OK, honestly I don't know where this should go...

It seems Justice Scalia in a legal conference recently used the show 24 to legitimatize the use of torture:


It always "creeps me out" when people use fiction to discuss reality. Especially when they use Star Trek... but I digress.

Questions For Debate
1. Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?
2. No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?
3. Would you convict Jack Bauer?

1. Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?

I would have no problem for the Justices using fiction to debate as long as the examples are pertient and reasonable to the case. In this case, it is possible that Justice Scalia was using the show 24 as a way for people to better understand his point. If you have a problem with the show 24 in the first place, then you probably will not like the reference, but I don't think anyone would bat an eye if Don Quixote or Moby Dick was referenced.

2. No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?

The ticking time bomb scenario is very unlikely, but it is still a possible scenario. Without knowing the full context of his statements, I can only assume that he was discussing the most extreme cases of such and unlikely scenario.

3. Would you convict Jack Bauer?

I won't lie, i, along with my parents are avid 24 fans. And with that experience, you really do appreciate the things that our soldiers and federal agents do on a daily basis to protect our lives...right down to the programmers in the cubicle. The show is about an extraordinary man who saves the country and millions of lives against terrorist attacks. He makes unmeasurable sacrifices to do so and sometimes uses unsavory tactics. But what you learn from the show is that using these tactics has its price. Not only has Jack lost his first wife, been on bad terms with his only daughter, had to witness the deaths of co-workers and friends, been tortured for 18 months with no acknowledgement by the US government, and had his girlfriend come back with a complete mental breakdown....he has had to sacrifice his very humanity to serve his country. In the last episode of season 6, he was told by the former SecDef that everything he touches turns to ash (or dust or something). This realization is tough to fathom. Here you have a guy of near superman proportions, who can do no wrong and sacrifice himself for the good of others, and here he is alone with no support from friends, no family left, and the constant backstabbing by the very government he is working for.

I'm sorry, but this entire torture debate is framed disingenuously.

I'm not sure we need a policy of torture to get information out of the ticking time bomb guy. If someone felt he needed to take those steps to save lives, I doubt anybody would send him/her to jail. As a huge fan of 24, some of this stuff is completely implausible and highly unlikely. 24 is an incidental example. A policy of torture is not.

The problem is, we have a policy of torture for your garden variety detainee that was probably turned in by someone wanting the bounty money. That's why so many get released from Gitmo. We didn't catch many of these people on the battlefield. Most have been turned in for cash.

Yet these people get tortured as if they are ticking time bomb guys when they are not. And when they are not afforded any legal protections, they suffer as long as we make them. People should be embarrassed that we have war criminals using the same tactics as the Gestapo for the same reasons the Gestapo specified.

The government never gets anything right. Yet, some want to trust the government to decide who the bad guys are and who's not. The party of small government has decided our government bureaucracy is more capable than our court system. Republicans believe you can put "military" and "intelligence" in the same sentence. The level of absurdity is astounding.

I don't know if the pro-torture crowd are cowards, or just plain stupid. In any case, a policy of torture can never be justified.

Questions For Debate
1. Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?
Uh, yes. Metaphor is fiction. Analogy is fiction. Hypotheticals are fiction. Prognostication is fiction. Whether or not the use of a specific fiction is reasonable depends on context.

2. No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?
No, because it demonstrates that he's got some common sense, as well as the ability to frame weighty matters in a fashion that resonates with most folks.

3. Would you convict Jack Bauer?
Didn't watch the show, so I'll refrain from venturing a verdict.

Hey look, another torture debate.

Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?
It can be. It's not here.

No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?
Scalia already scares me. He's come to believe the sincerity gushing fans and is comfortable in his own genius, producing crazy dissenting opinions like McCreary County v. ACLU. Now with the war in Iraq spinning out of control and fans yearning for legalized torture for a psychological boost, among them "interpret" legal scholars like John Ball-Busting Yoo, Scalia agrees with the wingnuts and keeps the praise coming.

Would you convict Jack Bauer?
Of course I would. In one of the episodes I happened to watch another agent tortures a female agent, believing her to be a double agent keeping vital information from intelligence agencies. I couldn't convict the whoops guy without also convicting the "hero". Sure he tortured the wrong person but he only meant well, he was only trying to do right by his country. Isn't that Jack Bauer's defense?

This thread isn't really about torture but that's a risk you run creating topics... people can take them wherever they like.

This thread is really about using fiction to discuss reality. It's about a US Justice using 24 to form opinions. Now, it's possible that these Judges were just sitting around chewing the fat and 24 came up. (I've never seen the show BTW, not because I have anything against it, actually it sounds great, I just didn't have the time to invest in another TV show.) So it's possible that it's just a bunch of geeks sitting around having a chat. If you dropped in on my life at some-point you might think I was a Psycho as I might be retelling a scene from American Psycho from the first person. Maybe even using Ferris Bueller to make a social point. In a serious debate/discussion though I'm not likely to say:

Remember that scene in the Simpson's when Homer wants a gun and he says, "But I'm angry now!"

I find it extremely disturbing when someone talks about the environment and brings up The Day After Tomorrow or when talking about war brings up Star Trek. It makes me feel like that person isn't well connected to reality. This may be a character flaw on my part but it is what it is - ya know?

Though I think war supporters tend to idealize our democracy-spreading venture in Iraq you also set a low bar. As long as Scalia hadn't used Jack Bauer as an example he's still plugged into reality? It's his support for torture that unhinges him, regardless of how he reaches the conclusion that torture is circumstantially justified. Otherwise, those Middle East states we hate so much for violating human rights are acting rationally in some cases and so are we when we outsource suspected terrorists to Syria, Romania, and Poland.

1. Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?

I have to say that when I first read this topic, I thought “there’s no way this is true”. It’s ludicrous that a Supreme Court Justice would justify torture with a TV character. It still boggles my mind. Earth to Scalia – IT’S A TV SHOW! You know, fiction? I think it’s absolutely trite to compare real life situations to a fictional TV character. Maybe ol’ Tone ought to bone up on the particulars of the show before holding it up as a shining example of the effectiveness of torture:

2. No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?

Helluva lot more than a little.

3. Would you convict Jack Bauer?

It's impossible to convict someone who doesn’t exist. And a personal comment on the show: I quit watching when it went so completely over the top as to be completely unbelievable. As far as I’m concerned, it jumped the shark when Jack’s character got a heroin jones (and what was that, 2 seasons ago?) and still managed to "save the world".

Questions For Debate
1. Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?
2. No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?
3. Would you convict Jack Bauer?



1. Using fiction to come up with an anecdote for a reality-based situation is a perfectly reasonable way to get a point across. We do it all the time here on . I truly doubt that a jurist of Antonin Scalia's caliber consults with the latest episode of "24" before he makes a ruling. It's just a rhetorical flourish on Scalia's part and nothing more serious than that.

2. I'd be a lot more scared if Tony Scalia got his judicial temperament from Tony Soprano. "You don't want to vote with me on this issue, Kennedy? Clarence, gimme that gavel. I'm gonna break his fingers!"

3. I'm more likely to convict Jack Bauer and acquit Vic Mackey.

Wow, all this vehement dismissal of fiction. So, let's ignore any possible lessons found in Twelve Angry Men. Ignore the truths about the human condition revealed in the works of Shakespeare. If fiction can be used to "speak truth to power", then clearly it must be possible for it to convey truth. And, surely, everybody here can agree that truth has a place in every debate?

LOL!

1. Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?

I wanted to write that! Ultimately, fiction is valuable in rhetoric as shared symbolism. It's a verbally economical way to informally discuss the merits and demerits of contingencies without having to construct ones own detailed hypothetical situation.

2. No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?
Agreed. It would only scare me if it were formalized and codified into American jurisprudence, like various jurists' attempts to allow foreign laws to trump American laws. In a relatively less formal context like the one we're discussing, it doesn't strike me as being particularly objectionable.

3. Would you convict Jack Bauer?

The ends cannot be allows to justify the means as a general rule. I've watched two seasons of the show, and it seems like the writers only let Bauer resort to otherwise-illegal tactics when he sees no viable alternatives. They also seem to have him try his best to go through the appropriate channels to approve questionable courses of action. A jury may or may not decide that someone like Bauer did his level best to both avert disaster and abide by the law, only breaking it when dogged adherence to the law would jeopardize the lives of thousands or millions.

However, even in Bauer's fictional world, the hero makes mistakes-- errors in judgement that could have been avoided. It is a legal gray area whether or not to give law enforcement officials a pass on such mistakes in light of commendable performance in persuit of a more important immediate goal. It really comes down to the specific case. A couple of border agents get jailed for shooting an escaping drug smuggler in the rear; a couple of LA cops get a wrist slap for beating a drug addict to death. Every such case gets second-guessed, and the outcome is rarely a slam-dunk even when the laws and regulations are clear-cut.

If 24 were reality and the jury had the benefit of watching the same 24 hours of video footage of events that Jack Bauer's audence gets to see (never happens), then I'd agree with Scalia that you'd be hard-pressed to find a jury that would convict him of any wrongdoing. It's easy to judge a fictional character harshly-- but if we're talking about someone who really saved millions of lives getting jail time as a reward, that's not very likely to happen even if it were deserved. Ticker-tape parades, medlals, nominations for public office, probably. Jail time, probably not.

In trial-by-jury,strict legal justice occasionally takes a back seat to blind poetic justice, right or wrong.

I definitely relate. I know a few who seem to believe Captain Kirk, Yoda, and Obi-Wan Kenobi are messianic leaders who could do no wrong and must be emulated whenever possible. That seriously creeps me out in meetings to discuss serious decisions. If a SCOTUS opinion were to come down from on high with a phrase of the form "Episode X of TV show Y clearly proves that Z must be a legally available option in circumstance Q", I'd consider it an impeachable offense on grounds of insanity. Right up there with "Law X must be declared unconsitutional in America because it would be unconstitutional in country Y (before year Z)".

I'll make this short, as I have a mtg in 9 min.

1. The "Military Intelligence" thing is insulting, and ridiculous to boot. Sure- at times they get it wrong, but the other millions of times they get it right. It's absurd and inaccurate to perpetuate the notion that our military is wrong more often than not when in reference to intelligence issues.

2. We don't use "Gestapo" tactics. Frankly, I don't believe in torture as a rule, but this "torture" notion is completely blown out of proportions. Gitmo isn't a base of torture for the US gov't, and frankly if anyone has been treated truly poorly, I'm confident that our nation has made an attempt to ensure that all other resources are exhausted.

3. I don't think there truly is a "pro torture crowd" that advocates harming anyone unless explicitly necessary. Consider that most anyone interrogating hostages is highly trained, either a portion of our intelligence community or military special forces. People use the nude pictures in Gitmo as an example of how this is untrue, but frankly those soldiers weren't responsible for interrogation.

4. What is torture? Where's the line? Is cutting of a Muslim's beard torture? Is making a man sleep/eat/live in the nude torture? Is denying a man of "good" food and barely feeding them enough to live torture? Is darkness?

The point is that most Americans are "arm-chair" policy analysts. I personally haven't ever been trained or attempted to interrogate anyone (excepting the neighbor kids when one ran their bike into my brand new truck). I HAVE, however, detained combatants. It's never cut and dry.

If a Jack Bauer reference was used to enumerate something in terms that Americans can understand, I sure hope that it works and draws a better understanding than most Americans have now.

So, justifying real torture by using a TV show with all its fake situations, acting, props, fake blood, special effects, etc. is appropriate? What "lesson" should we take from that?

1. Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?

Yes, but I’m not sure it is in this case.

I’ll give you an example. The Great Depression was one of the most traumatic events this nation has been through - with the exception of the Civil war - perhaps the most gut wrenching.

Yet one of the most recognized books on the causes of the Great Depression by Murray N. Rothhard ranks only #244,063 on Amazon.com’s sales list.

http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Great-Depre...d/dp/0945466056

A highly regarded book on life during the depression by David M Kennedy ranks #309,424 on that list.

http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Fear-America...tion/0195038347

On the other hand, John Steinbeck’s fictional work The Grapes of Wrath [Centennial Edition] ranks #369, (#981 Henry Fonda portrayed DVD sales).

I think I have mentioned Shakespeare, Mark Twain and members of the Joad family from Steinbeck’s work on the board. Indeed, it is probable that more people know more about the depression from reding Steinbeck's book or watching Henry Fonda's portrayal on the screen than from historical monographs.

Twenty-four does not rise to this level in my opinion.



It must be a generational thing, but I haven’t seen and certainly don’t remember anything Homer Simpson has said. Like Peter Griffin, the character in Family Guy, he may be entertaining, but that’s about it. Again, it may be a generational thing, but I don’t need my search for truth wrapped in an M&M candy shell – be it Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin.

3. Would you convict Jack Bauer?

Jack Bauer? Let’s see, another in a long list of fantasy characters. The James Bond series was better, but not all important in the larger scheme of things - even when Sean Connery played the lead role. The first listings for Ian Fleming’s books on Amazon – Goldfinger = #48,975 [#1885 DVD sales] and Dr. No = #875,097 [#11,128 DVD sales]. Not sursprisingly, the movie versions do better. Bond, Batman, Spider Man, Superman, The Lone Ranger, Boston Blackie, Sgt. Joe Friday – Bauer fits in there some place; I just don’t know where.

Questions For Debate
1. Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?


Sure as long as you remember it is “fiction”. The fact that Bauer always gets his info and nearly always uses torture is so unrealistic that it is not worth discussing. Other aspects of the show are just as ludicrous – such as the ability of the government to just tap any phone, of any person, in minutes. Illegal and nearly impossible to do quickly. In fact if he followed the Patriot Act rules we would have to rename the show 24,000 hours.


2. No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?
No. He was speaking hypothetically and probably realistically for the circumstances of the series. Certainly if/when nukes start going off in US cities the surveillance and possibly the interrogation rules will change just as they did in WWII.


3. Would you convict Jack Bauer?

Yes – he has clearly broken the law.

Is using fiction to debate reality reasonable?

Sure - so long as it clearly remains a hypothetical. This exchange sounds like it went into more frightening territory.

No matter what you think of Justice Scalia; doesn't this scare you just a little?

This scares me a lot. Anyone speaking as Scalia did (at least on the basis of what was quoted - and I have no reason to believe that it was wildly out of context) is clearly psychotic - by definition (psychosis is "a mental disorder characterized by symptoms that indicate impaired contact with reality"). Using fiction to discuss reality is one thing, asserting that "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles!" among a bunch of international jurists who may never even have heard of the character is another. Belaboring such a discussion by citing other seasons and challenging the assembled judges to defend the conviction some make-believe guy is, literally, insane.

Would you convict Jack Bauer?

Were he an actual human being in such an unlikely situation behaving in reality as he has in outlandish fiction, I would convict him in a New York minute - and I'd ask for the most severe legal punishment humanly possible. Next up: Is the Tooth Fairy a pedophile? I know where Scalia would stand...

So, to be clear, based on my understanding of what has transpired on 24 :
Jack Bauer used torture to extract the info necessary to prevent a nuclear weapon from going off in Los Angeles, saving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of fictional folks. And, were this to happen in the real world, many of you would prosecute Bauer to the fullest extent of the law, putting him away for life if possible?

Good luck getting a jury to convict him.

Well, if you are explaining a hypothetical and a good visual image/example is some widely recognized situation that explains the context the best- well, by all means.

And BOF, it is totally generational- but won't be the minute you get hooked on the simpons!

There has been comments that it may be one of the best satire work, well, EVER. That includes gulliver's travels and Voltaire in that group.

I don't think most realize really cutting edge new genre's to make debate in- but it could be argued that the most truthful and well balanced arguments that recognizes the nuances of the complex POINT that needs to be made is in Comedy-

Gun Control, abortion, divorce, inter-racial marriage- well, they were presented in COMEDY first- then society started to rationally debate some of theses questons, but only AFTER someone made a joke about it.

And BA- it is funny you should use star Trek. I wrote a paper about how sci-fi novels and movies are the instruments used right now in society to breech very, very controversial and political topics in a manner that doesn't offend groups to the point of burning down publishers offices in angry mobs


Take Hienliens sci fi stories- there is hardcore libertarian principles being spelled out there- or Herbert's books on religion and enviroment- both of these guys wrote this stuff YEARS before it really got into our society- but they presented the ideas.

BA- I hear you when you talk about trekkies- I make good money writing jokes about them -however- I am also a big fan of the show- I just happen to think talking Klingon and getting Trill type tattoos is a bit silly considering, you know, it is a TV SHOW. -

However- there are a great many subjects talked about on that show that really, really breeched what was going on- and Gene Roddenberry had said in interviews he wanted controversial subjects as topics on his shows, as if "they were ripped from the headlines"

He had a Russian on deck of the spaceship in the hieght of the cold war. He had black poeple and women as officers in combat rolls equal to white poeple, and even had an episode with the black/white poeple that pursued each other until they entire race died out.

So- there is some point of reference- like with the simpsons quote "beer- the cause of and solution to all of life's problems"
well, that is a good source of debate reference-

but when you put it in context of "what would homer do" or "what would Commander Piccard do"- when the entire show is really, really an out there hypothetical to begin with- then you are clearly whacko.




Hey BA- check this episode explanation on Wiki over a criticaly acclaimed episode in Star Trekl: Enterprise that really touches on human cloning and organ harvesting rules- funny thing is, there is some serious debate questions that could but debated, completely in context of that episode, that is close to the "bush vetoes stemcell research"-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similitude_%2...rise_episode%29

Now- if, in context of the debate- the question is "Would Archer be convicted of murder for killing his clone"- you get into a real eye roller as you debate the actions of a fictional, scripted character behaves.

How YOU would decide, in context of the behavior viewed- is a legitimate debate point -

here is the deal- Jack Bauer also had a "whoopsie" torture episode- - I would convict him, debating the hypothetical framing of the debate- on that alone- his later torturng "for the good" would not give him a pass for the "oopsie"

and, in terms of debate- 'Aevens- if it were done to you, and/or your kids- you would call it torture- and when we perform "extrodinary rendition"- that IS the medievel torture that makes up YOUR moving goalpost definition. The "our torture shouldn't really be called torture- it is only harsh treatment- now, what those OTHER guys do, that is REAL torture"- well, that is a silly ameri-centric little excercise in denial.

No doubt all those innocents we have either contracted out to torture to goverments like Syria or Egypt, or "harshly treat" when in our custody- - well, we tortured innocent civilans- that makes us as bad as any terrorist. If they do it more than us, or we do it less, or whatever- certainly doesn't make us a force for good.

It has been pointed out by a couple of posters here that have served in law enforcement or some military intel type groups that torture is not the way to get solid information, it basically works as a clue generator- nothing the tortured person can say can be considered reliable- they will say whatever they think you want to hear- it might generate a name or two for follow up, but those are just as likely to be nieghbors that they don't like.

I think that Scalia scares poeple when HE speaks in this context- he is a public figure that is charged with interpreting the constitution, and, well, we hope he is a bit deeper thinker than his public comments have suggested.