After a two-week hiatus (during which my wife had our second child), I thought I’d jumpstart my return with some Jack Bauer-style conservatism from 24.  The show, indeed, did not disappoint last night.  Moreover, it provide a much-needed fresh look at politics, particularly in the episode’s first few minutes.

Sooner or later, we all knew that Jack would have to answer to someone for his unusual bedside manner with terrorists.  This hand-wringing came in the form of a Senate committee hearing during which partisan pandering reached predictable heights, and the subject under scrutiny (Jack Bauer) responded with a unique approach . . . unique, that is, under the circumstances, but we all know that Jack isn’t your typical Senate witness.

The scene between Jack and Senator Mayer resonated for two specific reasons.  First, Jack didn’t bring a lawyer, and, second, his rationalization of his treatment of terrorist effectively schooled Mayer on the nature and brutality of the real world–one from which Mayer (or any liberal politician) is so removed and that only real people like Jack (who have suffered its scars) can understand.

Jack Bauer Doesn’t Need A Lawyer

I can’t say enough about Jack’s decision not to bring a lawyer to the Senate hearings.  Mayer offers to postpone the hearings and warns Jack about the possibility of incriminating himself, but Jack just endures: “What is the first question, sir?” 

Here we have a private citizen choosing to speak his mind rather than cloaking his words with the protections of a lawyer.  I, myself, am an attorney, and I will be the first to explain how important legal representation is in today’s dog-eat-dog society.  Nevertheless, Jack going solo is such a fresh take on the subject. 

As recently as several weeks ago, we had to endure the Big 3 automakers parsing their words so carefully in order to steal taxpayer dollars to try and save their companies.  President-elect Barack Obama and his advisors are experts at testing every word he uses to sell his socialist agenda to the general public.  We live in a world where anyone with any level of a public reputation tries not to say the wrong thing.  That’s why Jack taking on Senator Mayer alone is so fresh.  It isn’t something you see every day, and it’s courageous.  

Jack opts to say what’s on his mind and juxtapose his genuine recollection of reality with the contrived, bureaucratic proceedings in which he’s forced to participate.  It’s a classic David vs. Goliath scenario, and you can’t help but root for Jack.  In fact, you know he’s going to win.

Jack Schools Mayer

Mayer questions Jack about a terrorist named Ibrahim Haddad, whom Jack “detained” in 2002 and, according to Mayer’s accusations, did so “without due process” while “us[ing] extreme interrogation methods.”  One can only wonder what Jack did to poor Haddad.  It helps to reproduce and re-read the exchange that follows because, frankly, we need more of Jack in society and less of Mayer.  More genuineness and truth and less politics. 

Jack admits to Mayer’s characterization of his handling of Haddad, and, in response to a question from Mayer about whether he ”broke procedure,” Jack answers: “Probably.”  When Mayer chastises Jack about not caring, Jack fires back defiantly: ”I’m sorry, Senator.  I didn’t hear a question.” 

Mayer doesn’t shy away and gets right down to the point: “Did you torture Mr. Haddad?”

“According to the definitions set forth by the Geneva Convention,” answers Jack, ”yes, I did.”

(At that very moment, I could just see every liberal on Earth cringing in despair.  Poor Mr. Haddad.)

Despite such a crippling admission, Jack takes control of the proceeding with a lecture of his own: ”It’s obvious that your agenda is to discredit CTU and generate a series of indictments,” he says.  ”Ibrahim Haddad had targeted a bus carrying 45 people, ten of which were children.  The truth, Senator, is that I stopped that attack from happening.”

“By torturing Mr. Haddad!” whines Mayer.

“By doing what I deemed necessary to protect innocent lives,” Jack retorts. 

What a refreshing answer.  And I do mean refreshing.  Jack doesn’t care about red tape.  He doesn’t care about procedure.  The problem at the time was simple: 45 people were going to die.  The only way to save them was to torture the information out of Haddad.  One waterboarded/electrocuted/finger-less scumbag in exchange for the lives of 45 innocent people?  That’s a fair trade in Jack’s world.  What’s more, few people would disagree.

Except liberal blowhards like Mayer, of course.  He accuses Jack of believing that the ends justify the means and that he’s above the law.  

Jack responds with a rationalization that almost mocks Mayer’s political grand-standing: “When I am activated, when I am brought into a situation, there is a reason,” Jack explains.  “And that reason is to complete the objectives of my mission at all costs. . . .  The difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy.  The people that I deal with, they don’t care about your rules.  All they care about is a result.  My job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives.  I simply adapted.”

Then, he abandons the political double-talk and throws a doozy at Mayer: “[P]lease do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions I have made.  Because, sir, the truth is I don’t.”     

Bravo. 

If only more politicians and public figures had the courage to state the truth clearly and without legal wrapping paper.  If they only had the heart to stand by their principles and not worry if the articulation of those principles sounded less than politically correct. 

Welcome back, Jack and 24.  The show makes Monday my new favorite day of the week.    

If you like this post, please consider subscribing to my full RSS feed.  You can also subscribe by e-mail and have a copy of each new post automatically delivered to your inbox.