People get killed and murdered by terrorists in real life every day, if you only experience that on television, trust me, it is not the same. Thankfully, we don’t, too often, experience that fear of death and torture here. But what if there had been not only 9/11, but also, 9/12, and 9/13 and 9/14…..until even 10/19/07??? Do you think you would feel the same way? I doubt it.
The irony, of course, stems from the fact that his view mirrors the television show “24”, as the reader argues that the President must have the power to do anything and everything necessary to protect us from terrorists.
Would you want him to say at a public hearing that no matter what the circumstances are, e.g. there is a nuclear bomb in NYC that will go off if 2 hours and the guy being questioned you are 99.9% knows where the bomb is, we would be unwilling to do what is necessary to get the information to stop the nuke??
Didn’t Jack have a chainsaw at the guy’s head during this scene? I love the show too. I never miss an episode if I can help it, though I always wonder how Jack can manage to not go to the bathroom for so long. Now that’s something.
But why does it make so much more sense when Jack Bauer does it on a television show then it does in real life? Why do people like me keep harping on the Constitution, and limited Presidential power? Why don’t I “get it”?
In the TV show “24”, we see into the hearts and minds of the characters. We watch as they agonize over the tough decisions, but ultimately make the right choice necessary to protect society. We trust them, because we know that we can. Because it’s a TV show. Because a writer somewhere decided to let us see into the minds of characters, so we know who to love and hate, trust and distrust.
This is not a TV show. We cannot see into the hearts and minds of the people who some think should be “leaders” and others think should be “servants”. We do not trust them. The reason we do not trust them is that they have not proven themselves trustworthy.
In the example, the reader speaks of “doing what is necessary” when the President is 99.9% sure that some guy knows where the bomb is. We were 99.9% sure that we knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The government is 99.9% sure of everything. And yet it gets things wrong. All the time.
Whether the President is trustworthy or not is a personal matter, beyond our knowledge or control. I don’t know him personally. I bet the reader doesn’t either. But even with people I do know personally, and I do trust, I would not give that degree of power. I may trust them, but they aren’t always right. Nor am I always right. Sure, I try, and I mean well, but sometimes I’m wrong.
People in power, even a little bit of power, tend to confuse authority with being right. The burden of responsibility plays a peculiar game with their mind, forcing them not only to make decisions, but to believe that their decisions are better than anyone else’s. Some make snap decisions and other belabor the decisions, but when a decision is ultimately made, it becomes the immutably right decision. We see this on every level of government. And we see that when the decision is wrong, the consequences can be disastrous.
In the “Jack Bauer” world, we know the right call from the wrong one. TV can do that for us. And so, we root for the right call, even though it involves doing things that are otherwise wrong. The “end justifies the means” because we know what the end will be. In the real world, things never work out quite that well.
For 218 years, the Constitution has worked pretty well for us. When presidents have ignored the Constitution, such as creating Japanese internment camps or the Vietnam War, we’ve ended up regretting the choice. My bet is on the Constitution. While the “Jack Bauer” scenario may one day come to pass, I would prefer to watch it on TV then be the wrongly accused fellow in the chair watching Jack come at me with a chainsaw.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The WSJ has a pretty good rejoinder to your comments.
Mukasey’s Constitution
October 20, 2007; Page A10
While nothing emerged from the confirmation hearings this week to prevent Judge Michael Mukasey from becoming Attorney General, the questioning did show that he will be his own man and won’t let himself be intimidated into adopting any Senator’s personal interpretation of the Constitution.
On Wednesday, Judge Mukasey explicitly repudiated the controversial 2002 Bybee memo, which argued for an expansive view of Presidential authority regarding the Geneva Convention and torture. “The Bybee memo, to paraphrase a French diplomat,” said Judge Mukasey, “was worse than a sin, it was a mistake. It was unnecessary.” And on his independence of mind as Attorney General in matters of bedrock law or ethics, Judge Mukasey said that if he disagreed with President Bush, “I would try to talk him out of it, or leave.” Democrats loved that.
Their ardor dimmed a day later, however, when Judge Mukasey’s Democratic interlocutors tried to get him to declare himself on the legality of specific interrogation techniques, in particular on “waterboarding” (simulated drowning). Mark us down as thinking it a sign of Judge Mukasey’s character to have finally told the Senators that he would not put the careers or “freedom” of the interrogators of captured terrorists at risk “simply because I want to be congenial” with the Senators’ views on waterboarding.
On the issue of executive authority for warrantless eavesdropping, Judge Mukasey was also robust, and refreshing. The President, he said, “does not stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution.” And that Constitutional authority, he said, includes the President’s power to defend the country.
This was not what Senator Pat Leahy and his colleagues wanted to hear, and they groused publicly, as is their habit. But aren’t these the same Members who had said going in to the hearings that they didn’t want a yes-man as Attorney General? We would hope that includes not taking dictation on Constitutional interpretation from individual Members of Congress.
If the issue was congeniality on his views of waterboarding, I’m with the WSJ. Alas, it wasn’t. His answer, which can be read and seen here, was more along the lines of “I don’t know nothin’ about birthin’ no waterboarding.” That’s not about congeniality; that’s just not a credible response.
That the WSJ wants to see Mukasey as his own man (rather than the Senators) sounds great. I want to see Judge Mukasey as his own man too. Which is how he sounded, right up until Thursday. On Thursday, he sounded too much like Alberto Gonzalez. That’s not the Michael Mukasey I know and am rooting for.
As for the WSJ rejoinder, it sounds great if you prefer rhetoric to substance. Nice spin. Didn’t happen that way. And the great thing is, we’ve got the video to show.