July 03, 2008

• I counted about 14 seconds before he was ready to sell out his mother. If he had 1/1000 of an understanding of the people and policies he brutalizes with his commentary, he might still hold my attention longer than these sissy 14 seconds of very un-grandstanding. I liked him back in the pre-Benedict Dennis Miller Show days with a fag and two fingers of single-malt. He was still one of us.
• So we were right? It is torture? My pleasure in saying "I told you so" is tempered by the fact that it was only when it happened to them did it clear. Other people -- fuck them...
• Damn, can we do it again? And again? And again? Wait. Take away his prearranged stop signal, and it will be even funnier. ...if I don’t have at least two pillows I wake up with acid reflux and mild sleep apnea, so even a merely supine position makes me uneasy. And, ... I do have a fear of drowning that comes from a bad childhood moment on the Isle of Wight, when I got out of my depth. Wah wah wah wah. How does that compare with the fear of being in the hands of an enemy who thinks killing you by torturing you to death is funny?
• sissy 14 seconds You can say that after you've been on the board. My pleasure in saying "I told you so" is tempered by the fact that it was only when it happened to them did it clear. I take no pleasure from this whatsoever. Dude was willing enough to challenge his deeply held beliefs that he put himself in harm's way to find out if he was right. In other words, there's another way to characterize this: he volunteered to put himself in his enemy's shoes to determine whether detached, cozy office opinions held up. And even in the comfy, fuzzy handcuffs version of what his enemies went through, he suffered enough that he realized it was wrong. It's all well and good for those of us who already believed it was torture to say "duh," but how many of us have willingly submitted ourselves to torture to find out if we were right? Hands? Damn, can we do it again? No, because that is what torturers and monsters do.
• Now the real question is, can we get Dick Cheney to go through it and then still say it's not torture? (Or can we just get him to go through it?)
• Idea: new Christopher Hitchens based reality television show called Is It Torture? Each week he is "aggressively interrogated" in a different way and then declares his answer to the eponymous question. Special guest hosts/victims include Dennis Miller, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and, of course, Dick Cheney and George Bush during sweeps week.
• ...but how many of us have willingly submitted ourselves to torture to find out if we were right? I would think that a great many of us have enough human empathy or decency to figure this one out, without having to experience it personally. Others lack that empathy, I guess. He could have listened to those of us who held for something better. He didn't. He could have listened to those who have gone through this already. He didn't. Only when he experienced it himself did it become 'real' or 'legitimate'. Other people's experiences or views didn't count for shit. Only his voice matters? It's only significant enough when it happens to him? And we're supposed to laud the guy? I suppose everyone can have their conversion on the road to Damascus, but it doesn't mean they don't have to answer for what came before.
• And we're supposed to laud the guy? No, but neither are we supposed to tap-dance on his not-yet-dug grave. I swear to Christ, if this thread goes the way the MeFi one is going, I'm taking a month off. I suppose everyone can have their conversion on the road to Damascus, but it doesn't mean they don't have to answer for what came before. That is absolutely fair.
• I guess I'm saying this: I disagree with most of what he's written. I think much of it is put in a particularly prickish fashion, and a bit of it borders on paid professional trolling. But here's the deal: I think he believes every single thing that he writes. I don't think he's a mindless ideologue. Here's the other deal: I've met the man. He offered to buy my wife and me a drink, was in fact the only one at his table gentlemanly enough to stand up when the lady approached his table, completely demoralizing the publisher of the Oxford American in the process (which we took no small pleasure in witnessing). In other words, he's not just angry internet words to me. He's a person I shook hands with, so I have a hard time being all LOL DO IT MOAR PUSSY about the guy, even though many of his ideas are anathema to me.
• EXACTLY, mct. When we stop dehumanizing the 'enemy', empathy changes our perception and we understand their plight, we feel what they might suffer as if happening to us. Of course, some people only get it after experiencing it first hand. Hopefully this event helps him have a wider opinion of the issue.
• Some of us have encountered the 'torturing enemy' in our most intimate relationships. No code words, no metal relief valves...no one to audience and applaud our 'willingness to be a spectacle.' A mannerly Hitchens does not make profound Hitchens. MCT, though my life experiences have been more than '14 seconds' in challenges...you would find me most gracious and would love to buy you and the Mrs. a drink.
• I agree he deserves some credit for undertaking the experiment. But it does seem obvious that it's torture. If it wasn't torture, what would be the point of it?
• A really cynical bastard would see an American repudiation of waterboarding, after all this media attention, as a pretty sly political ploy. Saying that waterboarding is evil and we shall not abide it could easily be spun as "we do not torture". Meanwhile, as devious as waterboarding is, there are many other equally nasty techniques. As long as it's us against them, whoever us and them happens to be, we'll continue to find new ways to inflict pain and suffering on each other, in the name of God or otherwise. It's one thing we seem to be really good at.
• No, but neither are we supposed to tap-dance on his not-yet-dug grave. Let me absolutely clear -- I'm anti-torture. We shouldn't be torturing anyone, not even this schlub. I'm not about to sacrifice my principles for anyone -- and were I to contemplate doing so, I doubt he would even rank on that list. In a war of ideas, I'm not afraid of anything anyone has to say. That doesn't mean that I can't find those ideas reprehensible. Pleg may be a better man than I for giving him credit for the experiment, but not me. I won't be giving him credit for realizing what for a great many of us is a fairly salient fact, the base standard.
• Hopefully now he'll go back to excoriating war criminals like Henry Kissinger instead of kissing up to HalliBush Wars, Inc.
• From the article...post-waterboarding: When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint. I don't see a 'Road to Damascus' moment here. I don't see any change in viewpoint from a man who was a war cheerleader before and remains one now. Nothing will change from this 'experiment'...least of all Hitchens' twisted views.
• Christopher Hitchens lets Vanity Fair blow off his legs, kill his entire family, destroy his home; he writes about it
• MCT, though my life experiences have been more than '14 seconds' Also fair enough. My default image of someone talking a little smack on the internet about another's tolerance for suffering is of someone with a home and computer and a comfortable life who's in the mood to spout in 1's and 0's. My apologies for that. I don't see a 'Road to Damascus' moment here. I've puzzled over that. Seems like in the end, he's taking the stance that it's torture, but not the "worst" sort of torture, so the enemy is still worse. Which is of course just the sort of thing I don't like about him. But when was the last time you ever heard a blowhard pundit come even halfway toward admitting he's wrong? I suppose I view him against his lot the way he views waterboarding against other torture: he's not O'Reilly or Coulter or Carlson or Hannity, he's much more intelligent and eloquent and at least makes a half-assed stab at coming by his opinions honestly, so I have a hard time lumping him in the same category.
• MCT, I'm sorry you're upset by what you feel is a great negativity here. You have a small relationship with this man--you see him as another human being. He was polite and charming under civilized circumstances. I'm sure Bush and Cheney can be amusing and personable when dining out. Because they are polite and well-bred doesn't make the things they believe and have done any less monstrous. It's all well and good for those of us who already believed it was torture to say "duh," but how many of us have willingly submitted ourselves to torture to find out if we were right? Hands? My hand remains firmly down. As has been said upthread, most decent human beings understood it was torture to begin with. Why would it be at all necessary to submit to it? That's a specious argument--I think it will hurt if I stab myself in the leg with this knife. Let's see if I'm right. *ouch* Does he, do we, need to take a woman and child dear us and mutilate them to get a little empathy for what the people have gone through in this utter disgrace of a war? Only when he experienced it himself did it become 'real' or 'legitimate' People with little or no empathy for others are self-centered at best, psychopathic at worst. Nothing has changed in our American consciousness since we demonized the 'Japs' and the 'Krauts' in the nineteen forties. We like to think we're a different nation from the one that created the Japanese internment camps, but believe me, it would take very little to create those same types of camps now. I live in a military town where I repeatedly hear the horrific and dehumanizing term "sand niggers." Waterboarding is for... wiry young jihadists whose teeth can bite through the gristle of an old goat This dehumanizes them, also. Damn, can we do it again? Uhhhh, do sarcasm much? It was an attempt at an ironic play on the repetition of torture until someone confesses. No, because that is what torturers and monsters do. Yes, so true. America has become a nation of torturers and monsters, in part because of what this man has done prior to his so-called Damascun road enlightenment. He's produced an amusing and lucrative article for Vanity Fair--that counts little with me. Where is someone who would work hard within the political system to change the policies on torture? He's not that man. The whole tone of the piece is wrong. Waterboarding is like foreplay? LIKE FOREPLAY? That is sick. Even if you've met the man and think him charmingly civilized, how can you stomach this, MCT? a society that is too spoiled and too ungrateful to appreciate those solid, underpaid volunteers who guard us while we sleep. I hate this shit. If I disagree with his war, I'm spoiled and ungrateful--he trivializes me as a child. If the military are underpaid heroes, it's because Bush has cut and slashed military pay and benefits for HUMAN BEINGS in favor of hardware. And we aren't being defended while we sleep. Our military is actively offensive. ...any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint. The man is the worst type of demagogue. If I disagree with his right to torture, then I am attempting to bring down America. Something is seriously wrong with this man's thought processes.
• The man is the worst type of demagogue. Ack!! Damn me for getting wrought up and emotional. O'Reilly or Coulter or Carlson or Hannity No, not the worst. I'm succumbing to the same type of inflationary language as in the article.
• ++ BlueHorse - well put. "... wrought up and emotional..." - hey look, a conversation about the USA government sanctioned use of torture in the 21st century. And my understanding was that waterboarding was one of the worst forms of torture - that's why the US government is using it on its prisoners. As torture, it is very good at doing its job, which is to get people to tell you anything you want to hear. Any story, any fairytale, there is nothing so depraved that you won't admit to it. Actual information, that's a no. The US government, as with all others, does not torture for information. No one tortures for information.
• Wow, so he went from "waterboarding isn't torture" to "Yay, torture!" It's impressive that someone could go through such and experience and come out with an even more repugnant view.
• I used to feel bad about the fact that I didn't really understand Christopher Hitchens' writing. That whenever I tried to read any of it, my eyes glazed over after just a few sentences. Then one day I realized that the problem isn't me - it's him. The man is a terrible writer. I read this article three times before I felt confident that I understood what was going on. Here is my executive summary: 1. Waterboarding = not fun. 2. "Some people say" it's okay to use it as an interrogation technique. (That's the ol' Fox News trick, "some people say.") 3. Other people don't. 4. I don't think we should do it. The final sentence of his article is a perfect example of what I'm talking about: I had only a very slight encounter on that frontier, but I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words “waterboard” and “American” could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath. That single sentence changes verb tense at least four times. Four! Are you kidding me? By the time I've frowned and puzzled and worked my way through his rambling paragraphs, I inevitably arrive at two conclusions: 1. Well, the man's a career drunk. Only a fool would expect clear thinking from a career drunk. 2. Oh, he's a troll. And a clumsy one at that. I'm not saying that he shouldn't be held accountable for his words. Just that his words are as inane and rambling as those of any other arrogant overeducated drunk, and I'm genuinely surprised whenever people take him seriously.
• Oooh, those will be scary verb tenses, mechagrue! Must be the drunks what will do them. That's why I have always will use the same sober tense so I will not get confuse.
• Isn't it the sober tense that gets them drinking in the first place?
• I had a near-drowning experience some years back, and I'm impressed that Hitchens agreed to do this. I don't think much of the guy's views, but this took some courage. I've just started Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine and found this part of the Hitchens article interesting:

  Here is the most chilling way I can find of stating the matter. Until recently, “waterboarding” was something that Americans did to other Americans. It was inflicted, and endured, by those members of the Special Forces who underwent the advanced form of training known as sere (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). In these harsh exercises, brave men and women were introduced to the sorts of barbarism that they might expect to meet at the hands of a lawless foe who disregarded the Geneva Conventions. But it was something that Americans were being trained to resist, not to inflict.

  Klein talks about the MK-Ultra project in the 1950s and 1960s and the official explanation of it as a way to prepare U.S. forces to protect themselves against mind-control techniques versus the more likely explanation that the project was intended to perfect methods of interrogation and mind control. It seems likely to me that waterboarding has been surreptitiously in use for many years, but it has only come to our attention because it's been officially sanctioned.
• Of course it has. Psy-Ops was all about the best way to torture. The military just didn't tell us the details, and the government would have denied everything. But at that point, American public said that torture was wrong. We believed in the Geneva Conventions, and our society was striving to follow a moral course. Now? Pffft.
• CIA man: Nevermind about that ‘waterboarding works’ thing
• The Legacy Media And Torture
• Well, CLEARLY it's torture. Do onto others, etc. *FAIL*
• *shrugs shoulders* I'm just speechless... and absolutely appalled at the depths to which this country has sunk.