper results.
Put yourself in the position, you will talk, because the pain is too great. There’s a reason why torture has existed for centuries.
The morality of course, different. It’s wrong to torture. However, when our troops are captured they are not shown Geneva Conventions and they are milked for every bit of information.
We are left to play catch up.
I don’t see why “they do it too” should be a justification for ourselves doing it. America likes to hold itself to higher standards than that. It’s what makes it the best country in the world.
And as you say, there is a difference between talking and accurate information. Saying anything you think they want to hear just to end the pain is just that, saying anything you think they want to hear just to end the pain.
Speaking of which, here’s the example of a “military-type” I was thinking of when making my argument. He developed a system of gaining rapport with the prisioners that ended up leading to the killing of Al-Queda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
I do know one counter-argument to it, though. “Developing rapport takes time and isn’t useful for when an attack is imminent.” To that I don’t have a good answer, but just a question. Are attacks ever so imminent that we never know anything about them beforehand? We seem to have a pretty good intelligence system that has allowed us to take down several planned attacks before their “in-action” stage.
Obviously, you don’t understand the terrorist ideology, just because a nice agent decided to make friends with terrorists, for maybe years or months, even that does not always lead to results.
Terrorists have beliefs and an ideology that no matter how much you pretend to be their friends, they know what you are and who you are. Infidel.
I didn’t argue that “they do it too”, I argued that when they gather intelligence using any method they can, we should have the same ability too.
And in addition, the United States doesn’t use torture anyway, it uses enhanced interrogation techniques, and psychological techniques to force someone to reveal information. Fear is a very powerful motivator, so is the fear of pain.
We have stopped numerous, numerous terrorist attacks because of these techniques. They all have legal basis as well. Bush himself said this.
I don’t see what sort of standard you are talking about, do you think, our standard will make our enemies go “Oh, US is so lovely, they never torture.” Even if there was not ONE INSTANCE of torture in the United States, there would still be rumors of torture nevertheless.
Show me one instance where a nation’s benevolence during war has been rewarded or acknowledged.
BalloonJuice has a post about the 24 BS.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=15487
This update nails it in the kiester(sp):
*** Update ***
I think it is time to ask our brave patriots again (Maher clip here):
“Would you have sex with another man to stop a terrorist attack?”
That sounds like a “they do it this way, so we should too” argument to me. Can’t see any other way of interpreting it.
By the way, and you might disagree with the findings, the Senate Armed Services Committee recently released a report detailing the torture, or enhanced interrogation techniques, whatever you want to call it, committed at Gitmo and Abu Grahib. Many were developed by such human rights followers as Communist China.
The report was signed off by, among others, John McCain, who knows a thing or two about being tortured.
As for standards, I think when you make yourself a leader in the world, you automatically must adopt a set of standards that sets you apart from those who would do evil. That way, you are better than them. I don’t care what Al-Qaeda thinks of us. Whatever we do, they’re still going to come after us. Those people are already lost. We’re not adopting standards for their liking, but for those hearts and minds we can win.
One person who thinks we should adopt a set of standards is General David Patraeus:
“Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we – not our enemies – occupy the moral high ground.”
The quote is from a memo sent by Patraeus in May 2007 to troops under his command where he argues that sanctioning such techniques are wrong and ineffective.
And finally, benevolence seems to have done us well pretty recently. After all, the Anbar Awakening made great strides. I’d call that pretty benevolent.
@Crimson Politics
Torture is wrong. Jesus did not die on the cross for us the way he did so that we could show humans of any sort inhumanity. We need to remember that there will be a judgement for all that we do, say and yes think. We should keep our eyes on treating others the way we would want to be treated not on torturing anyone. If torture was the true way to treat our enemies then why would we be told to treat them as we would want to be treated. Torture is wrong, and we will pay for what torture we put on another human being regardless of their belief system or laws. One of the 10 commandments is, thou shalt not kill, torture in many cases leads to death and then there you go with your enemies blood on your hands.
Michael, there is another interpretation you keep ignoring: When they gather intelligence without fear of someone criticizing them, they are able to gather intelligence better than we do.
Their organizations have become more adapted, better able to keep secrets, and better able to hide weapons and to communicate plans of attack better. This increases all the time.
We need to use better techniques to gather information from captured suspects. If an agent “tortures” someone to get information like the whereabouts of a known AQ leader, then it is all worth it. These people do not talk. What you don’t understand is what kind of people we are dealing with, they think we are all going to hell, they believe it. They believe we are pagans who are ruining the world, to them they are saving the world through their violent acts. They have no remorse either.
They aren’t going to tell an American anything, and neither are the ones who are afraid of the terrorists. There is NO other way to gain intelligence from terrorist organizations.
@H B
Torture does not lead to death. That is a harsh style of torture. There are many better ways than to wound the man. And even the church has tortured many people in the past.
And like I said before Michael, even if there is not one instance of torture in any prison camp for terrorists. The world will say there is, and rumors will spread that there is. They have been saying that America tortures people for the past 100 years, it’s nothing new, and it’s not because we do it excessively, it’s because people assume so.
And I’m not talking about the kind of torture you’re thinking of, like the way those soldiers abusing prisoners were revealed with photos– that incident was just prison guard abuse. A very sociological concept that happens in many prisons.