Reality TV

I'm a big fan of the television show "24". The series, starring Keifer Sutherland as counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer, recounts the efforts of a fictional government agency in its battle to defeat a series of deadly terrorist attacks against the United States. The action is non-stop, and in the post-9/11 world, the threats seem all too real. And, in an era when the media seems to find every conceivable justification for taking swipes at the government in its efforts to protect us, FOX has done an admirable job in keeping the political commentary to a minimum -- allowing the evilness to speak for itself, while not shying away from the ugliness that accompanies split-second decisions that have true life and death consequences.

I imagine that for all these reasons, "24" wouldn't be such a big hit in Europe -- where evil is a relative term, and decisiveness is a flaw borne from a lack of nuanced thought. It's hard to imagine Jack Bauer, for example, braving the America-skeptics as Condoleeza Rice did this past week on her tour of European capitals. While Rice repeatedly reasured the Germans, the French and leaders of other European nations that the US does not condone torture, she had to defend the use of so-called "renderings" (the practice of transporting terrorist suspects apprehended overseas to countries best suited to interrogating them) and was roundly pilloried in the European media. As a diplomat, Rice did an admirable job of staying on message and handling the negotiations with European leaders with aplomb. But its not how I -- or, I dare say, Jack Bauer would have handled it.

Jack would have pointed out to the Europeans (and in language that the Democrats in Congress would have also understood) that "we" (the civilized world) are in a life-and-death struggle with an enemy who doesn't play by any ground rules, who makes no distinction between soldiers and civilians, and whose primary aim is to kill and maim as many innocent people as possible. These are not soldiers of a nation-state who abide by the organized rules of warfare as embodied in the Geneva Convention, nor are they principled freedom fighters who deserve our respect. These are terrorists who indiscriminately kill innocents in the name of their religion with a barbarity that only Hitler or Stalin could admire. These are the "true believers" who set off bombs in crowded markets with the intent to kill and as many women and children as possible. And how do our foes treat their captives? By blindfolding them in front of a camera and then using knives and machetes to cut off their heads -- in full view of the world via the efficient communication of the world-wide web. In the eyes of the Europeans and Democrats in Congress, these are the "combatants" that the Europeans seem to think deserve the sanctity of our rules and laws. Excuse me while I scream.

It is this issue of the treatment of captives that would also make Jack apoplectic; for it underscores a basic lack of understanding among the European elite and liberal Democrats as to the nature of our enemy, and the kind of tactics that are (regrettably) now necessary to succeed in the war on terror. In "24", Jack handles captives as if they carry vital information necessary for the defense of our nation, and that time is the most critical asset in any interrogation. When the captive won't talk, "coercive" measures are used to instill fear and uncertainty -- the kind of fear that works wonders when faced with the prospect of sensory deprivation, physical discomfort and yes, even pain. Now, I'm not suggesting that the Unted States should shoot captives in the kneecaps or use syringes in the spine to extract information (as Jack sometimes does), but I also don't think we should shy away from more mild forms of physical discomfort that have been proven in the past to be effective in gaining intelligence from those who are determined to hurt us.

Unfortunately, there are many who choose to ignore the nature of the threat we face, insisting that America maintain the moral high ground when it comes to handling terrorist suspects. In principle, of course, this fits with the highest ideals of our nation. But in practice it has the effect of signaling to the enemy that they have little to fear from us, significantly tying our hands in acquiring the kind of information necessary to defeat terrorism. This is where the renderings come in -- the attempt to move prisoners to countries not as worried about the civil rights of the terrorists, and who don't have the same compunction about creating an uncertain climate in captivity. Without the uncertainty created by coercive techniques, the terrorists can rest easy that captivity in American hands may be long, but will be easy -- guarded as they are by the ACLU and others who are determined to protect them.