Posts Tagged ‘NCIS’

Anti-Terror Laws

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

I watched the episode of NCIS (season 6 episode 6) last Tuesday, and made an observation in the end of the episode which I made a mental note to blag about later. The time has now come for that.

In order to discuss the observation, I will need to rehash parts of the story, including the ending, so if you haven’t seen it but will, STOP READING NOW!

So the team is hunting a serial killer, who’s great plan is to get caught, in order to get famous. “Who remembers the name of the police who caught Bundy” or something to that effect is uttered in one of the final scenes. Essentially the bad guy wants his 15 minutes of fame, and is willing to literally kill for it. He gloats before Gibbs that he will be famous, but Gibbs will just be a footnote at most.

So Gibbs pulls some strings, and the final scene depicting the news-cast that evening shows a black silhouette with a white question mark superimposed, instead of the photo, while the reporter announces that due to “suspected association with terrorists” they cannot reveal his identity.

I have to say, they did it skillfully. I was exhilarated “yay, the bad guy failed”, but then later that evening I got to thinking “wait just one goddamn minute”. And then it struck me. They were, in the show, without even the least bit of apologetic behavior, just depicting a rather troublesome breach in what that law is supposed to do.

Sure, they didn’t turn a (fictitious) serial-killer into a star for some unstable psyche to idolize, but consider the implications here for a while. What would stop another agent/agency from “implicating” an outspoken protester (for the sake of the argument let’s say the object of the protests is the government) as a suspected terrorist. Well that just gave them the ?authority? to silence him and ship him off to some shit hole so that he won’t be causing trouble.

And the only thing standing between him, and said shit hole, is the strength in his arguments. If the arguments are weak, he is not a problem, and letting him be just adds to the government image of tolerating different opinions, while if the arguments are strong, he would be a problem.

I find that thought to be incredibly scary. How about you?