The Way of Jesus

24 and the Christian Imagination on Torture: Part 4

I will pick up my series of posts on 24 and the Christian imagination on torture.  In part 2, I identify four assumptions that undergird the show: 1) Caricature alternatives to torture as timid and out of touch with reality, 2) Limiting the perspective to one day, 3) depicting the results of torture as thoroughly effective, and 4) leveraging the mythic narrative of redemptive violence.

In my 3rd post, I gave one real example to respond to 24's caricature of alternatives to torture as being out of touch with reality.  In this post I will address number 2 and 3 above.

The year is 1998, the CIA targets a terrorist cell of Egyptian militants working inside Albania who have been in touch with bin Laden's deputy Ayman al Zawahiri.  With Egyptian help, the group is broken up, one member is killed, while the others are rendered to Cairo where they are tortured, and two later hung.  Soon after the operation, al-Zawahiri responds with a public statement, threatening retribution for the Albanian incident.  Three days later, the US Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies are blown up, killing 257 people, including 12 US nationals, and injuring more than 5,000 people.  Despite al-Zawahiri's attempt to link the renditions and the attacks, an FBI investigation of the bombings reveals they have been many years in the planning.

Unlike the show 24, the terrorists who were tortured did not help uncover a major terrorist plot to blow up the embassies "Just in Time".  Most investigators admit that it is incredibly difficult to ever know if there really is a ticking time bomb until after the fact.  

The 1998 embassy bombings were horrific.  They are criminal.  They were not stopped even though some were tortured for the purpose of gaining intelligence on future plans.  Those tortured were used to justify the embassy bombings, which gives insight into a universal principal-- inhumane treatment of another escalates inhumane treatment of another.  Violence begets violence.  Or as Jesus stated emphatically, "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52).  

Here is the problem of the one day perspective presented in 24; in 24, torture works and it stops something horrible from taking place.  Let's assume, despite the evidence, that a 24 scenario is real: torture stops something considerably more aweful from happening on one particular day in history.  But what does that action breed after this particular day?  How many more grievous plans does it seed? How is the torture used for recruiting?  For additional funding?  For future learning and planning?  

The one day perspective presented in 24 is limited and nearsighted, and its depiction of torture as an effective means for information gathering is not adequately supported by actual evidence.  The fact that 24 will continue with another ticking time bomb story next January, is a clue that no one really expects the cycle of violence to end.  No villain seems afraid of Jack Bauer enough to stop planning new ways to blow people up.  Somehow Jack's "do whatever is necessary" stand is not a sufficient deterrent against terrorism.  And sadly the evidence says it is a rationale for more terrorism.  Even on the show 24, the escalation of grievousness increases each season.  The threat level increases rather than decreases. The same tired story plays on and on.  I keep watching it and I keep believing I need Jack.  In fact, I will need him even more because the next season will be even worse.  I don't think FOX will market season eight as "the most mild season of 24 ever." 

Is my supposed belief in Jack Bauer's methods perpetuating the problem rather than contributing to a solution?  How does the cycle of violence end?  Where does it stop?  

24 and the Christian Imagination on Torture: Part 3

I have been using the show 24 in two previous posts as a medium for engaging the question of torture.  The story line of 24’s season 7 involved the, law abiding but not up for the task, FBI and the decommissioned CTU (counter terrorism unit) that throughout the season proves to be indispensible and is thus partially revived.   The FBI is shown holding the moral high ground, but that is its depicted weakness.  In not being willing to adapt its morals it was, in essence, guilty of sacrificing innocent people to thugs.

Fox present a popular storyline.   Their material for interagency conflict around handling counterintelligence has origins. I do believe that there are alternatives to this story. And the following account that I'll share can be corroborated in multiple sources;  I will primarily use, University of Wisconsin’s professor of history, Alfred McCoy’s synthesis of the material here.  I recommend his book “A Question of Torture:  CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror” for a non-sensational dealing with this subject matter.  The primary actors in this account involve the FBI, the CIA and head of an Al Qaeda training camp, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi.  

In November 2001 Pakistan turned over Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, head of an Al Qaeda training camp in Khalden, Afghanistan, to the US forces in Kabul.  The FBI was the agency in charge of interrogating Al Qaeda arrests.  Veteran FBI agent Jack Cloonan, on a secure line from New York to field agents in Kabul, says “Do yourself a favor, read the guy his rights.  It may be old fashioned, but this will come out if we don’t.  It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau’s reputation, if you don’t.  Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right.”

The FBI operatives go to work using their standard procedures of building rapport with the convict in their interrogations.  And Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi “starts talking about [shoe-bomber Richard] Reid and Moussaoui.  They’re getting good stuff, and everyone’s getting the raw 302’s [interview summaries]—the agency, the military, the director.  But for some reason, the CIA chief of station in Kabul is taking issue with our approach.”   A bureaucratic battle erupted between the CIA and the FBI over this prized captive.  Complaints from CIA in Kabul were sent to Cofer Black at Langley, which sent CIA director Tenet to the White House, where the CIA won control of al-Libi.  Cloonan recalled that the “CIA officers come in, start shackling al-Libi up and gag him”.   An FBI agent on the scene says a CIA officer tells Libi “You’re going to Cairo, you know.  Before you get there I’m going to find your mother and [expletives]”.

Al-Libi was flown to Egypt through a CIA program some call “extraordinary rendition”.  Where one US official involved says, “We don’t kick the [expletive] out of them.  We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them.” 

Here is the report from a declassified CIA cable on one of al-Libi’s interrogation sessions in Egypt.  The report says: “According to al-Libi, the foreign government service, ‘stated that the next topic was al-Qa'ida's connections with Iraq. . . . This was a subject about which he said he knew nothing and had difficulty even coming up with a story." Al-Libi indicated that his interrogators did not like his responses and then "placed him in a small box approximately 50cm X 50cm." He claimed he was held in the box for approximately 17 hours. When he was let out of the box, al-Libi claims that he was given a last opportunity to "tell the truth." When al-Libi did not satisfy the interrogator, al-Libi claimed that "he was knocked over with an arm thrust across his chest and he fell on his back." Al-Libi told CIA debriefers that he then "was punched for 15 minutes." -- sourced to CIA operational cable February 5, 2004.

Al-Libi told debriefers that “after the beating,” he was again asked about the connection with Iraq and this time he came up with a story that three al-Qa’ida members went to Iraq to learn about nuclear weapons.  Al-Libi said that he used the names of real individuals associated with al-Qa’ida so that he could remember the details fo his fabricated story and make it more believable to the foreign intelligence service.  Al-Libi noted that “this pleased his [foreign] interrogators, who directed that Al-Libi be taken back to a big room, vice the 50 square centimeter box and given food.”

On October 7th, 2002, President Bush in a speech building the case that Saddam Hussein’s regime poses an imminent threat to US national security based on Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi's alleged testimony, stated, “We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases.”

Four months later, on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell (who I greatly respect) made the same claim in his speech to the UN Security Council, in an attempt to gain support for invading Iraq. “I can trace the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these [chemical and biological] weapons to al-Qaeda,” Powell said, adding, “Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story.” As a Newsweek report in 2007 explained, Powell did not identify al-Libi by name, but CIA officials — and a Senate Intelligence Committee report — later confirmed that he was referring to al-Libi.  Both Al-Libi’s story and the connections between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein have been proven false.  Powell later called the speech a "blot" on his record remiss that he was not given all available intelligence and analysis.  The linking of Al-Qaeda and Iraq through al-Libi's story is what is referred to as the “intelligence failure” leading up to the Iraq war.

Cloonan’s longtime FBI colleague in counterterrorism, Dan Coleman, was disgusted when he heard about Libi’s false confession. “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq,” he said. “I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn’t have  had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.

On Meet the Press on Sept. 16, 2001, in response to the devastating attacks five days earlier, then vice President Dick Cheney stated, "We'll have to work sort of the dark side, if you will.... A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly...." 

In coding to the actualization of Cheney's predictions, Cofer Black, then director of the CIA’s counter- terrorism unit, testified before Congress in early 2002, stating, “There was a before- 9/11 and an after-9/11 . . . .After 9/11 the gloves came off.”  Cofer Black was involved in making sure Al-Libi’s interrogation be transferred from the FBI to the CIA.  

This interagency dispute between the FBI and CIA about how to negotiate counterterrorism puts different ideologies on display.   To me this account illustrates different ideological presuppositions and the reality that what we truly believe comes out under pressure.  Rather, than the notion that what we believe can be temporarily suspended given certain circumstances.

The decision to “take off the gloves” with Al-Libi or to “read this guy his rights”, I submit, was less about an unavoidable necessity (we didn’t have any other choice) and more about particular beliefs about what is necessary.  And these preexisting beliefs (stated, unstated, realized or unconscious) reveal the story that captures our imaginations and guides us in making our decisions both in times of peace and pressure.

Two weeks ago Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi was found dead in a Lybian prison.  I rarely hear these stories of things done "quietly".  I know I have to admit that when I hear someone say the gloves are going to come off, I feel a bit reassured that somehow at least everything is being done that can be done.  But I am starting to evaluate this feeling of reassurance and I am beginning to question what things shape my beliefs and my imagination.  Under pressure, who I am I, and whose ideology am I and will I put on display?

 

 

24 and the Christian Imagination on Torture: Part 2

Before I audaciously suggest an alternative to saving the world besides 24's Jack Bauer, I will make some observations on how the show is staged and some of the underlying assumptions that frame the conversation on whether or not torture is a justifiable.

First, an obvious caveat, 24 is a TV show.  It is fiction and written to engage an audience.  The writers always try to dismiss claims that they are trying to make a particular political point or have an agenda other than making a profitable TV series. Fox landed a good show and they project it will be profitable for at least one more season.  Fox is using this show to make money, and I am using it to write a couple blog posts.  So with this caveat I'll make five observations on how the topic of torture is framed by the show.

My first observation is that 24 presents caricatured opposition to Jack Bauer's use of torture.  The primary objectors to torture, in season 7, are senator Blaine Mayer and FBI director Larry Moss.  Mayer is a completely unlikeable character.  He is leading the senate hearing aimed to prosecute Jack for his "crimes" (the audience shouldn't feel too bad when he his is killed).  Larry Moss is presented as a respectable director, but he is obviously Pollyanna when it comes to what is necessary. Larry resists Jack's desire to break the rules by declaring "Don't our rules make us better?", Jack retorts "not today".  Then you see Larry passively comply with "what is necessary" while still trying to maintain his conscientious objector status.  The subtext through season 7 is that the

FBI, with its rules of engagement, is not up to the task to handle today's challenges.  (CTU, Counter Terrorism Unit, should have never been closed down). Because in Jack's words "they [our enemies] don't care about our rules."  

The case against the use of torture is caricatured as out-of-touch, self-righteous, aloof, selfish, rigid and anachronistic. This is simply not the world we live in any more.  If we are going to be safe, then we need someone who can adapt to the real world.  Who do you want making decisions when times are tough?  Larry Moss? Senator Mayer? or Jack Bauer?  (Two of the three are now dead, so the show really only presents one choice).  It is a classic straw man argument.

My second observation has to do with the distorting perspective of one isolated day in history (I suppose you can argue for 7 total days).  The main framing of 24 is the appeal of real time.  A season represents one twenty-four hour day. Consequences and choices are weighed, judged and limited to what happens in one particular day.  This moves the action but distorts reality.  It presents a very narrow perspective in making just decisions.  What preceded today?  What comes after today?  What are long term as well as short term consequences of the decisions made today?  This presentation of one isolated day in history is significant in the conversation and one that I will elaborate on in my next post.

Third, Jack's use of torture yields quick and reliable results.  Jack's methods work, they are reliable, and they save lives.  24 presents torture as extremely effective at producing reliable and timely information (just in time for a commercial).

Fourth,  the show leads you to believe that values are suspendible.  A value to never dehumanize another human being can be suspended for a limited time without doing irreparable damage to you and the value.  Here values are helpful until they are tested.  They can be taken off and on depending on the circumstances.  So what is the guiding narrative that helps you take them on and off successfully and still be just?

I will limit myself to one more.  My fifth observation is the narrative of righteousness.  I mean this in the sense that even with all of Jack's ambiguities and imperfections, even lawlessness, you can trust that he is on the side of good.  He embodies the righteous protection of a good nation against people who are bad.  24 beautifully depicts the myth of redemptive violence.  The good guys need to use good violence in order to win over the bad guys and their evil violence.  The belief in this narrative is what makes the suspension of values possible and I believe what sells the show.  Redemptive violence is a kind of gospel message and it spreads with evangelistic force.  It is the story of all our hero's and superheroes.  We all grew up on this story and we love when it is told over and over again in new and in classic ways. Please, someone tell me the story of Batman again. 

So my observation is that the show 24 frames the issue in favor of torture as a justifiable means to save lives by 1) Caricaturing the alternatives as out of touch with the real world, 2) Limiting the perspective to one day, 3) Depicting the results of torture as thoroughly effective, and 4) Leveraging the mythic narrative of redemptive violence.

In the next post, I'll try to unpack these five framing realities of the show and present an alternative to Senator Mayer and Jack Bauer.

Grace and peace.

24 and the Christian Imagination on Torture: Part 1

I have watched every season of FOX's 24.  I am all caught up now on season 7 and I have to admit to owning at CTU t-shirt that I got for my birthday (I think after season 2).  I am aware that I am guilty of propping up the message of this show by my viewership, so my credibility for taking a stand against the use of torture is far from infallible.

I think a discussion on whether torture is ever justified should at the very least be able to evaluate the content of the show.  I think it brilliantly captures the popular imagination for the need and justification for torture, if in so doing you prevent something more heinous from happening.  None of the protagonists in the show take pleasure in violent interrogations, it is simply a lesser of two evils.  The audience is drawn in by Jack Bauer.   He has sacrificed a great deal so that the average citizen can go about their lives, rather unaware of the true cost of freedom and security.  Season 7 begins with Jack facing a senate hearing accusing him of criminal behavior for torturing suspects in order to gain information.  And if you have faithfully watched the previous six seasons, you can't help but think that the idea of prosecuting Jack Bauer, when his actions have averted global collapse is blindly ungrateful, self-righteous, and in itself punishable.  Jack is a laudable American hero. He puts others above himself constantly.  He is a servant leader.  He is always willing to put his life on the line for others. His character is depicted as having what I would consider a calling.  Jack approaches his life with an understanding that he has a unique and lonely vocation in this world.  He admits that his one regret is that the world would actually need people like him. 

In episode 21 of season 7, Jack has a rare vulnerable moment with a muslim cleric, who commends Jack's humility in admitting a wrongful accusation.  It is apparent to him that Jack lives with the burden of unforgivable actions.  The cleric exhorts him to be able to forgive himself.  Jack resigns that he gave up trying to do that years ago.  It is an empathetically moving scene.  Jack does not justify his actions, he simply believes they were necessary for the greater good. In this, his actions are redemptive, substitutionary, and he is willing to accept the just penalty for them. Jack did what I could not and would not do, on my behalf, at the expense of his own self. 

One of the dimensions that I believe draws people into the story each season is the way the writing and directing taps into these messianic themes.  They then allow us to watch conversion stories of different characters wrestling and then coming to the realization of the necessity of torture in order to save lives.  This season's moving conversion is of FBI officer Renee Walker.   Through a series of incredibly intense moral dilemma's, she too realizes there is really no other alternative.  Torture, in extreme circumstances, is justified by necessity in order to avert something worse from happening.

I have found 24 to be an incredibly popular and vividly depicted rationale for the limited and justified use of torture. It forms the imagination in such a way where presented a worst case scenario, using a horrible means, can be seen not only as justified, but courageously noble.  I will present what has captured my imagination as an alternative to the persuasive medium of 24 in my next post.

Is the use of Torture ever Justified?

Here is the link to the CNN article revealing the statistics from the latest Pew Research Center question on "is the use of torture on terrorist suspects ever justified" CNN Article.  Here are some related columns in the Washington post from various people that are worth reading Washington Post Columns.  You can also see people's comments to this on Scot McKight's blog Jesus Creed.

I brought this study up in yesterday's teaching "already, not yet." How do followers of Jesus live in this world?  If the way the world attempts to handle its problems (according to the chapter we were studying,2 Peter 3) is passing away/will be destroyed/won't make it through the purifying fire of God's judgment, how should we then live? Peter says live holy, godly, blameless, spotless lives.  In other words, live the way of God's Kingdom now in a not yet world.  So when this survey states that those who go to church at least once a week are those most likely to support the use of torture, what does this say about the level of discipleship that takes place in our churches?  And what does this proclaim to the world? (White evangelicals were the highest of any segment, over 6 out of 10 think torture is often or sometimes necessary.  The group most against the use of torture are those with no religious affiliation.)

I'll do a series of posts on this topic this week.  Feel free to chime in with your thoughts on the subject.