24: Season 2 - Hour 9 - 01/07/03 - It's back! (1 Viewer)

[OliverT]

There are other ways to get information from Nina besides bargaining.

Why bother with torture which is time consuming and inaccurate? They'd just make a deal as quickly as possible and stop that bomb!
Its ok that Nina made a mistake guys...she was under a lot of pressure at the time...sheesh. Of course, it isn't a mistake if she is working with the people trying to undermine the president...hmmmm.
OT

 

[Chucky P]

Also by keeping Jack alive it was easier for the President to pardon her since Jack himself told him that this is the only way to get the bomb and he probably trusts Jack's word more than Nina's.

 

[Mike-M]

This is to anyone...Do you think the show can survive without the character of Jack Bauer? If he were to die by the end of this 'day,' would you watch next season? Would you be as interested?

I ask because I'm curious what people tune in more for: Jack Bauer or the 24 format itself?

 

[Jeff Kohn]

I think that if not Jack Bauer, you need some other strong character for the show to center around. None of the characters we've seen so far could fill his shoes and carry the show.

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

Can someone remind me why it is assumed Jack would hunt Nina down and killer her? If he didn't killer her for killing his wife, why now?

Quote:

Answer: No, blanks would not kick up dust like we saw.
I have no interest in 24 without Jack Bauer.

 

[Jason Quillen]

Can someone remind me why it is assumed Jack would hunt Nina down and killer her? If he didn't killer her for killing his wife, why now?

Jack hasn't gotten the opportunity to kill Nina yet because she's been his only like to the bomb - But Nina knows the minute the bomb is no longer a factor Jack will kill her for shooting Jack's wife.

JQ

 

[Jeff Kohn]

There's a difference between "I'm an honest person" and "I'm honest in certain situations".

So you think it's better to let a good man die than to break an agreement with a evil, cold-blooded killer? Talk about principaled... :rolleyes

 

[Dan M~]

Read the above posts and know what

DRAMA is!

The black and white of life often turns grey...

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Answer: Personally, I think it is bad. There's a difference between "I'm an honest person" and "I'm honest in certain situations".

I don't know. Back when Nina first asked about a pardon, Palmer made some statement that could be infered they'd get her later, if all this works out. Maybe someone can remember exactly what he said, but I recall thinking that at the time. Also, Jack may not kill her the moment the bomb's been neutralized and he has the first chance. I think he may hunt her down later, besides he could do it then in such a way he wouldn't go to jail, if he covertly tracks her down and kills her in another country. Maybe that could be the next season.

 

[BrianW]

Answer: Personally, I think it is bad. There's a difference between "I'm an honest person" and "I'm honest in certain situations".

I agree that one should live by principles regardless of the circumstances, but nobody should be expected to honor a contract signed at the point of a gun. If a mugger puts a gun to your head and makes you sign an agreement saying you freely gave him your wallet, would you be bound by principle not to report the crime?
More to the point at hand, as a matter of principle, the US will not honor agreements signed by her representatives if those signatures are known to be obtained under duress. Palmer may personally feel duty-bound to keep his word, but the government is not obliged to agree or to recognize his contract with Nina in any fashion. Knowing this, Palmer should know that his agreement with Nina is automatically worthless in the eyes of the government and that every effort will be expended to bring her to justice.
Of course, doing things this way wouldn't help to increase the drama, now, would it?

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

BrianW, I agree that duress and extortion are significant factors. I don't feel Palmer must honor his verbal (and written) contract with Nina Myers, but not just because she is generally a "bad person." You've hit on why I don't think it needs to be honored.

 

[BrianW]

Wow, are you the one I quoted? It seems so long ago. Life is such a blur. You are the one, it turns out, I agree with! :b

After rereading others' posts on the matter, I feel compelled to emphasize what I only implied before: I quite agree that having a contract with an ultra-bad person, no matter how ultra-bad that person is, is not sufficient justification to renege on that contract. As pointed out, other factors (duress/extortion/murder) are at play in this episode, but breaking a contract with a sleazeball, just because that person is a sleazeball, is just plain wrong.

Thanks for the clarification, Mikah.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

I agree with the sentiment that breaking an agreement you're basically forced into under duress, (a gun to the head, a nuke in LA, whatever), is perfectly fine.

 

[Keith Mickunas]

Maybe I didn't express myself quite right. The duress point is a good one I wish I mentioned. Nina has done everything she can to force this deal. Every aspect of it has essentially been under duress. Then she reneged on her earlier agreement and wanted it amended to include killing Jack. She has violated the original contract and she can't be trusted. Because she didn't hold up her end of the original bargain, I don't think Palmer should either. Also, the original deal was essentially made under duress. She bargained with the lives of thousands of innocent civilians for her immunity.

Someone made an argument about how if you are wrong to renege on an agreement just because the person is evil. This truly is a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Who declares you (the US, president, whoever) judge? Yes these are difficult questions and the answers are potentially dangerous. But sometimes its pretty damn easy to make those decisions. Sometimes there are no shades of grey. Can anyone really say that Nina isn't an evil bitch that deserves to die? There are times, IMHO, when I think its perfectly ok to do something that would normally be unethical, immoral, illegal, dishonest, etc. under other circumstances and be justified in acting in this manner.