Ya know, some things just don't change. Even considering the moral-analytical dilemma I just wrote about, I still felt intense reaction to various news items over the last few days. All the usual suspects were present:
We are watching a government agency, with almost no critical opposition from within, casually torture nearly anyone it believes has valuable, actionable intelligence. It doesn't matter who you are, the strength of the evidence against you, or even if you've comitted a crime. If it is possible something you might know could help save lives, you are not a human any longer. You are another tool to be used as they see fit.
This became crystal to me after watching Behrooz Araz (Jonathan Ahdout) fall under the interrogation methods of Curtis Manning (Roger Cross) after CTU is told to exchange him for Jack Bauer. It was assumed Behrooz knew something useful about the terrorists, organization, or the terrorists' plan. Using sickly euphemistic language like "lean on him" or "physical pressure," Curtis pushed Behrooz around and drugged him, eventually deciding he knew nothing useful. At that point, they coerce him into exchanging himself for Bauer...right back into the arms of the murderous terrorists whom the boy betrayed earlier.
On top of this, CTU sends him in wearing two tracking devices, on the safe assumption the one in his wristwatch will be found. It is, and the terrorists find the second one using the very same means they had to find the first! Now, Behrooz is about to be in the very armed, very unhappy, very tense, and very bloody embrace of the man who, if I recall correctly, ordered his father to kill him because he was becoming a threat to their mission.
Without a single complaint from anyone within CTU or "from Division" (at what level of hierarchal authority do lives become objects?), Behrooz Araz became a literal bargaining chip, with the same fundamental level of respect and consideration as a slice of plastic. No one questioned the essential violation of morality to, under the threat of violence, force a man (nevermind a child) to not only return people who are having a hard time deciding what to do with him (thereby acting no differently than CTU), but also to act as an agent and actively seek out the head terrorist, Habib Marwan (Arnold Vosloo) for the agency, almost entirely due to their inability to generate leads on him. No one asked Behrooz to help; no one sought his opinion. The Counter-Terrorist Unit simply drafted him, almost entirely on the grounds of its own incompetence.
As far as I know, the only thing Behrooz has done that was wrong was (1) not tell anyone about the massive terrorist conspiracy about to unfold and (2) volunteering to go along with it, up to the moment when he would have to personally kill someone. As clear as I can remember, the only information CTU has on Behrooz are the confessions he and his mother gave. I submit the treatment he received was dramatically more than he deserved given for what he is responsible. Willfull conspiracy to be complicit in mass murder is no small crime, but forcing the boy back to terrorists who have little use for him is just flatly abhorrent.
I'm an American and I've never been tortured by secret police or a shadowy law enforcement organization, so my imagination can only go so far in picturing what it feels like to live under the very real fear of their power. I'm watching this episode and I begin to get a clearer picture. This is the very state apparatus that we loudly condemn as vicious, moral, and totally unnecessary in other nations and yet there it is, on the very front lines, operating with seeming impunity, casting aside all the basic "protections" the Constitution allegedly secures the moment things go to shit.
It is, in my opinion, the perfect example of government in action.
Previous posts on 24: 24 and Torture, Fox's '24': A Libertarian Nightmare, and The Jack Bauer Power Hour.
UPDATED 4/18/2005 10:53pm
New posts: Inner Outrage; The Enslavement of Behrooz Araz, The Total Erosion of the Fourth Wall, and The 24 Embrace of Contemporary Politics
UPDATED 5/2/2005 10:56pm
Humanity Revealed in FOX's 24
UPDATED 5/17/2005 2:07pm
Quickie '24' Blog Items with an Emphasis on Richard Heller
UPDATED 3/13/2006 9:47am
My Take on FOX's '24' Ethics
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
How can a fictional TV show be "a perfect example" of anything? It may represent your fears about "government in action," but suppose that such action were necessary to the saving of millions of lives? Would you still have qualms about it?
Posted by: Tom on April 8, 2005 11:02 PMTom, if you can't abstract the actions and motivations of people that are part of the plots of literature, film, TV, and music and apply them to what happens in the real world, then what is the point of reading, watching, and listening to those forms of art? Of course you can watch a fictional TV program and see something that you think is a poor/good/perfect example of something happening in reality.
I don't condone torture, kidnapping, slavery, assault, murder, or theft. It is my position that every episode of '24' has contained one of more of those crimes by BOTH sides. However, since we know that the terrorists are in the wrong, I focus most of my condemnation on the counter-terrorists, who act in ways that resemble the terrorists more and more.
So, no, speaking as best as I can with my limited experience, I would not act criminally against a few in order to prevent a great crime against many. It might be applauded by the world, I might get a note in the history books, and I might be beset with gratitude and gifts, but I would still consider it wrong to torture/kidnap/enslave *SUSPECTS* who *MIGHT* know something of use.
Posted by: Drizz on April 10, 2005 12:56 PMYou say: "I would still consider it wrong to torture/kidnap/enslave *SUSPECTS* who *MIGHT* know something of use." Suppose the *MIGHT* were a near-certainty. That is, through a probable cause surveillance warrant you have discovered that there is a terrorist plot unfolding, but you don't know enough particulars to stop it directly. Instead, you must try to get the information from a person who was the subject of surveillance. Suppose, after trying every "legal" means of interrogation, you realize that you must resort to torture in an effort to get the information you need? Whether or not you succeed in getting that information is beside the point; you will have done what you could to stop the almost-certain commission of a heinous crime. It seems to me that if you don't make that effort, you are -- for all intents and purposes -- abetting that crime.
Think of it as a problem of self-defense. You wouldn't shoot a person for looking askance at you. You wouldn't shoot a person for shoving you in a crowd. You wouldn't shoot a person for punching you. But you (or I) might well shoot a person who had done the first three things and then pulled a gun. What makes his life better than yours? Torture, under the circumstances I've described, isn't a wanton act, it's an act of self-defense by my authorized agent on my behalf.
If you accept that argument, then we're just quibbling about where to draw the line in self-defense. If you don't accept that argument, well...
Anyway, I have enjoyed what little I've seen of your blog. I'll add it to my list of regular reads. From one Austinite to another, cheers.
Posted by: Tom on April 10, 2005 03:48 PMTom, it isn't self-defense to torture someone who hasn't harmed or attempted to harm me. We can argue about the particulars of your scenario, but in general, my standard of criminality requires an individual to either commit a crime or be moments away from committing a crime ("no turning back"). I'd ask the suspect questions but if he didn't respond, I would not attempt to for him to speak. Knowing things is not a crime and neither is talking about or planning a criminal act. For me, it has to go further than that to meet the test.
Your self-defense example defines torture out of the picture and makes the term "self-defense" almost meaningless. Those three actions consitute a direct and imminent threat to myself and anyone would be justified in taking defensive measures. However, the suspect has done nothing but talk about committing crime, acquire the means to do so, and plan with others who have done the same. It certainly constitutes a threat, but not one necessarily against me. You're viewing this from a collective responsiblity, police viewpoint whereas I'm viewing this from a individualist stance where I can only take violent action against those who violate my rights or those who are about to do so. Where that "about" line is drawn is up for debate, but in my opinion the suspect has not crossed it. His conspirators may have, but that still doesn't give me the right to treat him like a misbehaving hard drive.
"It seems to me that if you don't make that effort, you are -- for all intents and purposes -- abetting that crime."
I ask you to seriously reconsider this. See http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/001167.html for my concern. I fail to see how the absence of action on my part implies responsibility for what others do.
That's quite a bio you've got. Good to hear from another person in Austin.
Posted by: Drizz on April 11, 2005 09:43 AMI jumped from the torture scenario to the example about self-defense because, to me, they are precisely analogous. The torturee is (or I intended to portray him as) a member of a plot to commit a heinous crime, imminently. Now, suppose that the intended crime is to detonate a nuclear device which will destroy the city in which you live. Suppose further that you are unable to defend yourself personally -- that is, to prevent the explosion by your own actions -- but that someone else can do so on your behalf (perhaps as your hired agent). Would not that agent, who is acting at your request to defend you, be justified in taking whatever steps are necessary to extract information from a co-conspirator in a plot to murder you, in order to prevent the imminent success of that plot?
I agree with what you say here: http://www.drizzten.com/blargchives/001167.html
But the issue in that case is a positive right: the right to be fed at the expense of others. I reject positive rights because they violate the negative (liberty) right to be left alone. That negative right includes the right not to be killed, except in self-defense.
For more about my views on positive vs. negative rights, please check out my series on "Practical Libertarianism for Americans":
http://libertycornerii.blogspot.com/2005/01/practical-libertarianism-f_110519937067095336.html