24 Finale Ending? [Not quite what I was expecting...]

[Reason]

With all the pro torture propaganda thematic elements throughout the season it actually ended much more conflicted than I imagined it was going to.

Jack Bauer is absolutely distraught with all the actions he had taken and left dying in a hospital bed with a small chance of hope from his daughter risking herself for an experimental treatment.

The president of the united states decides NOT to cover up the fact that her daughter paid for the assassination of a terrorist who was responsible for the death of her brother [presidents son]. This decision is portrayed as an absolutely heart wrenching decision for the president and shown as the president making the correct, moral choice even though it will alienate her from her husband and send her daughter to prison.

The costar of jack bauer in the season [female FBI agent] asks him indirectly if she should torture the the terrorist leader they have captured after she realizes that he will go free due to lack of evidence.

Jack Bauer responds saying,

"you took an oath, you made a promise to uphold the law, when you cross that line it always starts off with a small step, before you know it you're running as fast as you can in the wrong direction just to justify what you started in the first place, these laws were written by men a lot smarter than me. In the end I know that these laws have to be more important than the 15 people on the bus, I know that's right. In my mind, I know that's right.

But I just don't think my heart could have lived with it. I guess the only advice I can give you is try to make choices you can live with."

So the last two sentences are clearly pro torture, however this didn't change the fact that I was surprised with the sentences that preceded them.

I should also note that the terrorist leader that the female FBI agent is considering torturing is also responsible for the death of her boyfriend who worked with her at the FBI.

At the very end of the finale there are two important scenes.

Jack Bauer calls in a Muslim religious leader [not sure of the Muslim religions term for a preacher] who was introduced earlier in the season. This Muslim preacher had been questioned when Jack was under the assumption that one of his students was a terrorist. It turned out that the student had been framed and the fact that the student was Muslim was being used. Jack Bauer confesses to this preacher on his death bed seeking a sort of forgiveness for the things he has done.

The female FBI agent back at FBI HQ locks herself in the interrogation room with the terrorist leader and is clearly considering if she should torture him or not. Then the episode/season ends in a black screen.

-

My description does not exactly do it justice but in my opinion the ending was much more conflicted in regard to the issue of torture than I was expecting it to be. The biggest fallacy however being the surreal situations in that these agents knew without a shadow of a doubt that the people they tortured/considered torturing were absolutely guilty of horrific crimes. As we all know, this absolute clarity is usually only possible in Hollywood.

[Imperial]

It depends on the area what you call the Muslim preacher. In Iran I am pretty sure they would be mullahs(these are Shia). There are the old mystique-type sufis. Plus, I am sure that just like Catholics have deacons, priests and bishops there are different levels for Muslims too. Generally cleric can describe any religious figure though.

That is good to hear about the message in the show. I know lots of 24 fanatics who are good conservatives who want a strong national security, and I can sometimes get into huge foreign policy and privacy debates with them.

[Mosheh Thezion]

DAH.... JACK WILL LIVE... and the show will go on...


they cannot kill jack... he is the show.... and obviosuly... he lives... otherwise the producers wanted to kill the show... which they cant do... its too damm popular...

jack will live.. but in truth... i never was able to buy his infection... he was too damm strong threw all of it... and that says... the virus... wasnt that strong... eh?

-MEMAT

[asimplegirl]

I don't know. In a magazine this week, Kiefer said he wanted to be killed off.

[paulitics]

I think the show was one of the best ever made, and I was hooked on it about 4 or 5 years ago. I didn't realize that it was influencing people who can't distinguish between reality and fiction until I started hearing people use Jack Bauer as a talking point in a political discussion.
Now, I can't watch the show the same way again.

[Brian4Liberty]

My description does not exactly do it justice but in my opinion the ending was much more conflicted in regard to the issue of torture than I was expecting it to be. The biggest fallacy however being the surreal situations in that these agents knew without a shadow of a doubt that the people they tortured/considered torturing were absolutely guilty of horrific crimes. As we all know, this absolute clarity is usually only possible in Hollywood.[/B]

Exactly. These "ticking time-bombs" scenarios are complete fantasy. Anyone who cites them is clearly pro-torture and grasping at straws (or strawmen) to justify their barbarism.

I would say that the people at 24 are trying to cover their asses. They know they are coming under scrutiny for the constant, one-sided, pro-torture propaganda war they have been waging. They feel the tide turning on them.

[SWATH]

I thought it was still a very pro-torture ending. They just acknowledged the argument against torture then proceeded to say "but forget about all that and do what feels right to you at the time", then they present an obvious guilty criminal terrorist mastermind who is playing dumb, and of course the only way to extract info is to torture him which the hot red head prepares to do. Kind of like saying, we know the legal arguments against it but we are dealing with a terrorist here, we must torture him, this is the reality, not the fancy lofty sanctimonious objections to it.

[nullvalu]

I've seen every season of 24. It's definitely one of the best shows on TV, even if you don't always agree with the message. Overall I'd say this season wasn't bad. I do like how they cleared everything up at the end with Tony, and the little fact that his wife was pregnant when she was murdered was a huge surprise. What do you think of the female FBI agent? If they kill off Jack, at least they'll have a replacement. I don't like how they made the only "voice of reason" when it comes to anti-torture (the female FBI system analyst) into a complete pansy. You almost end up disliking her because of her stupid attitude, even if what she's saying is right. But at least they brought back Kim Bauer this season! wooo :P

[Scofield]

That's what separates 24 from reality.

In 24, they virtually almost always know the individual they are torturing is a terrorist and has information they need. In reality, no one knows with certainty if an individual has information you need or not. Humans, unlike Jack Bauer, are fallible and can make mistakes.

I have no qualms with the torture Jack Bauer (usually) is involved with. He knows those individuals are terrorists and have information, and since they have already committed themselves to killing innocent people...have at 'em, Jack. I, personally, would have sent Tony in that room last night with Wilson, and I would have covered up Olivia's assassination involvement. We, the viewr, is omnicient and knows Wilson is a terrorist and Hodges was a terrorist, who killed Olivia's brother no less; they both deserved to be tortured (for information) and die.

Life isn't black and white, and thus, I can't say I am 100% anti-torture. Nine times out of ten I will say I am anti-torture, as like I said, humans are fallible. Unless you are Jack Bauer, or are 100% certain (not 99% certain, but absolutely 100% certain) someone is a terrorist, I disagree with the use of torture. But if you can tell me with 100% certainty that an individual is a terrorist, who has or is planning to kill innocent people...have at 'em.

[Yieu]

Allow any torture, and innocents will be tortured.

[GunnyFreedom]

IMHO, they are only backpedaling on torture because public sentiment is moving in opposition to torture, and they want to preserve their ratings.

for the record, I only watched the 1st season; liked the show but hated how pro-torture it was, and was therefore unable to watch the subsequent seasons.

[Kraig]

My parents and my brother love that show, it's really depressing to be honest, I always hated TV.

[Scofield]

Allow any torture, and innocents will be tortured.

So...

Say you were a spy, and you gained entrance into Al Qaeda. You were now actually in Al Qaeda and you heard rumblings of a plan being put in motion to attack American soil.

If you could get one of the masterminds alone, and your team (FBI/CIA/whatever) moves in and captures him...you would be against torturing said person?

If I know with 100% certainty that said individual is a terrorist (you would, you're a member of Al Qaeda) and that he/she was planning an attack on American soil, I would not hesitate to torture him for information (provided conventional methods fail).

I'm not say we make torturing our policy, I am saying it is viable in some situations. Do I believe these situations arise often, or have arrived since 9/11? Probably not.

[GunnyFreedom]

So...

Say you were a spy, and you gained entrance into Al Qaeda. You were now actually in Al Qaeda and you heard rumblings of a plan being put in motion to attack American soil.

If you could get one of the masterminds alone, and your team (FBI/CIA/whatever) moves in and captures him...you would be against torturing said person? Why? Because it's morally wrong?

I'm sorry, but the lives of my family and the citizens of this country come before my morals and the life of a known terrorist. If I know with 100% certainty that said individual is a terrorist (you would, you're a member of Al Qaeda) and that he/she was planning an attack on American soil, I would not hesitate to torture him for information (provided conventional methods fail).

I'm not say we make torturing our policy, I am saying it is viable in some situations. Do I believe these situations arise often, or have arrived since 9/11? Probably not.

The problem is that any information gleaned from torture is notoriously unreliable. This was covered heavily for me in USMC Intelligence training.

The person being tortured will say anything they think you want to hear to make the torture stop, and almost anything they say will be misdirection.

In fact, I'd say that torture -- even in the instance you cite above -- is wholly counter-productive because if you take the person at their word you will be wasting resources and manpower on all the wild-goose-chases the man sends you on trying to make the torture stop; while the real attack takes place somewhere else.

Torture is not an intelligence tool. It can only be an intimidation tool. And historical evidence strongly suggests that it simply does not work.

[asimplegirl]

Yeah, I am with Glen on this one. (Go figure, huh?)

[itshappening]

you also missed the president "upholding the constitution" hahaa... yet she spends the whole season doing unconstitutional things. I thought that was ironic from the writers.

[Yieu]

The problem is that any information gleaned from torture is notoriously unreliable. This was covered heavily for me in USMC Intelligence training.

The person being tortured will say anything they think you want to hear to make the torture stop, and almost anything they say will be misdirection.

In fact, I'd say that torture -- even in the instance you cite above -- is wholly counter-productive because if you take the person at their word you will be wasting resources and manpower on all the wild-goose-chases the man sends you on trying to make the torture stop; while the real attack takes place somewhere else.

Torture is not an intelligence tool. It can only be an intimidation tool. And historical evidence strongly suggests that it simply does not work.

Since Scofield's post was directed at me, I was about to formulate a response, but then I refreshed and saw that Gunny said what I was going to say but better than I could due to his formal training in the matter. Thanks for that, Gunny. :)

[Scofield]

The problem is that any information gleaned from torture is notoriously unreliable. This was covered heavily for me in USMC Intelligence training.

The person being tortured will say anything they think you want to hear to make the torture stop, and almost anything they say will be misdirection.

In fact, I'd say that torture -- even in the instance you cite above -- is wholly counter-productive because if you take the person at their word you will be wasting resources and manpower on all the wild-goose-chases the man sends you on trying to make the torture stop; while the real attack takes place somewhere else.

Torture is not an intelligence tool. It can only be an intimidation tool. And historical evidence strongly suggests that it simply does not work.

And what if the information is not misdirection?

What would it hurt to send a small group to investigate what the detainee says? If the detainee is telling the truth, it's possible to stop the attack. If the detainee is lying, sure a few of our resources were used up for no reason, but wouldn't it be worth the risk?

You don't have to send the entire CIA, every agent, to the location the detainee releases. Send a few scouts to check it out to see if he is telling the truth or not. Call the local PD, who are probably out harassing people like you and I, and have them scope it out if you're worried about wasting resources.

And if the detainee is lying, and we torture him without receiving any answers? Well, yeah, it sucks that we couldn't get any answers, but we attempted to save innocent people. What else are you going to do, just let him sit there in the holding cell while you run around town looking for the bomb?

[Yieu]

And if the detainee is lying, and we torture him without receiving any answers? Who gives a fuck, he's a terrorist. (Again, this is a case by case situation, not a policy).

And what if he is not a terrorist?

If you are on these forums, you know how the government slowly but surely expands, and you must also know the definition of "terrorist" is ever-expanding.

Surely, at some point, sooner rather than later (I am sure it has already happened), an innocent would be tortured.

If we torture, we have no moral high ground to stand on, and we are no better than the terrorists ourselves.

If someone was torturing you, and repeatedly asking you "Are you a member of [x-terrorist group]?", eventually you might say yes just to see if that would make it stop. You would be desperate, and would say anything to make it stop. They could invent scenarios and you would be agreeing that they are all plots of that group. This probably already happened.

[Scofield]

And what if he is not a terrorist?


Did you not read my example?

You are a spy in a sleeper cell, you are a member of Al Qaeda (to get information). If he's not a terrorist, what the hell is he doing in Al Qaeda?


If you are on these forums, you know how the government can slowly but surely expand, and you must also know the definition of "terrorist" is ever-expanding.

Surely, at some point, sooner rather than later (I am sure it has already happened), an innocent would be tortured.

Again, you guys are horrible at reading-comprehension.

I told you, I don't support torture unless there is 100% proof said individual is a terrorist. Like I said, no one is Jack Bauer, humans are fallible. 99% of the time I wouldn't support torture, but that 1% where you know the guy is a terrorist, I support it.

You can't dismiss torture entirely, because there might be a case where you are 100% certain said individual is a terrorist. We have agents in sleeper cells, and if we can seperate a terrorist and arrest him, how could you not support torturing him (if conventional methods fail) to get information?


If we torture, we have no moral high ground to stand on, and we are no better than the terrorists ourselves.

Fuck morals.

If it means saving innocent people, you do it. If you know the guy is a terrorist, he deserves to be in the ground anyway. I would light his fucking face on fire if it meant getting information to help my family (or your family).


If someone was torturing you, and repeatedly asking you "Are you a member of [x-terrorist group]?", eventually you might say yes just to see if that would make it stop. You would be desperate, and would say anything to make it stop. They could invent scenarios and you would be agreeing that they are all plots of that group. This probably already happened.

I am not a terrorist. I am not in Al Qaeda. I wouldn't be in a position where I would be labeled a terrorist (I am not the USA Government, I am speaking on my grounds for calling people terrorists/torturing).

I am acting as Jack Bauer, not as the government. I am not creating a policy. I am doing what is necessary to save lives.

[Yieu]

Did you not read my example?

You are a spy in a sleeper cell, you are a member of Al Qaeda (to get information). If he's not a terrorist, what the hell is he doing in Al Qaeda?

Your example is a Hollywood example, and I would have trouble taking it seriously.


Fuck morals.

Some of us still have them.


I am not a terrorist. I am not in Al Qaeda.

Say that again after a few months of various methods of non-stop torture interspersed with them yelling accusations and asking whether you are. You cannot say for certain what state your mind would be in after that.


I wouldn't be in a position where I would be labeled a terrorist (I am not the USA Government, I am speaking on my grounds for calling people terrorists/torturing).

You may already be labeled as a terrorist, according to the US government. And that's what matters -- reality, not hypotheticals where conditions are 100% perfect.

[LibertyEagle]

I believe this show to be pure propaganda and created for just that purpose.

[Scofield]

Let me put it this way...

If I am the President, and CIA Agent Joe tortures terrorist Habib and gets information (true or dubious), I give him a letter of reprisal. The only way this works though, is if Habib truly is a terrorist, and that is the only time I condone torture.

Problem is, this situation hardly ever (never?) arises.

[Yieu]

I believe this show to be pure propaganda and created for just that purpose.

I agree, and this is why I never have and never want to watch this show. The first time I heard of the show, (and most times after that) it was being used in a pro-torture argument... it is hard to respect a show which causes people to use it as such. And they always have the most insane impossible situations that could never happen, and use that to justify using torture in a broad, sweeping manner.

Also, since I generally don't post much, I wanted to point out that it's fun seeing your posts LibertyEagle, because your avatar reminds me of the highlight moment of the campaign -- that look Dr. Paul gave McCain.

[Scofield]

You may already be labeled as a terrorist, according to the US government. And that's what matters -- reality, not hypotheticals where conditions are 100% perfect.

Which is why I say I don't support a government policy of torture.

I support individual uses of torture if the circumstances support it. If you are deep undercover and you can get a mastermind secluded, and the CIA can intercept him, I sure as hell am going to support you torturing him.

I don't support you going up to random people on the side of the road, picking them up, taking them to Gitmo, and torturing them because "you think" they are a terrorist. There has to be 100% proof.

[Brian4Liberty]

Problem is, this situation hardly ever (never?) arises.

Yep. I would say never arises.

[Brian4Liberty]

I believe this show to be pure propaganda and created for just that purpose.

Yep.

[angelatc]

I've seen every season of 24. It's definitely one of the best shows on TV, even if you don't always agree with the message. Overall I'd say this season wasn't bad. I do like how they cleared everything up at the end with Tony, and the little fact that his wife was pregnant when she was murdered was a huge surprise. What do you think of the female FBI agent? If they kill off Jack, at least they'll have a replacement. I don't like how they made the only "voice of reason" when it comes to anti-torture (the female FBI system analyst) into a complete pansy. You almost end up disliking her because of her stupid attitude, even if what she's saying is right. But at least they brought back Kim Bauer this season! wooo :P

I hate Kim Bauer. "Gee, I wonder what trouble will befall her?"

I am really, really pissed because nobody ripped out any of Janeane Garafalo's fingernails or slit her throat using those ugly glasses.

[asimplegirl]

LOL ,angel.

[Reason]

I hate Kim Bauer.

omg no way,

so is sooooooo fine :D

http://theryancokeexperience.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/elisha-cuthbert1.jpg