Open letter to the makers of 24.
Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:43 pm
Thanks. Thanks for feeding one of the most barbarous myths in human history. During virtually every episode of "24," viewers are treated to scenes in which suspects are tortured and, as a result, valuable and accurate information about terrorist activities is extracted by law enforcement officials.
Clearly, whatever research you have conducted into the history of counterterrorism operations was insufficient to reveal the realities of political or judicial torture.
A good starting point would be the European witch-hunting craze of the 16th and 17th centuries. Witches, it was assumed, would not confess their crimes except under torture. So, as suspects were brought in, their fingers were smashed, their eyes gouged out, and their limbs torn from their sockets. And they confessed.
Further application of unbearable pain brought out the names of others who had flown on broomsticks and placed hexes on the neighbor's cow. Such information, of course, was false. Put someone under sufficient duress and they are likely to tell you whatever they think you want to hear.
Torture, therefore, might reveal valuable and accurate information. But it is even more likely to bring out false confessions and false accusations, from both the innocent and the guilty.
Torture does serve one political purpose, though: It is an excellent way to terrorize people. This is the effect it had in Latin America, Northern Ireland, apartheid South Africa and countless other conflict zones.
In this sense, the torturer and the suicide bomber are very much alike. Both believe that creating fear and terror will lead to positive political change.
I believe this is very much mistaken. But whether you agree or not, feeding the myth that torture keeps us safe by providing us with accurate information about terrorists and terrorism does harm to our country and our world.
Torture is itself a form of terrorism. If you believe that terror can only be fought with terror, by all means say so clearly. If, however, you are simply trying to entertain the public by feeding mistaken beliefs, at least understand the horrible nature of the hysteria you are stoking
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000
ModEdit: There is already a thread on 24, please post all 24 related information there! - Ammer
Clearly, whatever research you have conducted into the history of counterterrorism operations was insufficient to reveal the realities of political or judicial torture.
A good starting point would be the European witch-hunting craze of the 16th and 17th centuries. Witches, it was assumed, would not confess their crimes except under torture. So, as suspects were brought in, their fingers were smashed, their eyes gouged out, and their limbs torn from their sockets. And they confessed.
Further application of unbearable pain brought out the names of others who had flown on broomsticks and placed hexes on the neighbor's cow. Such information, of course, was false. Put someone under sufficient duress and they are likely to tell you whatever they think you want to hear.
Torture, therefore, might reveal valuable and accurate information. But it is even more likely to bring out false confessions and false accusations, from both the innocent and the guilty.
Torture does serve one political purpose, though: It is an excellent way to terrorize people. This is the effect it had in Latin America, Northern Ireland, apartheid South Africa and countless other conflict zones.
In this sense, the torturer and the suicide bomber are very much alike. Both believe that creating fear and terror will lead to positive political change.
I believe this is very much mistaken. But whether you agree or not, feeding the myth that torture keeps us safe by providing us with accurate information about terrorists and terrorism does harm to our country and our world.
Torture is itself a form of terrorism. If you believe that terror can only be fought with terror, by all means say so clearly. If, however, you are simply trying to entertain the public by feeding mistaken beliefs, at least understand the horrible nature of the hysteria you are stoking
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...sn=001&sc=1000
ModEdit: There is already a thread on 24, please post all 24 related information there! - Ammer
Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:49 pm
I smell controversy.
But I agree wholeheartedly with the article.
But I agree wholeheartedly with the article.
Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:55 pm
Wow... deja vu. o_0 I could have sworn I've heard something like this on this forum before.
Either way, I agree, though that link's not working.
Either way, I agree, though that link's not working.
Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:23 am
PS
Jack Baurer sucks
Get Chuck Norris.
Fin
Jack Baurer sucks
Get Chuck Norris.
Fin
Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:38 am
Xil wrote:PS
Jack Baurer sucks
Get Chuck Norris.
Fin
Not true!
Consult the "Jack Bauer" clause, in Amendment 46 to the US Constituation. "If you are a government official, you can do anything as long as the end result is guaranteed to be relatiively good for all of society." Since Jack Bauer is the only government person who's wnough of a Bad Dude to predict the resultsd of all his actions, he is the only person to whom it applies, i.e., not Chuck Norris,
Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:09 am
Chuck Norris' actions have been less harmful to society than Jack Bauer's.
Amendment 47 says you're full of it!
Amendment 47 says you're full of it!
Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:40 am
Chuck Norris is the most dangerous person alive. Everybody knows that! Amendment 48 revokes A47.
And yeah, the show is rather inaccurate in that fact. But any politically-neutral show in this genre is good, because otherwise it would be a bunch of propagnda clouding an enjoyable plot.
And frankly, so does complaining about the political accuracy. Just enjoy the show!
And yeah, the show is rather inaccurate in that fact. But any politically-neutral show in this genre is good, because otherwise it would be a bunch of propagnda clouding an enjoyable plot.
And frankly, so does complaining about the political accuracy. Just enjoy the show!
Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:48 am
I just don't like the idea of the show. One day for a whole season is ridiculous and I can't stand Jack Bauer. I've seen it. My family and my fiance's family like it and I have to sit through it often.
Kym, while I've never thought of the show that way before, you're absolutely right! Did you really send that letter to them? You should.
Kym, while I've never thought of the show that way before, you're absolutely right! Did you really send that letter to them? You should.
Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:29 am
pinkflamingonewsgirl wrote:I just don't like the idea of the show. One day for a whole season is ridiculous ...
My dad is a fan of the show, but he rips it to pieces based solely on the single day part. He grew up in LA and lived there for many a year, plus should be visiting family there as I write. The basic time restraints from getting from one part of the city and back again would take many hours... on a good day.
In fact, one of his last comments was on a drive that took Jack or someone about 15 min when it would take about 1-2 hr without traffic and by speeding the whole way.
Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:02 am
LOL can you imagine if half the season was Jack driving from one part of LA to another?
No I didn't write it, but I think it does bring across an interesting point.
And who is this Chuck Norris?
By the way, they should put in one season, daylight savings, so suddenly Jack has an extra hour to save the world.
No I didn't write it, but I think it does bring across an interesting point.
And who is this Chuck Norris?
By the way, they should put in one season, daylight savings, so suddenly Jack has an extra hour to save the world.
Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:40 pm
Kym wrote:And who is this Chuck Norris?
Who is Chuck Norris? Just the most awesomest butt kicker ever!
http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/
Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:22 pm
Kym wrote:LOL can you imagine if half the season was Jack driving from one part of LA to another?
Don't forget taking into account time needed for him to eat and go to the bathroom. I think he is more in danger of an urinary tract infection from holding it in too long than from anything the terrorists can throw at him.