24: Day 7: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM/Season 7-Eps#!

[Darkwolf71]

Jack Bauer and 24 have always been about the ends justifying the means. If they turn very far from that ideal you'll see a lot of it's core audience bailing out pretty fast. I would get into the whys and wherefores, but that would quickly go into forbidden territory. Suffice to say, if 24 bends to the new political climate here in the states, it will likely bring about the end of the series.

 

[drothgery]

Of course, one of the key conceits of 24 is that torture is a fast, effective, and reliable means of getting information.

 

[delericho]

Jack Bauer and 24 have always been about the ends justifying the means...

Sure, I get that. But the thing is, they had an opportunity to explore some conflicting ideals there - Jack's belief that he had to do "whatever it takes" vs the FBI's insistence that they do things by the book, even when it's not convenient. There's the potential for some interesting storytelling there, especially when either the FBI refuse to torture, and something bad happens as a result or Jack engages in torture, and is later proven wrong.

Instead, the writers had the FBI agents talk up their principles, in fact explicitly stating that they'd apply "even when it's not convenient", and then casting them aside the instant those principles become inconvenient. It wasn't even a matter of a character coming to the conclusion that she'd been wrong, or that the consequences were so high that she had no choice - the character broke procedure literally at the very first opportunity.

And the victim of this torture? This wasn't some known terrorist that was known to have information that was immediately valuable. This was a contact whom Jack thought might have some information about the location of a suspected terrorist who might be involved in a threat that thus far had cost exactly zero lives! This wasn't even someone they suspected might be himself involved, and they had no evidence of current wrong-doing on the part of this individual.

Basically, I don't get it: why go to the bother of getting rid of CTU and replacing it with a unit of the FBI, complete with a "new George" (actually, "new Ryan Chapelle" might be a better description), "new Nina", "new Tony" and "new Chloe", if this new unit is functionally identical to the old CTU? The one distinction were the supposed principles that they followed, but those got discarded immediately. They've even got the obligatory "mole in the new-CTU" subplot going on!

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Of course, one of the key conceits of 24 is that torture is a fast, effective, and reliable means of getting information.

It's about time they change that. See how it fails. It failed on Tony, but he is one of the good guys, he doesn't count.

Basically, torture always works on the weaklings... How about someone giving Jack false information (knowingly or out of pure desperation?).

 

[Darkwolf71]

Sure, I get that. But the thing is, they had an opportunity to explore some conflicting ideals there - Jack's belief that he had to do "whatever it takes" vs the FBI's insistence that they do things by the book, even when it's not convenient. There's the potential for some interesting storytelling there, especially when either the FBI refuse to torture, and something bad happens as a result or Jack engages in torture, and is later proven wrong.

Instead, the writers had the FBI agents talk up their principles, in fact explicitly stating that they'd apply "even when it's not convenient", and then casting them aside the instant those principles become inconvenient. It wasn't even a matter of a character coming to the conclusion that she'd been wrong, or that the consequences were so high that she had no choice - the character broke procedure literally at the very first opportunity.

Not the first time Jack's 'superiors' have tried to make him play by the book, so this is not exactly groundbreaking material, in fact you could say that having one of the 'by the bookers' change so quickly was new stuff. They usually fight Jack tooth and nail until they are forced to change their mind.

 

[Darkwolf71]

It's about time they change that. See how it fails. It failed on Tony, but he is one of the good guys, he doesn't count.

Basically, torture always works on the weaklings... How about someone giving Jack false information (knowingly or out of pure desperation?).

Actually, the torture did work on Tony. He broke and gave Jack the information he needed. Granted, it wasn't what Jack thought he was asking for. Now Tony may not have broke for anyone else, but he knows two things about Jack, 1) that if he knew the truth he almost certainly would help and 2) that if he didn't give up something, Jack was fully capable of causing major bodily harm or even death.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Actually, the torture did work on Tony. He broke and gave Jack the information he needed. Granted, it wasn't what Jack thought he was asking for. Now Tony may not have broke for anyone else, but he knows two things about Jack, 1) that if he knew the truth he almost certainly would help and 2) that if he didn't give up something, Jack was fully capable of causing major bodily harm or even death.

No, it did not work. Tony provoked Jack so he would attack him, knowing that that's how Jack is likely to act, and used the closeness to convey an information that was important to his own goals. Tony could have done the empty staring thing if that was not what he wanted. Tony got what he wanted.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Tony had to adapt to the situation. He knows Jack is having his own trouble with the hearing. I don't think he wanted to bring Jack in, he adapted because having been caught, he had no choice

 

[RangerWickett]

Ugh. The limp-wristed pansy-butt claims that 'torture is bad' show exactly what Fox thinks of law, order, and decency. It's a token effort. Hell, it's not even that. They go out of their way to write situations where torture is the answer, just to try to prove that people who oppose torture are stupid.

[sblock]Honestly, you've got that dude who counterfeits keycards. You've got decent evidence, and you need his help. Real law enforcement agents who were forced to work in a hurry wouldn't say, "Help us or we stab you." They'd say, "Help us or we arrest you, and in the long run you will probably go down. Do you want to risk it?"

And a reasonable bad guy will say, "Hm. Good point. Allow me to step away from the window before I give you my response, though, just in case there's a sniper."

(Because there's always a sniper.)

Then you've got the injured guy in the bed. FBI chick goes in, and she should say, "Get his lawyers in here ASAP. We need to cut a deal. This man's information is only pertinent for a few minutes, so if they want a deal, they need to act fast." And the guy would say, "Fine, give me immunity and I'll tell you that they're planning to abduct some dude." Why would a random thug from a random group of thugs who aren't ideological extremists not cut a deal?[/sblock]

The action sequences are interesting, but damn, is the morality offensive. It makes me want to pirate it in spite, just so they won't get ad revenue from me watching it on TV.

 

[Darkwolf71]

Ugh. The limp-wristed pansy-butt claims that 'torture is bad' show exactly what Fox thinks of law, order, and decency. It's a token effort. Hell, it's not even that. They go out of their way to write situations where torture is the answer, just to try to prove that people who oppose torture are stupid.

[sblock]Honestly, you've got that dude who counterfeits keycards. You've got decent evidence, and you need his help. Real law enforcement agents who were forced to work in a hurry wouldn't say, "Help us or we stab you." They'd say, "Help us or we arrest you, and in the long run you will probably go down. Do you want to risk it?"

And a reasonable bad guy will say, "Hm. Good point. Allow me to step away from the window before I give you my response, though, just in case there's a sniper."

(Because there's always a sniper.)

Then you've got the injured guy in the bed. FBI chick goes in, and she should say, "Get his lawyers in here ASAP. We need to cut a deal. This man's information is only pertinent for a few minutes, so if they want a deal, they need to act fast." And the guy would say, "Fine, give me immunity and I'll tell you that they're planning to abduct some dude." Why would a random thug from a random group of thugs who aren't ideological extremists not cut a deal?[/sblock]

You must have missed the shows beginning where Jack was being questioned. He was the one saying that CTU's tactics should be out in the open, held accountable to the people. It looks to me as if FOX may be trying to play both sides of the fence this season. But, if you feel that strongly abut the wrongness of torture, why watch a show that you know from the previous six seasons, will involve extreme interrogation methods?

The action sequences are interesting, but damn, is the morality offensive. It makes me want to pirate it in spite, just so they won't get ad revenue from me watching it on TV.

Yeah, that would show them who holds the moral high ground.