Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Congress needs to bring Kiefer Sutherland and '24 'directors to testify about torture
Ironically enough, season 7 of 24 opens up with Jack Bauer testifying before Congress about torture.
This needs to happen in the real world. While Kiefer Sutherland plays an agent on TV, he needs to be asked by members of Congress some very serious questions.
We know by now that the torture memos by John Yoo managed to subvert the rule of law in the United States, that of the government and the military by making torture acceptable. We know that torture was an institution, but I surmise that 24 was a vehicle to drive acceptance of torture to the general public.
As an actor, surely he has been consulted by others on how to play the role of a federal agent. What would be essential to know is the nature of the consulting, and if there were parties consulting the show on political matters. Bringing Kiefer himself to testify will help insomuch as it will be a media spectacle and push the issue of torture to the forefront.
Should also point out that Joel Surnow and Robert Cochran should be brought to testify in addition to Kiefer. Surnow's wikipedia page is telling:
Surnow has described himself as a supporter of the Republican Party, donating money to the campaign of Rick Santorum and expressing particular admiration for former President Ronald Reagan. He is also a close friend of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.
However, Surnow is a self-described "isolationist" and has stated that
he has "no faith in nation building". He is the owner of an American
flag that flew over Baghdad during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was
sent to him as a gift from one of the regiments stationed there.[1]
To say that 24 was a propaganda vehicle is an understatement. But it will be quite the bombshell if before congress we were to find that they were in cahoots with the Bush administration and their sycophants.
Comments (3)
1. I'm on your side. Torture is not sanctioned by our Constitution and is a violation of the Geneva Convention. That said, as a writer, I believe in the value of art to provoke. Do not confuse the politics of a Joel Surnow (who is DONE with the series by the way) with 24 itself. The New Yorker tackled 24's treatment of torture and found a range of ideology surrounding the show. While I have almost unbrooked fondness for Keith Olbermann, I think he let's the fact that this is a Fox/Murdoch-owned product color his thinking. But that line of reasoning should I reject The Simpsons?
2. Obviously putting Bauer on the bench viz Torture is a way to address it.
3. Again, just because Cheney loves the show, doesn' t mean I cannot. It's much more nuanced that say, True Lies, or The Siege - and dissent is a springboard to civil discourage.
Don't blame the fiction for the reality.
-C.I.
April 7, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the response.
I think you may have missed my point: we need to find out if the politics of Surnow were directly influenced by the administration. I certainly think that if there were people consulting the show from the administration, they stooped to using 24 as a vehicle for the agenda.
For many viewers of 24, the line between fiction and reality is very much blurred. It should be telling when SCJ Scalia uses 24 -fiction- to justify his opinion on matters! I recall this particular clip of Laura Ingraham on Fox News:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=115932&title=moment-of-zen-24
24 as a national referendum to use tough tactics on 'Al-Qaeda operatives'.
The question I want answered is whether or not there were people from the administration consulting Surnow and company on torture for political purposes. We already know that members of the military have asked them to cut down on torture scenes because they've had a clear influence on soldiers, but I believe the smoking gun here is about consultation.
If that is the case, it does become the fiction fostering reality.
April 7, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a huge problem with this. If there's one issue that I hold most highly, it's the 1st Amendment. Just as I opposed congressional hearings on rap lyrics, advertising on R-rated movies and Janet Jackson's nipple, I have a huge problem with Congress calling a TV show to task for their content.
OK, Maybe the administration used '24' as a vehicle to make torture more palatable. I doubt it, I think it simply made for more compelling television (remember, the first season of '24' was probably already half written before 9/11). But the point is: tough! In the end, regardless of political motivations, it's the producer's show, not Bush's. If he wants to stick political messages in the context of his show, even for torture, that's his right.
Now, granted, having someone testify before Congress isn't a direct violation of the First Amendment, but we can't have Congress subpoena artists whenever they investigate something in some way related to the fictitious activities on primetime TV. It creates a definite "chilling effect" on the content that producers and studios would be willing to produce. That's bad enough when we're talking about sex or profanity or regular violence, but now we're talking about something you've identified as a specific political issue. Congress must not have any role in stifling political (or artistic) expression on television.
I'd be more comfortable with this if there was any real evidence. If there was a memo, a serious allegation from someone associated with the show or a some sort of money trail. There isn't. You're saying the producers and star of '24' should testify before congress because the producers are pretty conservative guys.
Let me rephrase that: You're saying you want the producers of '24' to testify before congress because of their political opinions and the alleged expression of those political opinions on their show. You want artists to defend their work before Congress.
Congress, especially a Democrat-controlled House, shouldn't ever do this. It violates the spirit of the First Amendment in very sinister ways.
Please, do not treat the First Amendment with the same contempt that this administration has for human rights. It's wrong, and we should know better.
April 7, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment