« 3! | Main | Social Security And Freedom »
More 24 Blogging
See what Henley has to say. I'll just add that Episode One's portrayal of torture as an easy, moral method of rapidly acquiring accurate information from suspected terrorists sort of undermines the whole show's plotting. If you can really get the bad guys to fess up in 90 seconds by putting a bullet in someone's knee, then Bauer should be torturing people all the time and not pussyfooting around with all this satellite surveillance, deception, etc. But now all of a sudden what was a great idea Sunday night doesn't even seem to be on the table. If only CTU would abandon these liberal pieties and start organizing some death squads, then we could lick this problem.
January 11, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834577fa869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More 24 Blogging:
» Jack is Back from Cobb
I'm three hours into the new season of '24'. The best part so far is that we have not had to endure Jack turning CTU upside down on behalf of his daughter. But we are repeating several of the strengths... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 11, 2005 12:36:55 PM
» 24 Little Hours from Unqualified Offerings
24 Little Hours - Matt points out something I hadn't properly appreciated, because I am slow: the internal inconsistency of... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 11, 2005 9:47:30 PM
» Good Grief from Balloon Juice
Here we go again. In a previous post, I was jokingly pointing out to Matt that 24 was in fact... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 12, 2005 12:19:14 AM
Comments
they used a little hostage-taking in the second season, IIRC. bad guy's family's tied up, about to be executed by Jack's people. bad guy doesn't believe it. Jack approves simulated execution of bad guy's child, at which point bad guy spills the beans. hooray !
Posted by: cleek | Jan 11, 2005 10:44:12 AM
Matt,
judging from the first episode, torture was portrayed as an effective means of getting information in a timely fashion. CTU's liberal pieties came into play before Bauer's involvement.
Also, had you followed the series at all, every time torture is used on the bad guys, it works.
Of course, had we followed the Yglesias Method of offering terrorists warm soup, a quiet spot, and earnest conversation, nukes would have gone off in Los Angeles
But, then, 'Sledge Hammer!' already had that.
Posted by: MYGoodness | Jan 11, 2005 11:13:13 AM
the Yglesias Method of offering terrorists warm soup, a quiet spot, and earnest conversation
And if we'd followed the troll method of dancing along with strawmen, we'd be at the Emerald City before we knew it. You stupid cuntstick.
Posted by: ahem | Jan 11, 2005 11:17:11 AM
> IIRC. bad guy's family's tied up, about to be
> executed by Jack's people. bad guy doesn't believe it.
> Jack approves simulated execution of bad guy's child, at
> which point bad guy spills the beans. hooray !
If you thought that someone, regardless of whether he considered himself a "good guy" or "bad guy", had deliberatly killed your child, would you give that person ANY information under ANY circumstances? Particularly since you can pretty much figure out that after you give him the information he will kill you and the rest of your family anyway?
No, I think you would hold out through any torture unto death, after that. Not quite as neat for the "good guys" though.
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jan 11, 2005 11:22:23 AM
Matt. Don't drink the Republiclown Kool-Aid. Come back to the reality based community and let the right whingers rail about the entertainment that doesn't fit their ideology. Besides, hopefully this will convince the right whingers to defend the use of torture even more than they are now.
Posted by: Robert McClelland | Jan 11, 2005 11:29:46 AM
ahem ....
feel better?
Cheers
MyG
Posted by: MYGoodness | Jan 11, 2005 12:07:06 PM
The terrorists in this season do seem remarkably wimpy. The "hostile" whom Jack is following right now in particular seems eminently "breakable." I worry that Jack isn't thinking so much about the best call to make as about the possibility of rescuing his girlfriend personally.
I can say these things because I accept that I'm watching a fictional show that takes place in a fantasy world in which torture works.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Jan 11, 2005 12:15:59 PM
Yes, the sooner we all come to grips that THIS IS A TV SHOW, the sooner you come to enjoy it for what it is, pure entertainment.
Posted by: Adrock | Jan 11, 2005 12:20:56 PM
I can say these things because I accept that I'm watching a fictional show that takes place in a fantasy world in which torture works.
Yes, this is the key. The important concept here is escapism. It's just supposed to be fun, not necessarily follow any sort of real-world sense. Doesn't anyone remember the 25th amendment process from last season when all the cabinet members used some sort of funky computer program to vote the President out? Come on!
Anyway, the point is not that torture can break terrorists easily. It's that Jack Bauer is a super-human who is always good, right, and unstoppable. He is my hero.
Posted by: right | Jan 11, 2005 12:25:20 PM
Yes, the sooner we all come to grips that THIS IS A TV SHOW, the sooner you come to enjoy it for what it is, pure entertainment.Unfortunately, these TV shows are used as frames and filters to control the reality-based debate. Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Jan 11, 2005 12:28:06 PM
House music. TV dramas. Any comment on the House of Givenchy's fall couture collection?
Reading Yglesias comment on pop culture is like watching old people walk across an icy street: Any resemblance to someone who actually knows what he's doing is purely coincidental.
Posted by: Jimmy | Jan 11, 2005 12:40:45 PM
Don't worry. It is fairly obvious that the kidnapping of the SecDef is a diversion.
What is with the briefcases?
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jan 11, 2005 12:56:34 PM
Loved this 1st episode of the 4th seasons. I didn't see season 1 or 2 - is Jack's daughter around? Did she die?
Posted by: JC | Jan 11, 2005 1:03:16 PM
If you can really get the bad guys to fess up in 90 seconds by putting a bullet in someone's knee, then Bauer should be torturing people all the time and not pussyfooting around with all this satellite surveillance, deception, etc.
Actually, this analysis is flawed in terms of risk. In really, you have a certain probability that this policy will work, and another probability that it will fail in some catastrophic way and you wind up with no information, a bullet in somebody's knee, and a criminal investigation. Even if the probability of success is high, a low probability of catastrophe may make the policy have negative value on average. This alone would no rule out using it when other options have failed--though a sense of decency ought to.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Jan 11, 2005 1:06:51 PM
Here's my guess at the terrorist plot: the hackers are going
to bring down all computers and communications (which
incidentally is going to make CTU pretty useless - though I sure
would like to see Chloe using her people skills in the field :-),
the briefcase is some kind of encrypted secure communication/
command device (like the nuclear "football", but not necessarily
exactly that) which will allow the SecDef (based on biometric
authentication) to unleash some kind of chaos - either causing US
forces to attack themselves, or else misdirecting them away from
a real attack.
I would also like to think that the Turkish/Middle-Eastern
appearance of the bad guys is all a smokescreen, and that the
plot is really being run by evil corporate types. But that's
probably too much reality to hope for.
Posted by: Richard Cownie | Jan 11, 2005 1:09:51 PM
My guess is that it will be revealed at some point that the Sec of Def and president really have committed some atrocious crimes that they are trying to hide. The first episode was a set-up to get you on the side of kicking the terrorists asses, but once it's revealed that the administration isn't completely innocent there will be more moral ambiguity. Just a hunch.
Posted by: brayden | Jan 11, 2005 1:14:10 PM
Correction - I saw season 1, didn't see season 2 or 3. Did Bauer's daughter (the lovely one) die, or did she just leave the show?
Posted by: JC | Jan 11, 2005 2:13:22 PM
Bauer's daughter, her boyfriend, President Palmer, Michelle, Tony Almeda and the whole supporting cast have moved on. They didn't die, they're just at different places in their lives.
It makes for a second rate show. There was no reason to scrub the cast, that cast worked. Now we have to build relationships with all these new people and it ain't working. Acting has been forced and lousy and uninteresting.
Episodes 1, 2, & 3, I thought sucked. Episode 4, now that was vintage 24 with Jack operating in real time, using his ingenuity and not doing superhuman Sidney Bristow, SD6 type stuff, just using common sense to get things done.
As for the torture, that whole torture thing is played out and they need to give it up. It was a novel notion in season 2, when the President had to permit the torture of his Chief of Staff, and that generated all the big questions. But it's done and played out--come on, torturing the SecDef's son?? Is that nuts or what? In the US of A? And it's not like they know he has anything useful. That was a stupid piece of writing.
It is true that the villains here are weak as characters. Season 1's villains rocked, Season 2, were very interesting, Season 3's, the Salazaars, were great, and of course there was the ubiquitous Nina Myers. This Azar family and the others are not compelling. I'll stop before I get ultra carried away.
Posted by: Ono | Jan 11, 2005 7:26:15 PM
Yeah Matt, I said the same thing last night on your other 24 thread if you want to give me any credit for it.
Otherwise, the two arguments against Jack using torture on the 2nd suspect are poor.
1. This is a TV show, you need to suspend your disbelief - this argument is fact, but it's also the first cry of a bad soap opera. It works with every TV show.
2. The probability of catastrophic failure is just too great verses the near certainty of a successful outcome by following the guy. - this argument ignores the fact that the probability of a successful outcome using torture is 100%. Everybody talks.
Posted by: Just Karl | Jan 11, 2005 7:44:12 PM
Ono,
Thanks. Too bad they didn't keep her though.
Posted by: JC | Jan 11, 2005 8:10:48 PM
He got the information from the terrorist, but it was too late for him to prevent the kidnapping, so it was all for nothing.
The first episode was a set-up to get you on the side of kicking the terrorists asses, but once it's revealed that the administration isn't completely innocent there will be more moral ambiguity.
This was the first episode of 24 I've ever watched, so I'm not really tuned in. When the SecDef was kidnapped, it took me awhile to realize that the audience was supposed to think this was a bad thing; I felt first disoriented and then actually resentful when I found I was expected to root for him.
I'll be much more comfortable if it turns out that he's a bad guy, I'm afraid. O tempore, O mores...
Posted by: Swift Loris | Jan 11, 2005 10:11:43 PM
The only argument for ticking time bomb type torture that makes any sense to me is this:
You adhere to the Geneva Conventions on torture in general (none of this Guantanamo, Abu Gharib Gulag crap). But if you find yourself in a situation involving imminent danger (note to David Frumm- that's imminent, not incipient danger), you do what you have to do.
Afterwards you throw yourself on the mercy of the court and take your lumps if the rule of law finds insufficient mitigating factors.
Of course that violates the norm of risk free leadership so prevalent in today's chickenhawks. Anyone lacking the courage to physically put him/her self in harm's way can't be expected to exercise its moral equivalent.
Posted by: Armasgettin' | Jan 11, 2005 10:49:55 PM
Note to myself: That's Frum not Frumm
Posted by: Armasgettin' | Jan 11, 2005 10:58:48 PM
Doesn't it seem like imminent danger is somehow more dangerous than actual danger. Torture is justified when it's used on a hunch about a suspect before anything's even happened. But once the SecDef is actually kidnapped, torture is off the table. It's not as effective as surveillance by a repositioned satellite guided by a rouge agent in a hostile government agency which is currently focused on searching for you.
But if I had my way they would have to rename the show "4"
Posted by: Just Karl | Jan 11, 2005 11:29:48 PM
" If you can really get the bad guys to fess up in 90 seconds by putting a bullet in someone's knee, then Bauer should be torturing people all the time and not pussyfooting around with all this satellite surveillance, deception, etc."
Is that really what you think? That torture should be employed if it's very effective?
Posted by: John T. Kennedy | Jan 12, 2005 1:05:50 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
