Changes

<p>Even the commercial breaks contribute to this sense The fifth season of urgency: Before a commercial“24, we see an on-screen digital clock signalling it is “7:46.” When the action resumesphenomenally successful Fox [[television]] series, the digital clock reads “7:51premiered on January 15.” The length Composed of the break in our24 one-hour episodes, the spectators’, real time is exactly equivalent to show chronicles the temporal gap in workday of the onfictitious L.A.-screen narrativebased Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) as it desperately attempts to thwart a catastrophic terrorist attack. (In season four, as if the events nonetheless <i>go on</i> as we watch commercialsthey stopped a stolen [[nuclear weapon]] from exploding above a major U.S. city. This makes it seem like ) The “[[real]]-time” [[nature]] of the ongoing action is so pressingseries confers a strong [[sense]] of urgency, spilling over into emphasized by the real time ticking of a digital clock and accentuated with hand-held camera shots and [[split]]-screens showing the spectator, that even commercial breaks cannot interupt itconcurrent actions of various characters.</p>

<p>This brings up a crucial question: What does Even the commercial breaks contribute to this all-pervasive sense of urgency mean : Before a commercial, we see an on-[[screen]] digital clock signalling it is “7:46.” When the [[action]] resumes, the digital clock reads “7:51.” The length of the break in our, the spectators’, real [[time]] is exactly equivalent to the [[temporal]] gap in the on-screen [[narrative]], as if the events nonetheless <i>ethicallygo on</i>? The pressure of events as we watch commercials. This makes it seem like the ongoing action is so overbearing, the stakes are so highpressing, that they necessitate a suspension of ordinary ethical concerns. After all, displaying moral qualms when the lives of millions are at stake plays spilling over into the hands real time of the enemy[[spectator]], that even commercial breaks cannot interupt it. </p>

This brings up a crucial question: What does this all-pervasive sense of urgency mean <i>ethically<p/i>CTU agents act in a shadowy space outside the law? The pressure of events is so overbearing, doing things that “simply have to be done” in order to save society from the terrorist threat. This includes not only torturing terrorists when they stakes are caughtso high, but torturing CTU members or their closest relatives when that they are suspected of terrorist links. In the fourth season, among those tortured were the secretary of defense’s son-in-law and his own son (both with the secretary’s full knowledge and support), as well as necessitate a female member suspension of CTU, wrongly suspected of passing information to the terroristsordinary [[ethics|ethical]] concerns. ( After the tortureall, displaying [[morality|moral]] qualms when new data confirms her innocence, she is asked to return to work. And since this is an emergency and every person is needed, she accepts!) The CTU agents not only treat terrorist suspects in this way—after all, they the lives of millions are dealing with at stake plays into the “ticking bomb” situation evoked by Alan Dershowitz to justify torture in his book, <i>Why Terrorism Works</i>—they also treat themselves as expendable, ready to lay down their colleagues’ or their own lives if this will help prevent hands of the terrorist act[[enemy]]. </p>

<p>Special Agent Jack BauerCTU agents act in a shadowy [[space]] [[outside]] the [[law]], played by Kiefer Sutherland, embodies this attitude at its purest. Without qualms, he tortures others and allows his superiors doing things that “simply have to be done” in [[order]] to put his life on save [[society]] from the line[[terror]]ist [[threat]]. At the end This includes not only torturing terrorists when they are caught, but torturing CTU members or their closest relatives when they are suspected of terrorist [[links]]. In the fourth season, he agrees to be turned over to among those tortured were the People’s Republic secretary of China defense’s son-in-law and his own son (both with the secretary’s [[full]] [[knowledge]] and support), as well as a scapegoat for a [[female]] member of CTU covert operation that killed a Chinese diplomat. Although he knows he will be tortured and imprisoned for life, he promises not wrongly suspected of passing information to say anything that would hurt Uthe terrorists.S. interests. The end of the fourth season leaves Jack in a paradigmatic situation: When he is informed by (After the ex-president of the United States[[torture]], his close allywhen new data confirms her innocence, that someone in the government ordered his death (delivering him she is asked to [[return]] to the wily Chinese torturers [[work]]. And since this is an [[emergency]] and every person is considered too much of a security riskneeded, she accepts!) The CTU agents not only treat terrorist suspects in this way — after all, his two closest friends they are dealing with the “[[ticking bomb]]” [[situation]] evoked by [[Alan Dershowitz]] to justify torture in CTU organize his fake death. He then disappears into nowherebook, anonymous, officially non-existing. <i>Why [[Terrorism]] Works</pi>— they also treat themselves as expendable, ready to lay down their colleagues’ or their own lives if this will [[help]] prevent the terrorist act.

<p>In Special [[Agent]] Jack Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, embodies this attitude at its purest. Without qualms, he [[torture]]s [[others]] and allows his superiors to put his [[life]] on the line. At the “war on terrorend of the fourth season,” it is not only the terrorists but he agrees to be turned over to the [[People’s Republic of China]] as a scapegoat for a CTU agents who become what philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls <i>homini sacer</i>—those who can covert operation that killed a Chinese diplomat. Although he [[knows]] he will be killed with impunity sincetortured and imprisoned for life, he promises not to say anything that would hurt U.S. interests. The end of the fourth season leaves Jack in a paradigmatic situation: When he is informed by the eyes ex-president of the law[[United States]], his close ally, their lives no longer count. While that someone in the agents continue [[government]] ordered his death (delivering him to act on behalf the wily Chinese torturers is considered too much of a legal powersecurity risk), their acts are no longer covered and constrained by the law—they operate his two closest friends in an empty space within the domain of the lawCTU organize his fake death. He then [[disappears]] into nowhere, anonymous, officially non-existing.</p>

<p>It In the “[[war on terror]],” it is here that we encounter not only the series’ fundamental ideological lie: In spite of this thoroughly ruthless attitude of self-instrumentalization, terrorists but the CTU agentswho become what [[philosopher]] [[Giorgio Agamben]] calls <i>[[homini sacer]]</i> — those who can be killed with impunity since, especially Jack, remain “warm human beings,” caught in the usual emotional dilemmas eyes of “normal” people. They love their wives and childrenthe [[law]], they suffer jealousy—but at a moment’s notice they are ready to sacrifice their loved ones for their missionlives no longer count. They are something like While the psychological equivalent agents continue to act on behalf of decaffeinated coffeea [[legal]] [[power]], doing all their [[acts]] are no longer covered and constrained by the horrible things [[law]] — they operate in an [[empty space]] within the situation necessitates, yet without paying [[domain]] of the subjective price for it[[law]].</p>

<p>Consequently, “24” cannot be simply dismissed as a pop cultural justification for the problematic methods of the United States in its war on terror. More It is at stake. Recall here that we [[encounter]] the lesson of Franics Ford Coppola’s <i>Apocalypse Now</i>series’ fundamental [[ideological]] [[lie]]: The figure In spite of Kurtz is not a reminder this thoroughly ruthless attitude of some barbaric past[[self]]-[[instrument]]alization, the CTU agents, especially Jack, remain “warm human beings, but ” caught in the necessary outcome usual emotional dilemmas of modern Western power“normal” [[people]]. Kurtz was They [[love]] their wives and [[children]], they suffer [[jealousy]] — but at a perfect soldier—as such, through his over-identification with moment’s notice they are ready to [[sacrifice]] their loved ones for their mission. They are something like the military power system[[psychological]] equivalent of [[decaffeinated coffee]], he turned into doing all the excess that horrible things the system had to eliminate in an operation that itself imitated situation necessitates, yet without paying the ruthlessness of Kurtz, what [[subjective]] price for it was ostensibly fighting against. </p>

Consequently, “[[24]]” cannot be simply dismissed as a pop [[cultural]] justification for the problematic methods of the [[United States]] in its [[war on terror]]. More is at stake. [[Recall]] the lesson of Franics Ford Coppola’s <pi>[[Apocalypse Now]]</i>This is the dilemma for those in power: How to obtain The [[figure]] of Kurtz without Kurtz’s pathology? How to get people to do is not a reminder of some barbaric [[past]], but the necessary dirty job without turning them into monsters? SS chief Heinrich Himmler faced the same dilemmaoutcome of modern [[West]]ern [[power]]. When confronted Kurtz was a perfect soldier — as such, through his [[over-identification]] with the task of liquidating [[military]] [[power]] [[system]], he turned into the Jews of Europe, Himmler adopted [[excess]] that the heroic attitude of “Somebody has system had to do eliminate in an operation that itself imitated the dirty job, so let’s do it!” It is easy to do a noble thing for one’s countryruthlessness of Kurtz, up to sacrificing one’s life for what itwas ostensibly fighting against. It is much more difficult to commit a <i>crime</i> for one’s country. </p>

<p>In <i>Eichmann This is the dilemma for those in Jerusalem</i>, Hannah Arendt provided a precise description of how [[power]]: How to obtain Kurtz without Kurtz’s [[pathology]]? How to get people to do the Nazi executioners endured necessary dirty job without turning [[them]] into monsters? [[SS]] chief [[Heinrich Himmler]] faced the horrible acts they performedsame dilemma. Most When confronted with the task of them were not simply evil; they were well aware that their actions brought humiliation, suffering and death to their victims. Their way out liquidating the [[Jews]] of this predicament was that[[Europe]], “instead [[Himmler]] adopted the heroic attitude of saying: What horrible things I did “Somebody has to people!, do the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the pursuance of my dutiesdirty job, how heavily the task weighed upon my shouldersso let’s do it!” In this way It is easy to do a noble [[thing]] for one’s country, they were able to turn around the logic of resisting temptation: Their “ethical” effort was directed toward the task of resisting the temptation not up to murder, torture and humiliate. Thus, the very violation of spontaneous ethical instincts of pity and compassion was turned into the proof of ethical grandeur: Doing sacrificing one’s duty meant assuming the heavy burden of inflicting pain on otherslife for it. It is much more difficult to commit a <i>crime</pi>for one’s country.

In <pi>Eichmann in Jerusalem</i>There was , [[Hannah Arendt]] provided a further “ethical problem” here for Himmler: How to make sure that precise description of how the SS [[Nazi]] executioners who endured the horrible acts they performed these terrible acts could remain human . Most of them were not simply [[evil]]; they were well aware that their actions brought [[humiliation]], [[suffering]] and retain [[death]] to their dignity? His answer [[victim]]s. Their way out of this predicament was found that, “instead of saying: What horrible things I did to people!, the murderers would be able to say: What horrible things I had to watch in the <i>Bhagavad-Gita</i>pursuance of my duties, how heavily the task weighed upon my shoulders!” In this way, a special leather-bound edition they were able to turn around the [[logic]] of resisting temptation: Their “[[ethical]]” effort was directed toward the task of which he always kept in his pocketresisting the temptation not to [[murder]], torture and humiliate. There Thus, Krishna tells Arjuna that he should carry out his acts with an inner distance the very violation of [[spontaneous]] [[ethical]] [[instinct]]s of pity and never get fully involved in themcompassion was turned into the proof of ethical grandeur: Doing one’s [[duty]] meant assuming the heavy burden of inflicting [[pain]] on others. </p>

<p>Therein also resides the lie of “24”There was a further “ethical problem” here for [[Himmler]]: The presumption How to make sure that it is not only possible to the [[SS]] executioners who performed these terrible acts could remain human and retain human their dignity ? His answer was found in accomplishing acts of terror, but that when an honest person accomplishes such acts as a heavy duty, this confers on him an additional tragic-ethic grandeur. But what if such a distance the <i>is[[Bhagavad-Gita]]</i> possible? What if we <i>do</i> have people who commit terrible acts as part , a special leather-bound edition of their job, while, which he always kept in privatehis pocket. There, they remain loving husbands, good parents Krishna tells Arjuna that he should carry out his acts with an [[inner distance]] and caring friends? As Arendt knew, far from redeeming never get fully involved in them, the very fact that they are able to retain their normality while committing such acts is the ultimate confirmation of their moral catastrophe.</p>

<p>So what about Therein also resides the popular and seemingly convincing reply to all these worries and hair-splitting distinctions regarding torturelie of “[[24]]”: “What’s all the fuss about? The United States presumption that it is just openly admitting, at least tacitly, not only what it has been doing all the timepossible to retain human dignity in accomplishing acts of [[terror]], but what all other states have been doing all the time. If anythingthat when an honest person accomplishes such acts as a heavy [[duty]], we have less hypocrisy now.” To this, one should retort with a simple counterconfers on him an additional [[tragic]]-question: “If this is the only thing that the statements from the U[[ethic]] grandeur.S. government mean, But what if such a [[distance]] <i>why, then, are they admitting thisis</i>possible? Why don’t What if we <i>do</i> have people who commit terrible acts as part of their job, while, in private, they just silently go on doing itremain loving husbands, [[good]] [[parents]] and caring friends? As [[Arendt]] knew, far from redeeming them, as the very fact that they did before?”</p>are able to retain their normality while committing such acts is the ultimate confirmation of their [[moral]] catastrophe.

<p>What is inherent So what [[about]] the popular and seemingly convincing reply to human speech all these worries and hair-[[splitting]] distinctions regarding [[torture]]: “What’s all the fuss about? The [[United States]] is just openly admitting, at least tacitly, not only what it has been doing all the irreducible gap between time, but what all [[other]] states have been doing all the enunciated content and its act of enunciation: “You say thistime. If anything, but why are you telling me it openly we have less [[hypocrisy]] now?.” For example To this, we all know that one should retort with a polite way to say simple counter-question: “If this is the only thing that we found a colleague’s talk stupid and boring is to saythe statements from the U.S. government mean, “<i>Thatwhy, then, are they admitting this</i> was very interesting.” If instead we openly told our colleague, “That was boring and stupid? Why don’t they just silently go on doing it,as they did before?” he would be fully justified to be surprised. The act of publicly reporting on something is never neutral—it affects the reported content itself. </p>

What is inherent to [[human]] [[speech]] is the [[irreducible]] [[gap]] between the [[enunciated]] [[content]] and its [[act]] of [[enunciation]]: “You say this, but why are you telling me it openly now?” For example, we all [[know]] that a polite way to say that we found a colleague’s talk stupid and boring is to say, “<pi>That</i> was very interesting.” If instead we openly told our colleague, “That was boring and stupid,” he would be fully justified to be surprised. The act of [[public]]ly reporting on something is never neutral — it affects the reported content itself.  The same goes for the [[recent ]] open admission of [[torture]]: When we hear [[Dick Cheney ]] make [[obscene ]] statements about the [[necessity ]] of [[torture]], we should ask: “Why are you saying it publicly?” That is, the question we must raise is: What is there about this [[statement ]] that made you enunciate it? Thus, what is truly problematic about “24” “[[24]]” is not the [[message ]] it conveys, but the fact that this message is so openly stated. It is a sad indication of the deep [[change ]] in our [[ethical ]] and [[political ]] standards.  ==See Also==* [[torture]]* [[war on terror]]* [[ethics]]* [[emergency state]]* [[democracy]]* [[human rights]]* [[liberalism]]* [[democracy]]* [[war]]* [[Hannah Arendt]]* [[law]]  ==Source==* [[Jack Bauer and the Ethics of Urgency]]. ''In These [[Times]]''. January 27, 2006.<http://pwww.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2481/>. Also listed on ''[[Lacan]].com''. <http://www.lacan.com/zizbauer.htm> [[Category:]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Politics]][[Category:Culture]][[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Works]]