Torture: It's just so Trite Posted by Rosa Brooks

If you haven't yet read Jane Mayer's piece in this week's New Yorker, you should. She describes the politics behind Fox's hit show "24," in which all-American hero Kieffer Sutherland successfully uses torture to stop impending terror attacks in virtually every episode. Surprise: the genius behind the show, Joel Surnow, is a big fan of Dick Cheney.

Mayer describes a confrontation between West Point Commandant Brig. Gen. Patrick Finnegan and some of the show's producers. Finnegan took the producers to task for glamorizing torture and making it hard for him to help cadets understand why America should respect the rule of law.

So now there's good news and bad news, as usual. The good news? The makers of 24 now say they plan to cut back on the torture scenes. The bad news? It's not because they care one jot what the military or the human rights community thinks. It's just that, well, all those torture scenes are "starting to feel a little trite," says executive producer Howard Gordon. "The idea of physical coercion or torture is no longer a novelty or surprise."

I'm not a big Michael Moore fan, but when I read things like this I do start to wonder,  "Dude, Where's My Country?"

Comments

[Don Bacon]

Did the West Point Commandant also object to real-life atrocities like Fallujah, Abu Ghraib and cluster bombs on kids as components of our Noble Cause in Iraq? No, I guess not. These things happen, we know they go on, but we don't want them televised. We want deniability in our complicity so we needn't compromise our "support the troops" mentality.

[Terry]

Don, I think you need to actually read the
article in question. Here are some relevant
quotes:

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070219fa_fact_mayer

"...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."

"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."

"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.”

"Gary Solis, a retired law professor who
designed and taught the Law of War for
Commanders curriculum at West Point,
told me that he had similar arguments
with his students. He said that, under
both U.S. and international law,
“Jack Bauer is a criminal. In real
life, he would be prosecuted.” Yet
the motto of many of his students was
identical to Jack Bauer’s: “Whatever
it takes.” His students were particularly
impressed by a scene in which Bauer
barges into a room where a stubborn
suspect is being held, shoots him in
one leg, and threatens to shoot the
other if he doesn’t talk. In less
than ten seconds, the suspect reveals
that his associates plan to assassinate
the Secretary of Defense. Solis told me,
“I tried to impress on them that this
technique would open the wrong doors,
but it was like trying to stomp out
an anthill.”

24 started to air soon after 911.
It would not surprise me at all
if it turned out that the American
torturers at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere
were also big fans of 24.

[Don Bacon]

You're right, Terry, not only has General Finnegan apparently failed to object to real-life atrocities--he actually taught the guys who supervised them. He is more complicit then I realized.

[Terry]

Don, I think you are still not understanding
the article.

1. Keifer Sutherland, under the name Jack
Bauer, is teaching many people, including
soldiers & officers, that torture is a very
effective way and heroic way to stop terrorism.

2. Patrick Finnegan on the other hand is trying
to teach his students that torture is not only
illegal, but also immoral and ineffective.
Unfortunately many of his students do not find
him as compelling as 24.

3. 24 is a fictional show that glamorizes torture,
it is not an expose of torture and the government.
24 does not expose the truth, instead it promotes
lies. In fact, 24 is so evil that it promotes
torture.

Don said:

"not only has General Finnegan apparently failed
to object to real-life atrocities"

This is a smear, you have no evidence that he has
failed to do anything.

Also, it makes no sense for him to object to a
show that promotes real life torture, without
objecting to actual cases of real life torture.

Don, tell the truth, are you secretly a big
fan of Jack Bauer, and his torture-loving
ways?

[Don Bacon]

Terry, allow me to give you some advice that you'll love me for. Before posting, put your post on notepad, de-select word wrap under format, copy and paste. Then your post will go full measure.

As for Finnegan:
1. He has been in charge of the USMA law department since July 1999.

2. There have been extensive war crimes committed by US army troops in Iraq for almost four years including the kidnapping, maltreatment, torture and killing of numerous Iraqi civilians.

3. USMA graduates, products of Finnegan's law instruction, have had command responsibility for these atrocities at the small-unit level where close supervision is essential and usual.

4. If students fail to learn the teacher has failed to teach. "He always tries, he said, to get his students to sort out not just what is legal but what is right." What the hell does that mean? The Law of War is very clear on what is right and what is wrong. There is nothing to "sort out". Mistreating civilians is not permitted, that's it. Period. In fact soldiers are supposed to protect civilians in a war zone. In Iraq the opposite has been the case.

5. Therefore, Finnegan bears some responsibility for these atrocities--which is why he hasn't spoken out about them. He has only made recent publicity-seeking comments on a teevee show which is patterned on actual troop performance in the field. Loser.

[Madison Guy]

Great that the New Yorker is still doing journalism like this more than 80 decades after it was launched by Harold Ross. Browsing in the Rossosphere: His baby turns 82 today -- along with cover guy Eustace Tilley. The New Yorker has given us gritty journalism as well as pretentious fluff. It has also spawned a host of related blogs. Here’s a look at a few, with subjects ranging as far afield as haiku and chiasmus, with links.

[Terry]

Don:

"If students fail to learn the teacher has failed to teach."

Finnegan's students are adults, if some of them choose not to follow his teachings (other than to regurgitate whatever they need to pass the course) then that most definitely is not his fault.

Now if he was teaching his students that it is morally ok to torture then he most definitely would bear some responsibility if they then went out and committed torture. But I see no evidence that that is the case.

"Mistreating civilians is not permitted, that's it. Period. In fact soldiers are supposed to protect civilians in a war zone."

Well the torturers, and their apologists, are claiming that their torture victims are not civilians, and thus do not have the protections that civilians have. I'm sure Finnegan is teaching the Geneva Conventions under which *all* prisoners have the right not to be tortured. But if some of his students choose to believe otherwise, there is no way he can do a Vulcan Mind Meld and force them to understand that torture, under all circumstances, is wrong and evil.

* * * *

"a teevee show which is patterned on actual troop performance in the field"

I'm glad you are not a fan of 24. In fact I think you must be thinking of a completely different show. 24 is in no way based on reality. Instead it is based in a bizarre fantasy version of Los Angeles where nuclear bombs are regularly set to go off and where Jack Bauer is magically always able to find the one person who knows where the bomb is. And he always finds that person just before the bomb is set to go off.

So while the plot lines are completely divorced from reality, the arguments in favor of torture (that these crazy plots illustrate) are very very real. It is these very real arguments that have convinced so many people that torture is necessary in the war on terror.

http://www.alternet.org/story/46757/

[Don Bacon]

Terry,

Your post looks better. It wouldn't have hurt you to thank me. Where were you brought up?

Your reasoning isn't any better, however.
1. You didn't explain what Finnegan meant by watering down the law he is supposed to be teaching by asking his students to "sort out" what is legal.
2. What is your evidence that the torturers claim that their victims aren't civilians? You made that up, I believe.
3. I don't have a teevee. Obviously the torture aspects of the 24 show are based on current US government torture policy which has occurred worldwide but most notoriously in Iraq, and you haven't disputed that.

[Terry]

"Your post looks better. It wouldn't have hurt
you to thank me. Where were you brought up?"

Well Don, I think I prefer my old way of posting,
thank you very much.

1. Since there are a number of laws & conventions
covering the treatment of detainees, part of Finnegan's
job, as a teacher of law, would be to help his students
"sort out" which laws pertain in differing circumstances.

In addition: "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."

2. From "Human Rights Watch"

http://hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/1.htm

"In May 2004, a member of the 377th Military
Police Company told the New York Times that the
labeling of prisoners in Afghanistan as “enemy
combatants” not subject to the Geneva Conventions
contributed to their abuse. “We were pretty much
told that they were nobodies, that they were just
enemy combatants,” he said. “I think that giving
them the distinction of soldier would have changed
our attitudes toward them.”

After the Abu Ghraib photos came out, the right-wing
blogosphere was awash with people claiming that since
the prisoners were "enemy combatants" (non-civilians)
that it was ok to abuse them.

3. "Obviously the torture aspects of the 24 show are
based on current US government torture policy which
has occurred worldwide but most notoriously in Iraq,
and you haven't disputed that."

No, sorry 24 is a fantasy that takes place in a
fantasy Los Angeles of the future, it has nothing to
do with Iraq other than as an elaborate justification
for torture.

Torture has been used by repressive governments for
thousands of years, the creators of 24 really do not
have to look at the U.S. military for inspiration.
Instead, it seems, the opposite is happening.

Well Don, it seems very odd that you qualify your
condemnation of torture to only the torture of
civilians (torturing non-civilians is ok?). Also,
it seems odd that you keep defending a show that
promotes torture, and at the same time you attack
someone who is coming out against torture
and against the promotion of torture by 24.

So which is it? Are you for or against torture??

[Don Bacon]

Terry,
Stick it. You're thick and you're rude.