Reality TV?

"Jack Bauer is a criminal," according to Gary Solis, a retired West Point law professor. "In real life, he would be prosecuted." Solis speaks, of course, about the character played by Kiefer Sutherland on Fox television's wildly successful program, 24. His comments are part of an article in the Feb. 19 issue of The New Yorker that discusses the portrayal of torture on the show and profiles Joel Surnow, co-creator and executive producer of 24.

Surnow appears to be an egotistical, empty-headed loudmouth -- though I'm sure people who lean to the right could read the piece, which is called "Whatever It Takes," and was written by Jane Mayer, and come away feeling that Surnow is an outspoken defender of all that is good. The part of the article that is most interesting, however, is the middle third, when Mayer discusses a visit to the set of 24 by Gen. Patrick Finnegan, the dean of West Point. Along with Finnegan were "three of the most experienced military and FBI interrogators in the country," and the group came to "voice their concern that the show’s central political premise—that the letter of American law must be sacrificed for the country’s security—was having a toxic effect. In their view, the show promoted unethical and illegal behavior and had adversely affected the training and performance of real American soldiers."

Yikes. It's a scary thought, but according to Finnegan and others, 24 is quite popular among cadets at West Point as well as soldiers in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan, where DVDs of the program circulate widely. One interrogation expert, who was deployed overseas, said, "People watch the shows, and then walk into the interrogation booths and do the same things they’ve just seen.” He added, "In Iraq, I never saw pain produce intelligence." The FBI expert said, "Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected. You don't want people like that in your organization. They are untrustworthy, and tend to have grotesque other problems."

On TV, Jack Bauer is always presented with the "ticking bomb scenerio," in which getting key information from the bad guys immediately can prevent the loss of thousands or millions of lives. The truth is more complex. First, that situation rarely, if ever, happens. Second, torture rarely, if ever, gets usable information from suspects. In the context of those facts, is it then worthwhile to follow a course that will, in the end, produce little information, eventually scar the interrogator and, as Gen. Finnegan added in the story, hurts America's image around the world?

For his part, Sutherland is said to be upset at the possible fallout from the actions of his character and also "bored with playing torture scenes." He has condemned the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib as "absolutely criminal," and is being asked to appear personally at West Point or in a training film to emphasize that his show is purely entertainment and should not be emulated. Surnow, of course, said, "They say that torture doesn't work, but I don't believe them." I disagree with his position, but what infuriates me is the arrogance of a person who dismisses the input of others -- as well as facts and figures -- so callously. The army interrogation expert said, "They have this money-making machine, and we were telling them it's immoral." Unfortunately, the first half of that assessment is the only part that carries any weight.