(UPDATE: See below for details.)
I write a post about reverse torture porn and not a day later we learn Christopher Hitchens waterboarded himself. Coincidence? Of course it is. But we can use the conservative commentary on Hitchens to test my, um, pornographic thesis. We begin, as you do, with Michelle Malkin:
I can see agreeing to waterboarding for an article like the one Hitchens was writing.
I believe Mrs. Sade and Sacher-Masoch could weigh in here, but I’ll skip the overtly randy stuff in favor of the more substantial material produced by her commenters. To wit:
The question will always be, and there really is no avoiding it until we develop a true mind-reading technology: is our moral revulsion against torture justified that when weighed against the possible number of deaths we can avoid by using it, we will always argue against its use? [...] But what if the object in question we are seeking is a nuclear bomb hidden in our city? Suddenly we are on the receiving end of the blast and the calculus changes drastically.
You can’t lead those horses into these waters any faster. See?
The enemy believes that we are weak, & Hitchens & his ilk are to blame. It will come to a point, & soon me thinks, when real force will be required. And then it shall come to pass that the unpleasant realities of preemption need to be replaced with the even more unpleasant realities of vengeance […] & the Hitchens of the world will cease to be relevant.
You have to love the Old Testament rhetoric of what is, really, Frank Castle fury. This commenter wants the day to come to pass when on thee and thou with His flesh-hooks rains carbuncle distemper and harrows everyone who has ever disagreed with him ever. The only way to prevent — if that’s your bag, which clearly it isn’t some people’s — this disaster? Torture fantasies:
[T]hose photos may have showed what looked to be electrodes […] no current was passed through, nor is there any evidence of same [...] and I don’t care if appearances are shocking to the “sensitive” eyes of the all caring [liberals].
How many times has he rehearsed this bit? Stripping down the prisoner, rudely affixing the electrodes to his genitals, coyly fiddling the switch, &c. How are we not in the realm of fantasy when people affirm, on the basis of a picture, whether a current has ever passed through wires? (Short of “still in the plastic,” I mean.) But I’m meant to connect these apocalyptic fantasies and the sexualized means of their avoidance to John McCain, aren’t I? As luck would have it, someone beat me to the punch:
Debating that waterboarding is torture, when we have seen the depravity and cruelty displayed by our enemy, is just plain stupidity. Waterboarding, as a means of extracting vital information regarding our security is not torture, it is a means to an end and that means, whilst it may give some terrorist — who by the way, is hell-bent on our destruction — a few heart palpitations, and even may, gasp, feel he is drowning, he will be none the worse for his experience. Unlike John McCain, who cannot raise his arms above his shoulders, due to his injuries.
I am so glad I am not a liberal woman. Who could be attracted to these weak-kneed, ineffectual wussies who get limp at the thought of how awful these nasty Americans are for waterboarding.
Who loves SAT analogies? I love SAT analogies! But this one is really tough, so I’ll need you to help me out. At the thought of torture:
liberal : limp :: conservative : ____
Granted, this commenter wouldn’t have scored 800 anyway, what with “A is not torture because B and C are worse” passing for logic to her mind.
All of which isn’t to say that some people aren’t still satisfied with the role of torturer — “IF THAT MAKES YOU HOT SEE THIS! — only that it seems the McCain candidacy compels more than a few people to diversify their libidinal investments. (In more ways than they think.)
UPDATE: This comment concerning the war crimes prosecution of Japanese for waterboarding must be shared:
[T]he Japanese were considered war criminals, you effing morons, not for the act of waterboarding but for torturing to the point of drowning, and then going all the way and drowning or otherwise killing the prisoners.
We, OTOH, try to scare the carp out of the person being interrogated by giving him the sensation of, and the fear of, being drowned.
But how, pray tell, did it get in there?


16 comments
July 3, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Fontana Labs
Propositions so inane that I thought they could not be endorsed as true, until I read Michelle Malkin’s web site:
(a) it’s not torture, it’s a means to an end
(b) it’s not really torture if you would agree to it for a magazine article. [Imagine: interrogation techniques the harm of which cannot be accurately estimated from the armchair]
(c) psychological harms aren’t really harms
July 3, 2008 at 3:07 pm
tongue but no door (dot) net » Blog Archive » With Friends Like These
[...] posting it the time. But, lacking anything to add, I passed. Then today Scott Kaufman brought back the reaction from the wingnut frontier, and it included bits like this: The enemy believes that we are weak, & Hitchens & his ilk [...]
July 3, 2008 at 4:34 pm
urbino
But this one is really tough, so I’ll need you to help me out.
Don’t you mean, “this one is really hard?”
July 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Rich Puchalsky
One minor annoyance in the whole Hell-pit of torture-as-political-question is the belief of some liberals that Bush somehow fooled America into committing torture. Let’s just admit the truth: America is a torture state, and Americans, in general, like torture. It’s not some oddity that only cropped up in Abu Ghraib. Before that, we were torturing people in Central America. Before that, Vietnam. Before that, we were lynching black people. The whole counterinsurgency strategy that we have is based on torture techniques used in the Phillippines. Before that, it was slaves and native Americans. 43% of Americans said yay for torture, and that’s not even counting the ones who said it was “rarely” justified. We routinely torture prisoners in our jails.
So of course the conservatives get off on torture. They are in a long American tradition of doing so. Of course, they’re personally scum as well. But it’s not just personal, not just something that Bush’s evil corrupted them into doing.
July 3, 2008 at 7:13 pm
SEK
Propositions so inane that I thought they could not be endorsed as true, until I read Michelle Malkin’s web site
Seriously, Labs, this isn’t a list you want to start.
Don’t you mean, “this one is really hard?”
I went to great lengths to avoid turgid puns, thank you very much.
So of course the conservatives get off on torture. They are in a long American tradition of doing so. Of course, they’re personally scum as well. But it’s not just personal, not just something that Bush’s evil corrupted them into doing.
Let me fix that for you Rich:
But it’s not just personal, not just something that
Bush’sevil terroristscorruptedforced them into doing against their will.The fact that they so eagerly embraced it is beside the point. Had circumstances not dictated its urgent necessity, they’d be as appalled as we are.
July 3, 2008 at 7:29 pm
urbino
But how, pray tell, did it get in there?
Jesus put it there. Duh.
July 3, 2008 at 7:50 pm
SEK
I keep forgetting he’s on our side. Good show, Jesus!
July 3, 2008 at 8:00 pm
urbino
Well, I don’t know if he’s on your side so much, but he’s totally on mine.
July 3, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Rich Puchalsky
“But it’s not just personal, not just something that evil terrorists forced them into doing against their will.”
Oh, right, I forgot about that aspect of the conservatives’ sick sexuality — commission of torture as rape fantasy. Yes, they wouldn’t have tortured anyone, but the terrorists forced them to torture people against their will. It wasn’t their fault! It’s like a demented Reese’s peanut butter cup commerical: hey, you got your sadism in my masochism! No, you got your masochism in my sadism!
July 3, 2008 at 9:56 pm
urbino
Oh, fine. Ruin a perfectly good candy for me.
July 4, 2008 at 2:09 am
Martin G
Rich: Let’s just admit the truth: America is a torture state, and Americans, in general, like torture.
And then you mention all the actual torture Americans have been doing, but let’s not forget fictitious torture, either! “24″ is basically one long justification for torture scenes (which Bauer doesn’t want to do but is merely forced, forced, I say, by these extreme and completely unparallelled circumstances (except for the last 5 seasons’ unparallelled circumstances)). Mmmm. Torture.
July 4, 2008 at 5:55 am
drip
The metaphor of sexual pornograhy is just so apt. Torture is forbidden except to the few, which adds to the pornographic allure. If you satisfy the aim of the torture, you will be part of those allowed to torture and at the same time be protected. The techniques are so dangerous that they, their results and those who master them, must remain forever secret. Such fantastic powers! Its reminiscent of the footnote in Trevanian’s spy thriller spoof Shibumi where the author can’t describe the sex acts because they would kill most people and those it didn’t kill would be too irresponsible to keep the techniques secret.
Here is my bottom line: torturers are emasculated cowards.
July 4, 2008 at 11:05 am
RTO Trainer
The trouble with trying to explain anything here, is that any explanation will be characterized, rightly or wrongly as justification of torture whether the person offering explanation states that torture is categorically wrong every single time or not.
July 4, 2008 at 11:52 am
Josh
The trouble with trying to explain anything here, is that any explanation will be characterized, rightly or wrongly as justification of torture whether the person offering explanation states that torture is categorically wrong every single time or not.
“What do you mean, the Deutsche Demokratische Republik was a dictatorship? It said ‘democratic’ right there in the name!”
July 4, 2008 at 12:12 pm
drip
Henceforth R-TOT’s discussions of terrorism shall be read to contain the following disclaimer
Torture is categorically illegal, wrong, and immoral under all circumstances. Any explanation of torture stated is for amusement or academic purposes. Such explanations are not endorsements or defenses of torture or torturers.
So, R-TOT, you don’t have to worry about prefacing your remarks with “I’m against torture.” Or “Some of my best friends are torturers, so I’m not friends with them anymore.” Just go ahead and explain why its OK to take an american and waterboard him until he tells his interrogator something useful, or the other way round, if that’s easier for you. Just remember, every single explanation you offer will be tested by putting my 24 year old son in the interrogator’s custody. Peace brother.
July 4, 2008 at 9:33 pm
RTO Trainer
Well. Not the point I’d hoped to make, but I guess it’ll have to do.
Sorry to take your time, all.