The politics of the man behind “24.” - U.S. General Bashed Torture Scenes

[RamboLiberal]

I'll state out front - I still enjoy the show - but it does disturb me that such a RW jerk is the showrunner. Thank goodness there are writers like Howard Gordan who is self-professed "moderate Democrat" involved.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070219fa_fact_mayer

The office desk of Joel Surnow—the co-creator and executive producer of “24,” the popular counterterrorism drama on Fox—faces a wall dominated by an American flag in a glass case. A small label reveals that the flag once flew over Baghdad, after the American invasion of Iraq, in 2003. A few years ago, Surnow received it as a gift from an Army regiment stationed in Iraq; the soldiers had shared a collection of “24” DVDs, he told me, until it was destroyed by an enemy bomb. “The military loves our show,” he said recently. Surnow is fifty-two, and has the gangly, coiled energy of an athlete; his hair is close-cropped, and he has a “soul patch”—a smidgen of beard beneath his lower lip. When he was young, he worked as a carpet salesman with his father. The trick to selling anything, he learned, is to carry yourself with confidence and get the customer to like you within the first five minutes. He’s got it down. “People in the Administration love the series, too,” he said. “It’s a patriotic show. They should love it.”

<snip>

Gordon, who is a “moderate Democrat,” said that it worries him when “critics say that we’ve enabled and reflected the public’s appetite for torture. Nobody wants to be the handmaid to a relaxed policy that accepts torture as a legitimate means of interrogation.” He went on, “But the premise of ‘24’ is the ticking time bomb. It takes an unusual situation and turns it into the meat and potatoes of the show.” He paused. “I think people can differentiate between a television show and reality.”

This past November, U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, the dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point, flew to Southern California to meet with the creative team behind “24.” Finnegan, who was accompanied by three of the most experienced military and F.B.I. interrogators in the country, arrived on the set as the crew was filming. At first, Finnegan—wearing an immaculate Army uniform, his chest covered in ribbons and medals—aroused confusion: he was taken for an actor and was asked by someone what time his “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.”

<snip>

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.”

[Briar]

1. Well, yes

torture is the "patriotic" thing to do. Patriotism means putting country before everything, including the very principles that make the human animal a humane being, after all. You're not just asked to die for your country, but to kill and torture for it. Shows like "24" are part of what lies behind the infamous passive acceptance of Bush's horrific "war or terror" by millions of people - it's about time their assumptions were questioned by supposedly "liberal" (as in, whatever makes a buck, we'll show) Hollywood.

[NewJeffCT]

2. It's not just "24" - it's been a Hollywood staple for years

getting the bad guy to crack under pressure so the hero can save the world in the nick of time.

I agree with the general. Why not have a time where torture didn't work?

Hero (beats the snot out of suspected terrorist): "For the last time, Where is the bomb?"

Suspected terrorist, finally giving in: "we put it Penn Station, it's going off at 8pm"

Hero (on phone to bomb squad): get over to Penn Station, the bomb is going off in an hour. We're putting out the call to evacuate Penn Station now!"

Frantic search of Penn Station reveals nothing - bomb goes off in Grand Central Station at 7:45pm

[Briar]

3. More

"Surnow’s rightward turn was encouraged by one of his best friends, Cyrus Nowrasteh, a hard-core conservative who, in 2006, wrote and produced “The Path to 9/11,” a controversial ABC miniseries that presented President Clinton as having largely ignored the threat posed by Al Qaeda. (The show was denounced as defamatory by Democrats and by members of the 9/11 Commission; their complaints led ABC to call the program a “dramatization,” not a “documentary.”) Surnow and Nowrasteh met in 1985, when they worked together on “The Equalizer.” Nowrasteh, the son of a deposed adviser to the Shah of Iran, grew up in Madison, Wisconsin, where, like Surnow, he was alienated by the radicalism around him. He told me that he and Surnow, in addition to sharing an admiration for Reagan, found “L.A. a stultifying, stifling place because everyone thinks alike.” Nowrasteh said that he and Surnow regard “24” as a kind of wish fulfillment for America. “Every American wishes we had someone out there quietly taking care of business,” he said. “It’s a deep, dark ugly world out there. Maybe this is what Ollie North was trying to do. It would be nice to have a secret government that can get the answers and take care of business—even kill people. Jack Bauer fulfills that fantasy.”


These are the men who are making the US hated overseas, who are encouraging Americans to support hateful policies. How "patriotic" is that?

[kenny blankenship]

4. Those who torture foreigners and justify it by their patriotism

will soon torture their own countrymen, while claiming the same higher morality justifies them. To paraphrase Senator Jordan in the Manchurian Candidate, I doubt people such as Joel Surnow could be doing more damage to this country than they already are if they were paid foreign agents.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

5. Actually, they did show torture backfiring before.

In Season 3, one CTU employee was tortured for awhile until it was revealed he was actually a spy working for the agency itself.

In Season 5, Jack Bauer's then-girlfriend, Audrey Raines, was tortured because it was believed she was part of an enemy conspiracy. The torture stopped when it was revealed she was being set up.

[Lautremont]

6. I've never seen this show.

Is it really that good? It sounds insanely sadistic, and pretty much like Freeper jerk-off material. What's the attraction?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. In My Opinion, It's The Most Riveting, Nail Biting And Entertaining Show On TV.

[varkam]

9. In my opinon

it's a really bad show. I don't much care for the writing or the characters. I really really tried to get into it. I watched the entire first season on DVD, and really just felt relieved when it was over.

But that's just me.

[Jonathan50]

8. Gordon - “I think people can differentiate between a television show and reality.”

That's just it, a lot of people *can't* differentiate between what they see on the tube and reality.

<i>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.

(snip)

“The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about “24”?’ ”</i>

If West Point seniors can't differentiate between TV and reality what then about the rest of the population?

[donkeyotay]

10. It seems emblematic to me of the Faux patriotism

The Army itself has asked him to not portray them this way:

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.”

Real American soldiers are being placed into incredibly difficult circumstances, like Eric Fair, who is now tormented by the cries of abused prisoners.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x165499

24 promotes the illness that passes for patriotism on the Right. But like Eric Fair, Mr. Gordon will have to live with himself and his life's work. I hope he enjoys cashing the checks.

[Peace Patriot]

11. I am amazed and impressed by Brigadier General Finnegan!

If we are going to maintain this massive war machine, that's the sort of Brigadier General we want--someone willing to challenge abusive, illegal policies, and who teaches ethics and the rule of law to his cadets.

And if he says that 24 is a bad influence on his students, we have to respect his experience and authority. However, I don't think that depiction of any fictional situation ever causes people to do something bad or break the law--and some harsh fictional situations may actually be helpful to people (vicarious release of hostility; depicting and overcoming fears). (--Bruno Bettleheim's theory that children need the violence in fairy tales to overcome their fears.) And I support complete freedom of expression because of this. We may not like what the war profiteering corporate news monopolies put on TV, but--while I would readily bust their monopolies, and deny them licenses to use the public airwaves for failing to provide balanced opinion (reinstitute the "Fairness Doctrine")--I would never censor artistic works of any kind (corporate or otherwise).

24 is a very riveting show, up to a point. I think it gets tiresome after a while (season 2-3)--the tension level is so intense. It almost becomes laughable. Clinton Eastwood on crack. But I have no doubt at all that it is intelligently presenting certain moral and human dilemmas that Bush's "war on terror" is presenting to our armed forces and to ordinary citizens, in their imaginations. The "terra, terra, terra" nonsense. Whatever we think of Bush, we have to deal with the fears that he and his regime, and its corporate monopoly press, try so hard to stir up. If the President knew that a nuke was set to go off over Los Angeles, and he strongly suspected that his best friend was a traitor and had knowledge that could stop the attack, should he torture his best friend to get that knowledge? It's kind of like the ethical question to a pacifist: If you had the opportunity, would you have murdered Adolph Hitler? The situation brings the ethical question into sharp focus. I don't think 24 deals with the ethical questions very well. As Eastwood does in his cowboy films, they pump up a situation that makes torture and violence seem righteous, and that makes respect for the law, and ethical behavior, seem wimpish (--when respect for the law, and ethical behavior, in truth, often requires great courage).

If I had been writing the nuke episode, I would have presented this option: The President decides that his best friend must be tortured, to save millions of people--but the option is presented that he then confesses this deed to the nation, asks for forgiveness, and subjects himself to criminal proceedings. He may or may not choose that option, but it is the best option by which to resolve the moral/legal/human dilemma, and to encourage respect for the law and for truthfulness.

And I'm thinking right now of Lt. Ehren Watada, who has refused to participate in the Iraq War (though he volunteered for Afghanistan) because he, "an officer and a gentleman," believes that the Iraq War is a war crime, and he cannot, in conscience, participate in it. BUT, he has presented himself for court-martial and punishment. He is willing to take the consequences of his ethical decision.

Another problem I have with the torture issue--as presented on 24--is this: In actuality, I believe that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have used torture for their personal benefit--to hide their own crimes and to remove people who might stand in the way of their financial gain. They are extreme abusers of power--which they have demonstrated time and again. So the ethical dilemma in the 24 is much too clean, and fails to deal with the inherent abuse that arises from secret proceedings. Tyrants always seek secret powers like these--and never use them to save millions of people. They always use them to kill and oppress millions of people. That is history's lesson! This 24 dilemma and other 24 dilemmas are much too neat. (They do, at one point, have a bad president, as I recall--but still, it's the actions of the "good guys" that are the problem, not those of the "bad guys.")

And, finally, the show glides over the issues that have produced people in the world who hate the United States. Some of those issues are by no means inconsiderable. For instance, Bush is now demonizing and threatening the Iranians--who have done nothing to deserve bombing or invasion--and whose democracy OUR government destroyed in 1954, inflicting the Iranian people with 25 years of torture and oppression under the horrible Shah of Iran. As a consequence, they willingly put themselves under the guidance of Islamic mullahs--we in fact drove them to this--and established a REPUBLIC, which has elections, laws and peoples' assemblies that govern. They do NOT have fatcat oil sultans and kings--like Bush's allies in Saudi Arabia and other countries. And they are in fact one of the most potentially progressive Islamic countries in the region. There were NO Iranians among the 9/11 hijackers--only citizens of the sultanates that Bush is friends with. But IF there had been--if some Iranians had been so enraged by our destruction of their democracy, or, say had relatives who were tortured by the Shah (a U.S. ally), or had themselves been tortured (this is all in living memory of many Iranians)--wouldn't an HONEST story (--of 9/11, or any other terrorist act) reveal that motivation, and turn the ethical quandary around, and have it arise among the "terrorists." But right now I cannot think of an instance where that is so--in 24--and if it was depicted, it was a minor point. (It didn't stick with me.)

THIS dilemma IS depicted in the movie "V," by the way. "V", the masked one, has been horribly tortured and disfigured by a fascist state, and takes revenge on his persecutors--but he does it in such a way that those who are innocent of vengeful violence can then re-gain control of their government. "V" dies because his violence was not right and cannot continue. He sacrifices himself for the future.

In short, one man's "terrorism" may be another man's "fight for freedom." The line is almost never clear, in reality. And 24 sides far too easily with the notion that America is good, and anybody who seeks to harm America is a dirty dog, worthy of the worst kind of treatment, and having no rights whatsoever. Scum. Killers. People who can be tortured and killed without trial. People without any honorable motives or conscience.

These are my main arguments with how 24 is written. And you can see the hand of rightwing fascists in it, in the way events are tilted toward justified torture and violence. (And it does not surprise me to find out that a relative of the Shah of Iran's entourage is associated with it--revealed in one of the comments above.) But the show has brilliant production values, including the acting (with the exception of the "blond girls in peril" episodes, which were tedious in the extreme, due to both the failure of the women actors and the writing). Telling a good story is never bad, no matter what its politics are. (Think about Shakespeare's politics!) And both the hero and associated heroic characters, and the situations they find themselves in, reflect FEARS we all have--nightmares of BushWorld--that, in my opinion, need to be depicted, and help people in many ways, including vicarious experience of perilous circumstances created by Bush's dark world, the depiction of courage (sadly misdirected, but courage nonetheless), and consideration of ethical dilemmas (however tenuously or partially presented--peoples' minds fill in the blanks--"what would YOU do?").

Finally, I would just point out that 56% of the American people opposed the Iraq War back in Feb. '03, before the invasion; 63% of the American people oppose torture "under any circumstances" (May '04); 74% of the American people oppose the Iraq War today, and a whopping 84% oppose any U.S. participation in a widened Mideast war (summer '06). The propaganda isn't working.