Asked by: majikmanseven (+)
Answers Created: 5660
Green Bay Packers



Last Answer: KSbengals99 (+)
Answers: 6018
Cincinnati Bengals




« Locker Room Polls
15
Is Jack Bauer a Hero?
I found myself watching 24 the last couple nights. On Sunday night...early in the episode...Jack bauer was testifying before a senate committee ( Red Foreman from "That 70's Show" interestingly was the Chairman) and emphatically stated he would not regret or apologize for his actions and methods when it comes to saving innocent human life and preserving National Security. I then recalled some great scenes over the run of the show when Jack either tortured or killed the bad guys. As I tend to do, I decided to ask some "24" fans I know what they thought of the show. The vast majority were "Gung Ho" about Jack bauer. Comments like... "I wish we had a Jack bauer in reality..." came out. I then asked them what they thought of recent Dick Cheney interviews seen on TV news. "he is a SOB, he is evil...on and on and on..." Then i compared jack Bauer's actions and methods to actions and methods used by the W administration to fight terrorists and try to save innocent lives and preserve National Security. This got me some dirty looks and profanity. Seems Americans love jack bauer and his methods when it comes to fantasy TV ... but when jack's methods are used in reality... many of the same people emphatically condemn these same methods. I find that interesting. If you believe Jack Bauer is indeed a "Hero" ... then is it hypocritical to crucify the W administration for using similar methods????
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, TV | Closes 735825 days | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
yes, bauer is a hero
no, bauer is a ruthless immoral killer, just like Dick Cheney
other
15

(Caution -- you will be unable to change your answer.)


 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#2 | 2008 days ago

I always thought he was just a tv character.
Enter the poll to see my answer
  
32 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 2008 days ago
mooser58 (+)

I thought a hero was a sandwich???  A hero is someone who brings me a sandwich...or a drink.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#2 | 2008 days ago

I always thought he was just a tv character.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#3 | 2008 days ago

It's a tv show, it's written so that Bauer is always right, his judgment is perfect.  What happens if he thinks someone knows something but doesn't know anything?  Or lies?  Real life is different, that's why we have laws like we do, to rein in human impulses and emotions.  That's the plan anyway.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#4 | 2008 days ago

JAck Bauer is a TV character who has really bad days.  When he's not Jack Bauer he can found in Jail, AA, or an awards ceremony
Enter the poll to see my answer
#5 | 2008 days ago

Jack Bauer is obviously just a TV character.  However, going beyond that, to the extent that there are real people who are in any way similar to Jack Bauer, then those people are in fact heroes.  While it may be true that these people are not 100% perfect in their instincts, they may in fact injure someone who actually has no knowledge that is being sought.  However, I would doubt that it is ever a case when someone who is 'truly innocent' is being injured.

In the 'war' against terrorism, we need Jack Bauer types.  The terrorists are not subject to any rules, and we cannot tie our hands by bestowing upon these thugs our constitutional rights.  I love the left.  After 911 they were crying, 'why didn't we know that this was going to happen'.  Of course, these same people on the left were the ones who tied the hands of the intelligence agencies in a way that made 911 much more likely.  Now, we have gone almost 8 full years without a single significant terrorist attack in the US.  We have people who are condemning the very actions that were responsible for this result.  The left should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Enter the poll to see my answer
#6 | 2008 days ago

this was the dialogue i was hoping for ...  the Tv audience cheers jack bauer ... yet acts repulsed when they hear on media that our military used waterboarding ... and those people are a bit hypocritical in my mind. Whatever your beliefs are... i just strive for consistency!
Enter the poll to see my answer
#7 | 2008 days ago

ApopCane wrote:
It's a tv show, it's written so that Bauer is always right, his judgment is perfect.  What happens if he thinks someone knows something but doesn't know anything?  Or lies?  Real life is different, that's why we have laws like we do, to rein in human impulses and emotions.  That's the plan anyway.
but our enemies know no laws ... and can we defeat them using our laws? There is no such thing as a moral war. Palestinians lob rockets into Israeli residential suburbs hoping to kill innocent women and children... then they hide behind their own women and children... yet when israel responds ... many in our country condemn Israel? evil knows no laws...
Enter the poll to see my answer
#8 | 2008 days ago

I may be the only 1 in America to say this...........but I've never seen '24'...............
Enter the poll to see my answer
#9 | 2008 days ago

majikmanseven wrote:
but our enemies know no laws ... and can we defeat them using our laws? There is no such thing as a moral war. Palestinians lob rockets into Israeli residential suburbs hoping to kill innocent women and children... then they hide behind their own women and children... yet when israel responds ... many in our country condemn Israel? evil knows no laws...

I completely agree.  This whole discussion points out the difference in the way in which this country responded to terrorism prior to 9/11 vs. what we did after 9/11.  The Clinton admistration was faced with several terrorist incidents during the 90s -- i.e., the bombing of the world trade center in 93, the bombing of our embassy in Sudan, the bombing of the USS Cole.  In these cases, the administration tried to deal with terrorism as a 'law enforcement' matter.  That is, try to catch the perpetrators, try them and 'punish' them under either our laws or under international law.  Unfortunately, there are several problems with this approach.  First, the actual perpetrators are in many cases dead immediately following their action.  Those people who planned the terrorist attacks and those who funded the attacks go unpunished for several reasons. 

First, it is virtually impossible to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' who was involved and exactly the extent of their involvement. 

Second, by handling these attacks as 'law enforcement' issues, the adminstration put up barriers between the intelligence arms of government and the 'law enforcement' arms of government.  Information that was obtained by 'law enforcement' through means such as grand jury testimony could not be shared with the intelligence agencies (i.e., CIA) or the intelligence arm of the FBI.  The feeling was that sharing this type of information would undermine their efforts to prosecute who have previously been involved in these incidents.  Thus, the entire approach to terrorism left us vulnerable, because information that was critical in preventing the attacks were intentionally withheld from those who could stop the attacks from happening.

After 9/11, the Patriot Act was passed, and it went a long way toward breaking down those communication barriers between law enforcement and intelligence that were created during the Clinton Administration.  My guess is that the vast majority of people on this board are opposed to the Patriot Act.  I for one am not.  The Patriot Act simply allows our government intelligence agencies to treat terrorist suspects the exact same way that organized crime is treated under the RICO statutes.

Many people on this board literally 'hate' George W Bush, and much of that is due to things like the Patriot Act.  In this one area, I believe that W was exactly right, and history has borne that out by the fact that no successful terrorist attack has occurred on American soil since 9/11.

Enter the poll to see my answer
#10 | 2008 days ago

majikmanseven wrote:
but our enemies know no laws ... and can we defeat them using our laws? There is no such thing as a moral war. Palestinians lob rockets into Israeli residential suburbs hoping to kill innocent women and children... then they hide behind their own women and children... yet when israel responds ... many in our country condemn Israel? evil knows no laws...
What does Israel and Hamas have to do with Jack Bauer?  We fought the greatest evil of the 20th cent., Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but we kept our code and did it the right way, we did not stoop to the level of barbarism that our enemies displayed.  We did not butcher cities that surrendered, we did not treat our prisoners the way our POWs were treated. 

Torture does not work, people will say or admit to anything while being tortured.  The value of info obtained by torture is zero.  A TV show shouldn't be our guide to how our nation behaves.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#11 | 2008 days ago

ApopCane wrote:
What does Israel and Hamas have to do with Jack Bauer?  We fought the greatest evil of the 20th cent., Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but we kept our code and did it the right way, we did not stoop to the level of barbarism that our enemies displayed.  We did not butcher cities that surrendered, we did not treat our prisoners the way our POWs were treated. 

Torture does not work, people will say or admit to anything while being tortured.  The value of info obtained by torture is zero.  A TV show shouldn't be our guide to how our nation behaves.
We didn't 'butcher cities' in WWII????  Did you see what happended to Dresden, or Hiroshima -- how about Nagasaki??? 

As far as 'POW's are concerned, we followed the Geneva convention, which does provide protection to uniformed combatants.  The Geneva convention provides no such protection to combatants who are not in uniform -- they are assumed to be spies or worse and are afforded no protection whatsoever.  Guess what, the prisoners that we take in Iraq and Afghanistan are not protected by the Geneva Convention and we are under no obligation to follow it.  The Geneva convention implies that both sides will treat prisoners in a humane way -- it is quite clear that the insurgents in Iraq, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan do not in fact treat prisoners in a humane way.  Ask guys like Danny Pearl -- oh, that's right, you can't ask Danny -- he got his throat slit by these terrorist thugs.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#12 | 2008 days ago

ApopCane wrote:
What does Israel and Hamas have to do with Jack Bauer?  We fought the greatest evil of the 20th cent., Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but we kept our code and did it the right way, we did not stoop to the level of barbarism that our enemies displayed.  We did not butcher cities that surrendered, we did not treat our prisoners the way our POWs were treated. 

Torture does not work, people will say or admit to anything while being tortured.  The value of info obtained by torture is zero.  A TV show shouldn't be our guide to how our nation behaves.
man... i suggest you watch videos of the atomic bomb droppings... we didn't butcher their cities... we eliminated them. and torture got us no useful information? With all respect... that is a pretty naive statement. hamas and Israel are examples of a nation with laws similar to ours...Israel... fighting  folks that don't respect any laws or decency...hamas. i am not suggesting for 1 second that any TV show be a behavior giude...but I make very valid points on how many americans are hypocritical when it comes to what is right and wrong when it comes to defending our freedom and defending decency around the globe. Most Americans just want "to feel good about ourselves" ... yet fully expect our country to keep bad guys from blowing up grocery stores while our children and spouses/sig others shop for food.  You are "the way it ought to be" ... i am "the way it is" ... and our nation needs both of us to continue to be the nation the world looks to for guidance.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#13 | 2008 days ago

(Edited by majikmanseven)
I met and hung out last week with a Russian national age 50 ... a 35 year old Ukranian ... a 56 year old israeli...and a 55 year old Indian ... all 4 said the same thing... America is still the greatest nation on earth... their opinion...
our own media has brainwashed a lot of people into thinking we aren't respected, yet even today ... most nations want to be just like us... yet we have pinkos out there who do nothing but banter about how America has deteriorated ... my bet ... most of those people rarely if ever have left our own borders...
Enter the poll to see my answer
#14 | 2008 days ago

majikmanseven wrote:
man... i suggest you watch videos of the atomic bomb droppings... we didn't butcher their cities... we eliminated them. and torture got us no useful information? With all respect... that is a pretty naive statement. hamas and Israel are examples of a nation with laws similar to ours...Israel... fighting  folks that don't respect any laws or decency...hamas. i am not suggesting for 1 second that any TV show be a behavior giude...but I make very valid points on how many americans are hypocritical when it comes to what is right and wrong when it comes to defending our freedom and defending decency around the globe. Most Americans just want "to feel good about ourselves" ... yet fully expect our country to keep bad guys from blowing up grocery stores while our children and spouses/sig others shop for food.  You are "the way it ought to be" ... i am "the way it is" ... and our nation needs both of us to continue to be the nation the world looks to for guidance.
You need to learn more about the nuclear bombings before you condemn them, then read about the Rape of Nanking.  Then make the moral equation.  Under the rules of war, we were certainly within the right to do so, and the bombings saved lives, esp Japanese lives.  Not being naive, but torture is basically worthless as a information gathering process.  And you do realize we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for war crimes when they waterboarded our soldiers?  Was it wrong because it's a crime against humanity, or simply that we won?  If it was wrong for them, then it is wrong for us.

All tyrants and dictators of every political persuasion have used the safety of the state or the people as an excuse to torture, we should not align ourselves with the worst of this world.

We are a nation under rule of laws, not one under rule of man.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#15 | 2008 days ago

Seth wrote:
I always thought he was just a tv character.
You took the words right out of my mouth!
Enter the poll to see my answer
#16 | 2008 days ago
Grneyes (+)

jack who?  
#17 | 2008 days ago

ApopCane wrote:
You need to learn more about the nuclear bombings before you condemn them, then read about the Rape of Nanking.  Then make the moral equation.  Under the rules of war, we were certainly within the right to do so, and the bombings saved lives, esp Japanese lives.  Not being naive, but torture is basically worthless as a information gathering process.  And you do realize we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for war crimes when they waterboarded our soldiers?  Was it wrong because it's a crime against humanity, or simply that we won?  If it was wrong for them, then it is wrong for us.

All tyrants and dictators of every political persuasion have used the safety of the state or the people as an excuse to torture, we should not align ourselves with the worst of this world.

We are a nation under rule of laws, not one under rule of man.
Again you seem to fail to understand the distinction that is made in the Geneva convention.  To the extent that Japanese tortured uniformed US soldiers, then yes, they would have appropriately been prosecuted under the provisions of the Geneva convention.  However, to the extent that Japanese simply captured a spy for the US, tortured that spy and perhaps killed that spy, they would not have been guilty of anything under the Geneva convention.  In the situation that we currently face, the combatants that we face -- call them terrorists, insurgents or whatever, they are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

To the extent that any Japanese or Germans were prosecuted after WWII, that is more of a function of which side won the war.  If on the other hand, Germany and/or Japan had won that war do you truly believe that US soldiers and politicians would not have been prosecuted for war crimes?????   My guess is that Harry Truman would have been charged and convicted in a Japanese court for war crimes -- of course that did not happen because we won the war.

Your platitudes about being a nation under the rule of law is not particularly relevant to this discussion.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#18 | 2008 days ago

ApopCane wrote:
You need to learn more about the nuclear bombings before you condemn them, then read about the Rape of Nanking.  Then make the moral equation.  Under the rules of war, we were certainly within the right to do so, and the bombings saved lives, esp Japanese lives.  Not being naive, but torture is basically worthless as a information gathering process.  And you do realize we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for war crimes when they waterboarded our soldiers?  Was it wrong because it's a crime against humanity, or simply that we won?  If it was wrong for them, then it is wrong for us.

All tyrants and dictators of every political persuasion have used the safety of the state or the people as an excuse to torture, we should not align ourselves with the worst of this world.

We are a nation under rule of laws, not one under rule of man.
we both have lots to learn and i stand by my opinion ... you got your view...I have mine... if you can get the islamic extremist bastards to do it your way... god bless... I'll be ready to see it... in the mean time ... keep singing the peace and love songs while I hope Israel and iran don't spread the hate... c'mon people now...smile on your borther...everybody get together try to love one anther right now... I wish you were right...
Enter the poll to see my answer
#19 | 2008 days ago
(+)

It's late, That's a lot to read so I'll take a guess based on previous comments -  I don't know Jack or his brother Jack Sh!t
Enter the poll to see my answer
#20 | 2007 days ago

palehosefan wrote:
Again you seem to fail to understand the distinction that is made in the Geneva convention.  To the extent that Japanese tortured uniformed US soldiers, then yes, they would have appropriately been prosecuted under the provisions of the Geneva convention.  However, to the extent that Japanese simply captured a spy for the US, tortured that spy and perhaps killed that spy, they would not have been guilty of anything under the Geneva convention.  In the situation that we currently face, the combatants that we face -- call them terrorists, insurgents or whatever, they are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

To the extent that any Japanese or Germans were prosecuted after WWII, that is more of a function of which side won the war.  If on the other hand, Germany and/or Japan had won that war do you truly believe that US soldiers and politicians would not have been prosecuted for war crimes?????   My guess is that Harry Truman would have been charged and convicted in a Japanese court for war crimes -- of course that did not happen because we won the war.

Your platitudes about being a nation under the rule of law is not particularly relevant to this discussion.
if only this guy knew what Patton and Mccarthur did to win that war ... with today's imbedded media and Geraldo right there on front lines... patton and Mac probably would have tortured our own media!
Enter the poll to see my answer
#21 | 2007 days ago

   Honestly, I think that the government has people like that and we don't know everything about what goes on.  Thats what the CIA is for and other organizations.  I am sure tactics like he uses on the show are used but are not even talked about....some where the government or president himself doesn't even know about!  But I think they truly are heroes....people that are willing to sacrifice and deal with the consequences for the better good of the world and nation!
Enter the poll to see my answer
Poor Quality (4) This comment was voted poor quality by FanIQ (Show anyway)
#23 | 2006 days ago

vindog wrote:
Jack Bauer is a freaking TELEVISION SHOW CHARACTER and nothing more. This guy DOES NOT exist and never has! And BTW, in my honest opinion- The show is horrible. And Keifer Sutherland is a complete A@@HOLE in real life (that is first hand knowledge).  You guys are making a HERO out of a fictitious TV character- that is scary......
You obviously have not bothered to read the comments -- no one cares whether Keifer Sutherland is an A-hole in real life.  Based on what I have read about him, you are probably right.

The TV character is not a hero because he doesn't exist.  However, as I stated in an earlier post, to the extent that there are any real people who are similar to the Jack Bauer character, it is my firm belief that these people are in fact heroes.  You probably don't agree, and that is your right.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#24 | 2006 days ago

Jack Bauer may just be a TELEVISION CHARACTER, but the person portrayed by that character is the type we need more of in this country.  No matter what the media feeds the people....we still live in one of the most respected countries on the planet.  Read up on the Geneva convention and anyone will clearly see that...as Mick and Dave are saying... the way this country has dealt with the terrorists is perfectly within the laws governed by it.  The media exploits the actions now as they are allowed in every aspect of what goes on in the world...I personally think Geraldo and the rest of the media should be kept off the front lines and out of the inside loop.  They talk about what is wrong going on, but rarely about what is right.  The people in this country who actually live like the character portrayed by Jack Bauer are HEROES....they are willing to make sacrifices, and deal with whatever comes up to secure the good of this country and the world.  I am proud that we have people like that in this country.  
Enter the poll to see my answer
#25 | 2006 days ago

vindog wrote:
Jack Bauer is a freaking TELEVISION SHOW CHARACTER and nothing more. This guy DOES NOT exist and never has! And BTW, in my honest opinion- The show is horrible. And Keifer Sutherland is a complete A@@HOLE in real life (that is first hand knowledge).  You guys are making a HERO out of a fictitious TV character- that is scary......
Dog...uhhh... i guess the point went over your head here... Jack bauer is an example...get that??? en EXAMPLE ... of some issues we face here in America. I mean, C'mom man ... as a 40 year old... no fictional character is a "hero" to me.... yet what have Americans always called Superman, Spider man, etc... Americans have for decades referred to them as "Super Heroes"... I guess I need to spell out my devil's advocate referrals a bit better. My point... and a very valid one at that ... is that when real issues are fictionalized on TV or the big screen.... many Americans feel one way ... when the same issues play out in real life...Americans feel a different way ... and that is my point.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#26 | 2006 days ago

JemJenn wrote:
Jack Bauer may just be a TELEVISION CHARACTER, but the person portrayed by that character is the type we need more of in this country.  No matter what the media feeds the people....we still live in one of the most respected countries on the planet.  Read up on the Geneva convention and anyone will clearly see that...as Mick and Dave are saying... the way this country has dealt with the terrorists is perfectly within the laws governed by it.  The media exploits the actions now as they are allowed in every aspect of what goes on in the world...I personally think Geraldo and the rest of the media should be kept off the front lines and out of the inside loop.  They talk about what is wrong going on, but rarely about what is right.  The people in this country who actually live like the character portrayed by Jack Bauer are HEROES....they are willing to make sacrifices, and deal with whatever comes up to secure the good of this country and the world.  I am proud that we have people like that in this country.  
"y'all loved Elias ... and want to kick a$$$...mmm hmmm... but Elias was a crusader. Now I got no beef with a man that does what he's told... but when he breaks down... the machine breaks down ... and I ain't gonna allow that, from any a'ya..."

I'm glad you got the point of this poll and it didn't fly over your head...like apparently it did for some

when dead american soldiers burning corpses are hung from bridges ... I have little sympathy for a terrorist who wants to kill American innocent women and children and boo hoos cuz he was stripped naked during interrogation by a female US agent... and I'd bet OBL probably laughs as he watches our own media crucifying our own gov't because one of his guys was stripped naked in front of cameras

but I guess I'm just not as good a person as those who think we can eliminate terrorists by fighting a "civil" type of conflict
Enter the poll to see my answer
#27 | 2006 days ago
vindog (+)

majikmanseven wrote:
Dog...uhhh... i guess the point went over your head here... Jack bauer is an example...get that??? en EXAMPLE ... of some issues we face here in America. I mean, C'mom man ... as a 40 year old... no fictional character is a "hero" to me.... yet what have Americans always called Superman, Spider man, etc... Americans have for decades referred to them as "Super Heroes"... I guess I need to spell out my devil's advocate referrals a bit better. My point... and a very valid one at that ... is that when real issues are fictionalized on TV or the big screen.... many Americans feel one way ... when the same issues play out in real life...Americans feel a different way ... and that is my point.
I get the point- I did from the start!  But, maybe you are forgetting that I am a Former Military Interrogator from Desert Storm!  "Jack Bauer's" tactics are not heroic nor are they honorable- period! We are a Country of Laws and the Geneva Convention governs those laws- like it or not! Torturing a prisoner is not fun nor is it a joke and I DO NOT take this subject lightly at all. Most (if not ALL) of the people on this site "discussing the topic" have absolutely NO CLUE what goes on behind those doors or the choices that these people have to make. Interrogation is no a video game. Some may say that we should "Do to them what they do to us"! That's complete nonsense and BS. We are Americans because we believe in laws that protect from such barbaric acts and we SHOULD be above those acts. How can you preach Democracy and Laws and Freedoms and expect other Countries to believe in these philosophies when crap like Abu Garib(spelling) Prison starts circulating around the world? BTW- as a Former Interrogator- I will tell you that torturing a prisoner (to my knowledge) has NEVER produced any significant information that has saved any American lives or stopped any "terrorist acts". You, as an Interrogator, attract more bees with honey than with vinegar! So to sum this all up as "a person who has actually done this job"- I do not support ANY use of torture to ANY captured "terrorists"!
Enter the poll to see my answer
#28 | 2006 days ago
vindog (+)

(Edited by vindog)
vindog wrote:
I get the point- I did from the start!  But, maybe you are forgetting that I am a Former Military Interrogator from Desert Storm!  "Jack Bauer's" tactics are not heroic nor are they honorable- period! We are a Country of Laws and the Geneva Convention governs those laws- like it or not! Torturing a prisoner is not fun nor is it a joke and I DO NOT take this subject lightly at all. Most (if not ALL) of the people on this site "discussing the topic" have absolutely NO CLUE what goes on behind those doors or the choices that these people have to make. Interrogation is no a video game. Some may say that we should "Do to them what they do to us"! That's complete nonsense and BS. We are Americans because we believe in laws that protect from such barbaric acts and we SHOULD be above those acts. How can you preach Democracy and Laws and Freedoms and expect other Countries to believe in these philosophies when crap like Abu Garib(spelling) Prison starts circulating around the world? BTW- as a Former Interrogator- I will tell you that torturing a prisoner (to my knowledge) has NEVER produced any significant information that has saved any American lives or stopped any "terrorist acts". You, as an Interrogator, attract more bees with honey than with vinegar! So to sum this all up as "a person who has actually done this job"- I do not support ANY use of torture to ANY captured "terrorists"!
BTW    Here is a listing of my job classification while serving in the Unite States Marine Corps       Primary MOS  0231                                                     

Type of MOS : PMOS

Rank Range: MSgt to Pvt

Job Description: Intelligence specialists are familiar with all phases and facets of intelligence operations. Typical duties of intelligence specialists involve the collection, recording, analysis, processing, and dissemination of information/ intelligence. The intelligence specialist, depending on his/her rank, may supervise intelligence sections of commands up to and including MEF. Intelligence specialist who have a Defense Language Aptitude Battery of 100 may be eligible to attend language training at the Defense language Institute at Monterey, CA. This MOS will be assigned and voided only by the CMC (MM).

Job Requirements:

(1) Must possess a GT score of 100 or higher.

(2) Complete the MAGTF Intelligence Specialist: Entry Course, Navy Marine Corps Intelligence Training Center (NMITC), Dam Neck, VA.

(3) Selected Marine Corps Reservists without previous active duty intelligence experience who successfully complete Phases I and II of the MAGTF Intelligence Specialist Reserve Course, NMITC, Dam Neck, VA, will be awarded MOS 0231 as an additional MOS only. SMCR Marines holding additional MOS 0231 may receive primary MOS 0231 after serving 3 years in the billet MOS unless sooner waived by CMC (DirInt).

(4) Must be eligible for a top-secret security clearance and access to Sensitive Compartmented Information based on a completed Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI). Applications for the SSBI must be submitted prior to attendance of the Intelligence Specialist Course at NMITC, Dam Neck, VA.

(5) Must have 24 months obligated service remaining upon graduation from the MOS producing school.

(6) Must be a U.S. citizen.

(7) All Marines requesting a lateral move into the MOS 0231, USMC AND USMCR, must have a screening interview conducted by a 0231 GySgt or above. Interview waivers can be granted only by the OccFld 02 manager or CMC (MM)

Duties: For a complete listing of duties and tasks, refer to MCO 3500.32, Intelligence Training and Readiness Manual.  

Enter the poll to see my answer
#29 | 585 days ago

palehosefan wrote:

Jack Bauer is obviously just a TV character.  However, going beyond that, to the extent that there are real people who are in any way similar to Jack Bauer, then those people are in fact heroes.  While it may be true that these people are not 100% perfect in their instincts, they may in fact injure someone who actually has no knowledge that is being sought.  However, I would doubt that it is ever a case when someone who is 'truly innocent' is being injured.

In the 'war' against terrorism, we need Jack Bauer types.  The terrorists are not subject to any rules, and we cannot tie our hands by bestowing upon these thugs our constitutional rights.  I love the left.  After 911 they were crying, 'why didn't we know that this was going to happen'.  Of course, these same people on the left were the ones who tied the hands of the intelligence agencies in a way that made 911 much more likely.  Now, we have gone almost 8 full years without a single significant terrorist attack in the US.  We have people who are condemning the very actions that were responsible for this result.  The left should be ashamed of themselves.

 

and you would be wrong about the left being responsible. Read Al Franken's LIES AND THE LYING LIARS THAT TELL THEM; A FAIR AND BALANCED VIEW OF THE RIGHT.

Click the link to see what Clinton did to combat terrorism before 9/11 ever happened. http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/pearly/htmls/bill-terrorism.html

And then, according to Wikipedia:

Counterterrorism and Osama bin Laden

On February 26, 1993—thirty-six days after Clinton took office, terrorists who the CIA would later reveal were working under the direction of Osama bin Laden detonated a timed car bomb in the parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. (See World Trade Center bombing) Clinton responded by ordering his National Security Council, under the direction of Anthony Lake, and the FBI to find and punish those responsible. The FBI was able to quickly identify the vehicle used in the bomb from a remnant found in the rubble: a Ryder rental van, which had been reported stolen in Jersey City, New Jersey the day before. The truck was rented by Mohammed Salameh, whom the FBI immediately detained. Similar evidence led to the arrests of other plotters behind the attack, including Nidal Ayyad, Mahmoud Abouhalima, Ahmad Ajaj, and Ramzi Yousef—who was identified as the key player in the bombing. All men were tried and convicted for the bombing and other terrorists activities.[38]

In his 1995 State of the Union address, Clinton proposed "comprehensive legislation to strengthen our hand in combating terrorists, whether they strike at home or abroad."[39] He sent legislation to Congress to extend federal criminal jurisdiction, make it easier to deport terrorists, and act against terrorist fund-raising.[40] Following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Clinton amended that legislation to increase wiretap and electronic surveillance authority for the FBI, require explosives to be equipped with traceable taggants, and appropriate more funds to the FBI, CIA, and local police.[41]

In June 1995, Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 39, which stated that the United States "should deter, defeat and respond vigorously to all terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens." Furthermore, it called terrorism both a "matter of national security" and a crime.[42] The implementation of his proposals led to a substantial increase in counter-terrorism funds for the FBI and CIA.

In 1996, the CIA established a special unit of officers to analyze intelligence received about bin Laden and plan operations against him, coined the "Bin Laden Issue Station". It was this unit that first realized bin Laden was more than just a terrorist financier, but a leader of a global network with operations based in Afghanistan. Given these findings, the NSC encouraged the Department of State to "pay more attention" to Afghanistan and its governing unit, the Taliban, which had received funding from bin Laden. The State Department requested the Taliban to expel bin Laden from the country, noting that he was a sponsor of terrorism and publicly urged Muslims to kill Americans. The Taliban responded that they did not know his whereabouts and, even if they did, he was "not a threat to the United States." The CIA's counter-terrorism division quickly began drafting plans to capture and remove bin Laden from the country. However, Marine General Anthony Zinni and some in the State Department protested the move, saying that the United States should focus instead on ending the Afghan civil war and the Taliban's human rights abuses.[43]

In 1998, Clinton appointed Richard Clarke—who until then served in a drugs and counter-terrorism division of the CIA—to lead an interagency comprehensive counter-terrorism operation, the Counter-terrorism Security Group (CSG). The goal of the CSG was to "detect, deter, and defend against" terrorist attacks. Additionally, Clinton appointed Clarke to sit on the cabinet-level Principals Committee when it met on terrorism issues.[38]

Clinton's Counter-terrorism Center began drafting a plan to ambush bin Laden's compound in Kandahar. The CIA mapped the compound and identified the houses of bin Laden's wives and the location where he most likely slept. The plan was relatively simple, at least on paper. Tribals would "subdue" the guards, enter the compound, take bin Laden to a desert outside Kandahar, and hand him over to another group of tribals. This second group would carry him to a desert landing strip—which had already been tested—where a CIA plane would take him to New York for arraignment. When they completed a draft plan, they ran through two rehearsals in the United States.[44] Confident that the plan would work, the Counter-terrorism Center of the CIA sought the approval of the White House. While they acknowledged that the plan was risky, they stated that there was "a risk in not acting" because "sooner or later, bin Laden will attack U.S. interests, perhaps using WMD."[45]

Clarke reviewed the plans for Sandy Berger, the National Security Director, and told him that it was in the "very early stages of development" and stressed the importance of only targeting bin Laden, not the entire compound. The NSC told the CIA to begin preparing the necessary legal documents to execute the raid.[46]

The senior management of the CIA was skeptical of the plan, and despite objections, canceled the operation, fearing that the risk to their operatives and financial costs were too high. It is unclear whether or not Clinton was aware of the plan.

As the Counter-terrorism Center continued to track bin Laden, they learned in 1998 that the Saudi government had bin Laden cells within the country that were planning attacks on U.S. forces. CIA Director George Tenet, encouraged by the Saudi's show of force against bin Laden, asked them to assist in the fight against bin Laden. Clinton named Tenet as his informal "personal representative" to work with Saudi Arabia on terrorism. The Saudis promised Tenet that they would do everything they could to convince the Taliban to release bin Laden for trial in America or elsewhere. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, held various meetings with Taliban chief Mullah Omar and other leaders and received assurance that bin Laden would be removed. Omar, however, reneged on that promise.[38]

On August 7, 1998, Bin Laden struck again, this time with simultaneous bombings on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (see above) The CIA, having confirmed bin Laden was behind the attack, informed Clinton that terrorist leaders were planning to meet at a camp near Khowst, to plan future attacks. According to Tenet, "several hundred," including bin Laden, would attend. On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sundan, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by "a few hours."[43]

At the time of the attacks, Clinton was embroiled in the Lewinsky scandal (see below). This led many Republicans in Congress to accuse the president of "wagging the dog"—launching a military attack simply to distract the public from his personal problems. Clinton and his principals, however, insist that the decision was made solely on the basis of national security.[38]

After the attacks failed, Clinton moved his focus to diplomatic pressure. On the advice of the State Department, Clinton encouraged Pakistan, whose military intelligence agency was a patron of the Taliban, to pressure the Taliban to remove bin Laden. After numerous meetings with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the Pakistani's would still not cooperate.[38] Sharif eventually agreed to allow the United States to train Pakistani special forces to find bin Laden. When Sharif was ousted by Pervez Musharraf, the plan was abandoned.[47]

After encouragement by Richard Clarke, Clinton issued an executive order in July 1999 declaring the Taliban regime as a state sponsor of terrorism.[48] This was followed in October 1999 by Resolution 1267 sponsored by the United States placing economic and travel sanctions on the Taliban.[49] The Taliban, however, stood by bin Laden, and the United States, along with Russia, proposed yet another UN resolution (Resolution 1333), this time imposing an embargo an arms shipments to the Taliban.[50] The move was meant to weaken the Taliban in their fight against the Northern Alliance in their civil strife. However, the resolution did little to limit the illegal flow of arms from Pakistan.[38]

In August 1999, Clinton signed a Memorandum of Notification ordering the CIA to develop another plan to capture bin Laden, and giving the CIA the authority to order bin Laden be killed.[51]

Near the end of 1999, the Clinton administration, working with the government of Jordan, detected and thwarted a planned terrorist attack to detonate bombs at various New Year millennium celebrations around the world. The CIA confirmed that bin Laden was behind the plot, which was disrupted just days before the New Year.[43] While many credited Clinton's new CSG for playing a role in the foiling of these plots, critics claim it was "mostly luck."[52]

The CIA informed Clinton that they feared the thwarted attacks were just part of a larger series of attacks planned for the new year. Clinton asked Clarke and the CSG to draft plans to "deter and disrupt" al Qaeda attacks.[38]

On October 12, 2000, terrorists bombed the USS Cole in the harbor of the Yemeni port of Aden. The attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67), a U.S. Navy destroyer, killed 17 Navy sailors, and there was no clear indication during the last months of Clinton's term of who was responsible.[38] The CIA reported that they had "no definitive answer on [the] crucial question of outside direction of the attack—how and by whom. Clinton did not think it would be wise to launch an attack based on a "preliminary judgment," stating that he would have taken further action had he received definitive intelligence. The CIA was eventually able to confirm bin Laden's involvement with certainty a week after the Bush administration took office.[43]

As Clinton's second term drew to a close, the CSG drafted a comprehensive policy paper entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al Qida: Status and Prospects." http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20attachment.pdf The paper outlined a method to "roll back" al Qaeda over "a period of three to five years." Clarke stated that while "continued anti-al Qida operations at the current level will prevent some attacks, [it] will not seriously attrit their ability to plan and conduct attacks." This policy paper was forwarded to the incoming Bush administration[43]


After Bush took office, he kept Clarke around for 8 months and then let him go without following through on any of the recommendations by Clarke. During that time is when the FBI agent in Arizona sent the infamous memo to Washington and his supervisors about Middle Eastern people in flight schools that was ignored completely. And then came 9/11. All under Bush's watch without following through on anything suggested to him by Clinton. So all you Retardicants that say Clinton was at fault, try studying real facts and real news and not that gibberish and lies you get from FOX News--truth is Clinton prepared Bush for a possible terrorist attack with a plan to stop it before it hit and Bush didn't do squat with it. And on September 13th, Bush tried to get his JCS to say it was Iraq and not Al Queda and Bin Laden that did it just to finish the war his father never did.

Enter the poll to see my answer
#30 | 585 days ago

palehosefan wrote:
We didn't 'butcher cities' in WWII????  Did you see what happended to Dresden, or Hiroshima -- how about Nagasaki??? 

As far as 'POW's are concerned, we followed the Geneva convention, which does provide protection to uniformed combatants.  The Geneva convention provides no such protection to combatants who are not in uniform -- they are assumed to be spies or worse and are afforded no protection whatsoever.  Guess what, the prisoners that we take in Iraq and Afghanistan are not protected by the Geneva Convention and we are under no obligation to follow it.  The Geneva convention implies that both sides will treat prisoners in a humane way -- it is quite clear that the insurgents in Iraq, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan do not in fact treat prisoners in a humane way.  Ask guys like Danny Pearl -- oh, that's right, you can't ask Danny -- he got his throat slit by these terrorist thugs.
do they teach History where you grew up, or did you fail it like the cocaine sniffing drunkard who preceded Obama in the White House?

The reason we dropped the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to prevent the loss of 500,000 lives of US Marines and soldiers in an invasion of Japan. And we did this sneaking away all of the top scientists in the world from Germany, Italy, France, and Russia during the war to prevent those countries from having the bomb first. We also dropped the bombs to let the rest of the  world know we have that kind of power and we'll use it if we have to in order to prevent future wars.

How Machiavellian of you to suggest changing the standards and morals that our nation was based on because of the rules our enemies play by; didn't help Bush get that big of a coalition to fight terror as he thought it would, did it? No. Because when the rest of the world saw us lower ourselves to the standards of our radical islamic enemies, we stopped being the beacon of light, integrity, and democracy and became an autocracy with imperialistic vision for the resources of other nations. That loss in stature hurts us today at the bargaining table for free trade, ending worldwide pollution, and human rights negotiations since we no longer can maintain the moral high ground we used to. And no, the ends justify the means wasn't worth it.
Enter the poll to see my answer
#31 | 534 days ago

oh lawd!!
Enter the poll to see my answer
#32 | 530 days ago

derms33 wrote:
JAck Bauer is a TV character who has really bad days.  When he's not Jack Bauer he can found in Jail, AA, or an awards ceremony
dang, that was funny
Enter the poll to see my answer

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends