The right's Jack Bauer fetish

Sad to see that James Bond seems to be moving in this direction, too. Casino Royale ended with Bond seemingly about to torture the villainous Mr. White, though we'll have to wait until the next film to see what happens.

But as Dougherty points out with reference to Bauer, it's a dangerous temptation for conservatives to accept and esteem a fantasy figure who breaks the law -- especially the moral law (e.g., torture) -- in the service of his mission. I think there's some question whether Bauer is breaking the moral law in applying unpleasant interrogation techniques to thugs who wish to murder innocent civilians, often by the tens of thousands. That question is part of what makes 24 interesting despite its apparently pedestrian dialogue. It is presumptuous to act as if everyone agrees that Jack Bauer acts immorally, though it wouldn't surprise me if this post leads to arguably strained condemnations of the Bush Administration, in the footsteps of Mark Shea or Andrew Sullivan.

I've never watched the program, but if the descriptions in the AC piece are accurate, they're certainly transgressions of the moral law. Of course, I may be mired in outdated Enlightenment thinking about inalienable rights...

Watched this show for the first time this year. Made it through about 4 episodes. Not representative of "honor," but hey..it entertains some folks, right?

Rod: I've long felt that The American Conservative was the only truly principled conservative publication out there, which is why I've been a subscriber since 2004. It's a fantastic magazine, and a very consistent one, which is rare in these days. Bubba: It's still breaking moral law if you subscribe to moral absolutes. Of course, if you don't if you believe in moral relativism and utilitarianism then at least you're not being inconsistent.
"Some people are more upset at a fictional character doing the hard, necessary thing to save upwards of millions of lives than they are about the beheading of flesh-and-blood journalist." Yeah? Like who? Who watched that video and wasn't upset? And what does one have to do with the other? The problem with holding up Jack Bauer as a template for how we should be acting is that it's fiction Jack Bauer virtually always knows for a fact that the person he's torturing has the information he needs, his intelligence is always flawless. Doesn't work like that in real life. And it's always a "ticking time bomb" scenario, which basically never occurs in real life at all.
Even if it did, governments don't just torture ticking time bombs, because nobody can know for certain whether a suspect really is a ticking bomb you don't know whether a person knows where the bomb is, or even if they're telling the truth. Why stop with the bomber? Why not torture the person who could introduce you to the cousin who knows someone who might have planted the bomb? Why not torture the wife and kids? Why not torture his friends? All of this becomes justified and you end up going down a slippery slope and sanctioning torture in general. And once torture becomes common practice, it undermines a society's democratic norms. We cannot defend what we stand for by subverting our own values in the process.

Bubba said: "...we are a civilization that understands that a classically liberal society must have an illiberal organization (the military) that sometimes engages in illiberal behavior to protect that society from external threats." In this regard, Bubba, you might be interested in what Sam Harris has to say about the ethics of torture, warfare and pacifism in his book, "The End of Faith."
He believes that there is no real difference, ethically speaking, between a decision to bomb that leads to civilian casualties and torture. (And he believes that both are necessary in some cases.)
And he believes that pacifism is both unethical and also cowardly.

There have also been some pro-torture storylines on Lost that were fairly disturbing. Unlike on 24, the guys on Lost freely admitted that they didn't know whether the guy they were torturing was innocent or not - that was their justification for doing it.
I've also noticed a pattern on 24. When bad guys get tortured, they always talk and the information they give is always accurate. But the good guys never break under torture. They always either say nothing or say something false that tricks the bad guys. Real life, I gather, doesn't work that way.

Bubba, who, exactly, is claiming we're now indistinguishable from our enemies? Anyway, "not as bad as al-Qaeda" isn't a very high standard to aspire to. Josiah, I'd argue that the Lost storylines regarding torture are far more ambiguous (and therefore more interesting than a simple pro-torture position would be).

That is why I hope the "surge" (or escalation, if you prefer) in Iraq works, and why I cannot join my friends in the Peace Movement who are advocating withdrawal from Iraq.
Not just because the war won't end for the U.S. if we withdraw (although we may get a temporary respite) but because I don't hear anyone in the "pro-withdrawal" camp explaining what they will do if withdrawal (or redeployment) results in a bloodbath. Simply advocating peace now does not seem to me to be a responsible position.

Having never seen "24" and having never heard of Jack Bauer before today, I'm not sure what to make of him. But to me, the really scandalous thing highlighted by Dougherty's piece is the way so many conservative opinion leaders take their cues from pop culture.
Moronic.

A someone who lost a dear friend and numeorus neighbors on 9/11, if you could go back to 9/10 and torture KSM or whomever to stop it, done.And I would lose no sleep about it. Remember in the Cold War agents on both sides understood capture meant torture and death. Instead we now give these enemies with even less uniform cover than covert Soviet spies attorneys and constitutional protections for their belongings and communications. That is what's crazy. And the bleatings opf the odd supposedly-innocent Mohammed-without-papers being jailed in America should act as a cautionary tale to discourage those who would violate our laws in the first place. If Andrew Sullivan wishes to hold his copy of the Constiution as protective cover from the next and inevitable attack, so be it. But the rest of us don't have to do that. And even in 24, what is the greater good-a Soviet throwback appartchik's digit or millions of American lives?

Here's a tantalizing question. What good does it do if you are the moral good guy and lose a war? Once you lose, all your high standards disappear. In "24" the reason people tolerate Jack Bauer's extreme behavior is because of the fictional predicament that is presented; and that predicament is that the republic is literally hanging in the balance. If CTU loses, then control of the republic is lost.
O.K. that's the fictional world presented on 24. What about our real world? As unpleasant as it is to consider, we can afford to lose in Iraq. We can still have our national way of life if we decide to go home. But, we must also know that international terrorism can grow in that post-war scenario to levels that are fictionally presented on 24. If we have our backs to the wall, is there any doubt that America would resort to unlimited brutality to save our nation?

reddopto: if it ever comes to the point where the republic is literally hanging in the balance where we are about to be exterminated and we have our backs to the wall then of course we would resort to unlimited brutality to save our nation. But that is not the case, and it is unlikely to ever be the case. Bubba: who is granting terrorists "unprecedented legal rights"? Who is even arguing for such a thing? "Recognizing the tradeoff between a terrorist's physical comfort and the lives of those who may be endangered by those plans, and then erring on the side of the latter does not necessarily entail fear. Even if it did, that alone isn't proof the terrorists have won." I'm not trying to goad you, honestly. I'm making a sober observation. Conservatives are traditionally wary of the state Big Government and historically have tried to minimize it. But we get attacked on our own soil and all of a sudden they're supporting the largest government expansion in history, clamoring for restricted freedoms, backing torture and the suspension of habeas corpus.
The right wing websites I used to frequent were full of warnings that the government had authorized concentration camps to be instituted in case of a state of emergency they were against that, I feel necessary to note and now we have prominent conservatives arguing for detainment camps. The difference? One terrorist attack.

I remember running out of an auditorium at a software user conference where they had a motivational speaker doing his shtick. This guy was so horrendous... he was also a psychologist and an ordained Methodist minister. I still shudder years later...... Anyway, that was truly TORTURE, man. If I had been tied in my seat I would have sold out my mom just to make it stop. Were the people running the conference responsible for that? Sponsors? Users of the software? I'm telling you, it was at least as bad as Abu Gharib, IMHO. YMMV. FFT. IJS.

Bubba: I didn't say the terrorists win if we torture one of them, I'm saying they win if we institutionalize torture because the normal defenders against the government overstepping it's bounds abandon their ideals out of fear of another attack. Look, I live in NYC I was here on 9/11, I watched it firsthand. I'm well aware of the dangers we face. I am in daily peril living and working in the #1 target for any terrorist attack, and I'm acutely aware of how easy it would be to collapse a subway tunnel when I'm in it. Yet I still recognize that if I ever get killed by a Middle Easterner, the chances are it's going to be a cab driver. Even living here, the chances of me dying in a terrorist attack are infinitesimal. That being the case, I am not personally willing to extend more authoritarian power to the state, particularly not powers as unsavory as torture. A rogue agent wants to torture a known terrorist? Fine. I don't really care. But official state policy? No thanks.

bubba, you are taking me (knowingly, IMO) out of context. To show an example of how you did this, let's just take your reply to me. You say: we are a civilization that understands that a classically liberal society must have an illiberal organization (the military) that sometimes engages in illiberal behavior to protect that society from external threats. At least, we used to be. Hmm...you claim that our civilization doesn't have "the military...to protect...society from external threats." So, you think we have no military! QED. Of course you said no such thing. As I did not say what you claim. You were making a snarky point that was not meant to be taken in a literal manner. I was doing the same. You must know this; however, you seek to score points by ripping my point out of context. Sad.
Some people are more upset at a fictional character doing the hard, necessary thing to save upwards of millions of lives than they are about the beheading of flesh-and-blood journalist. If torture is wrong or right, what difference does it make if those people care or not about beheadings? None. This sort of run-around adds nothing to the debate. You might as well focus on someone's bad spelling to debunk their point.

David, clearly, you don't like what I wrote, but the least you could do is level a complain that bears a passing resemblance to reality: you accuse me of taking your comment out of context, and I did no such thing.
Guav, "the terrorists have clearly already beaten you" suggests more than "a" singular victory. I'm not sure I agree with you that our institutionalizing harsh forms of interrogation would achieve some of al Queda's goals, but at least you are now approaching actual sobreity in your writing.

What seem so lost in the "24"/ticking bomb scenarios defending torture is how unlikely those scenarios are in real life. Do the prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo really have knowlege of impending attacks on the U.S.? Can the interagators honestly say they believed those prisoners may have that information? And if so what do they base those assumption on? I don't wish to make excuses for torture but if the ticking bomb scenario really was taking place and a CIA operative stepped over the line to be able to obtain information to stop such a blame, I won't lose any sleep. However what the U.S. government's current pro-torture policy is so widespread it is doubtful even .01% of torture victims could be reasonably assumed as having information concerning a ticking bomb plot. Even if they did, considering Islamist terrorists are prepared to die for their cause, one wonders how effective torture would actually be in extracting information for these prisoners anyway.

Apologies for linking to a post on my blog rather than commenting here, but I'd been meaning to post on this topic since I read the AmCon article several days ago. So, if you're interested, my two cents's worth here.

No where in the post is evidence given that Bauer is beloved on the right or by conservatives though. Yes, 24 is popular as a TV show but that doesn't mean conservatives have formed a "cult" around him as suggested by the post and article. Where's the correlation. Maybe they have, I don't know; I don't watch 24. But there is no evidence given by Rod or the quoted sections of the column.

Hoo boy, Rod! You stepped in it now! The consequentialists and other postmodern Right apologists for "Let us do evil that good may result" are gonna start to swarm. Welcome to the dog house. Yeah, Jesus said, "What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul." But the Revised Rubber Hose Right Version has correct that to, "What good does it do if you are the moral good guy and lose a war?" Conversation will generall run along the lines of "Torture is bad. Don't do it" followed by endless foggification around the interminable question, "But what exactly, precisely, technically, legally *is* torture? We're sooooooooo confused (and therefore conveniently off the hook from having to condemn any particular act as "torture"). Also look for "Hey! It works, so it's right!" and the ever popular "What if the bomb is under the orphanage full of adorable tykes and you alone can stop it by beating the living shit out of this despicable thug from central casting (the basic Pavlovian nerve "24" hits each week). You're in big trouble now, Rod. More talk like this and you'll be *completely* persona non grata with some of the most profound moral thinker of the movement that used to be called "conservative" before it became a mouthpiece for Salvation by Leviathan By Any Means Necessary.

"Salvation by Leviathan By Any Means Necessary" As good a description of that mindset as I've seen anywhere.

Sean H., I think there is a persuasive or at any rate reasonable argument to be made that torture is not in the most absolute sense intrinsically immoral. But it's really irrelevant to our present circumstances. When this issue was being talked about heavily a few months ago, I brought up that point here and there, but quickly abandoned it because (a) it has almost no relevance to anything currently happening and (b) it therefore serves no real purpose (beyond purely intellectual interest) except to pry open the door for abuses. If there are circumstances in which torture can be justified, they would be a genuine ticking-bomb scenario where it is know with certainty that the person has the knowledge and means to stop it. These conditions don't exist in the situation actually facing us now, and nobody has claimed that they do, or that they did exist in cases where people were in fact tortured, or even seriously proposed that we can expect them.
To argue on those grounds, then, that torture is licit seems comparable to arguing for legalizing abortion on the basis of some extremely rare tubal pregnancy situation.

Bubba: The benefit of the doubt is one benefit that Mr. Shea rarely affords those who dare to disagree with him on this subject. Which wouldn't be so bad if he didn't keep mischaracterizing them and their arguments...
Funny - this was pretty much my complaint about you, just a few posts ago! Pot-kettle-black. Actually, it's more like mote-log-eye. At least I pointed out the specifics of how you mischaracterized me when I complained. You do not even give Mr. Shea any such courtesy - only a drive-by flame attack. Nice work.

I haven't watched "24" in a few years, but if Rod's description is accurate, they've done a real 180 in terms of ideology. I mean, when I last watched the show, it was obvious that all the "Muslim" terrorists were mere pawns in the hands of big business, and that terrorism existed merely to give the military-industrial complex an excuse for making war on innocent Arabs. Has everything changed since then?

I'm not sure if you're addressing me, Joe, but the question you ask is neither a position nor an argument for one. Things that are wrong don't become right because you can think up a hypothetical situation that would make them extremely convenient. And thanks a lot for the lovely image of my (hypothetical) daughter being raped. If we must discuss this subject, let's substitute instead a (hypothetical) guy named Joe. The CIA thinks he may be a terrorist because of his comments on the internet about my (hypothetical) daughter, so he has been kidnapped and taken to an unnamed location, where electrodes are attached to his genitals and he is tortured until he screams for mercy. In vain he protests that he knows nothing. "We're trying to save innocent lives here, Joe," they tell him. "Confess, or we may have to turn you over to the Syrians, who will rape you as well." So what do you think, Joe? Would that be fair?

Well, bubba, here it is again; ------------------ Bubba, who, exactly, is claiming we're now indistinguishable from our enemies? M_David did: "War is politics by other means. Just considering torture as an option really hurts us. The fact that we don't (didn't?) torture and they do is what is the real root of Western cultural power. We're the good guys, and everyone in the world knows it. "At least, we used to be." [emphasis mine] ------------------ So, you are stating that my above post claims that we are indistinguishable from our enemies . It obviously does not. You, sir, are deliberately slandering me. I have showed you where and how. I'll do it again for you. My "used to be" point was clearly a snarky jab showing how pro-torture folk are making America seem less than the "Good Guys". I pointed this out above. You ignored my complaint, and still slander me. But what's really sad is that you turn around and accuse Mark Shea of mischaracterization that is totally undocumented . Man, do you have no shame?

LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! It's a goddam (to use WFB's expression) television show! Yes, we can and should deplore the situational ethics, torture, renegade attitude, etc.
But I think one can overdo the indignation of it all. It's like lending too much credence to Dan Brown and his "work".
Most TV, when you get right down to it, is ca-ca of the first order.
But an obsession of the Right? Go to some entertainment/TV websites and check out the ratings for 24; if it's just the Right, it should be a clean Republican sweep in 2008! Yeah, it must have taken real "stones" to publish an essay decrying obsession with a TV show. What seminal work.

Isn't the crucial distinction in a discussion of "Torture: Good or Bad" being given insufficient attention? In a ticking bomb scenario, one might be morally compelled to engage in torture. At very least, it's legality would be irrelevant. If an agent can conclusively prevent detonation of a nuke, he's supposed to worry about the nature of "domestic and international law"? Unfortunately for National Review, ticking bomb scenarios only exist in the fantasies of television producers and moral philosophers. Since real life is nothing like that, Jack Bauer becomes irrelevant. Torture regains it's status as unconscionable and impermissable.

For any Catholics or folks of good will out there you will want to consider this from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church #404: "In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: 'Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim.' International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances."
If wants to truly find the the mind of Christ on this subject- I would bet that this is it. But most Catholics Right and Left are mostly about the talk not the walk, when the going is tough.

Sean, If I am reading your question correctly, you are asking whether intentional pain and torture can be construed as self-defense. Based on both my studies at Candler School of Theology, and my post-graduate work, the answer would be "generally, no". In the scenario presented on "24" when there is certain knowledge and immenent danger, an argument could be made within the Church's teaching that causing that pain or torture was self-defense of those who would be saved by use of the knowledge gained. However, that is a very narrow definition and would not apply in any but the most stringently defined cases. In any other situation, causing intentional pain or torturing another human being is not permissible within the teachings of Christ as advocated by the Roman Catholic Church. The Church has, unfortunately in its history, engaged in far too may instances of violating its own laws in the name of expediency or the misplaced desire to "save souls" but it has since denounced every occasion of that usage and has adopted a very firm policy regarding violence. To me the distinction for self defense can be illustrated by the difference between shooting a burgler who is going for your spouse, child, etc. and intending immediate harm versus shooting someone who is lurking around the neighborhood in a way that one sees as threatening. In the one case, there is clear self-defense; in the other there is not.
As to this morally ambiguous position that has been used - that the people we are torturing for information as more evil than we are and that their willingness to kill excuses our use of torture - I have two comments: 1. As my mom used to say, "if everyone else is jumping off the roof, does that mean you should?" (i.e. just because the "bad guys" use torture, does that make it okay for us to?) 2. How can we hold up our principles and maintain the high ground when we engage in activities that we know are wrong? We find all kinds of reasons to justify why when WE do it, it is alright - but that is all they are: justifications. Every poster here KNOWS that inflicting intentional harm on someone -- particularly in the personal way that is torture - violates God's Law (pretty much not mattering how you see God). However, the people who think it is acceptable bring forth arguments that it is okay because America is doing it to save lives or because the people being tortured deserve it or because we are the "good guys" or because (fill in you favorite reason). This, by the way, IS the definition of situational ethics - redefining what is right and wrong based on the current situation. Unfortunately for all those who claim Christianity, Jesus didn't leave that loophole - things are Right or they are Wrong - not much sometimes in there. In my opinion, citizens should advocate for as small a government as possible and should constain the power of the government to the minimum necessary to do its work -- something that most people claiming to be the Religious Right and the new conservatives seem to find anathama.

Here is an interesting take on "24" as public diplomacy. http://spaces.icgpartners.com/index2.asp?NGuid=3D7901FB58E94A7D9CB31C43AF503B21

"Hoo boy, Rod! You stepped in it now! The consequentialists and other postmodern Right apologists for "Let us do evil that good may result" are gonna start to swarm." I had gone no further then this line before I knew Mark had posted it. The formulaic response instead of reasoned engagement was the tip-off.

To Donny: --Both Leftists and Rightists in the Western world agree that Muslim torture of non-Muslims is wrong. However, we Leftists are also bothered when those on "our side" resort to evil tactics. Think: you hear John Gotti (Mafia boss) murdered someone. You hear your father murdered someone. Which disturbs you more? --Hugo Chavez is criticizing President Bush, as I think he should. This isn't the same as Chavez declaring war on the USA. I hope Bush understands the difference better than you do. --re your comment "It's useless to attack white men in America (code for Christian)": as a Black Christian woman, I'm highly offended that you equate being a Christian with white American maleness. The two may coincide at times, but they are not the same! Nor is "people of color" synonymous with "pagan". Go read Revelation 7:9: Christians come from every tongue, nation, tribe, and people! In addition, I'm more shocked by "Christians" resorting to blatant evil (like torture) than when this behavior comes from people who don't associate themselves with Jesus or with Christian codes of ethics.
As someone eloquently stated here, "Who (or Whom) would Jesus torture?" And yes, it is a bumper sticker--and a T-shirt, and a poster! http://cgi.ebay.com/Who-Would-Jesus-Torture-Bumper-Sticker-Peace-Anti-war_W0QQitemZ280085553692QQcmdZViewItem