On the next episode of 24, according to the previews, tireless hero Jack Bauer (played by Kiefer Sutherland) will walk into the hospital room of a U.S. senator and threaten to torture him. And I expect I'll be cheering him on. I wonder if that's OK.
Critics have long said that 24 glorifies torture, and it's hard to disagree. Last week the news made that charge more severe, with the release of CIA memos describing the torture of detainees. I remember reading this article a couple years ago about 24 and its right-wing creator—who is a friend of Rush Limbaugh—and thinking to myself, "Uh oh. If Dick Cheney watched prime time TV in his undisclosed location, this would probably be his favorite show." And I pledge to have as little in common with Dick Cheney as possible.
In many ways, 24 is just a garden-variety action thriller, with its brave savior who sometimes has to bend the rules to save the world. But no show has ever done so much with that timeless final exam question from ethics class: if you had a terrorist behind bars who refused to give you information about an upcoming attack that would hurt innocent people, would you approve of torturing him?
This scenario plays out almost weekly on 24. And the result is almost always the same: the bad guy fesses up, Jack gets the information he needs, and he saves the world just in time (only to learn of a new threat he'll have to deal with in next week's episode).
It will be impossible to feel sorry for Senator Jonas Hodges, played brilliantly by Jon Voight, when Jack Bauer shows up in his hospital room tonight. Dissatisfied with the U.S. military, Hodges turned a Blackwater-type private contractor into a rogue operation that secretly developed biological weapons and threatened to turn them on American cities if the President didn't do whatever Hodges said. Now he may be the only one who can tell Jack what the bad guys are going to do next. And time is running out: only four episodes left in the season.
I don't know whether the U.S. military gets inspired by 24 to do inhumane things to prisoners, as critics charge. It wouldn't surprise me. But even if not, last week's CIA memos show us the problem when the military—and the American public—buys at face value the claim that torture can be both justified and effective.
Sometimes it's neither. And yet, I can't think of a single instance on 24 where torture has been shown producing false information that led Jack astray. I can't think of a case where it led to the accidental death of a prisoner. Jack has never tortured an innocent person—a victim of mistaken identity, bad intelligence, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time (which is true of at least some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay). Jack's use of torture has never inspired future terrorists, as Abu Ghraib has.
You could argue that while we all like to live in a tidy world where right and wrong are black and white, 24 shows us the ethical gray area where moral questions aren't so cut-and-dried. At first I felt that way—I'm a near pacifist, I detest Dick Cheney, and yet here I am cheering on Jack Bauer; better double-check my ethical principles. But 24 has long passed the point of useful ethical exploration to exploiting torture for entertainment. And again, when torture always works and is always portrayed as heroic, there really isn't much gray area left—only black and white.
It's true that saviors sometimes have to bend the rules to save the world. But at least one Savior once bent the rules so far that he submitted to torture, in part to end humanity's addiction to death and destruction.
Login to comment
Alternate Login
Use your social media account to login.
Login with your ReFrame account
Comments (36)
Also I don't believe that I would ever say that Christ's death was bending the rules to save the world. He was actually following the rules to save the world.
There was yet another study that came out last week or the week before about how people that do good and see themselves as "good doers" actually are more likely to break rules (and break laws) because they think their good deeds justify their bad ones. This is the third or fourth similar study that I have seen over the past couple years. It has very important implications both for those that torture and for Christians. Our good deeds cannot save us. It is only Christ that can save us. And for those that believe in torture (with the goal to save people) the same thing. Bad action will never result in the long term with good results. Torture will always lead to more violence, serious implications to those that do the torturing, and loss of moral authority.
Arshield made a comment reminding us that our good deeds cannot save us, it is through Christ alone. More than that even, I think trying to help or save others is what truly blinds us from our own rule breaking.
But hey, you brought that part up ;)
http://phronesisaical.blogspot...
It makes it very clear that torture as practices by the US is illegal.
The military has been reforming its treatment of terrorist prisoners since the Abu Ghraib "incident". Even with Abu, there is a difference between the policy of the DoD and the execution by commanders. Obviously, the commander of Abu Gharib broke the rules. As someone who works in the Air Force and in Intelligence, I feel it is important to correct your inaccuracies and mis-associations.
The Department of Defense and CIA exist under separate lines of command. Military intelligence and national intelligence (CIA, etc) are different. The CIA, and it's operatives, went to congress to determine its policy on certain "extreme" interrogation techniques, these are the memos that have recently been declassified and brought under public scrutiny. These letters are a discussion on CIA and it's activities, not the DoD.
As an example for further proof, it is known through these memos that the FBI chose not to participate in these activities precisely because of leadership had ethical qualms with the approach by the CIA. On the other hand, the FBI and DoD share a tighter relationship that has shown a lot of success in Iraq, and one that hasn't taken methods to the same extremes.
I also wanted to make sure that is well understood that the CIA WENT TO CONGRESS before conducting these activities and received approval by our elected officials to conduct these extreme methods. So when folks call for a witch-hunt on CIA operatives who put their life on the line day in and day out, remember where their authority came from.
As for 24, I don't agree that it glorifies torture, but rather it asks all the gray questions. I'll admit it seems to favor the side of torture as being effective, but downplays this by how you can tell it tortures Jack that he is who he is.
It's interesting that you say you are a pacifist. How does this belief gel with the fallen world in which we live? Don't you think that pacifism, while appearing noble, is ultimately a naive concept?
Thanks for the clarifications and un-lumping!
I said I'm a "near pacifist." I can't take that last step; I can't answer the "what about Hitler?" question.
I would say that obsessive violence can also be more naive than wise sometimes, as the Bush Administration's foreign policy showed all too well.
And I would say that Christians, following a Lord who said "Put away the sword," should tend toward pacifism even when earthly empires call them impractical and naive for doing so.
I think there is a lot of continued animosity by the public (read: MEDIA), and even the new administration of the Bush administration. Thankfully I've heard President Obama question the value of all this 20/20 hindsight and investigation, and I truly hope puts an authoritative foot down to stop the formation of special committees and the likes to obsess over the mistakes of the past administration (to include all 3 branches). We do not need witch hunts. Congress establishes the law, and they "legalized" extreme interrogation methods for the CIA. If they believe this was a mistake now, and in direct conflict with other legal precedent, then well the fault lies with the lawmakers, not the executing agency.
I seriously question the "obsessive violence" that you indicate was the earmark of the Bush presidency. There have been many lives lost in the OIF/OEF wars, but these pale in comparison to the sacrifice of previous generations. Every life lost in a war is terrible, and there is no war that is not "overtly violent" - for thus is the earmark of conflict and war. Consider that, there has never been an empire or nation in the history of the earth with as much military might at its disposable as the US, that hasn't used this kind of power to their advantage for imperialistic purposes (that of actually seizing new land). Please don't say that we are practicing ideological imperialism as if that is somehow the same thing! Even if this was the case, I feel that "ideological imperialism" is actually something that God calls us to do in a way (READ: not saying the US ideology is 100% Christian).
I know that, for certain, we did not see another 9/11 style attack on US soil during the Bush presidency. Some may think that OIF and OEF is US super-agression, and that our "preemptive strike" actually fueled an increase in ideological extremism, well this is simply not the case either. Islam is in direct conflict with Judaism, and has been for thousands of years. 9/11 occured during a time when the US was not in direct conflict in the Muslim world, what caused such extremist hate then? It was already there! A lot of this all ties back to Israel, but I'm way off topic now.
I would like you to consider editing or removing the following from your post:
I don’t know whether the U.S. military gets inspired by 24 to do inhumane things to prisoners, as critics charge. It wouldn’t surprise me. But even if not, last week’s CIA memos show us the problem when the military—and the American public—buys at face value the claim that torture can be both justified and effective.
In light of the information above. I think the comment that it "wouldn't surpise you" if US military were "inspired by 24" is a poor choice as well. Military interrogators and military police are professionally trained, not just foot-soldiers who've watched too much TV or seen too many movies.
http://www.dallasnews.com/shar...
Jesus was not a pacifist. You need to study his sayings in light of Jewish culture of the time.
Nathan, your exegesis is badly flawed here. He put away the sword because "his time had not yet come", as the linguistic refrain constantly shows (e.g., John). He put away the sword, and had his disciples do so, because the sole purpose of the incarnation was to fulfill the Covenant of Redemption, that eternal archetype between Father and Son and Spirit in which the Son agreed to fulfill covenant obligations while yet upheld to do so by his Father, for the sake of his people, the New Israel.
He "put away the sword" because the Cross was the mission, and Easter the appointment of the Son to his Glory (Rom 1.4) that he had with the Father previously (John 17). He "put away the sword" because he had to have the Cross to have Easter, and we had to have both for the benefits of the 2nd Adam to be accrued and imputed to us.
He did NOT "put away the sword" because he was a Pacifist. Such exegesis seriously misconstrues the balance of the character of God.
By your own admission the sword was put away because his time is not here. What would cause us to think that sometime after his resurrection he instructed his disciples to pick up the sword and act as his judgment? This is turning the gospel upside down.
Maybe I am just wildly mis-understanding you. And if I am I apologize.
What you "think" it means is a bit irrelevant, don't you think? ;) Perhaps it isn't pointing the way to example for a Christian socio-political theory. Rather, pointing to the purpose for which Christ came: it was an armed conflict with the regime of the Day, but the regime in rebellion from long before our Creation. His armed conflict was with the principalities over this present darkness. The Garden Healing, if we may call it this, pointed to the reason he came: a greater healing than an ear. Expanding it further is risky exegesis. Again, your case can probably be made elsewhere, but not from this passage :)
Further, assuming Christ was unarmed is a bit of a stretch. The very act of replacing a lopped-off ear reminds us this was God. As the soldiers came, he was, in his role as Sustainer, holding up their very atomic structure in mysterious ways we cannot fathom. How does the God-man do this? At a thought, they could have "poofed" into nothing. As Van Til might put it, here come these soldiers and brigands to slap their father in the face. The irony of it all is that they are being held up by the Father's lap, and without his support, they could never reach his face to slap him.
The Garden Healing shows the grace inherent in the acts of that night all the more. It's a preamble to the great event about to unfold, not for Christian Pacifism.
This is exactly the case where Jesus did not use power he had at his authority and ability because he was doing something else that had a higher purpose.
I would suggest that holding a high view of human rights, even or especially those humans that have hurt us, does far more to show the rest of the world what we believe than using torture or other violence to protect ourselves.
I am not a hard pacifist. I don't think that every response should be non-violent. But I do think that most should be. Because when we chose violence, the result is the destruction of a life that was created in the image of God. That person may become a Christian as some point time, but if their life is ended then they will not.
Sorry, but comments about comments upon comments gets convoluted. But your response to me, was as you put it, not reading what I wrote properly.
What the bible says is to love your enemy and pray for them. Not hurt them so they can't hurt you back.
That is one of the significant problems with the legal memos. They specifically referenced waterboarding but did not reference any of the cases where the US has defined water boarding as torture. US and international case law is very clear on this point.
This is a case where shows like 24 talk about torture as if it does not have a legal history behind it. So people watch the show and assume that the shows are legally correct. They are not. What is torture is legally defined and we know what that is. What the US has done is torture.
Jesus never corrected the Centurion in the Roman legion as any good pacifist today would. Instead he declared he had never seen this kind of exemplary faith. Later, Paul said Roman soldiers were “God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” That’s pretty strong, supportive language. David said in the Psalms that God “Trains my hands for war”.
Jesus is not a pacifist and not against violence. He said, “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” So the question was not whether to wield a sword or not in Jesus behalf, but simply when. Remember, every time in the Old Testament that God commanded the Israelites to go to war and wipe out a city, that was Jesus speaking. He is God, part of the trinity. He is loving but he is just.
There will come a time when Jesus’ Kingdom is of this earth. And he will return with an army, a sword and garments stained in blood.
“Then I saw heaven opened, and a white horse was standing there. Its rider was named Faithful and True, for he judges fairly and wages a righteous war. His eyes were like flames of fire, and on his head were many crowns. A name was written on him that no one understood except himself. He wore a robe dipped in blood, and his title was the Word of God. The armies of heaven, dressed in the finest of pure white linen, followed him on white horses. From his mouth came a sharp sword to strike down the nations.”
Pure pacifism really is alien to the Bible.
The head of Military interegation in Iraq said he has not interviewed any foreign combatants that were not motivated in part to come to fight in Iraq by Abu Grab and that by his estimate US torture there has been the direct result in hundreds if not thousands of additional lost lives.