First, let me state emphatically that I do not "enjoy" seeing brutality inflicted on anyone.
Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Marsh. It seems I misread your opinion based on your enthusiastic, almost vicarious re-telling Jack Bauer's tactics, your own admission that you'd probably do the same, and the fact you described the series as "marvelous". I got the impression that "marvelous" was being used in a complimentary fashion.
Since you've expanded on your views, you've dispelled any confusion.
I think that Jack Bauer sobbed because he did not like it either, but that events gave him no other choice.
"Necessity" is always the best way to justify oppression and the story's writers can easily fabricate their scenarios to support this ideology and then "humanize" the lead character's behavior to soften the reality of his acts. Perhaps the show's writers will produce a new hit comedy set in Abu Ghraib.
He had to take action, but after resolution he was not happy, perhaps even disgusted by the actions he had to take. Still he did his job like so many in law enforcement and military HAVE to do.
He was just following orders.
Indeed. When Mayor Ray Nagin authorized the forcible confiscation of firearms from US citizens during the Katrina emergency, so many in law enforcement (and military) did what HAD to be done, didn't they? Nobody questioned the legitimacy, the Constitutional legality of confiscating firearms from US citizens or if slamming an old woman into a wall during the gun grab was, well, wrong.
Given that harshness, such men might have little reluctance to kill a person's spouse or children as to coerce the surrendering illegally owned firearms. After all, our government's Hostage Rescue Team isn't above deliberately shooting an unarmed woman in the face while holding her own baby if they feel it's justified.
Please remember your unquestioning support of such men when the military and law enforcement HAVE to take your guns. Our current speaker of the House has a solid "F" rating from the NRA as do both likely Democrat presidential candidates for 2008. They may not be happy, even disgusted by the actions they had to take in New Orleans but it didn't
stop them in the slightest, did it?
Are you saying that letting 10 million people die is preferable to killing a few innocents?
My answer to that is a paraphrase of my original question you never answered. Are you saying that allowing illegally owned firearms (as per a future anti-gun President's executive order) to remain in the hands of dangerous "gun-nut extremists" is preferable to killing a few of an extremist's family in front of him?
Before answering, please remember that if you refuse to turn in those guns, you're the "gun nut extremist" and the wife and children about to be shot are yours.
In another "24" episode, a terrorist had planted a lethal biological virus in an American hotel. People are dying in agony. Jack captured the terrorist and was trying to get the antidote and location of futrure plants of the same virus.
The terrorist refused to give any information until Jack was about to send the terrorist's daughter into the infected hotel.
Do you consider this cowardly or an effective action to save thousands?
At the risk of repeating myself, the show's writers can create the scenario to justify whatever agenda they're trying to push (as on the West Wing). There's little reason to argue fictional scenarios involving our government's use of force when the real world already provides us much more interesting scenarios.
So let's look at "Jack Bauer's" real world counterparts. Do you consider pumping concentrated flammable teargas into a building filled with 83 US men, women, and children in Waco, Texas cowardly or an effective resolution to the standoff?
We do share a love for C.S. Lewis, so I'll end my reply with the following.
"And soon, very soon, before you are an old man and an old woman, great nations of your world will be ruled by tyrants who care no more for joy and justice and mercy than the Empress Jadis. -The Magician's Nephew (1955)
