Reply #28: Well....

[WarrenL]

thats the point I was making - Most intelligent people realize interrogation doesn't get you accurate information. But the questions you asked are legitimate and the fact you're asking them is what I'm referring to. We have to consciously think about these things and weigh them in our mind.

In Jack's world, he knew the guy was a terrorist, not suspected. He believed the man had info and he wanted it. How he got it and whether it was accurate is where we need to think for ourselves. Now in my version of the show, the terrorist would have given false info and Jack would've run after a bad lead and wasted time...however I was pleased so far with Erin's bumbling of the interrogation of the son. That's also more of the Bush mentality. Abu Ghraib and Gitmo both involve the "torture everyone and get everything mentality" which is truly flawed. What Jack did was know the exact piece of info he wanted and that the man had a high probabilty of knowing it.

Is it right or wrong? Again, that's something you have to decide for yourself. If I was in his shoes, I'd do the same thing probably, but there's no chance in hell I'd do what Erin is doing.

Remember that choice he had to make later on as well was a difficult one - where he had to save Chloe's friend by shooting the two terrorists even though he wanted to let him die and follow the main suspect. Again, here's an immensely hard decision to make. The role of Jack is not one I'd ever want to take on in my life, I wouldn't be able to live with those kinds of choices.