Why is the element of suspended disbelief apparent to everyone except Dahlia Lithwick? Her misleading title which all-consumes the "Fox Network"- rather than simply the show- was not surprising, given her attitudes towards the show's implications on torture. The puzzling part, however, is how is she able to cross theory and highly-visual examples, and transcend them to honestly believing people use the protagonist Bauer in everyday application with regard to terrorism practices.

Lithwick is quick to remind us (herself?) that Bauer is indeed a "fictional" character. While we all appreciate the memo, It is clear that Lithwick gets her intel on '24' from others, and not the show itself; however, the origins of America's interrogation practices are on SEAR training: a long shot- both historically and practically- from '24's Jack Bauer.

Lithwick states, "Jack Bauer would have known these men were not "ticking time bombs" inside of 10 minutes. Our real-life heroes had to torture them for years before realizing they were innocent."

So which one is it? Are we set on continually torturing these individuals until they talk or until we find they are innocent- even if that takes a lifetime? Or, like Jack, do we quickly- and sometimes only quasi dispassionately- assess the situation and go on the oftentimes fruitful outcome we produce? These are drastically different paradigms to base interrogation practices.

She further states, "The lawyers who were dead set on unleashing an army of Jack Bauers against our enemies built a whole torture policy around a fictional character. But Bauer himself could have told them that one Jack Bauer—a man who deliberately lives outside the boundaries of law—would have been more than enough."

Two things. One, where is the proof that actual, tangible doctrine has been, in fact, created on and because of Bauer? Secondly, Lithwick ignores the whole appeal of Bauer: he IS one man, and a one-man army, bent on taking down terror cells while embracing and departing from the set policy of both CTU and the White House as he sees fit. Because fans know this, it flies in the face of her argument that we would ever set policy around a rebel of that policy. That is a novel policy in and of itself.

"Two things. One, where is the proof that actual,
tangible doctrine has been, in fact, created on
and because of Bauer?"

I'm sure that the Bush torture policies were not
based on "24". I'm also sure that the administration
has always been very aware of the importance and
effectiveness of torture, not so much to elicit
any kind of information, but to inspire fear
in their opponents, and adulation from their
bloodthirsty supporters.

The problem with torture though is that it is
intrinsically evil. This creates a bit of an
internal PR problem for a country that prides
itself on being good (i.e. not evil). Luckily
for the administration Fox came up with a solution.

Up until "24", torturers were pretty uniformly
portrayed as creepy and evil. Up until "24" torture
was used as a plot devise to show just how evil
the villain really is, and thus why it is so
important that the hero prevail.

But... "24" changed all that. Jack Bauer, the
torturer is portrayed as heroic and glamorous.
"24" also provides moral justification and
cover for torture. Thus making it orders of
magnitude easier for people with a sadistic
(or just callous) bent to justify to themselves
and others their support for torture.

Our interrogation methods transcend and precede this administration- something you and Lithwick seem to ignore, or at the very least forget. FOX did not pitch the show in order to move public sway and endorsement on torture methods in extracting vital information form terrorists. Yet other aspects that Lithwick- in her limited scope and depth of the show- failed to mention is that 24 first aired less than 2 months after September 11th; and the prevalence of torture in primetime television as a whole before and after the event.

According to Human Rights First, the incidence of torture in television shows went from 42 scenes of torture on prime-time US television in 2000, while in 2003 there were 228. The events post 9/11 have shaped the public, not a television show which was shaped before the event.

Secondly, never minding that our military has had issues with the show itself, and has met with 24 producers to curtail the incidents of torture used in the show, It is the novelty of the show and the lead role that I have spoken of- and you now echo- which further illustrates my point that the reason why 24 is used in scenarios concerning torture methods at all. The “real-time” nature of the series confers a strong sense of urgency, one that is, in many cases a real characteristic of modern warfare- Intel and gouge concerning terrorist activity goes from good to useless in a matter of minutes.*

Indeed, even the man playing the lead role sums the situation the way it should be: "You torture someone and they'll basically tell you exactly what you want to hear, whether it's true or not, if you put someone in enough pain... Within the context of our show, which is a fantastical show to begin with, the torture is a dramatic device to show you how desperate a situation is."

Concerning the importance of torture for the peripheral affects it has- the active engagement of torture on terrorists is not actively seen by our enemies, and therefore not affective, except to illicit myths and rumors about American devils torturing freedom fighters. But this would happen on any level of interrogation, not simply ones involving torture.

The fact that we actively debate the issue shows our moral high ground above and beyond terrorist orgs and NGO's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* This is the reason why America was criticized by Pakistan when it went in to take an Al Qaida number 2 man out without going through the red tape and bureaucracy involved in the current practice. But again- this has nothing to do with the show itself, nor any possible examples which higher ups in the Federal Government may infer from it.

"Our interrogation methods transcend and precede this administration- something you and Lithwick seem to ignore, or at the very least forget. "

This administration is the first to claim that torture should be legal. Critical difference.

Justice Scalia has on at least two occasions to my knowledge used Jack Bauer as a defense for our actions. USMA has had to tell people that this isn't real world. Others have claimed that members of our administration thought of themselves as little "Jack Bauers". Doesn't all this at least sort of prove Dahlia's point?

Wrong. This administration has never once stated that torture (for interrogation purposes) should be legalized. In fact, Bush put forth a directive in February 2002 that set new rules for handling prisoners captured in Afghanistan, broadly cited the need for "new thinking in the law of war" and ordered that all people detained as part of the fight against terrorism be treated humanely even if they were deemed by the United States not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions. Until then, prior SECDEF Rumsfeld had ordered use of dogs, changes in diet, and isolation for interrogation purposes. That is not torture.

Further, I am under the very strong suspicion that, "to [your] knowledge," Scalia has only twice used a "Jack" scenario only because Lithwick stated that she had come across two- but not as legal "defense." The "Jack Bauer" clause does not exist in jurisprudence or international law, so you'll forgive me if I require both proof of Scalia using Bauer scenarios as legal defense, and that "Others have claimed that members of our [A]dministration [have] thought of themselves as "little Jack Bauers."

And no- it doesn't "prove" anything, except that both you and Lithwick are grasping at straws in an attempt to make an asinine connection.

AlaskaBoy wrote:

"FOX did not pitch the show in order to move public
sway and endorsement on torture methods in extracting
vital information form terrorists."

Personally I think that Fox created this show to
increase public support for torture. I don't think
they care which "torture methods" are used, nor do
they care why the torture is used (although fighting
terrorism has been used as justification for thousands
of years by tyrants and dictators).

Torture has been an essential tool of tyranny and
dictatorship since the dawn of civilization.

You look at today's world, in which countries is torture
used extensively by the government?

Lets see, there's: China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran,
Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Morocco, Nepal, North Korea,
Pakistan, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Uganda, and Uzbekistan.

<link>

<link>

And up until just a few years ago, it was liberal
democracies that eschewed torture.

AlaskaBoy wrote:

"According to Human Rights First, the incidence of torture
in television shows went from 42 scenes of torture on prime-time
US television in 2000, while in 2003 there were 228. The events
post 9/11 have shaped the public, not a television show which
was shaped before the event."

AlaskaBoy also wrote:

"failed to mention is that 24 first aired less than 2 months
after September 11th"

That's right, 911 and the start of "24" both happened at about
the same time. You *could* argue that the torture-fest on TV
was caused by 911, but you could equally argue that it was
actually caused by "24".

Interestingly, Pearl Harbor didn't cause public acceptance
of torture. In fact in World War II movies, it's always the
Nazis that do the torturing.

AlaskaBoy wrote:

"Wrong. This administration has never once stated that
torture (for interrogation purposes) should be legalized.
In fact, Bush put forth a directive in February 2002 that
set new rules for handling prisoners captured in Afghanistan,
broadly cited the need for "new thinking in the law of war"
and ordered that all people detained as part of the fight
against terrorism be treated humanely even if they were
deemed by the United States not to be protected by the
Geneva Conventions. Until then, prior SECDEF Rumsfeld
had ordered use of dogs, changes in diet, and isolation
for interrogation purposes. That is not torture."

Ah, so you defend both pro-torture propaganda, and
you defend the administation's use of torture.

What a coincidence.

Ummm...I just got done stating that the use of dogs, changes in diet, and isolation does NOT qualify as torture. Also, it is not correct to say "The administration's use of torture." The administration doesn't use torture on anyone. They aren't the ones interrogating terrorists at Gitmo. The CIA, NSA, and agents from CENTCOM are the ones doing it.

In addition, I have no idea what you mean by "pro-torture propaganda," 24? Bush's directive? Subsequent directives? You need to be more specific. In any case, I have not endorsed anything that would promote torture as an addition to interrogation methods. I have only stated that drawing spurious connections between a fictional television show and actual interrogation policy is ignorant and blatantly partisan on Lithwick's part.

First of all, you're blindingly partisan. FOX did not create this show at all. Do you even know how television shows get put on networks? Writers and producers pitch the show to network(s), and hope to get a pilot and a few starting episodes contracted.

Since torture has undoubtedly been used by administrations before Bush's cabinet came on the scene, your direct correlation to the use of torture to only "dictators and tyrants" is spurious. Yeah, right- Liberals hate torture and everyone else embraces it. Tell that to all the Liberals that voted in favor of the recent interrogation Bill passed in 2006. In addition, you do not touch on the prevalence of the practice as a supplement to interrogation- you only state that it is "used extensively." How extensively? Your entire post is one, big assumption, and does not refute the fact that this has nothing to do with the television show 24.

No. You cannot argue that anything was caused by 24, simply because the television show and 9/11 occurred "at about the same time."

Again, you have no idea how television shows are even made. Do you know the production timeline for major prime time television shows? 24 aired less than 2 months after 9/11. That means the first season and at least part of the second season was written, shot, and produced long before 9/11.

Let us say, for the sake of your ridiculous argument, that 9/11 did happen at the same time that 24 was written and that they did occur at the same time. It still would not explain the incidents of torture on prime time television before 9/11, nor would it directly link the show 24 with all subsequent use of harsh interrogation methods. These can simply be said to have arisen from 9/11 as they could be seen as using 24 as TV precedence in following suit.

The fact is that 9/11 changed the social paradigm through which torture/interrogation methods are seen. 24 came around long before this structure shift took place, and you're being naive if you think otherwise.

Someday, perhaps soon, our "torturing" of suspected (I know--"suspected") terrorists is going to reveal a plot, a scheme, a WMD planted in Grand Central, and that torture is going to save, not only hundreds of thousands of lives, but our very way of life. An important point in the column was made when Lithwick inadvertently mentioned how our mistakes--arrests and coercions of suspects that are, in fact, actually innocent--results in their (the victims) "walking away", presumably to resume their lives. This is a not-small distinction between "us" and "them." When captured by terrorists, we don't walk away, ever. And obviously they don't torture to gather information, and presumably save lives, either. They torture as a matter of vindictiveness. Everyday there are children killed by previously convicted drunk drivers. There are millions of felonious illegal aliens in this country (millions), protected by local city governments who call themselves "sanctuary cities" and refuse to obey federal law and deport. So the 17, or 27, or 42 unfortunates who were, in the course of these times, arrested and threatened with dog rape, and then water boarded, who were in-fact innocent, are nothing compared to the natural injustices of crime and chance, or the intentional liberal protection of the guilty at all cost. So long as our government frees the handful of wrongly accused, all in the name of protecting us, these slight numbers mean nothing to me compared to what could be gained. After all, it isn't the waterboarding of a few innocents that is going to bring down this republic.

AlaskaBoy wrote:

"Ummm...I just got done stating that the use of
dogs, changes in diet, and isolation does NOT qualify
as torture. Also, it is not correct to say "The
administration's use of torture." The administration
doesn't use torture on anyone. They aren't the ones
interrogating terrorists at Gitmo. The CIA, NSA, and
agents from CENTCOM are the ones doing it."

According to the Washington Post:

"President Bush vetoed Saturday legislation meant
to ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other
harsh interrogation tactics... Bush's long-expected
veto reignites the Washington debate over the proper
limits of U.S. interrogation policies and whether
the CIA has engaged in torture by subjecting
prisoners to severe tactics, including
waterboarding, a type of simulated drowning."

<link>

AlaskaBoy wrote:

"Again, you have no idea how television shows are
even made. Do you know the production timeline for
major prime time television shows? 24 aired less
than 2 months after 9/11. That means the first
season and at least part of the second season
was written, shot, and produced long before 9/11."

That's exactly my point, "24" was designed to
promote torture *before* 911 happened.
If 911 had never happened "24" would still have gone
on TV and promoted torture.

"nor would it directly link the show 24 with all
subsequent use of harsh interrogation methods."

Well I certainly never said that. What I am arguing
is that "24" promotes the idea that torturers are
misunderstood heroes (not disgusting creeps). And
that "24" promotes the idea that torture is wholly
justified when there is a ticking time-bomb (or
when the torturer-hero thinks there is a ticking
time-bomb).

You're right that "24" is not the only source
for torture on TV. But, before "24" torture
on TV was pretty rare. "24" really was the first
show to make torture the centerpiece of the show,
and the first show to make a professional torturer
the hero of his own show. This really was a
breakthrough. Once "24" became so successful, other
shows quickly imitated it's torture-loving ways,
and torture on TV went way up.

"It still would not explain the incidents of torture
on prime time television before 9/11, nor would it
directly link the show 24 with all subsequent use
of harsh interrogation methods. These can simply
be said to have arisen from 9/11 as they could be
seen as using 24 as TV precedence in following suit."

Most people are arguing that 911 *caused* the increase
in torture on TV. But since, as you point out, "24"
first aired just 2 months after 911, it is just as
plausible to argue "24" was the inspiration.

And of course, there is not way to argue that 911
inspired "24", since, as you point out, the first
season of "24" was written and filmed *before* 911.

That Bill and subsequent veto came over 6 years after the practices I stated took place. Further, a veto of a Bill limiting CIA interrogation methods is not the same thing as promoting torture, that the administration uses torture itself (again, I highly doubt anyone from Bush's cabinet has ever spoken directly to many terrorists, let alone tortured them). It also fails to link the show 24 to the events surrounding the Bill: Lithwick's rediculous belief.