if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?"
-- Chief Justice John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803
Whatever It Takes
by Lee
Last year I wrote a response to a column by Jonah Goldberg, the subject of which was torture. Jonah discussed the so-called “ticking time bomb” scenario and pointed to the show 24 as an example, to which I wrote:
As I have said many times on this blog, in a ticking time bomb scenario virtually any level of medieval barbarity could theoretically be justified. There is, however, one vitally important point to be made here. When, in modern human history, has this ever happened? The very fact that Goldberg has to cite a fictional character in order to prove this point shows just how insanely low the chances are of it ever happening. I grew up watching James Bond and Dirty Harry and I’m a big fan of 24. Note to Jonah: these are the product of the mind of a Hollywood screenwriter, not germane examples of real-world occurrences which can be used to justify geopolitical ends. I mean, he might as well cite Mars Attacks to highlight the need to use our nuclear deterrent against invading alien races, or Armageddon to warn of the impending doom caused by a giant asteroid hitting the earth.
Today, Drudge is linking to a fascinating New Yorker interview with Joel Surnow, the creator of 24. Because Jack Bauer’s use of torture is so prevalent in the show, it’s one of the running themes of the article. As you might expect, not everyone is happy with the depiction of torture being effective, including these America-hating liberals.
This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patric Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy a West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with th creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied b three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogator in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. A first, Finnegan—wearing an immaculate Army uniform, hi chest covered in ribbons and medals—aroused confusion: h was taken for an actor and was asked by someone what time hi “call” was. In fact, Finnegan and the others had come to voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers. “I’d like them to stop,” Finnegan said of the show’s producers. “They should do a show where torture backfires.”
Before the meeting, Stuart Herrington, one of the three veteran interrogators, had prepared a list of seventeen effective techniques, none of which were abusive. He and the others described various tactics, such as giving suspects a postcard to send home, thereby learning the name and address of their next of kin. After Howard Gordon, the lead writer, listened to some of Herrington’s suggestions, he slammed his fist on the table and joked, “You’re hired!” He also excitedly asked the West Point delegation if they knew of any effective truth serums.
At other moments, the discussion was more strained. Finnegan told the producers that “24,” by suggesting that the U.S. government perpetrates myriad forms of torture, hurts the country’s image internationally. Finnegan, who is a lawyer, has for a number of years taught a course on the laws of war to West Point seniors—cadets who would soon be commanders in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right. However, it had become increasingly hard to convince some cadets that America had to respect the rule of law and human rights, even when terrorists did not. One reason for the growing resistance, he suggested, was misperceptions spread by “24,” which was exceptionally popular with his students. As he told me, “The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ” He continued, “The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do.”
Gary Solis, a retired law professor who designed and taught the Law of War for Commanders curriculum at West Point, told me that he had similar arguments with his students. He said that, under both U.S. and international law, “Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real life, he would be prosecuted.” Yet the motto of many of his students was identical to Jack Bauer’s: “Whatever it takes.” His students were particularly impressed by a scene in which Bauer barges into a room where a stubborn suspect is being held, shoots him in one leg, and threatens to shoot the other if he doesn’t talk. In less than ten seconds, the suspect reveals that his associates plan to assassinate the Secretary of Defense. Solis told me, “I tried to impress on them that this technique would open the wrong doors, but it was like trying to stomp out an anthill.”
Come on, surely torture yields some actionable intelligence?
“In Iraq, I never saw pain produce intelligence,” Lagouranis told me. “I worked with someone who used waterboarding”—an interrogation method involving the repeated near-drowning of a suspect. “I used severe hypothermia, dogs, and sleep deprivation. I saw suspects after soldiers had gone into their homes and broken their bones, or made them sit on a Humvee’s hot exhaust pipes until they got third-degree burns. Nothing happened.” Some people, he said, “gave confessions. But they just told us what we already knew. It never opened up a stream of new information.” If anything, he said, “physical pain can strengthen the resolve to clam up.”
But wait, there’s more!
Navarro, who estimates that he has conducted some twelve thousand interrogations, replied that torture was not an effective response. “These are very determined people, and they won’t turn just because you pull a fingernail out,” he told me. And Finnegan argued that torturing fanatical Islamist terrorists is particularly pointless. “They almost welcome torture,” he said. “They expect it. They want to be martyred.” A ticking time bomb, he pointed out, would make a suspect only more unwilling to talk. “They know if they can simply hold out several hours, all the more glory—the ticking time bomb will go off!”
My God, it’s almost like every damn thing I ever said about the futility of using torture is true!
I have a theory about this. It’s just my own thinking, I have no evidence of it, but I think it gels nicely with this article. When you go to get a massage (a legitimate one) you will, obviously, get a man or a woman. Some guys only want a woman, because the thought of being rubbed on by another guy is something they can’t handle. It just creeps them out. Internally, they view it as an affront to their masculinity, and they have a deep aversion to it even if they might not be able to articulate why. They just know that this is something they can’t consent to.
My theory is that the willingness for some people to condone torture is very similar to that male massage. When you have liberals and wimps on one side talking about how torture is wrong, many people support the opposite position simply to avoid being lumped in with them. Trust me, that’s what happens—I can’t even count the number of times someone accused me of “going soft” or that Human Rights Watch had “gotten into my brain” or some other snide, denigrating remark. Thus some people, out of a latent political insecurity, feel the need to support these types of activities no matter how useless and futile they are shown to be. “If I oppose torture then I’m a liberal and a hippie, and what if just one time torture would have worked and we didn’t use it? I can’t have that on my conscience.” I can understand that sentiment, but it has to be recognized that this is not a logical point of view, it is purely emotional. Think of it like this. You are justified, legally, in shooting anyone who comes into your house to do you harm. Since generally anyone can cause you harm, you decide to just shoot everyone who comes in, just to be safe. The logic is exactly the same, and it’s wrong in both instances. And besides, there is the psychological toll.
Joe Navarro, one of the F.B.I.’s top experts in questioning techniques, attended the meeting; he told me, “Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected. You don’t want people like that in your organization. They are untrustworthy, and tend to have grotesque other problems.”
Let’s be clear here. When I refer to torture I’m not referring to soldiers smacking around some guy on the battlefield. I’m talking what we do once we have someone in custody and about to be interrogated. These are the times when we can calmly and logically choose the best course of action for extracting information. And, as is clear, torture isn’t one of them. It’s brute force where brute force is not required.
I have absolutely no sympathy for terrorists. In the sense of vengeance, sure, I’d love to see KSM or OBL tortured to death. If I had a chance to drive a knife into a terrorist’s knee I’d take it. But I’m just some guy, not a US government interrogator. I love 24 for that reason—it allows me to vicariously get out my lust for revenge. Jack Bauer is masculine patriotism personified, but in the real world the type of situations he gets in don’t exist. As show co-creator Bob Cochran admits, “Most terrorism experts will tell you that the ‘ticking time bomb’ situation never occurs in real life, or very rarely. But on our show it happens every week.”
We all want to be Jack Bauer. We all want to be the guy who does whatever it takes and saves the country, rules be damned. But the main point to remember is that, as much as we wish it were true, Jack Bauer doesn’t exist.
Comments
CTU’s comprehensive access to all phone, internet, and satellite communication is interesting. Once we get enemy operating in the US, the govt needs these tools to track people down quickly. Maybe someday they will create an automated warrant-server which spews out 5 million wiretapping search warrants per minute. The bottom line is the type of surveillance CTU uses comes in handy for people defending the US from attack.
The city of Los Angeles once named a street after Jack Bauer in gratitude for his saving the city several times. They had to rename it after people kept dying when they tried to cross the street. No one crosses Jack Bauer and lives.
you plonked bob!!?!?
this is SHOCKING HOW DARE YOU STIFLE IS DISSENT!!
/sarcasm
fuck wrong thread!
Jack Bauer is masculine patriotism personified, but in the real world the type of situations he gets in don’t exist.
Some like Kim du Toit would postulate that the type of masculine patriots that Jack personifies don’t exist in this country anymore either.
James Woods made a funny observation in one of our laddy mags last year (I think it was Stuff), that whenever Hollywood movie producers need a primal no-nonsense male, they usually cast Australians.
Some like Kim du Toit would postulate that the type of masculine patriots that Jack personifies don’t exist in this country anymore either.
I totally disagree. I think this country is full of masculine patriots, and they’re serving in the military, police, fire dept., and so on. The American alpha male is alive and well.
If there ever were a nuke about to detonate in an American city, I don’t doubt for a second that someone would willingly break the law to torture him to get that information. They’d need a presidential pardon, but what president isn’t going to pardon the guy who prevented a fucking nuke from going off by breaking some scumbag’s fingers?
There are plenty of guys who will do whatever it takes if the situation calls for it. The problem is that we’re doing “whatever it takes” in situations where it’s not required. When intelligence and wit and deception are proven to yield results, we’re going in with a sledgehammer and a chainsaw.
If you’re a terrorist, you can prepare yourself for torture, both mentally and physically. What you can’t prepare yourself is to go toe-to-toe with a guy who knows a thousand ways to mindfuck you into giving up what you know.
The other problem with the “ticking time bomb” is that everyone thinks he has a ticking time bomb.
People who get their opinions of real life from television shows are incredibly stupid. And this goes double when the show lives in as absurd a world as 24. The reason I enjoy the show is because it allows me to suspend disbelief. Whenever the torture is up, just ignore anyone who brings up 24. They’re not living in reality.
But Americans have always had a yen for the break-the-rules-to-get-things done type. Whether its Jack Bauer or Dirty Harry or Shaft in fiction; or Ollie North or Dubya in real life. Americans love the court-packing FDR or the legislature-arresting Lincoln, but have little time for the rule-bound Goldwaters or Coolidges. Hell, I bet you a substantial fraction of Americans think this country would be better off under a “benevolent dictator” than as a Republic.
Human nature is depressing sometimes.
I think it’s very true that we take our entertainment - whether it be TV, movies, books - way too seriously. As an example - at the start of the war in Iraq - why couldn’t we have swept in and taken out Saddam and his sons? Surely Jack Bauer - or even Sydney Bristow - could have done it. Why did it take so long to get them?
THE END OF TEH WORLS THE END OF THE WORLD!!! .. oh wait,,,,,,, maybe not....... yet..
The thing that gets me about the show is, every couple of years or so there seems to be a major terrorist attack-and none of the presidents after Palmer listen to Jack! (Logan was a bad guy so he doesn’t count). And they keep getting these weaselly advisers (the guy advising Palmer the Younger looks and sounds like a parody of Josh Lyman from The West Wing).
But the main point to remember is that, as much as we wish it were true, Jack Bauer doesn’t exist.
Assuming you are still alive at this point, I hope Jack Bauer doesn’t read that and kill you.
Next entry: The View From Overseas
Previous entry: I Fee Old
I’m pretty much of the opinion that torture is done just because you feel like fucking somebody over. People do it for revenge, or because they think the person being tortured has earned the treatment in some manner.
Certainly, the torture of someone that makes IEDs wouldn’t upset me, but in the long run it is counter productive and the best course of action is to get information out of them by other means and then just execute them when there is nothing more to be gained by keeping them alive.