CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Scalia Loves Jack Bauer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scalia Loves Jack Bauer - Page 2

post #51 of 71
6/20/07 at 7:44pm
Creating a foundation for this kind of thinking/policies, I would actually think it was a masterstroke if Joel Surnow weren't such a proven dunderhead.
Reply
post #52 of 71
6/20/07 at 7:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
Also, it's not like 24 invented the ticking timebomb scenario, it's just currently a very visible piece of pop culture that illustrates the point. I'm sure the "Is torture justified if it prevents a catastrophe?" argument existed long before Jack Bauer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz
It did, but it didn't have such a popular, dramatic, and skewed (as metnitioned earlier, it's easy to justify the hero's actions when you have complete control over the villains' thoughts and actions as well) example for those who oppose accountability to cling to.
Both good points. A lot of good points raised in this thread. It seems that the outrage should be focussed on the point Scalia is making, not necessarily the way he is making it. The problem with the way he made the point is that a lot people, particularly the Republican presidential candidates, seem to be using 24 to justify their "tough" stances on what they call enhanced interrogation techniques. So it's easy to react when Scalia uses Jack Bauer to illustrate a point at a panel discussion, which I think was an entirely appropriate matter for discussion in that forum.

As for my personal views on torture*, I don't believe it should ever be sanctioned by the US (or any) government. I was really baffled and disappointed by the seemingly whole-hearted endorsement of physical torture techniques by most of the Republican field. The "ticking time bomb" scenario, to my knowledge, has never happened. At least, we haven't been told if it has happened. But to officially sanction torture in that situation creates a damn slippery slope that would lead to even more abuse. However, if a "ticking time bomb" scenario actually occurred, the agent in charge did go all Jack Bauer, and, as a result, a nuclear catastrophe were prevented, I would have a really hard time sitting on a jury and finding that agent guilty. I'm not saying I wouldn't find him guilty (from a legal standpoint it would seem obvious enough); it would just be a really hard decision from an emotional standpoint. All the torture we have heard about over the last few years has had nothing to do with that extreme scenario, though. That bothers me.

*I'm also a little puzzled as to how to define that word. The US codified definition leaves a lot of room for interpretation, particularly with the word "severe." In my mind, it would include (but not be limited to) any form of interrogation that is designed to cause direct physical pain.
Reply
post #53 of 71
6/20/07 at 8:15pm
No, guys, see, what happened here is that someone made an offhand, joking reference to Jack Bauer, implying that he was the model on which conservatives were basing their knowledge of torture. And Scalia, instead of saying, "Oh, stop it, we're more sophisticated than that," launched into an elaborate (and stupid) defense of Jack Bauer, suggesting that the Canadian judge's implication is exactly right.

In other words, Scalia was accused of idolizing Jack Bauer's style of two-fisted, torturin' justice, and he basically confirmed that. THAT is what's creepy about this. It's like if I compared you to Hitler, and instead of saying, "Oh, stop exaggerating," you said, "Now, wait a minute, Hitler wasn't so bad."
Reply
post #54 of 71
6/20/07 at 8:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
No, guys, see, what happened here is that someone made an offhand, joking reference to Jack Bauer, implying that he was the model on which conservatives were basing their knowledge of torture. And Scalia, instead of saying, "Oh, stop it, we're more sophisticated than that," launched into an elaborate (and stupid) defense of Jack Bauer, suggesting that the Canadian judge's implication is exactly right.

In other words, Scalia was accused of idolizing Jack Bauer's style of two-fisted, torturin' justice, and he basically confirmed that. THAT is what's creepy about this. It's like if I compared you to Hitler, and instead of saying, "Oh, stop exaggerating," you said, "Now, wait a minute, Hitler wasn't so bad."
We must have read completely different articles.
Reply
post #55 of 71
6/20/07 at 8:50pm
I read the article in which the Canadian judge made a passing remark, obviously intended as a glib punctuation to his statement, about Jack Bauer, and Scalia leapt to the fictional character's defense. For some reason, people in this thread are interpreting this as Scalia being invited to share his opinions on a fictional TV show with the panel, rather than dragging down the level of discourse to a fanboy debate, which is what he did.
Reply
post #56 of 71
6/20/07 at 11:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
We're all aware of your black and white worldview, Brad. I'm pro-rape, too, remember?
Initially, that was a joke, because of you being a smug little cunt. But since you've just said you're fine with off-the-books torture, then you probably are really pro rape, so long as it's not endorsed by the police.
Reply
post #57 of 71
6/21/07 at 7:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastronikolas
Did 24 really affect the mind of a Supreme Justice? i hardly think so, unless Scalia really is insane.
This is a sidebar to the main discussion, and it's probably worth its thread, so feel free to move along if you don't find this interesting.

Mastro, are you saying that fiction has no impact on the minds of sane people? Didn't Les Miserables make you want to be a better person? Didn't The Daughter of Time make you rethink Richard III? Didn't War and Peace make you rethink your philosophy of history?

Fcition has a profound impact on the minds of sane people. That's one of fiction's raisons d'etre.
Reply
post #58 of 71
6/21/07 at 9:28am
When I think of fictional works influencing government, the bible springs to mind.

Quote:
To an extent, isn't this what Scalia was saying? If a Bauer-analog tortured a suspect and gained info that prevented a nuclear catastrophe, and said Bauer-analog went before a jury, very few juries would find him guilty.
I bet all juries would find him guilty. There's nothing in the laws that says it's okay to torture people for a good reason, and I expect any jury would be reminded of that in no uncertain terms. Juries don't determine whether or not they agree with defendants, they just determine whether defendants have broken the law. If Scalia thinks that juries should be swayed by appeals to emotion ("You can't convict my client, he's a hero!") then he's in the wrong line of work.

Nevertheless, if people feel torture is justified, let them commit their atrocities and argue they are justified afterwards. That's a far better solution than having policy that condones torture.
Reply
post #59 of 71
6/21/07 at 9:36am
Frank, don't compare 24, which is essentially neocon pornography, with War and Peace. We're not talking about a great, classical work of fiction changing someone's world view, we're talking about a Supreme Court Justice using an insane TV show as justification for torture.
Reply
post #60 of 71
6/21/07 at 9:59am
Torture: only funny when Frank Castle does it.
Reply
post #61 of 71
6/21/07 at 5:57pm
With what I remember of 24, the bits of torture seemed to me to be obviously over the top, as if to try to provoke debates about it in real life. I suspect the biggest surprise from the producers is that it's actually been taken somewhat seriously, at least by the right wing fear mongers. They and Kiefer may have made a monster.
Reply
post #62 of 71
6/22/07 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Millette
Frank, don't compare 24, which is essentially neocon pornography, with War and Peace. We're not talking about a great, classical work of fiction changing someone's world view, we're talking about a Supreme Court Justice using an insane TV show as justification for torture.
You're right. I'm interested in exploring this idea, however, as it comes up in conversations about television, video games, and movies. If I can come up with a thread starter that doesn't sound like a blog entry, I'll see if there's enough intereest here to get a conversation on the subject rolling.
Reply
post #63 of 71
6/22/07 at 7:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Jones
I suspect the biggest surprise from the producers is that it's actually been taken somewhat seriously, at least by the right wing fear mongers.
I read a magazine article some time ago which made the producer out to be a true-believing Fox News kind of guy, while Sutherland was saying, "Hey, they're just stories, man."
Reply
post #64 of 71
6/22/07 at 11:48am
Joel Surnow, the creator and showrunner 24, is a super right wing nutjob. It's a really entertaining show, but its leanings are tattooed on its forehead. In fact, iirc, military officers visited the set at one point and tried to explain to 24's principals that their portrayal of torture was erroneous and asked them to ease up on it, which Surnow or one of the producers claimed they were going to. But Scalia gets high points for articulating the basic thrust of each and every season of 24: Jack knows best and you impede his brutal/illegal methods at the US's peril.
Reply
post #65 of 71
6/22/07 at 11:55am
I'm telling you, 24 is neocon pornography. It's all about circumventing law to torture the hell out of brown people.
Reply
post #66 of 71
6/22/07 at 12:02pm
I gave up at about 4:00 pm, Season 1. Amnesia? Oh, fuck off.
Reply
post #67 of 71
6/22/07 at 12:08pm
Holy Shit. How the fuck can anyone take that mind-numbing piece of shit show seriously? What're they gonna do next, use it as rationalisation to exterminate cougars lest they attack lost cheerleaders?

24: bad-guy refuses to talk. Jack Bauer punches bad guy in the balls. bad guy divulges location of Salazar's detonator.

Real Life: bad guy refuses to talk. Jack Bauer punches bad guy in the balls. Bad guy still refuses to talk. Jack Bauer takes a bite out of his balls. bad guy is terrified and makes up something to stop being tortured. Rinse. Repeat.

Alternately, replace bad guy with innocent guy who doesn't know anything and who'll say anything to stop getting the shit kicked out of his balls. Yes, in my world, Bauer ALWAYS goes for the balls.
Reply
post #68 of 71
6/22/07 at 12:19pm
Your world is kinda, y'know... a little gay.
Reply
post #69 of 71
6/22/07 at 12:21pm
Put your balls in my mouth, Brad, I got a hankerin' for some state secrets!
Reply
post #70 of 71
6/22/07 at 12:25pm
But... Jack Bauer hates balls!
Reply
post #71 of 71
6/22/07 at 2:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankCobretti
You're right. I'm interested in exploring this idea, however, as it comes up in conversations about television, video games, and movies. If I can come up with a thread starter that doesn't sound like a blog entry, I'll see if there's enough intereest here to get a conversation on the subject rolling.
So, what you're saying is that there is a knee-jerk reaction to people like Senator Lieberman suggesting that movies and video games being too violent and, as such, are dangerous because people are influenced by media, but when it comes to things like 24 influencing Scalia into thinking torture is okay, we don't object. If I have your point understood, I see what you're saying and I agree, it is an interesting dichotomy.

I think that media does influence people. I think that we, as a species, have not yet understood the effect of our hypermedia existence in regards to the effects it has on us and our behavior.

That being said, do I think that people who see violent movies go out and commit violence? Probably not, and even if so, the casual connection between the media and the act is so tenuous that legislating a toning down of media will not deter any future actions. People who want to commit atrocious acts, and have the wherewithal to do so*, will still commit those acts. To wit: there's always been violence in our nature and there probably always will be; banning August Underground will not solve that problem.

However, it is absurd to suggest that we are immune to the effects of media. If that were true, why would there be commercials? Obviously this stuff effects us and those effects can be successfully induced to change our actions and our behavior. If media couldn't achieve that, there would be no commercials advertising the latest ED drug.

Back to the topic at hand. My objection to Scalia's comments is not that he's using 24 to illustrate an absurd legal principal, or that he appears to be influenced by the unreality of the show, but that he's adopted a stance that seems counter to the principals that underlie our society. In doing so, he's shown that he is what many of his detractors believe him to be: an out-of-touch, arrogant Justice with little concern for the practical effects of his jurisprudence. In effect, he's become a shill for the Bush Cabal's worse authoritarian instincts. Yes, I've read the dissent in Hamdi, but, in a way, that makes his apparent belief system even worse.

*This is one of my problems with Hostel, actually. I don't buy that a large enough segment of the population has the stomach to commit the acts portrayed in those movie to warrant building a business around it. Thankfully, very few people have the stones to be so brutal. Of course, you could argue that's what makes the concept so horrifying. You'd be wrong, but that's a possible argument.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Scalia Loves Jack Bauer