Cross-posted at PunditCountry
It’s been noted ad nauseam on several news sites about the prior administration’s obsession with the Fox show "24″ and how they have used the basic scenario of compromising one’s standards for the greater good. The "ticking timebomb" scenario has been used by Cheney, Yoo, Addington and any number of administration supporters, but civilian and military, to support the idea of using whatever means necessary to fight terrorism.
However, that view has come under a great deal of scrutiny from a number of sources, from the legal community, which claim that the use of torture violates longstanding U.S. agreements and treaties, to civilian and academic authorities, who claim that torture is a gross violation of human rights to military and intelligence sources who claim that it doesn’t produce the kind of actionable intelligence that a routine interrogation can do. That’s a point that bears repeating. Those who have either taken part, witnessed or studied the matter conclude that torture simply doesn’t work.
It’s a recurring theme in USA Networks show "Burn Notice" albeit a subtle that keeps popping up from time to time. The show, about an intelligence agent, Michael Westen, who has been unjustly blacklisted by an unnamed agency he worked for and dumped in Miami where he tries to clear his name and get his job back, routinely involves the character being asked to revisit the skills he acquired to help ordinary people out of jams. In several of these episodes, the Weston chartacter is faced with the ticking timebomb scenario and he not resorted to using torture in order to produce the information he needed. He instead, employs deceptive guises, and MacGyver-like devices to get what he needs from less than cooperative sources.
Recently, in the July 23 and 30 episodes, he is asked directly by a client to torture the episode’s villain in order to extract information and he refuses (as does the partners he works for, one an ex-SEAL and another an former IRA operative). It seems to go without question among those with military training on the show that torture isn’t an effective option. There is no discussion about the legal ramifications or human rights issues that arise. To them, it simply doesn’t work; something that military leaders dating all the way back to Napoleon have known.
So the question is this: why is it that "24″ is still getting attention from those who believe, despite strong evidence to the contrary, that torture is a viable option that intelligence agencies and the military need to combat terrorism when shows that refute that point do not?