Disclaimer: I don't watch "24."

The logical reason for this is that the torture issue has been controversy. It's been discussed in the regular news, to say nothing of what entertainment news must be doing with it.

Even NPR, which usually isolates me from celebrity "news" stories (one of the main reasons I choose NPR) has carried stories about the torture issue in "24."

That makes it a source of free publicity, but only if it continues to be new. So, the envelope has to be pushed and new boundaries defined.

I think the purpose of the "torture storyline" is really for nothing more than to help Jack and Agent Walker form a tight bond.

For Agent Walker - seeing that there are indeed situations where extreme measures must be taken (and carrying out some of those measures herself) is enabling her to come to appreciate (and of course it appears to ultimately fall in love with) Jack.

So I don't think this is as much about torture as it is about a love interest being confronted head-on with Jack's world.

I'm enjoying the season so far - I especially like that it has a slower build to it. For example, at this point, there is absolutely no imminent threat. There's just a corrupt government. I like that it is set up now to go in a myriad of different possible directions.

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!

I'm on the fence. I think your assessment is right, Bill. I was a little uncomfortable with the scene with the mom/baby, but I knew that Walker wouldn't really do anything to harm the kid - she'd just act like she was threatening the kid. And I liked that she clearly didn't like what she was doing and ultimately gave the kid to Mom in the end.

Torturing an adult for information is one thing. Putting a child at risk for the same is another matter, imho.

I never believed the child was at risk. Agent Walker wanted only to give the appearance that the child was at risk. That's why she didn't identify herself to the wife.....as an "unknown" intruder she was able to create the persona of someone who might harm a child - that's all she had to do.

That was pretty rough though.

24 is nothing if not the "ticking time bomb" scenario. The torture scenes have been worse in past seasons, actually. At this point I think that Jack hasn't actually tortured anyone - I may have that wrong. He did beat the crud out of and stab Agent Vossler.

And of course psycho from Sengala has tortured the first gentleman.

But this season has a different flavor, because there's this ongoing discussion between those who want to play by the rules (mainly Moss and, originally, Walker) and Jack. And Jack is convincing them of his way. That seems new

Bill I think that's partly also because CTU had more leeway than the FBI does......Jack is the remnant that remains from a defunct agency that was able to "do whatever it takes"........even though we still have the same war room soap opera drama with FBI HQ that CTU used to have, it is a different entity, and the two agencies are colliding in philosophy now.

I think they are handling it well.

I saw 24 for the first time ever when I watched this season's premiere episode. I haven't had time to keep up, but the topic you've posted on became a theme almost immediately in that first ep. They were debating in the first few scenes what measure of torture, if any, would be allowed in their handling of Jack Bauer.

I'm not certain, but I think I remember hearing that the production company that makes 24 is led by conservatives. Traditionally, conservatives fall on the side of being for torture, within reason, and feel that it should be allowed and pursued if it means a safer country for us and our children. Most conservatives are okay with waterboarding and most wish that G-Bay would stay open.

Because I haven't seen the show in the past, I can't comment with any certainty, but from what I've heard, the series seems to promote a more conservative worldview/POV and this theme of having to revert to torture to make our country safe would fall right into that pattern, if it truly exists.

I find the situation similar to that of the film 300, which didn't have any explicit references to current culture or the war in Iraq, but was, it seemed to me, a clear argument for our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That film was made when skepticism/overt rejection of Bush's Iraq policy was at its height.

During the time this season of 24's plotline was being developed, the issue of torture was, more or less, a hot-button issue and it sort of played into their hands to accentuate it. It didn't hurt the "applicability" of the show when Obama declared G-Bay's closure the week of the premiere.

As I mentioned, I'm not an avid follower of the series, so I might be very off-base here, but I've kind of viewed 24 as one of the few examples of "conservative" television. The promotion of torture as a means of keeping our country safe would seem to buttress that line of thought.

I an liking 24 this season but last night came pretty close to being to much for me too. The child/mom scene made me wonder how far they would push it.

"Traditionally, conservatives fall on the side of being for torture, within reason, and feel that it should be allowed and pursued if it means a safer country for us and our children. Most conservatives are okay with waterboarding and most wish that G-Bay would stay open."

I disagree. The main debate between conservatives and liberals these days is "what is torture?" - is Waterboarding torture, for instance. But it's hard to find people who are publicly "pro-torture", especially when torture is defined as the kind of stuff CTU and Jack Bower do to people.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't conservatives who think we should do whatever we need to in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. There might even be some liberals who feel that way too.

But I'm a conservative and I'm certainly not "pro torture". And I doubt you are either, Quaid.

Quaid is right about the folks behind 24 - and that's Kiefer's bent too from what I understand.

Bill - I see a distinct difference between being pro-torture and pro-country/unpapologetically utilitarian where necessary. 24 tends to create scenarios that dictate a utilitarian view of national security.

Bill - you're right . . .

I retract my "pro-torture" statements and wish to restate them along the lines of your comment. Although I've never seen a torture scene in 24 and I really don't know what severity of "persuasion" we're talking about here, I believe that it's morally wrong to do someone harm, unilaterally and without due process.

You're right to say that the debate is framed more along the lines of what is meant by torture as opposed to being for or against torture.

Having said this, I think you know what I meant in my above comment - true?

I'm not sure that I've ever seen torture on 24 that I would classify as immoral - unless it was being administered by a "bad guy".........what are we specifically talking about here Bill?

Here's a good example (which I had forgotten about) - FBI agent Walker tortured a bad guy in his hospital room (stuck her gun barrel into his wound and also cut off his oxygen supply) until he gave her some information.

Moral? Immoral?

Also, nhe, while I can't remember specifics, I know for a fact that Jack has on a number of occasions accidentally tortured someone innocent. Seems in season three he electrocuted some characters british husband (who ended up helping Jack before he got killed somewhere in there).

There have been a number of mistaken tortures. I'd consider that immoral for sure.

And this is why there's the debate. Some would consider Walker's actions immoral no matter what. Others would consider the actions not necessarily moral, but justified in order to save the lives of 100s, 1000s, etc of people. Injure one to save many. Someone can recover from injury, but no one recovers from death.

I don't have any problem with what Agent Walker was doing to the guy in the hospital. What's the alternative? Doing nothing when untapped sources of intelligence are available is more immoral.

I think perceived motive tells me whether its moral or immoral. Jack's loyal to his cause (a cause which is always noble I think) - that's his highest value and it is where his motives have their origin. He's not initiating these actions out of anger or vengeance - he's doing it for the cause....and I think if we're 24 fans, we'd agree that Jack's cause is the right cause.

I don't see immorality in it.

Mistakes aren't by definition immoral......and we can't go back and label something immoral just because it proved to be unnecessary in hindsight.

Who gets to decide when it's "necessary"? Who decides when more humane methods wouldn't work just as well (or better)?

I'm enjoy 24, but it's a TV show. In real life situations, who gets to decide?

Humans are all capable of the worst kind of evil. Even Americans.

I hear you Andrew, but how would you have handled the situation in the hospital differently? He's your only lead, and you need the info NOW, or hundreds of people die.

I take these scenarios to be situations where "more humane methods" have been exhausted or just flat won't work within the imposed time constraints. Its not real life, you're right, but if it was real life, what are the alternatives?

I don't know. It's hard for me, as a Christian, to justify hurting anyone for any reason. The implications of allowing torture are just too much for me to handle. There are lines I'm not willing to cross, and I'm too afraid of what might be justified because we deem it "necessary."

The original question is beginning to become confusing to me. This is 24 folks. Jack has been painting outside the lines and "hurting people" for 7 seasons now.

Ok - I grant that "we" don't want to hurt anyone for any reason, but if we're not ok if Jack does it, I'm not sure why we're watching the show.

Bottom line, I have no problem with how torture has been presented on the show, based on the scenarios presented......my opinion might differ if the same scenarios occurred in real life - I honestly don't know - I guess I'd take it case-by-case.

.....gosh, I feel really mean all of the sudden.

I grant that "we" don't want to hurt anyone for any reason, but if we're not ok if Jack does it, I'm not sure why we're watching the show.

Well, I haven't paid attention this season, if that means anything.

For me (and partly because I've been talking about this subject w Andrew) I'm more aware of the torture subject on 24.

Bottom line, this is just a TV show. But I was honestly surprised that the torture angle is such a huge part of the show this season. It's in our face. I had, in a way, hoped the show would show a more "redeemed" Jack, who possibly even decided not to use torture in one of those "we have to use it" situations.

I am liking the season, but - in many ways - the whole torture dilemma is getting tedious and disturbing. Why not just defeat the bad guys the old fashioned way (by shooting them :-)

gosh, I feel really mean all of the sudden

By the way, nhe, when I said, "It's hard for me, as a Christian, to justify hurting anyone for any reason," I didn't mean to pull the Christian card. I understand that war is a fact of life, and that there are decisions made every day much harder than I could ever bear to make. I also understand that good men are put in impossible situations all the time.

I'm not trying to make anyone feel mean. :-)

I took some ethics classes at Biola about 14 years ago and we talked about this stuff......just war theory, deontological ethic vs. utilitarian ethic vs. virtue ethic, etc.

We had to write a paper on the movie "Crimson Tide" compare/contrasting the ethics of Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman - it was a pretty cool assignment.

I think this season's treatment of torture on 24 would also be a cool assignment - its a complex issue.

Here are two reasons why I think Garafalo is the mole

1. She's got dirt on Sean for a reason - Sean finds out who she is, she threatens to rat out the affair and get him sent to Alaska. Sean also obviously loves his wife (moved her plane) - he's got reasons to keep Garafalo's secret - from his boss AND his wife.

2. The earlier Garafalo/Chloe cyber-battle was a foreshadowing of things to come.......Chloe has never had a true foil......but now there is someone out there with a similar personality and a similar skillset. I actually hope it goes down like this - more Rakjub/Garafalo battles (both stand-up comedians in their other life). I think it would be entertaining - and I think it will happen.

In fact, I'd be shocked if it didn't go down this way, even though Garafalo helped Walker in the hospital and pretty much stopped the Ohio melt-down on her own.

BTW, whatever happened to the black dude who was waiting around to interrogate Garafalo about the hospital incident?

Thoughts?