Some seem to think that everything in JAG must be 100% accurate. This episode shows the emotions of several of the characters AND has great action footage. A few items of "poetic license" do NOT hurt the episode!
3 Reviews
Great action!
philham5417 September 2021
JAG keeps getting more statist (and less plausible)
tatefegley7 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
It seems JAG just keeps getting dumber and less plausible every episode. So many things are either implausible or don't make sense:
In addition, Commander Turner keeps becoming more of a statist psychopath. In the previous episode we saw how he wanted to court-martial a man for not stabbing a child shepherd. In this, we see him arguing in favor of torturing people? They have made a point of the fact that his father is a Christian preacher, as well as the fact that he is a Christian. It is questionable then how such a person could also advocate such non-Christlike things.
One thing I find somewhat annoying about JAG is that there is hardly any room given for moral ambiguity or dissent from the status quo of always giving the military the benefit of the doubt. When Seaman Weston says, "I do want to be alive to see it when the Great American Empire is destroyed," Col. McKenzie replies, "Whoever taught you to hate like that ought to be in prison too." The problem here is that the writers had a great opportunity to explore the idea of whether factually innocent people are tortured (which we know to be the case with many inmates in Guantanamo Bay prison), but of course the defendant is factually guilty, so we don't have to face such a terrible (yet factual) idea of the US government torturing innocent people. Also, so far in the series aired after 9/11, there has been no consideration whatsoever towards the terrorists' motivations (if I can remember any, it is the cliché that "they hate us for our freedoms"). Here, Col. McKenzie totally denies that there could ever exist any rational argument against the US empire; to desire its end is such an offense that the one who desires it ought to be put in prison. No discussion at all is made of the hypocrisy of such thought, as most Americans who support US intervention overseas would NEVER accept a foreign country perpetuating the same thing towards them or their government. Thus, it seems like the writers and producers of JAG desire that we toe the government line and think of its foreign policy as just, and anyone who opposes it as unpatriotic, or perhaps even a terrorist.
- O'Neill not getting shot when providing covering fire - The plane being only configured for one passenger - what else do you need the cargo bay for? - The flares making the pilot crash. Is he an idiot? Why mess with the throttle when blinded? -Perhaps the landing of the C-130 on a carrier was the most plausible feat, considering the video of it actually happening (though the pilots made it look really easy).
In addition, Commander Turner keeps becoming more of a statist psychopath. In the previous episode we saw how he wanted to court-martial a man for not stabbing a child shepherd. In this, we see him arguing in favor of torturing people? They have made a point of the fact that his father is a Christian preacher, as well as the fact that he is a Christian. It is questionable then how such a person could also advocate such non-Christlike things.
One thing I find somewhat annoying about JAG is that there is hardly any room given for moral ambiguity or dissent from the status quo of always giving the military the benefit of the doubt. When Seaman Weston says, "I do want to be alive to see it when the Great American Empire is destroyed," Col. McKenzie replies, "Whoever taught you to hate like that ought to be in prison too." The problem here is that the writers had a great opportunity to explore the idea of whether factually innocent people are tortured (which we know to be the case with many inmates in Guantanamo Bay prison), but of course the defendant is factually guilty, so we don't have to face such a terrible (yet factual) idea of the US government torturing innocent people. Also, so far in the series aired after 9/11, there has been no consideration whatsoever towards the terrorists' motivations (if I can remember any, it is the cliché that "they hate us for our freedoms"). Here, Col. McKenzie totally denies that there could ever exist any rational argument against the US empire; to desire its end is such an offense that the one who desires it ought to be put in prison. No discussion at all is made of the hypocrisy of such thought, as most Americans who support US intervention overseas would NEVER accept a foreign country perpetuating the same thing towards them or their government. Thus, it seems like the writers and producers of JAG desire that we toe the government line and think of its foreign policy as just, and anyone who opposes it as unpatriotic, or perhaps even a terrorist.
illegal vs brutality
sandcrab27724 April 2019
Turner, roberts and chegwidden have made this legal circus into a farce ... without rabb, the office is in a real turmoil with only mac to keep the even keel ... i think the writers are way beyond the scope and depth of their expertise and make it up as they go ... i think we should have an old time western gun fight between donald p bellisario and stephen j cannell to see who survives the biggest lies
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
