Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Believe Me, It's Torture
What more can be added to the debate over U.S. interrogation methods, and whether waterboarding is torture? Try firsthand experience. The author undergoes the controversial drowning technique, at the hands of men who once trained American soldiers to resist-not inflict-it.
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.
Exploring this narrow but deep distinction, on a gorgeous day last May I found myself deep in the hill country of western North Carolina, preparing to be surprised by a team of extremely hardened veterans who had confronted their country's enemies in highly arduous terrain all over the world. They knew about everything from unarmed combat to enhanced interrogation and, in exchange for anonymity, were going to show me as nearly as possible what real waterboarding might be like.
It goes without saying that I knew I could stop the process at any time, and that when it was all over I would be released into happy daylight rather than returned to a darkened cell. But it's been well said that cowards die many times before their deaths, and it was difficult for me to completely forget the clause in the contract of indemnification that I had signed. This document (written by one who knew) stated revealingly:
"Water boarding" is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.
As the agreement went on to say, there would be safeguards provided "during the 'water boarding' process, however, these measures may fail and even if they work properly they may not prevent Hitchens from experiencing serious injury or death."
On the night before the encounter I got to sleep with what I thought was creditable ease, but woke early and knew at once that I wasn't going back to any sort of doze or snooze. The first specialist I had approached with the scheme had asked my age on the telephone and when told what it was (I am 59) had laughed out loud and told me to forget it. Waterboarding is for Green Berets in training, or wiry young jihadists whose teeth can bite through the gristle of an old goat. It's not for wheezing, paunchy scribblers. For my current "handlers" I had had to produce a doctor's certificate assuring them that I did not have asthma, but I wondered whether I should tell them about the 15,000 cigarettes I had inhaled every year for the last several decades. I was feeling apprehensive, in other words, and beginning to wish I hadn't given myself so long to think about it.
I have to be opaque about exactly where I was later that day, but there came a moment when, sitting on a porch outside a remote house at the end of a winding country road, I was very gently yet firmly grabbed from behind, pulled to my feet, pinioned by my wrists (which were then cuffed to a belt), and cut off from the sunlight by having a black hood pulled over my face. I was then turned around a few times, I presume to assist in disorienting me, and led over some crunchy gravel into a darkened room. Well, mainly darkened: there were some oddly spaced bright lights that came as pinpoints through my hood. And some weird music assaulted my ears. (I'm no judge of these things, but I wouldn't have expected former Special Forces types to be so fond of New Age techno-disco.) The outside world seemed very suddenly very distant indeed.
Arms already lost to me, I wasn't able to flail as I was pushed onto a sloping board and positioned with my head lower than my heart. (That's the main point: the angle can be slight or steep.) Then my legs were lashed together so that the board and I were one single and trussed unit. Not to bore you with my phobias, but 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, to tell you something I had been keeping from myself as well as from my new experimental friends, 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. As a boy reading the climactic torture scene of 1984, where what is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world, I realize that somewhere in my version of that hideous chamber comes the moment when the wave washes over me. Not that that makes me special: I don't know anyone who likes the idea of drowning. As mammals we may have originated in the ocean, but water has many ways of reminding us that when we are in it we are out of our element. In brief, when it comes to breathing, give me good old air every time.
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.
This is because I had read that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, invariably referred to as the "mastermind" of the atrocities of September 11, 2001, had impressed his interrogators by holding out for upwards of two minutes before cracking. (By the way, this story is not confirmed. My North Carolina friends jeered at it. "Hell," said one, "from what I heard they only washed his damn face before he babbled.") But, hell, I thought in my turn, no Hitchens is going to do worse than that. Well, O.K., I admit I didn't outdo him. And so then I said, with slightly more bravado than was justified, that I'd like to try it one more time. There was a paramedic present who checked my racing pulse and warned me about adrenaline rush. An interval was ordered, and then I felt the mask come down again. Steeling myself to remember what it had been like last time, and to learn from the previous panic attack, I fought down the first, and some of the second, wave of nausea and terror but soon found that I was an abject prisoner of my gag reflex. The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any questions, and I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer. I still feel ashamed when I think about it. Also, in case it's of interest, I have since woken up trying to push the bedcovers off my face, and if I do anything that makes me short of breath I find myself clawing at the air with a horrible sensation of smothering and claustrophobia. No doubt this will pass. As if detecting my misery and shame, one of my interrogators comfortingly said, "Any time is a long time when you're breathing water." I could have hugged him for saying so, and just then I was hit with a ghastly sense of the sadomasochistic dimension that underlies the relationship between the torturer and the tortured. 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.
I am somewhat proud of my ability to "keep my head," as the saying goes, and to maintain presence of mind under trying circumstances. I was completely convinced that, when the water pressure had become intolerable, I had firmly uttered the pre-determined code word that would cause it to cease. But my interrogator told me that, rather to his surprise, I had not spoken a word. I had activated the "dead man's handle" that signaled the onset of unconsciousness. So now I have to wonder about the role of false memory and delusion. What I do recall clearly, though, is a hard finger feeling for my solar plexus as the water was being poured. What was that for? "That's to find out if you are trying to cheat, and timing your breathing to the doses. If you try that, we can outsmart you. We have all kinds of enhancements." I was briefly embarrassed that I hadn't earned or warranted these refinements, but it hit me yet again that this is certainly the language of torture.
Maybe I am being premature in phrasing it thus. Among the veterans there are at least two views on all this, which means in practice that there are two opinions on whether or not "waterboarding" constitutes torture. I have had some extremely serious conversations on the topic, with two groups of highly decent and serious men, and I think that both cases have to be stated at their strongest.
The team who agreed to give me a hard time in the woods of North Carolina belong to a highly honorable group. This group regards itself as out on the front line in defense of a society that is too spoiled and too ungrateful to appreciate those solid, underpaid volunteers who guard us while we sleep. These heroes stay on the ramparts at all hours and in all weather, and if they make a mistake they may be arraigned in order to scratch some domestic political itch. Faced with appalling enemies who make horror videos of torture and beheadings, they feel that they are the ones who confront denunciation in our press, and possible prosecution. As they have just tried to demonstrate to me, a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. 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.
Against it, however, I call as my main witness Mr. Malcolm Nance. Mr. Nance is not what you call a bleeding heart. In fact, speaking of the coronary area, he has said that, in battlefield conditions, he "would personally cut bin Laden's heart out with a plastic M.R.E. spoon." He was to the fore on September 11, 2001, dealing with the burning nightmare in the debris of the Pentagon. He has been involved with the sere program since 1997. He speaks Arabic and has been on al-Qaeda's tail since the early 1990s. His most recent book, The Terrorists of Iraq, is a highly potent analysis both of the jihadist threat in Mesopotamia and of the ways in which we have made its life easier. I passed one of the most dramatic evenings of my life listening to his cold but enraged denunciation of the adoption of waterboarding by the United States. The argument goes like this:
1. Waterboarding is a deliberate torture technique and has been prosecuted as such by our judicial arm when perpetrated by others.
2. If we allow it and justify it, we cannot complain if it is employed in the future by other regimes on captive U.S. citizens. It is a method of putting American prisoners in harm's way.
3. It may be a means of extracting information, but it is also a means of extracting junk information. (Mr. Nance told me that he had heard of someone's being compelled to confess that he was a hermaphrodite. I later had an awful twinge while wondering if I myself could have been "dunked" this far.) To put it briefly, even the C.I.A. sources for the Washington Post story on waterboarding conceded that the information they got out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "not all of it reliable." Just put a pencil line under that last phrase, or commit it to memory.
4. It opens a door that cannot be closed. Once you have posed the notorious "ticking bomb" question, and once you assume that you are in the right, what will you not do? Waterboarding not getting results fast enough? The terrorist's clock still ticking? Well, then, bring on the thumbscrews and the pincers and the electrodes and the rack.
Masked by these arguments, there lurks another very penetrating point. Nance doubts very much that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed lasted that long under the water treatment (and I am pathetically pleased to hear it). It's also quite thinkable, if he did, that he was trying to attain martyrdom at our hands. But even if he endured so long, and since the United States has in any case bragged that in fact he did, one of our worst enemies has now become one of the founders of something that will someday disturb your sleep as well as mine. To quote Nance:
Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet, convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured. Our own missteps have created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda's own virtual sere school for terrorists.
Which returns us to my starting point, about the distinction between training for something and training to resist it. One used to be told-and surely with truth-that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true? 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.
Copyright © 2008 CondéNet.



41 Comments so far
Show AllEven Hitchens has reached his apostasy.
We shall be paying for our lazy arrogance in assuming that Republican hubris in the world was just a case of others suffering. We could have stood up much sooner and prevented this, but "American Idol" was on and the beer was cold in the fridge, so who had time?
Hitchens: "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 clearly understand this viewpoint as clumsy tap-dancing. This statement supposes that the current United States government is somehow defending civilization rather than hollowing its freedoms out, and that it does not torture some prisoners to death, using means far more drastic and ugly than waterboarding, which also kills. Specious suppositions, both. While Hitchens appears to be to be sashaying in the general direction of his old reality based analyses, he can't quite bring himself to repudiate the stupid accolades he placed on the repugnant American war criminals who still control this shit.
Trust Hitchens at your peril.
America has been "hollowed out" many years ago.
Start with the Vietnam war, maybe sooner. Reagan was elected because the American public are foolish to think that the ruling elite "care" about the citizens of this country.
Obama, McCain are playing the same game and fooling just enough morons to maintain control of the government.
If you want change we can believe in vote for Nader, or maybe McKinney.
I do trust Hitchens to be a hypocrite: an atheist true believer in American Imperialism. He still believes the jihadists/terrorists are a "civilization"--they are not--they are reactionary true believers very much like himself.
What a pompous ass! Why is it that the Cheerleaders of the Iraq War still have jobs, publishing their crap, never mind I know the answer.
Stick Hitchens in a cell at Gauntanamo, with his lover Chalabi, and let them enjoy each other for the rest of their lives.
"I am somewhat proud of my ability to "keep my head," writes Hitchens. You arrogant selfish bastard. You are so proud of being able to keep your head, why don't you share your pride with the thousands of American soldiers with brain injuries, that you are responsible for? Oh yeah, you just did.
Commondreams should have a policy of not printing material, and giving support to, un-indicted war criminals.
Interesting. Hitchens was one of the primary media champions of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, actions which have this sort of torture as their byproduct. One wonders if this experience will lead to a similar change of heart on his part regarding the war.
Yeah, right.
Hitchins, 11 fucking seconds, YES SIR, WTF, notions of B and D Hitchins? Talked about how we had the right to be using Torture, bastard.
Wish they'd taken you to the new 'Detainee Center' on the southern shore of Guatanamo Bay, 10,000/minimum.
Did we really need this war promoting asshole to tell us waterboarding is torture. Of course it's torture! Only a very stupid person would think otherwise.
Hitchens is a prick. Way up there with his neo-con buddies. How they can still give this prick 'air-time' is beyond me. Just because he is taking a break from 'blowing' the slime-bag neo-cons doesnt mean he needs to be published in any form. Ughhh.
At the risk of sounding redundant: Too bad Hitchens wasn't drowned in a septic tank, along with Cheney, Lieberman, and a few more creeps.
FYI, a nice deconstruction of Hitchens's latest stunt:
...Hitchens's sacrificial torture was not in vain though. He suffered for the sake of his own public persona, the aspect of himself which is truly dear to his heart.
If after reading his article different readers come away with different impressions of whether Hitchens opposes torture, it should be assumed that this was intended. In his article Hitchens says what he wants to say knowing that different readers will read into it what they are predisposed to find.
Hitchens first builds suspense by blindfolding us as he takes us to his rendezvous and thanks the anonymous US torturers there for their service in the creepily obligatory US way. Do the men who will water-board him (no women, interestingly enough) feature in the story just as trainers? Or are they representatives of the 'highly honorable group' who 'defend civilization' by water-boarding 'those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down'? Hitchens has it both ways.
This nice ambiguity allows for the perception that Hitchens is only approving training against torture, not torture itself.
The actual torture scene is farcically predictable and hence banal. There is no surprise when Hitchens duly judges water-boarding to be torture.
I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. Well, then, if water-boarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.
And he does indeed create a moral casuistry with Lincoln's unrelated dictum. By roping in Lincoln denouncing slavery as wrong, Hitchens is able to say that water-boarding is torture with a certain suggestion that it is wrong too. But he doesn't actually denounce water-boarding torture as wrong; he just nods at Abe who in turn hints it.
Having settled by his noble self-sacrifice the previously vexed question of whether drowning somebody really is torture Hitchens finally approaches the question of whether, being torture, it's wrong. But by wheeling in two 'groups of highly decent and serious men' to argue for and against torture, Hitchens is again able to keep his own evaluation in the shade. In keeping with his lofty position of arbiter he only hints at judgment in favour of the second group's contention, that torture is not good.
Here again he is artfully ambiguous about what good and bad means. Torture turns out to be bad because it's 1) illegal 2) revengeable, 3) unreliable and 4) unstoppable. It's wrong because it's inexpedient, not because it's morally wrong.
Hitchens makes clear that his identification with Western imperialist 'civilisation' precludes moral evaluations of those attacking its demonised enemies. A million corpses haven't roused his moral sense enough to end his support for the Iraq invasion and occupation. There is no reason to believe he would baulk at torture if it was, all things considered, an effective policy.
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.
This peroration also seems to say more than it does. The tortured metaphor literally refers mostly to Hitchens himself, by recording his egotistical desire that the verbal tokens 'American' and 'water-board' should have to form part of distinct utterances unless the very important Hitchens and his little torture adventure feature as the main topic. Even interpreted as meaning that Hitchens wishes that Americans did not torture, it says nothing about whether he considers such torture morally wrong or just an unpleasant necessity.
With this article Hitchens is aligning himself for the impending configuration of power within the US imperialist bourgeoisie after the post-Bush regime change. The torture policy is clearly on the way out and the issue will become what to do with the criminals who planned, legalised, authorised, supervised, conducted, and evaluated the torture sessions. Hitchens is pre-positioning himself to support an unequivocal end to the torture while endorsing complete impunity for the perpetrators. This is already the policy of the Democratic Party wing of the imperial political elite and will become the Republican consensus too.
You know what else is torture, Mr. Hitchens? Civilians having their skin burned off when we call in an air strike on their neighborhood. Mass imprisonment without charge. Deprivation of basic necessities such as food, water, and medicine. A lack of security so intense that it turns a fifth of Iraqis into refugees. The folks here at Common Dreams are well aware that you have been a cheerleader for a more extreme form of torture for quite some time, Mr. Hitchens.
"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."
Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are "defending civilization"? And you say it is shadowy terrorists who want to hollow out our freedoms, instead of our own government?! Perhaps, it was whiskey and not water they were pouring down your throat. But if that was the case I'm sure you would have beat Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's record.
Hitchens is, even now, talking out of his ass when he says "believe me, it's torture." Why?
There are only two circumstances under which we should believe him:
(1) he has intimate knowledge of torture; or
(2) he has a consistent philosophy of torture we're likely to agree with.
Option (2) is, of course, absurd, because the only reason he's saying waterboarding is torture is because he experienced a very safe, controlled form of waterboarding.
Option (1) doesn't apply either, because he has no intimate knowledge of torture in all of its inglorious variety, either as a torturer or as a victim.
It's hardly the time of day to take Hitchens's word on anything having to do with his precious neocon agenda. However, if he would like to experience the full range of tortures we mete out to our prisoners, either directly or via proxies, I might be inclined to start listening to him on the basis of (1).
So get in those stress positions, Hitch, or STFU.
"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." "Arrive at a moral equivalence"? Is Hitchens the conscious and deliberate author of the above piece, or did his hand do the work by itself? The use of torture establishes immoral equivlance between all those who use it. Torture is immoral and therefore torturers are immoral. We are known by our deeds. Perhaps Hitchen's attempt to turn this very obvious proposition inside out in order to deny it explains his weak and flailing sentence above.
Thanks for staying sober long enough to do this Chris.
sl63 -- "This nice ambiguity allows for the perception that Hitchens is only approving training against torture, not torture itself."
Absolutely right as is the rest of your post. Wish more of us (me included) could write a post like yours instead of the usual reactionary flare-up !
Sorry Mr. Hitchens, but civilization is already hollowed out, and has been coming down for a while now.
Wish more of us (me included) could write a post like yours instead of the usual reactionary flare-up !
riddimboy, I wish so too! But, unfortunately that was written by someone else in the comments section of the link at the beginning of my post. I thought it was a spot-on analysis of Hitchens's capacity to come up with literary fireworks, so I copied it here. Norman Finkelstein has known the number of Hitchens for a while and did a fine exposé of his act a few years ago:
For many years Hitchens impressed some readers with his verbal facility. Now his ego delights in testing whether, through sheer manipulation of words, he can pass off flatulent emissions as bouquets. It perhaps would be funny watching fatuous readers fawn over gibberish--were not human life at stake.
Hitchens is a flip-flopper happy to be on the side of whichever way the political wind is blowing. He realizes like a rat he must escape a sinking ship...
It would appears as if the douche bag cum gas bag that is Christopher Hitchens has come to the conclusion that the neo-con lecture circuit has played out for him and has decided to do a partial mea culpa to the progressive community he spent most of the reign of the Bush crime family trashing in a lame attempt to keep his media career vaguely relevant. It is at this moment that the old adage, "First time, shame on you. Second time, shame on me," applies.
This reminds me of Monbiot's attempted citizen's arrest of Rumsfeld in Britain.
It reveals a certain amount of nerve and courage to even test the experience of being waterboarded, or to challenge a retired senior member of government surrounded by security forces.
But when all is said and done, did it accomplish any greater purpose beyond a stunt showcasing the actor? Or is a publicity boomlet the point?
I'm truly asking-- it remains an open question to me.
I was surprised to see an article here on CD by Hitchens, especially with the title "Believe Me, It's Torture". At first I thought maybe Hitchies was doing some sort of mea culpa. Then I read the article; nope, nothin new here, just more arrogance and self righteous pomposity cloaked in some phony attempt at heroic experiential journalism.
It's heartening to read all the comments here, especially zzz and s163, well done,(I'm confused though, who actually wrote that comment s163?).
It is true that frequently religion and torture are related, however, war and torture, and occupation and torture are even more closely related. Hitchens thought the war and occupation were a good idea, therefore he supported torture. Now he is trying to draw an impossible line to show he doesn't believe in torture.
Kind of the line that Strom Thurmond drew when he decided that mixing races was ok as long as it was limited to just him raping an underage black maid.
But at this point we have a vast number of (white) Americans, maybe a majority, who aren't opposed to torture at all, even if they know the person being tortured is innocent. Even worse, I get the impression that a lot of young (white) Americans would love to imitate the cops-and-bad-guys shows they've been raised on and actually participate in sadistic torture.
Also, as Mr. Hitchens acknowledges, he was handled with a lot more respect than the dark-skinned people the Americans normally do their sadistic dirty work on. A lot of them are beaten and worse while trussed and hooded, both before and after the drowning torture. Woo-hoo! USA! USA! USA! What a shithole it is.
We didn't need Hitch to tell us this.
While he is a great writer, he lost his political bearings pre 9-11.
Why would anyone have to think twice about this being torture ...
And, in fact, this administration has been torturing
all of us -- domestically and internationally -- for
eight years . . .
We have a rigged election system and fascism is here.
Has it crossed anyone's mind that this article rather justifies the use of torture rather than condems it?
The "deconstruction" of Hitchens's verbal gymnastics was done by someone whose user name is Anthropoid Ape in the Comment is Free section of The Guardian.
Why on earth is CD printing an apologia from a drunken imbecile like Hitchens? If he thinks he's going to ingratiate himself by copping to the obvious, he better think again. His fervent embrace of the neo-cons must be wearing a little thin lately and the cocktail party invitations must have dried up.
In a press release today, Christopher Hitchens hastened to add that he still fully supports 'bourbon-boarding'.
How sad that Hitchens feels that he had to experience waterboarding to go along with experts who have already been telling us waterboarding=torture. I get the feeling Hitchens knows he has been betraying himself and others since 9/11 and can't figure out how to correct his error but is taking baby steps to switch his INCORRECT thinking. Who would have thought the guy who, rightly, went after Kissinger would sell himself to the dark side. Fear makes people do CRAZY shit.
If Christopher has an ounce of decency left he will either stop writing about the US/Iraq situation (since he knows torture is being applied by "democracy and law abiding" Americans) or join w/ those reporters who know for a fact that our government is a lying sack of shit and deserves to be tried in the World Court. Christopher needs to redeem himself!
I find Mr. Hitchens' use of the word "foreplay" obscenely inhumane and cruel, considering that prisoners in US custody have suffered anal rape with broomsticks. Americans should put aside his counterfeit experience and read the report of Physicians for Human Rights, "Broken Laws, Broken Lives."
There is an important value in this kind of discussion, if only people could discern the value. The value is not in being able to understand whether or not waterboarding is torture. It didn't take Hitchens to convince us of that. The value is in understanding that waterboarding is really way down the list of criminal atrocities committed by the United States in the process of this war in Iraq.
Discussion of waterboarding is really a diversion from the real tragedy going on there. If you look at our operations in Iraq, almost every action we take against the Iraqis is a criminal atrocity. And it is mostly on a large scale - not just against one person, as in waterboarding. And those tens of thousands of victims mostly die or are maimed for life.
And in the case of America, our atrocities and war crimes are mostly inflicted in a cowardly manner, with high tech lethality, delivered from safe distances .
And just think of the mental trauma suffered by our own troops who are forced, by the elected scum bags in Washington, to perform and inflict these criminal atrocities on mostly innocent people.
Yes, we need to discuss waterboarding, but let's keep it in reasonable perspective.
The most fascinating thing about CD printing this article is that all of the subsequent posted comments show more insight than Hitchens.
Seems to me the most important thing is for those of us who oppose torture to figure out how best to use Hitchens's turnaround.
Why did Mr Hitchens have to endure waterboarding to determine it's torture? He's a much more intellient man than I, and I knew it. I don't have to endure bamboo under my fingernails or branding or having bits of my body severed to know that's torture, so why does an intelligent man have to have "simulated" drowning perpetrated upon him to know that, yes, indeed waterboarding is torture? Does torture have to leave physical evidence to be considered such? I think not.
Newsflash to Christopher Hitchens: The whole world, outside of the psychopaths in the Bush administration, already knows that it's torture. Does he think that his pronouncement is going to suddenly change U.S. policy???
Even this right-wing shithead thinks waterboard is torture.
Too bad he had to experience it.
Perhaps all politicians who don't think its torture should give waterboarding a try. I'm not too sure Dick Cheney's heart would be able to sustain it.
So Christopher Hitchens has declared waterboarding to be torture after subjecting himself to a brief experience with that torture method. He has one more experiment to go: he needs to go and resettle in some developing country. And he then has to call on the Bush administration to invade that country--I mean, "liberate" it--and bomb it to smitherine. He then has to welcome the invading/occupying troops with "sweets and flowers." Only then would the Hitchens experiment be complete. -- http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2008/07/so-christopher-hitchens-has-declared.html
If the law prohibits torture, then torture is illegal. If the law permits torture, then torture is illegal.
Could your kindergartner-on-the-playground get this one? In a flash.
If there's a ticking bomb and the proverbial 15 minutes, legal or not, they'll torture. The law prohibiting torture is for all those other times. The ticking bomb scenario is a smokescreen -- juicy, emotion-laden, blinding to get those who can't think clearly.
Note the length and detail in his account.
Why?
Because it shook him badly. It's not a journalistic or logical treatment, but rather like a diary entry.
Hitchens is in the initial stages of denial about what happened to him.
I fully expect the end result will be a return to his liberal days, in defiance of Churchill's age rule of conservatism.
In one year, Hitchens will be the new Chomsky/Zinn. You heard it here first.
Hitchens came face to face with his own humanity and with the inhumanity of the positions he has been advocating.
It's going to take a while to process, but the transition is inevitable.
Liberals should celebrate this as he is a formidable intellect to have back in the fold.