Episode 9 Discussion [rewatch]

[JHyde]

I think they took the bluff because they knew Morgan wouldn't risk it. After what he had been through, he would capitulate when it came to his daughter.

And let's be honest, had he let her die, it would have been HIM leaving her there to die, not Adam or Harry. Morgan was the one who helped make it possible for the weapon to be launched. The decision was Morgan's, his life or his daughter's. He made the right choice there at the end and he had many chances to do the right thing before then.

They knew they had the right guy as they caught him with his hands on the weapon.

Terrible and abhorrent as it was, they were all doing the right thing. Had I been Ruth, I would have done the same.

I agree Silktie, this was the first time I really liked Adam. This contrasted with the episode to come is also very moving, as they are on opposite sides of the equation. But clearly there's a difference between the two.

[HellsBells]

I think this is one of my favourite episodes so far, and like others this is the first time I actually started to like Adam.
The question with this episode is was it really torture ? When did hard interrogation become torture ?

Spoiler: show

Didn't they use the siren on Harry in 7.7, was that torture?

Loved the closeness of this episode with most of it taking place on the Grid.

[Nitrus]

Well I guess torture is different to different people, some people might be able to bear the siren.

But generally anything that causes physical or mental distress or anguish can be considered torture.

[A Cousin]

Which brings me back to the moral questions involved in this episode as a whole. All of the characters are dancing around and forced to identify their moral parameters. Torture for one may not be torture for another. Not that (for the record) I condone it in any form.

I love the scene at the end where Adam can't choose a paint color and the double entendre in his line, "There has to a benchmark, a viable standard so everyone knows what they are bloody doing!" and "How can I decide, if I can't tell the difference?" Brilliant writing that.

I am reminded of the study that was done about the moral decisions humans make.

Which is worse/better? A train track has five people tied to it an unable to move. You could A: flip a switch that diverts the train to another track on which one man is tied to stop it, or B: push the same man off a bridge to stop the train there by saving the five. The finding discovered that most people say that it is OK to flip the switch but not push the man. However, the were a whole lot of, "Well...its depends...." kind of answers. The team at MI-5 function in the grey area area all the time.

[HellsBells]

So where should the security services draw the line ? Is shouting at someone during an interrogation torture ? I think this episode really highlights this problem. Harry wanted deniability because he knew Adam would have to cross the line. Was emptying the guy's bank account torture, as that was going to cause mental distress. I personally can't tell when they crossed the line it was so subtly done. That is why I like this episode as it confronts a real problem that intelligent services have to face.

[Nitrus]

That scenario is deeply flawed. Why does there need to be a man tied to the other track to stop it if it's already avoided the 5 people?

[JHyde]

I think the difference is more one that is spoken about in 5.5

Series season5 Spoiler: show

where Harry asks Mace if the prisoners had Alsatians biting their testicles or slicing off fingers [insert permanently debilitating action here].

/ It is true that in England from time to time, terrible torture has taken place. But it is certainly not of the calibre that takes place in other parts of the world, including the US.

[A Cousin]

(24-05-2010 03:33 PM)Nitrus Wrote:  That scenario is deeply flawed. Why does there need to be a man tied to the other track to stop it if it's already avoided the 5 people?

I risk of going way off topic, but this being your site, feel free when to tell me when to shut up.

It is merely a philosophical question that does require one to accept the scenario at face value. That one man has to be in the scene in order for the question to require any moral judgment at all. Someone must die - the five or the one. The question is who and under what circumstances is it "acceptable." The idea is that one must either physically push the man (direct involvement) or flip the switch (indirect involvement). And to drag this kicking and screaming back on topic, I think that 3.9 deals with this kind of moral question but the parameters of morality are skewed from what a normal (for lack of a better word) person would think of as acceptable. It isn't about torture only, it is about "the line."

Perhaps the biggest flaw is that he'd have to be one big dude to stop a train though!

[lwhite53]

Torturing one's enemies (physically, psychologically, economically) is part of human history and I doubt we'll ever be completely free from it or the controversy about it's use. The question I find more compelling is what torture does to the people and societies that allow it, both overtly and covertly. The US, with all it's self-identification as a country of "moral superiority", has been using torture techniques for decades. In that same time frame, the lack of civility and divisiveness throughout the country has risen dramatically. Is there a correlation? I believe so. If you're willing to entertain the idea of using torture on so-called enemies, how much of a stretch is it to turn that lack of humanity inward?

[Silktie]

The UN Convention Against Torture defines the concept thus: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

I'd say the sleep deprivation, the water laced with whatever to make him severely ill, as well as the siren they subjected Morgan to all constituted torture. All those things would constitute "crossing the line" as it were under normal circumstances. But I would also argue that this wasn't normal circumstances, in that they knew for certain an attack was planned and Morgan was part of it. They had to shift the line to safeguard the many innocent people.