But the General has it right, I think, by noting that 24 normalizes torture, which according to all of the international conventions is illegal and immoral. To the extent that we in the US regard torture as an acceptable means to an end, we have to remember that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, and our acceptance of torture as a legitmate tool means that others can use it too, and against us. I am guessing that that is part of what the general has in mind.

As blood and guts mayhem oriented videogames demonstrably desnsitize players to violence, so does repeated graphic and sympathetic portrayals of torture normalize torture.

As I watch 24, I am reminded that this is Dick Cheney’s favorite show, which is reason enough to give me pause to consider why, and what values it endorses, like torture being an acceptable tool of war. It is not, and 24 ought to back off.

In a new interview with Newsweek, former U.S. Army specialist Tony Lagouranis, who left the military with an honorable discharge in 2005, confirms Finnegans fears — that U.S. soldiers did take cues from 24 to torture prisoners:

Interrogators didn’t have guidance from the military on what to do because we were told that the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply any more. So our training was obsolete, and we were encouraged to be creative. We turned to television and movies to look for ways of interrogating. I can say that I saw that with myself, also. I would adopt the posture of the television or movie interrogator, thinking that establishing that simple power arrangement, establishing absolute power over the detainee, would force him to break.

Just so we’re clear, I’m not advocating censorship or cancellation of the show. But I’ll say the same thing that I say when fundies complain that sex on TV is corrupting their children: Be parents. Provide guidance. The military shouldn’t have to rely on a friggin’ actor to tell soldiers, cadets, etc. what their superior officers and civilian leadership should be telling them: that torturing detainees is morally wrong, doesn’t provide useful information and ultimately puts American troops in danger. But when the Bush administration declared the Geneva Conventions “quaint” and “obsolete,” it failed to provide guidance about what is and isn’t acceptable behavior. So the troops got their cues wherever they could get them, much like children whose parents won’t teach them about sex. And, like with those unguided children, much of the information they got turned out to be wrong.

As for your complaint about “West Point military academy,” note that in the source article, the words “military” and “academy” are lower case, indicating that they are not part of the formal title of the academy. So the original article didn’t get the formal name of the institution wrong, it just didn’t use it. If you’d like to debate this irrelevant point further, feel free to contact the Indo-Asian News Service.