…and this is a 
Hitchens under torture
Category: Evil
Posted on: July 2, 2008 4:11 PM, by PZ Myers
Christopher Hitchens' views on war in the Middle East often infuriate me, even while I greatly enjoyed his views on religion. My respect for him goes up, though, because he has done something I wouldn't: to determine whether it really was torture, he had himself waterboarded by the US military (and if you relish the thought of watching Hitchens actually being tortured, it was recorded on video).
You may have read by now the official lie about this treatment, which is that it "simulates" the feeling of drowning. This is not the case. You feel that you are drowning because you are drowning--or, rather, being drowned, albeit slowly and under controlled conditions and at the mercy (or otherwise) of those who are applying the pressure. The "board" is the instrument, not the method. You are not being boarded. You are being watered. This was very rapidly brought home to me when, on top of the hood, which still admitted a few flashes of random and worrying strobe light to my vision, three layers of enveloping towel were added. In this pregnant darkness, head downward, I waited for a while until I abruptly felt a slow cascade of water going up my nose. Determined to resist if only for the honor of my navy ancestors who had so often been in peril on the sea, I held my breath for a while and then had to exhale and--as you might expect--inhale in turn. The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face. Unable to determine whether I was breathing in or out, and flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me. I find I don't want to tell you how little time I lasted.
The answer is clear.
I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong." Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.
It is a dreadful act to perform on the subject, and it degrades those who do it. I'm ashamed to admit that I would like to see all of the proponents of torture in this awful war subjected to this treatment; it is by an act of conscience that we have to say it must not be allowed to happen to anyone.
(via Cycle Ninja)
Politics
Comments
and i would happily waterboard pelosi, reid, hoyer and the rest of the now-majority dems who stood by and let this happen in my name. they had their mandate. they failed.
Posted by: khefera | July 2, 2008 4:19 PM
It's all about interpretation, don't you know.
All you believers in matter think that evidence should decide these things. But when you have a god about whom nothing is known (except via the Bible--that's always implicit) upon whom definitions of design and torture depends, then you can't say that waterboarding is torture or that evolution fits the evidence.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 2, 2008 4:20 PM
Hitchens has been wrong about Iraq and a lot of other things, but by God he's got a pair.
Posted by: Tom | July 2, 2008 4:23 PM
to determine whether it really was torture, he had himself waterboarded by the US military
Your respect for him went up? Guess what? The rest of us with more than four sober brain cells already frigging knew it was torture. Call me when he stops foaming at the mouth about how great the war is.
Posted by: Matt | July 2, 2008 4:27 PM
Conscience? Not gonna work with the current White House occupants. Check this: interrogators at Guantanamo were directly taught from a study of Chinese interrogation techniques that were used to elicit false confessions from American prisoners:
link
Basically the unprincipled pricks in our government decided we would, after all, do unto others what had been done unto us.
Posted by: minimalist | July 2, 2008 4:27 PM
Saw this earlier today after an email from a mate - it's deeply deeply disturbing to watch - but should be shown as widely as possible. I agree with Tom #3 - he surely has got some cojones on him.
As a rather beleaguered lefty Brit, might I suggest Bush, Blair and Brown as our next contestants...
Posted by: Dan | July 2, 2008 4:28 PM
I infuriates me when someone blithely insists that treating people in this manner is somehow our sovereign right in matters of "national security." There is a pragmatic reson we punish cops for physical coercion and abuse - because the information it illicits is unreliable.
Nice post, PZ. I think Hitchens summed it up nicely when he offered that a man with nothing to give up - an innocent man - would quite literally go insane.
All the proponents of this treatment like to use the "known terrorist" qualifier to their hypothetical questions, as in "If you had a 'known terrorist' who knew where a bomb was..." The problem is, with the competency shown by this administration, no one should have a shred of faith in the fact that all 750+ detainees on Gitmo are actually "known terrorists."
(In fact, recent investigations have shown that many of them are not, in fact, terrorists.)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/detainees/story/38773.html
The simple fact is that - like the death penalty - until we perfect the means of determination, any finite or horrific act upon a detainee or prisoner cannot be legally defended as justifiable punishment by law. In some cases, such action may very well be justified - pragmatically, if even though completely ignorant of the moral debate. But until we can be sure it will not be wrongfully applied, it cannot exist as a national policy of action.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 2, 2008 4:28 PM
I was hoping you'd pick this up, PZ. I got an email from a crazed, Bible-spewing, fundy blog-reader of mine who completely skipped the whole bloody message Hitchens was trying to point out, and was simply overcome with glee at the video of Hitchens being tortured.
This lunatic sounded like he was straight out of the inquisition, and I damn near lost my lunch reading his email.
I imagine that Hitchens getting tortured is about as close to Christian porn as you can get for these sick fucks.
Anyway, that was a horrible thing to watch, and I don't understand how we, as a nation, can get away with this. It's disgusting, and it makes me ashamed to be an American. We almost deserve the bombs dropped on us for allowing actions such as these.
I'll never forgive my country for being so vile.
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 2, 2008 4:32 PM
The Vanity Fair site player is junky; it does not pre-load the video, only stream. So it's unwatchable over there for me. Here it is on youtube, which preloads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LPubUCJv58
Posted by: Greg | July 2, 2008 4:37 PM
@brokenSoldier, #7:
Even /if/ the means of determination are perfect, they still are human beings and /every/ human being has certain inalienable rights, to his dignity, for example. Death penalty, torture, whathaveyou are wrong, no matter what.
Even if you could theoretically save other lives, their human rights do not count more than those of a criminal.
Posted by: AnonCoward23 | July 2, 2008 4:38 PM
Bah! Hitchens is a pussy! I would have lasted twice as long! (kidding!)
Posted by: Doubting Foo | July 2, 2008 4:39 PM
First drink of water he's had in decades! I think he was shocked.
Posted by: Tom | July 2, 2008 4:46 PM
Kudos to Hitchens for putting his views to the test and being honest about the result. But there is still part of me that screams, "Duh, you couldn't figure out that it would be terrifying?"
Trying to downplay waterboarding is a brand willful ignorance that the Bushies have relied on for years, and Hitchens has played his small part.
Posted by: Tosser | July 2, 2008 4:47 PM
If we torture an innocent person, we can be damn sure he will seek redress by any means necessary. If we torture a guilty person, we lose moral authority and our complaints will fall on deaf ears when 'our own' are tortured, or when we try to criticize torture in despotic nations like Burma.
Posted by: JoJo | July 2, 2008 4:53 PM
I have come to the conclusion that come Novermber you Americans have a choice.
OK, you already knew that of course, but I mean a choice between whether your country can continue to be considered part of the civilised world. Elect Obama and I think you will. He will have some work to do, repairing the damage done by Bush but I think many will be prepared to wait for him to do that. If McCain gets elected though I think Europe should really consider its relationship with the US.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 4:54 PM
Which is why I stated in my post that their type of pragmatic justification (saving others' lives) was "completely ignorant of the moral debate" on that subject. I in no way insinuated that their justification was supported, but I'm sure if you go back and read it again, my post clearly stated that I'm opposed to such conduct. But just in case, I'll leave you with the first sentence again, just to show you (again) that I don't give any credibility to the government's justification:
(misspelling included...I should be It)
In short, you're preaching to the choir. I was simply pointing to one of the gaping holes in their legal arguments, since a court is where this fight will actually take place.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 2, 2008 4:54 PM
Disturbing video to watch,sure is.....
The man has balls,esp given the 15ooo cigs a year he's got in him,wasnt without risk for him either !
@BrokenSoldier :
Can one ever be sure that any given practice of treating detainees of a government or country will not be wrongfully applied? Therefore youre better off,if you want to make sure,to not have torture practices or the death penalty in the first place.
Posted by: clinteas | July 2, 2008 4:54 PM
One reason I oppose torture is that I would not be willing to torture anyone myself. And I cannot ask that someone does something on my behalf unless I am willing to it myself. I feel the same way about the death penalty. I would not be prepared to execute someone, so I cannot ask others to do it for me. I often think that selecting an executioner from the list of voters, like you do juries, could well bring an end to the death penalty. If the public want it, they have to do it.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 5:00 PM
Wow, I think I would crack if they just made me listen to that music for 5 minutes.
Posted by: Bevans | July 2, 2008 5:01 PM
Why is this such an abstraction for people? A friend and I tried this on each other two years ago and within ten minutes we knew all that we needed. Go out and try it yourself, and invite others to try. You don't have to go for any endurance records, and you can do it unrestrained (and without a hood) so you can always move away from the water. Just have the experience once and that's the end of the discussion.
Posted by: D | July 2, 2008 5:04 PM
OK, let me add a countervailing point of view. As far as I can see, it is legal and morally acceptable to perform atrocities like burning people alive with phosphorus or napalm, dismembering them with bombs or shells and leaving them to bleed to death in the desert, burying them alive by running over their position with a tank or collapsing a building on top of them, etc, etc.
However, once they are in custody it's not legal or morally acceptable to safely terrify them into thinking they are going to die, or, for that matter, even to seriously humiliate them. Why is this?
I also find the pragmatic argument - that the information gained from torture is unreliable - a bit dubious too. Didn't the Nazis have great success rounding up the French Resistance because of information gained through torture? Hasn't torture been used with success by pretty much everybody throughout time?
Posted by: devil's advocate | July 2, 2008 5:05 PM
"Elect Obama and I think you will. He will have some work to do, repairing the damage done by Bush but I think many will be prepared to wait for him to do that. If McCain gets elected though I think Europe should really consider its relationship with the US."
And the UK parliament never did hold a vote of no confidence against Tony Blair because....??
I kept waiting for that shoe to drop and it never did, much to my disappointment.
Posted by: JJR | July 2, 2008 5:07 PM
Well, kudos for Hitchens for putting himself to the test, and kudos to him also for admitting that waterboarding is torture, something so many of his fellow war propagandists and Bush enablers deny.
Awful as it undoubtedly was for him, though, the usual recipients of this form of verschärfte Vernehmung can't make it stop by giving a pre-arranged hand signal. Hitchen's "torture" : genuine torture by the Americans :: S&M play involving a safeword : rape by a psychopathic sexual sadist.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | July 2, 2008 5:09 PM
Hitchens does well to emphasise that he would have cofessed to anything and the information obtained through torture is "not all that reliable". But further than that, the whole idea behind guantanamo and the secret prisons and the terror scares is to induce a climate of fear to prevent people lynching those who are happily plundering the public koffers. False confessions are just fine if there's no real threat, and the government's desire to use torture reinforces the idea that the threat is real.
meanwhile, the wars crank on, the oil flows, the opium production soars, and innocent people get frozen, cooked, waterboarded, humiliated.....
I'm surprised Hitchens did this. I thought he was just a war-mongering windbag. Courageous.
Posted by: yakaru | July 2, 2008 5:09 PM
The FOX reporter who had himself waterboarded reached an entirely different conclusion.
Go figure
Posted by: me | July 2, 2008 5:09 PM
Oh, and BTW: good to see brokenSoldier again.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | July 2, 2008 5:10 PM
Torture is excellent at generating information; it is terrible at discerning true information from false. The Nazi's were able to get results in fighting the French Resistance because they didn't much care about their false positive rate. Ditto the Inquisition, the witch trials, and other torture-using regimes.
I tip my hat to Hitchens; I imagine he suspected it would be awful, but he was willing to put himself in that position to experience it firsthand and report the results. Good for him.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 2, 2008 5:10 PM
My short answer would be no, we can't. And actually, my long answer would be about the same. In my opinion we, as humans, are still too irrational and emotional as a whole to be capable of ensuring such a thing. And I don't think our society, considering who and how we are as individuals, will ever advance past the point which the possibility of individual greed can occasionally surface and corrupt.
But that wasn't the point of my post. Just because I'm making a specific argument as to why this aministration should not use something does not mean that I advocate its use by any other group. And simply because my argument was limited to the pragmatic and legal aspects of their arguments does not mean that I don't hold a position in the moral context as well, even though I left it out of that particular post.
Posted by: brokenSoldier, OM | July 2, 2008 5:11 PM
Sorry, but I just can't get myself all worked up with outrage over a few piece of shit terrorists that are left breathing after this procedure was used on them... They certainly wouldn't leave any of you enlightened ones breathing if they had a chance to get their hands on you infidels.
Posted by: Sandy | July 2, 2008 5:11 PM
"And the UK parliament never did hold a vote of no confidence against Tony Blair because....??
I kept waiting for that shoe to drop and it never did, much to my disappointment."
Actually the palimentary Labour party kind of did have a no-confidence vote. It was not a formal vote but it became clear he no longer had the support of the majority of his MPs. Of course that is not the same as a no-confidence vote on the floor of the house, and all parties should be ashamed of that. Personally I would be happy to see Blair stand trial at the Hague for what he did over Iraq.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 5:13 PM
It is a dreadful act to perform on the subject, and it degrades those who do it. I'm ashamed to admit that I would like to see all of the proponents of torture in this awful war subjected to this treatment; it is by an act of conscience that we have to say it must not be allowed to happen to anyone.
You would like to see waterboarding done on them, yet it's an outrage if it's done on fanatics who want to behead all infidels and no doubt apply torture themselves with even greater zeal? I hope that isn't white guilt speaking again.
Torture is horrible when it's done on anyone. Regardless of their crimes. Full stop. Of course, I doubt you were serious with that incredible statement.
Posted by: J | July 2, 2008 5:14 PM
He would have lasted longer if they used a good cognac instead.
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2008 5:14 PM
Let's be more precise about this:
"Torture is excellent at generating confessions."
"Confessions" is a more accurate description of this. "Information" suggests intel, the word "confession" lays the truth of this information bare.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 2, 2008 5:16 PM
Hi Matt Penfold,
I understand your argument, but I think it falls flat in some respects. It's likely you are a meat eater, but my best guess is that you are unwilling to butcher each cow you eat. You might have an aversion to cutting people open to perform surgery, even if you were trained in medicine. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't say an action is amoral because you aren't comfortable performing it.
I'm completely with you on torture and the death penalty though!
Posted by: Jon Strong | July 2, 2008 5:17 PM
How do you know they are terrorists? How can you be sure that they are not innocents who have been terrified into a confession?
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 2, 2008 5:18 PM
If we torture a guilty person, we lose moral authority and our complaints will fall on deaf ears when 'our own' are tortured
We've already lost it. Given the discussion of waterboarding, who can keep from feeling queasy when they recall Bush's insinuating that Iraqis televised display of captured US troops was a "war crime"? OMG waterboard me, but don't put me on TeeVee?
Against enemies that are willing to cut a bound man's head off and televise it, it's kind of ridiculous to say "now that they know we torture, they're going to be really mean to any of us they capture." Sorry, but it's not capable of getting much worse. The remaining "moral authority" we can reach for is a statement along the lines of "if you torture one of us, we'll repay you one hundredfold - and we'll be as indiscriminate as you are." We've already demonstrated that we're the only motherfuckers on earth that are so hard-assed we'll nuke a city full of civilians and that we'll assemble a sham coalition to follow us in wars of aggression. I don't think there are any P.R. points left for us to lose, really. :( We're fooling ourselves if we think it's respect, rather than fear, that affects most of the world's response to us.
I am left with respect for Hitchens' putting a wet rag where his mouth is. He appears to have more balls than all of Congress, The Justice Department, and the National Security Council.
There's got to be a joke about scotch-and-soda-boarding in here but I just can't make it.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 2, 2008 5:20 PM
"Sorry, but I just can't get myself all worked up with outrage over a few piece of shit terrorists that are left breathing after this procedure was used on them... They certainly wouldn't leave any of you enlightened ones breathing if they had a chance to get their hands on you infidels."
You despise the terrorists yet you seem to use them as your benchmark for what constitutes moral and ethical behaviour. A "what we do is ok as long as it is not as bad as what they do" attitude. Personally I set my standards a bit higher.
We can leave aside the fact that we cannot be sure all those tortured are terrorists. That much should be obvious even to you.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 5:20 PM
@#29:
Posted by: Sandy
And we should imitate them because......?
This is, IMO, a morally and ethically bankrupt point of view.
Posted by: cicely | July 2, 2008 5:21 PM
The waterboarding thing makes me sick to my stomach. I was raised on the belief that our country stood for something, and I joined the Army and served under this obvious misconception. I always felt that our handling of the Iraq war was atrocious, but I figured it was just bad decisions and general ignorance.
Then the waterboarding thing. I hang my head in shame with the knowledge that our government would ever condone this type of treatment of ANYone. Absolute shame...
Posted by: Jeff Arnold | July 2, 2008 5:23 PM
Wow, he lasted less than 30 seconds. The music was annoying, though.
Posted by: Splatador | July 2, 2008 5:24 PM
"I understand your argument, but I think it falls flat in some respects. It's likely you are a meat eater, but my best guess is that you are unwilling to butcher each cow you eat. You might have an aversion to cutting people open to perform surgery, even if you were trained in medicine. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you can't say an action is amoral because you aren't comfortable performing it."
Actually I have a small holding and have killed my own chickens. I have also reared lambs for slaughter, and was involved when the were slaughtered on site. I did not carry out the deed myself becuase I lack the skill and experience not to cause unnecessary suffering.
Also it is not just a case of feeling uncomfortable. I have done a number of things that I did not find it comfortable doing. It is a matter of not being willing to do something. I would, I hope, simply refuse to torture someone.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 5:26 PM
#21:I also find the pragmatic argument - that the information gained from torture is unreliable - a bit dubious too. Didn't the Nazis have great success rounding up the French Resistance because of information gained through torture? Hasn't torture been used with success by pretty much everybody throughout time?
No, they didn't. They had much better success with getting people to turn in their neighbors. And has been pointed out already, the Nazis didn't care too much about false positives.
The Soviets didn't torture for information. They tortured as punishment, or to make an example, or just for the hell of it. But it didn't produce reliable intelligence.
It's not too difficult to break someone. The problem is, they say anything they think the interrogator wants to hear, just to make it stop. It's great at producing confessions, not so much at reliable intelligence. So it depends on what you mean by "success."
Posted by: KCProgramr | July 2, 2008 5:27 PM
As far as I can see, it is legal and morally acceptable to perform atrocities like burning people alive with phosphorus or napalm, dismembering them with bombs or shells and leaving them to bleed to death in the desert, burying them alive by running over their position with a tank or collapsing a building on top of them, etc, etc. - devil's advocate
Actually the first of these is generally held to be contrary to the laws of war, specifically section 2, article 23 of the Hague convention of 1899, which among other things forbids belligerents "To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury". I think the same may be true of some of your other examples, but the point is that even in war, it has not been held at least since 1864 (First Geneva Convention) that everything is permissible.
Another point not yet raised is what permitting torture does to the torturers, both individually and as a society. clearly this was not a consideration for the Nazis or for Stalin, but it should be for a democracy. Once you permit torture, you need a corps of torturers, rules about who may torture whom, when, and how, and people to decide these rules, and torture equipment manufacturers - you create a torture industry. Actually, I believe most large states have one already, if primarily for export - but this is something to be fought!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 2, 2008 5:28 PM
BTW - welcome back brokenSoldier!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 2, 2008 5:30 PM
How do you know they are terrorists?
Indeed. There was an hour-long session on BBC earlier this week ("the interview") with a Saudi man who had been sold to the americans by the Pakistani secret police. He spent 6 years in Gitmo. The BBC interviewer was very sympathetic and accepted at face value his story of having been in Pakistan for innocent purposes and the interview closed with the man claiming that he had been tortured but was too ashamed to talk about it or give specifics.
Without having heard any evidence, it's impossible to form an opinion of his guilt or innocence even if I wanted to - so I am left assuming that the whole thing was a monstrous mistake on the part of the US Government. From listening to the interview, I am absolutely certain that the vast majority of people around the world who hear it will believe that the man was wrongfully incarcerated and tortured. The P.R. damage has been done and even if we ever start to deny it, nobody'll believe us.
Send Bush and Alberto Gonzales to The Hague!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 2, 2008 5:31 PM
Sandy - we're supposed to be the good guys. Whatever you feelings towards terrorists, if you want to stay being a good guy you have to walk the walk, not make excuses.
Posted by: Owen | July 2, 2008 5:32 PM
I have mostly liberal views, but I can see torture being justified in cases were there is very good reason to believe someone has knowledge about an imminent attack. That said, I don't know that I truest intelligence agencies to make the "very good reason" call.
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2008 5:32 PM
"It's great at producing confessions, not so much at reliable intelligence."
I'm sure many reliable confessions have been induced by good cognac.
Posted by: Alex | July 2, 2008 5:33 PM
Sandy #29": Sorry, but I just can't get myself all worked up with outrage over a few piece of shit terrorists that are left breathing after this procedure was used on them...
What terrorists? The persons who are being subjected to waterboarding are people who have only just now won a court case asking that the government show the evidence that they are indeed terrorists.
Posted by: Chiroptera | July 2, 2008 5:35 PM
It is interesting to note that in the second world war, when the UK's survival as an independant nation was as stake, at least in the first part of the war, there no recourse to torture as a means of extracting information. Instead prisoners were studied, and those though ameniable were slected for interrogation by skilled personnel. Those interrogators used to spend hours preparing for just a single hour of interrogation.
The US does not even have the excuse its existance is at stake.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 5:36 PM
I think things like this happen because their is such enormous public/political pressure for results, but unfortunately directed in a destructive direction. To say the military hierarchy is unethical or unprincipled is a bit facile and absurd. Their job specifically is to aggressively pursue American interest; considering the enormous pressure for results placed upon them, adding to the turmoil of guerrilla warfare, it is no surprise that all means available would be exercised, and that human rights infractions occur. It is nearly obligatory to respond to such a mountainous burden in such a way. It is the inevitable nature of war.
The atrocities that have happened are certainly regrettable but they are just symptoms of the root crime here: the military was put in Iraq, fundie central, without a plan, without it's homework done, with faulty intelligence, minimal international support, and no clear just cause. Not to mention the entire world demanding smooth success. Such circumstances guarantee desperation. Blame Washington for placing us in this debacle, not the military.
Posted by: chigurh | July 2, 2008 5:39 PM
Ah, that makes torture all right, then.
'We can only win by being as barbarous as they.' Is that how the Great War on Terror should be prosecuted? Not least when other wars have shown torture to be counterproductive.
For example, it's notable that the Portugese, who in the '60s and '70s kept a lid on insurgency across an empire in three widely disparate African nations, and did so on a shoestring compared to America's expenditure in Vietnam, managed to do so without recourse to torture. They regarded it as unreliable and counterproductive, as atrocity tends to turn hearts and minds from your cause, not towards it. Compare the Portugese experience with that of the torture-sanctioning French in Algeria, where malfeasance was rife, and you have a salutary lesson in the ineffectiveness of torture as a tool.
It was interesting that one of the few exceptions to the Portugese no torture rule was an anomaly, when in 1971 a brutal Colonel, Armindo Vidiera, was installed in Tete district in Mozambique. His systematically applied terror program came to the attention of the authorities and he was dismissed following the tragedy at Wiriyamu in 1972. But the damage has been done and Portugal never fully regained the confidence of the population there.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 2, 2008 5:39 PM
@#5: I read about this today in several papers; most articles quote Senator Carl Levin. This one, for example:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/02/america/02detain.php
I'm still stunned by his statments. First he says that
As if the origin of the document is what makes torture so horrifying. Would the methods be any less terrible and shameful if they were an invention of the US?
Like several people have been saying: There is no form of torture that produces accurate information only, end of story. When you do something to people that makes their first priority to make the pain stop, they'll say anything to make it stop. Otherwise, why would so many people have confessed to practising witchcraft under torture?
It doesn't matter who invented the method. It's wrong. It wouldn't be any less wrong if it produced 100% accurate information -- assuming that what the victim is asked can even be answered with total accuracy, and I suspect that it can't.
Posted by: catta | July 2, 2008 5:39 PM
Horrible!!! Same thing almost as witch dunking. Welcome to the dark ages.
I love Hitchens debates, but hate his politics. Maybe this will change them.
#11 - I'd appreciate an upgrade in your vocabulary. Thankyou.
Posted by: Patricia | July 2, 2008 5:40 PM
"It's great at producing confessions, not so much at reliable intelligence."
What's the evidence for this?
If one assumes that torture is part of a general intelligence-gathering operation in which confessions can be somewhat cross-checked and the results fed back to the torture chamber, one should be able to meter the punishment against the accuracy of the information received and train subjects to tell more of the truth.
Posted by: devil's advocate | July 2, 2008 5:40 PM
As I have stated elsewhere, have been waterboarded. I think I lasted about 20 seconds using every bit of will power.
Can torture result in useful information? Yes, it can and this is the justification for using it. The idea that 10% of useful information is produced makes some people think it is worthwhile. I do not. Like being a slavemaster, being a torturer degrades a person, unless they are already so degraded that torturing an Arab because he is a "raghead" is ok. Simple racism/bigotry makes is easy to torture or hold a slave.
I want my country, my USA to stop using torture because it is wrong, it is always wrong, it demeans us as much as it does the victims. I grew up thinking my country was great because we did try to spread our ideas of right and wrong, our sense of democracy around the world. OK, don't really think that anymore. I do not really believe we need to export our system, certainly not now when it is broken. However, the US of my youth was against torture. It was not just illegal, it was wrong. It is still wrong, even if Bush and company have tried to spread a fig leaf over the utter nakedness of its wrongness.
Is war wrong, bombing and shooting? I am sure somewhere above in a post not yet read, this will pop up. Yes, war is wrong. Sometimes it is necessary, but should never be first choice. Iraq is wrong in so many ways. It was absolutely unnecessary. I think Afghanistan was necessary, but then Bush and company pulled out of a certain victory to crush Iraq. We are still fighting a war in Afghanistan. Maybe there will never be peace there, but the power of the Taliban should have been broken forever and would have if that war had been finished before Bush decided do daddy one better by crushing Iraq and Saddam. And yes, I have worked in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The fact that the question of torture even arises is repugnant, disgusting, so very wrong. I do not think Obama is a savior, but he has to be better than McCain. I hope Obama will try to pull us back from the abyss of 'might makes right and the devil take the hindmost'. Obama has my vote, my money, my work for his campaign. He also has my letters and emails and calls filtering into his people asking him to help restore my country and my world to something akin to justice.
Ah hell, I am tired and this is stream of consciousness, more emotion than reason, but will let it stand.
Ciao
Posted by: JeffreyD | July 2, 2008 5:43 PM
All throughout history we have had examples of moral and humane situations that have never been resolved even to this day. Opinions, solutions and feelings vary as they have in the past. But let's not condemn the person whose maybe partial character we do not like, but continue to address that part similiar to our own. Sure, I do not agree with Hitchens stance on the Iraq war, but he is a sincere atheist and so my support is unequivocally with him. Newton was a religionist, but how the hell can you dislike him for that when gravity, light and mathemitcs are much more weightier than that which he will never prove? If we don't like a particular opinion of a person, but they possess those that we do, then it's a simple case of I like that about him, but don't like that. I like Hitchins a lot, and I think that if he and Gore Vidal teamed up against the shitbunch of demented morons that we can name with one puke mouthful, together they make mincemeat of that slime.
Posted by: Holbach | July 2, 2008 5:46 PM
"The atrocities that have happened are certainly regrettable but they are just symptoms of the root crime here: the military was put in Iraq, fundie central, without a plan, without it's homework done, with faulty intelligence, minimal international support, and no clear just cause. Not to mention the entire world demanding smooth success. Such circumstances guarantee desperation. Blame Washington for placing us in this debacle, not the military."
That excuse does not wash, certainly not for senior officers. Unless US military training is seriously lacking all personel will have been given training in the Geneva conventions. (It is actually a requirement that they are under the conventions). There is also a poor historical precedent for claiming to have just been following orders. Personally I think it is time Europe started to think about issuing arrest warrants for those known to have been involved this torture.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 5:46 PM
Marcus Ranum @45,
Send Bush and Alberto Gonzales to The Hague!
I have disagreed with Marcus in these threads before, and now I have to do so again. His list of defendants is much too short.
(In all seriousness, it is unlikely to the point of practical impossibility that US law would ever compel the handing over of the current lot of war criminals for trial at the Hague. But I think we can realistically hope that a number of people currently or till recently in power in Washington will see their choice of prudent holiday destinations abroad materially restricted. Spain in particular would be an unwise move, at least as long as Garzon is in office.)
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | July 2, 2008 5:52 PM
Once you permit torture, you need a corps of torturers, rules about who may torture whom, when, and how, and people to decide these rules, and torture equipment manufacturers - you create a torture industry.
You mean like the 150 US companies that sell shock batons, tasers, and stun belts? Amnesty International already listed the US as one of the chief exporters, worldwide, of devices used for torture as part of their call for trade restrictions on electro-shock weapons. Stun belts are already in use in US prisons and courts.
http://www.rightsforall.amnesty.org/info/report/r08.htm
Create a torture industry? Business is already booming.
By the way, I do NOT recommend electro-shock, if you're curious about whether it's really useful for torture. I was farting around with a cattle prod once and discharged it into my foot and I've got to say it was unbelievably unpleasant for something that "caused no damage." I'm sure that President Bush and Alberto Gonzales, etc, would all agree that it's not torture, either, as long as it's being done to a criminal or someone who's not, uh, oh, crap... where was that line drawn again?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 2, 2008 5:53 PM
Some interesting points at a site that couldn't be called "anti-war": http://tinyurl.com/5ex5bp
When those young German soldiers were eventually released, they went on to become thousands upon thousands of ambassadors for the United States. It is difficult to convey how good it made me feel when old Germans would tell me that Americans, our grandparents, were honorable people, far more honorable than the Nazis who committed industrial-sized genocide. Atrocities occurred on all sides, but at least we considered atrocities to be war crimes, even when committed by our own people. When our soldiers were convicted of rape, they were executed. Still, our "Greatest Generation" harbored ill feelings toward the "Japs." These feelings lasted long after the war was over. Why? Because, the Japanese had tortured and murdered our people after they were captured. And no doubt partially because of these crimes, we detonated two nuclear weapons over Japanese cities.
When this war is over in Iraq, we do not want a generation of Iraqis thinking that all we did was invade their country and torture and kill people. We want them to know that, despite whatever mistakes we made, we have no ill-feelings toward Iraqis. A lot of people call this type of thinking "naïve," but I would argue it is the opposite of naiveté. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan are fought not over land, but for the will of the people. If it was the land we wanted, and if we lacked goodwill and honor, these wars would have been simple matters. Yet we want something better for these nations and the world, as we did following World War II. Honor is never easy to uphold and savage behavior begets savage behavior. That's why it's important to remember that when we give up the moral high ground, we lose a fantastically important battle. And we have defeated ourselves.
Posted by: Inflatable Rubber Glove | July 2, 2008 5:54 PM
Leaving aside the moral bankruptcy and pragmatic untenability of your position, are you actually sheep-stupid enough to believe that no one held at Guantanamo Bay may be innocent?
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 2, 2008 5:56 PM
I suppose if you've had almost 8 years of "must fear and hate the brown people" pumped into you, like Sandy has, by this inept and dishonest administration, you're pretty much not only willing to commit these atrocities on your fellow human beings, you're champing at the bit to do so because you somehow believe it will make you safe.
I'm sorry, Sandy. But, I refuse to dehumanize people in such an embarrassing and disgusting way as you have.
Good luck finding your conscience.
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 2, 2008 5:56 PM
Matt Penfold: OK, you already knew that of course, but I mean a choice between whether your country can continue to be considered part of the civilised world. Elect Obama and I think you will. He will have some work to do, repairing the damage done by Bush but I think many will be prepared to wait for him to do that. If McCain gets elected though I think Europe should really consider its relationship with the US.
This kind of statement really gets in my craw. Where have the Europeans been for the last seven years?
Yes, we Americans have a moral culpability for allowing this kind of thuggery to continue --- but so have you!
Your governments have cooperated all the way! You don't have to "cut off relations", but how about not cooperating with "renditions" from your soil, across your soil, or of your citizens? How about actually making a public stink in international fora?
How about acting like sovereign states, for once? This episode has shown that either that European states have no interests outside of their local short term interest -- have learned nothing from the dissolution of their empires -- or else they are functionally colonies of the US.
Which one is it? If the former, you are culpable. If the latter, well get of your asses and fight for your independence! If dirt poor Africans have the chutzpah to fight off hegemons, why don't you?
Posted by: frog | July 2, 2008 5:57 PM
Mrs Tilton,
Well if there was an European arrest warrent issued for Bush once he leaves office (whilst in office he has diplomatic immunity when travelling I think) would make it hard for him to visit any EU country, as such a warrent places a legal obligation on all EU countries to arrest the subject should the chance arise.
Have the International Criminal Court issue a warrent and it becomes unwise for Bush to travel to any nation that has ratified the treaty that set it up, which is some 100 odd nations.
I don't hold out any hope of Bush ever facing trial, but the thought of his retirement being made that little bit more difficult is a nice one.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 5:57 PM
Historically, there have been two successful strategies when it comes to counterinsurgency. The first is what I'd term the 'Roman Method': liquidate the population and salt their land. Barbarous, but it works. The United States slaughtered somewhere between 100,000 and a quarter million Filipinos, and it was largely successful. Saddam and numerous other dictators have had victories with this scheme. In such a war torture can coexist alongside butchery. Its effectiveness may be limited, but it has the requisite intimidatory effect, which is arguably more important than any information gleaned.
If you don't have the stomach for that, the other successful counterinsurgency strategy is far softer: to improve the physical, political and economic security of a population. This has been the favoured method of Western nations in the last 60 years. Britain made it work successfully in Malaya and Kenya. The Portugese in Angola, Mozambique and Guine right up to the Carnation Revolution.
Sadly, this 'Hearts and Minds' strategy is completely incompatible with the Roman Method. It has been notable that where atrocities have taken place, it set back the cause of the counterinsurgency. As the French in Algeria and Indo-China, and the Americans in Vietnam found out, torture is one of those forms of atrocity that turns a population against you. It will ultimately contribute to the loss of the war.
Historical precedent is against torture both as a tool of intel gathering and of pacification unless you are prepared to go the whole hog and become the butcher you despise.
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | July 2, 2008 5:58 PM
Maybe "they" have a motive other than extracting false confessions. If we aren't so sure that our leaders feel constrained by mere conventions and laws, it just might help domestic tranquility along.
We followers might develop the vaguest feeling that, should we somehow become suspects of something or other, we could end up being interrogated by "alternative" methods. So, blowing the whistle, going to a "free speech" zone, or otherwise doing our bit to unhinge the plutocracy may not happen the way it would if we felt we were living under a government of law.
Posted by: dubiquiabs | July 2, 2008 6:00 PM
I did not need Hitchins allowing himself to be water boarded to know that the people running this campaign are moral monsters.
Posted by: Janine, Disingenuous Jackass | July 2, 2008 6:00 PM
Torture is outlawed by both U.S. and international law. The United States is supposed to be a national of laws. We brag about the that. So if our government is torturing people, it is automatically showing itself to be a criminal organization. Pretty well everyone distrusts criminals. Being justifiably labeled a criminal country is a major PR hit. Being seen as a bully is another PR hit.
After 9/11, the U.S. had the sympathy of most of the world. That sympathy has been systematically pissed away by Bush and his handlers.
Posted by: JoJo | July 2, 2008 6:01 PM
Frog,
I agree Europe has not done all it could or should have done to oppose the US. However you seem to have forgotten the extent to which France and Germany opposed US and UK actions in Iraq. You also seem to be ignoring the numerous condemnation of illegal detainment at Guantanamo that have been made by the UK government. Other EU governments have made similar condemnations. The only EU government known to have co-operated with reditions is Poland. There is evidence that the US used British terrority, both in the UK and Diego Garcia for rendition but it seems the US is not being forthcoming to the UK authorities. The refused to coperated with the police.
If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you will also be aware I think Europe should be tougher on the US. Whoever gets in will inherit a situation not of their making. It therefore would seem to be fair to give the new president some time to decide how to procede.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 2, 2008 6:06 PM
I have mostly liberal views, but I can see torture being justified in cases were there is very good reason to believe someone has knowledge about an imminent attack.
If you already have knowledge the person knows about an imminent attack, then you already have knowledge that there is an imminent attack, and it's more effective to prepare for it. Especially if the attack is imminent - because the person being tortured only has to feed the interrogator enough information to keep them busy beating someone else up until the attack happens. That's the problem with the "imminent" scenario.
Torturer: "tell me about the imminent attack!"
Subject: "ow. sure. tomorrow they are going to blow up the creationist museum."
(the next day)
Torturer: "damn it! you lied to us! we were busy defending the creationist museum and instead they blew up the DI headquarters!"
Subject: "they must have changed plans when they learned you captured me and they realized you were going to torture me."
Another scenario:
Torturer: "who are the other members of your cell?"
Subject: "they go by the internet aliases 'phil plait' and 'PZ Myers'"
If the person being interrogated can queue up some BS ahead of the truth, the BS will come out when they break. Then the torturer is in the horrible position of having to come back to the subject with another round of more "forceful interrogation" in retaliation for the lies, etc. And by the time you've retaliated for a lie told under torture you've joined the torquemada club.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 2, 2008 6:07 PM
As much as I dislike Hitchens, the video was so evocative for me. Listen to those down-hom