A long delayed report, a fine piece of investigative journalism and a recent scientific study have combined to seriously erode the credibility of arguments popularized by “24.” Its influence will long outlast the series, though.
For more on pruning back executive power see Pruning Shears.
No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post
It would be understandable if conservatives had become somewhat exasperated about the Fox show 24 and its lead character Jack Bauer. His image has undergone a transformation in the last few years in much the same way his regrettably nonfictional political counterparts have. The latter used to be called neoconservatives, and they portrayed themselves as stalwart warriors unflinchingly defending America’s vital interests, perhaps its very survival, against implacable foes abroad and faltering appeasers at home. Now that their grand designs have not, to put it charitably, borne expected fruit the term has been derisively shortened to “neocon” and conjures up images of chickenhawks cheerleading for war as the first response to everything.
Bauer was once greatly admired on the right as well. In June of 2006 the Secretary of Homeland Security attended a forum on terrorism titled 24 and America’s Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction or Does It Matter? “It reflects real life” he enthused, and lest you think he just got carried away by the moment he followed up over a year later with more praise. A Time article reported the vice president a big fan and declared, “Most damningly to critics on the left, Bauer’s means of gathering intel (grab terrorist’s finger, snap, repeat) make 24 a weekly rationalization of the ‘ticking time bomb’ defense of torture.” Antonin Scalia – a Supreme Court justice! – proved so disconnected from reality that he actually said “Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles.” Unlike Chertoff or Cheney, Scalia has a lifetime appointment. Even if the narrowest view of the show’s influence – are its high profile fans still serving? – is taken, it still is relevant.
The show is most valuable because it is one of the few places that reveals the conservative id. Whether it is Cheney’s infamous “We also have to work sort of the dark side, if you will. We’re going to spend time in the shadows in the intelligence world” or the more flippant “What’s needed is a little bit of smacky-face” of an intelligence officer, torture proponents have routinely couched their approval of brutal treatment with euphemism or dismissal. 24 does not need such decorum, so it can show lurid cruelty with relish. It gives free rein to vengeful fantasies otherwise sacrificed to the altar of political correctness.
The visceral argument it presents has been a linchpin of right wing justifications for years, but evidence continues to pile up against it. First it was all about the ticking time bomb scenario, where a detainee had details about an attack already in motion. That no such cases ever occurred in real life is testament to the power of saving a fictional Los Angeles. When the 2004 CIA Inspector General report was finally released and we learned as much, right wingers added the caveat that torture was fine as long as it produced information that could eventually have saved lives. Whether humane techniques would have done so, or whether the information really did save lives – which outside of the bomb case is fairly hard to nail down – is not discussed.
Then there was Shane O’Mara’s article a few weeks ago on why torture does not work. It focused on the effect of torture on the brain, and he writes:
The use of such techniques appears motivated by a folk psychology that is demonstrably incorrect. Solid scientific evidence of how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions (such as planning or forming intentions) suggests that these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended by coercive or ‘enhanced’ interrogation.
By focusing on how the quality of the information produced under coercion degrades, O’Mara makes the case – with evidence, unlike the intuitive “folk psychology” he rebuts – that traditional techniques are not just moral, but good policy.
Then last week Andy Worthington produced a detailed report on the torture of Fouad al-Rabiah. The government detained a man they knew was innocent, tortured him to make him say what they wanted to hear, conspired to cover it up, then insisted it was all proper when called to account. Worthington’s damning indictment shows it was not the result of a few bad apples, but something more sinister. As Barbara Tuchman wrote of another ruler: “The King’s excited state of mind communicated itself, as royal rage will, to his deputies.”
This is where we end up when fictional narrative drives policy. Jack Bauer remains relevant because the right still ardently embraces his world view. Even when the show is long gone it will be useful to mention him as verbal shorthand for the fruitless and gratuitously violent outlook the right continues to champion.
