# 24: Season 4: Episode 13 (7:00pm - 8:00pm) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 14, 2005, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535 "2005-03-14T22:49:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/121 "2005-03-17T12:42:43Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Read my post again. I never said she didn’t try to use the crisis. I said she wasn’t _bargaining_. You understand the difference, don’t you? In this case, it’s a difference without a distinction. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you’re right. Let’s grant that she was merely exploiting the national emergency for her own purposes. How does that exonerate her? It doesn’t. It still suggests that she’s the type of person who would put her own paycheck over and above the safety of the nation. Hardly the mark of a “loyal” employee. ---
**Author:** ![archmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@archmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archmichael)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/122 "2005-03-17T13:10:44Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Read my post again. I never said she didn’t try to use the crisis. I said she wasn’t _bargaining_. You understand the difference, don’t you? So then you agree with us that she should have been removed. Everyone agrees that she got a raw deal and deserved to be compensated. She should not have used the crisis as leverage. How is you position different? That Michelle just should have been nicer? > [@blowero](#): > > Nah. After the way she was treated, she didn’t owe them shit. Sarah would agree with your assessment, which is why Michelle instantly recognized her as a liability. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/123 "2005-03-17T14:18:02Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > They never said she speed-read the file. If she didn’t have the details, she should have said so. Poetic license. She knew what happened, but I feel secure in saying she hasn’t had time to get into the details, and thus was not in a position to render any sort of decision other than “I’ll look into it”. That it wasn’t said in a touchy-feely way when worrying about further terrorist attacks and field agents in danger within an 8-mile radius blackout should not be condemned. Sarah should have been given the blow-off at that moment in time. Michelle should not be worrying about either Sarah’s feelings or pay grade. She needs to focus on Jack and Marwan, and in getting very smart very fast about what’s happening outside the doors of CTU. > [@blowero](#): > > Nah. After the way she was treated, she didn’t owe them _shit_. Then she should not have been there. She should have gone home. She can still file suit. > [@](#): > > That much is obvious. Doesn’t exonerate Michelle, though. Michelle did nothing to Sara she needs to be exonerated for. > [@](#): > > She didn’t threaten her. IIRC she said, “You’ll regret this” or something. Probably meant she intends to bring the matter to Secretary Heller. I wasn’t aware that bringing an employment issue to your boss’ superiors was a jailable offense. I’d have to rewatch the ending, but I think it was both “You’ll regret this” and “You’ll be sorry”. A case could be made that this was an implied threat. Considering the crisis on hand, that’s enough for incarceration. (And, of course, complaining to Heller about mistaken torture would be an amusing conversation) > [@](#): > > I think seeing all the torture has made you guys unsympathetic. (a) It’s a TV show. (b) Sarah “forgave” her torture when she traded recourse for a salary bump. I have no problem with that. My point has nothing to do with the inappropriateness about what happened to her. My point is that she was _not_ mistreated by Michelle. She was treated by Michelle exactly as she should have been treated by Michelle, who was not party to any previous doings. Sarah should have backed down, and there is no reason Michelle should have been worried about Sarah’s record nor Sarah’s pay grade at that point in time. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/124 "2005-03-17T14:21:39Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > What we saw of her work wasn’t enough to establish that she was a LOYAL employee. It could _arguably_ indicate that she was hard-working, but even that’s a stretch. She basically did her job, but she didn’t go the extra mile the way Edgar or Chloe did. > > So I still maintain that we didn’t see enough to establish her as a “loyal, hard-working employee.” Any attempt to paint her as such is wishful thinking at best. If memory serves, Driscoll mentioned to Heller that Sarah had worked for her for 8 months and that she never did anything that would put her loyalty to question. They were very quick to break out the taser on Sarah. **Too** quick. But that’s TV and they have to fit the show into a 24-hour period. ---
**Author:** ![archmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@archmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archmichael)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/125 "2005-03-17T14:25:29Z")
Another question is why have it expunged at all. I would think having, > [@](#): > > “Wrongly tortured for information. Did not break during the interrogation. Given the option to go home, but stayed to help” would look great in your personnel file, as well as decrease the likeliness of having you loyalty questioned the next time. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/126 "2005-03-17T18:29:58Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > In this case, it’s a difference without a distinction. Really? You don’t see a difference between: “You need me right now. Give me more money or I walk.” and “Your predecessor agreed to promote me in exhange for my willingness to stay and assist CTU in spite of the fact that I should be recovering from the severe trauma I went through earlier today. I want to make sure that agreement is honored.”? I think it’s different. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/127 "2005-03-17T18:46:18Z")
> [@archmichael](#): > > So then you agree with us that she should have been removed. Everyone agrees that she got a raw deal and deserved to be compensated. She should not have used the crisis as leverage. How is you position different? That Michelle just should have been nicer? It would have never _gotten_ to the point where Sarah tried to use the crisis as leverage, if Michelle had been reasonable in the first place. Michelle’s initial response was completely unreasonable, yet you expect Sarah’s reaction to be. That’s unfair. Why should Sarah be required to show loyalty to CTU when they could not return the favor? > [@](#): > > Sarah would agree with your assessment, which is why Michelle instantly recognized her as a liability. I don’t understand. How would she have been a liability? I don’t recall her threatening to do anything other than go home, which is what should have happened _anyway_, after what happened to her. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/128 "2005-03-17T19:05:06Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > Poetic license. That’s a new one. 😃 > [@](#): > > …That it wasn’t said in a touchy-feely way…should not be condemned. Whoah, dude. You’re _way_ understating that. She definitely gave her the “blow-off” vibe. A bunch of us noticed that. I have no doubt that there was a notation in the script as to the tone. It was really obvious. > [@](#): > > Then she should not have been there. She should have gone home. She can still file suit. Doesn’t exonerate Michelle. > [@](#): > > Michelle did nothing to Sara she needs to be exonerated for. I disagree. Hey, even Tony raised an eyebrow at her behavior. 😉 > [@](#): > > I’d have to rewatch the ending, but I think it was both “You’ll regret this” and “You’ll be sorry”. A case could be made that this was an implied threat. I don’t see how. > [@](#): > > Considering the crisis on hand, that’s enough for incarceration. (And, of course, complaining to Heller about mistaken torture would be an amusing conversation) I don’t know about that. Heller was pretty damn steamed when he found out his son was tortured. He only changed his mind when he discovered his son really _was_ hiding something. But I agree to an extent. The way this fictional CTU is run, I would guess one wouldn’t get too far trying to take them on. If they’re not worried about torturing private citizens w/o probable cause, I doubt they’d be too concerned with a wrongful termination suit. Fortunately, that has nothing to do with my point. I think Sarah made a severe miscalculation, there’s no doubt about that. However, that doesn’t change the fact that she got a raw deal from CTU. > [@](#): > > (a) It’s a TV show. Gee, ya think? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/129 "2005-03-17T19:08:52Z")
> [@D\_Odds](#): > > They were very quick to break out the taser on Sarah. **Too** quick. But that’s TV and they have to fit the show into a 24-hour period. They didn’t just taser her, IIRC. That’s just the part they _showed_. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/130 "2005-03-17T19:11:03Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > “Your predecessor agreed to promote me in exhange for my willingness to stay and assist CTU in spite of the fact that I should be recovering from the severe trauma I went through earlier today. I want to make sure that agreement is honored.”? Michelle doesn’t even work there, and she doesn’t know for a fact that there was any such agreement. She gave Sarah an attitude, which I think is understandable given the circumstances, but I’m not sure what else she’s supposed to do. ---
**Author:** ![archmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@archmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archmichael)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/131 "2005-03-17T19:19:38Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > That’s unfair. Why should Sarah be required to show loyalty to CTU when they could not return the favor? I think the problem is that you are trying to equate this is a regular job. If you work for a regular company, there is an expectation (which doesn’t always happen) that the company shows loyalty to the employee as well as the employee showing loyalty to the company. But this is a job that deals with national security. It’s not just loyalty to CTU, but to the country as well. In case you haven’t noticed, in this show CTU employees have been asked to continue working after a bomb blast. CTU employees have been asked to walk into virus infested buildings. Michelle was asked to allow herself to be recaptured by terrorists. Jack was asked to sacrifice himself by flying a bomb to a remote area. Do you know how many CTU red shirts have been cold cocked by Jack? Is it reasonable to expect them to remain loyal to the job and country, or is it okay for them to take the mentality that they don’t owe CTU any loyalty? You know who the last person was who felt they didn’t owe any loyalty to CTU? Nina. All Sarah was asked to do was let it go until after the crisis. > [@blowero](#): > > I don’t understand. How would she have been a liability? I don’t recall her threatening to do anything other than go home, which is what should have happened _anyway_, after what happened to her. I would have thought this point is obvious. In your experience, does an employee who feels she doesn’t owe the employer shit do a great job or a bad job. In the context of a national emergency, do you want a critical job assigned to someone you thought didn’t owe you shit? Do you want the people lives put in the hands of someone you felt held a lot of resentment? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/132 "2005-03-17T19:32:56Z")
Sigh. This is getting tedious. I don’t mind the sudden pile-on, and the fact that all the folks who were on MY side seems to have dropped out of the thread. But could you guys _at least_ stop saying things that have already been covered? > [@Marley23](#): > > None of which explains why Michelle’s answer that she’d look into it wasn’t good enough for Sarah. Again: The wording as well as the tone of her response made it very clearly not an earnest reply by Michelle. A bunch of us saw it that way. If you have it on tape, watch it again. I can’t _prove_ that it was a blow-off response; I just know it because I watched the episode. > [@](#): > > Non-verbal contracts aren’t worth the paper blah blah blah. That’s false. A verbal contract is legally just as binding as a written contract. > [@](#): > > Thing is, Sarah asked for special treatment; standard treatment apparently being a letter explaining her arrest, and resuming the job at regular pay. Driscoll went along with it, either to avoid trouble for torturing the wrong person or to keep Sarah happy at a time she needed everybody working. You don’t know that. Besides, Driscoll’s motivation is irrelevant. She promoted Sarah. She can’t say, “I just did that to shut her up.” Doesn’t work that way. > [@](#): > > It wasn’t a question of confusion. It’s that she wanted privileges and money she would not have normally been entitled to and was afraid Michelle was not going to honor an under-the-table deal Sarah made with Driscoll. Why do you say “under-the-table”? There was nothing illicit about their agreement. > [@](#): > > A deal Michelle didn’t know anything about, whose existence she had only heard about just then, from Sarah, who was the one who stood to get paid. As I said, the existence of the deal could easily have been confirmed. > [@](#): > > For that reason alone, “I’ll look into it” should’ve been enough. If she was really just concerned there might be confusion about a totally above-board arrangement, she could have waited because this was not exactly the best time. But we COVERED this. Go back and read the initial posts about this. Michelle could have given a MUCH more satisfactory response than she did. “I’ll look into it” WOULD have been enough, if she had only said it in a reasonable way. And I can see it now: Next week: “I just wanted to confirm with you the salary increase that Miss Driscoll promised me.” “Huh? _What_ salary increase? Why are you just mentioning this _now_?” ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/133 "2005-03-17T19:36:46Z")
O.K., I’m now going to ignore any comments that refuse to acknowledge the tone of Michelle’s response. > [@](#): > > I would have thought this point is obvious. In your experience, does an employee who feels she doesn’t owe the employer shit do a great job or a bad job. In the context of a national emergency, do you want a critical job assigned to someone you thought didn’t owe you shit? Do you want the people lives put in the hands of someone you felt held a lot of resentment? Did you see any evidence that she wasn’t doing a good job? The only person who wasn’t doing her job was Driscoll. > [@](#): > > Michelle doesn’t even work there, and she doesn’t know for a fact that there was any such agreement. She gave Sarah an attitude, which I think is understandable given the circumstances, but I’m not sure what else she’s supposed to do. _Not_ give her an attitude? ---
**Author:** ![archmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@archmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archmichael)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/134 "2005-03-17T19:57:58Z")
Now all you’ve done is painted yourself in a corner. We’ve whittled down your arguments to ‘tone’ now? You’re telling me that if Michelle had been nicer about it, we would not be arguing. So if Michelle said, “I’m so sorry that happened to you, Sweety. Give me a hug. ::hug:: I promise that when this is all over, I will make sure you get everything that Driscoll promised”, but Sarah had insisted on insisted on instant gratification then and only then would Michelle have been justified? Is Michelle supposed to tiptoe around every CTU employee that is having a bad day, or only the ones who had the misfortune to be tortured by CTU? ---
**Author:** ![archmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@archmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archmichael)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/135 "2005-03-17T20:02:36Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Did you see any evidence that she wasn’t doing a good job? The only person who wasn’t doing her job was Driscoll. Oops, missed this gem. Yeah, I saw Sarah get into a pissing match with the new boss, and got all huffy when Michelle was gruff and not very empathetic. Does that count? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/136 "2005-03-17T20:09:51Z")
What’s your problem, archmichael? ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/137 "2005-03-17T20:22:47Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > They didn’t just taser her, IIRC. That’s just the part they _showed_. True. The taser was first, though, and it was brought out way too early. Sarah wasn’t under the gun as long as Heller’s son was, and at one point, Heller approved _continued_ torture of his son. Wasn’t Sarah’s situation rectified in the very next episode? (not snarky, just not sure). > [@blowero](#): > > Whoah, dude. You’re way understating that. She definitely gave her the “blow-off” vibe. A bunch of us noticed that. I have no doubt that there was a notation in the script as to the tone. It was really obvious. We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Even if it was meant as a blow off, I believe it was an appropriate reaction to Sarah’s questioning at a very inappropriate time. Not discounting the fact that Sarah had a rough day, and herself was probably not all that rational (although she seemed fine talking to Driscoll, and even chided Edgar about Driscoll losing her daughter when Edgar had just as recently lost his mother). But she picked the wrong fight at the wrong time, she was just as at fault if not more so than Michelle, and she got her ass handed to her. ---
**Author:** ![archmichael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bb73d2/32.png) [@archmichael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/archmichael)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/138 "2005-03-17T20:23:38Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > What’s your problem, archmichael? None at all. But we know what your problem is: > [@blowero](#): > > I guess it kind of hits home for me too, because I’ve been in situations where I’ve been promised something, then all of a sudden that person gets replaced, and the offer just magically dries up. God, that sucks. Which is coloring your perspective of a simple conflict. Should Michelle have been nicer. Sure, that is a good policy in any situation. Would most people excuse her tone in the light of a national emergency? Yes. You just seem to be the only one who finds her tone unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/139 "2005-03-17T20:27:59Z")
> [@archmichael](#): > > None at all. Then why are you acting hostile? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535/140 "2005-03-17T20:30:30Z")
> [@archmichael](#): > > You just seem to be the only one who finds her tone unacceptable. You obviously didn’t read the whole thread. Look, I’m done with you. I’m sorry if I offended you. You seem upset, so I’m just not going to respond to you anymore. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/24-season-4-episode-13-7-00pm-8-00pm/294535.md?page=8)