The Apologists
They're talking torture over at The Corner. John Derbyshire has been trying to revive the It's Just Like A Frat House defense -- thinking, no doubt, of the outtake from Animal House where John Belushi crammed a glowstick up Tim Matheson's ass, or perhaps the little-known sequence in Old School where Will Ferrell was beaten to death. Jonah Goldberg took a different tack, printing this letter from a reader:
After I was captured, my hands were tied behind my back and
I was struck repeatedly in the face with an open hand. After enduring
the beating I was thrown on the water board, where under questioning the
enemy would drown you till the verge of losing consciousness, only to
revive you and start all over again. Then a black bag was secured around
my head and throat which made it difficult to breathe. I was confined to
a three by four foot tiger cage with a coffee can for a toilet. Loud
music blared from speakers in the compound and I was repeatedly dragged
from my cage for more beatings and interrogation. At night when it was
freezing the guards would pour cold water on me. I was deprived of any
food for five straight days.Sounds pretty bad, doesn't it? Well that is only part of what EVERY U.S. Navy and Air Force pilot and flight crew goes through in survival school. The Army does it for their special forces guys as well. We do this to our own people for training but we can't do it to terrorists?
Set aside all the obvious problems with that comparison. Consider instead those last seven words: "but we can't do it to terrorists?" Between Derbyshire and Goldberg's correspondent, the torture apologists seem to operate in two modes -- one in which they can't accept the fact that the abuse rises to the level of torture, and one in which they can't accept the fact that not everyone being tortured was a terrorist. I guess you have to hold both of those thoughts in your mind at once to realize just how enormous a stain this scandal leaves on everyone involved in it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Also, that sort of 'training' is entered into (mostly) willingly by the participants so that they can better withstand such [b]torture[/b] by enemies they may be captured by.
Where's Dan to defend such acts? (And my apologies ahead of time, Dan, if you would consider the things described as toture.)
If it doesn't involve twisting, it isn't torture. I say let's get back to etymology.
Oops, my html skillz are not up to snuff, obviously.
My hero, B F Skinner, has already proved on rats--lower than terrorists?--that only positive reinforcement works.
The Senate hearing of Gonzales yesterday was the biggest "apology" of all. It's almost like they were saying, "O.K., we've done our duty, grilled the only guy we could get our hands on, now let's forget about it."
They made a big show about torture as though Gonzales was personally turning the screws. I'm just as concerned about an Administration that attempts to remake fundamental boundaries at home, like the idea of detaining people, including American citizens, indefinitly and without a hearing. Whose bright idea was that?
We do this to our own people for training but we can't do it to terrorists?
Why do we do it to our own people? SO THEY CAN WITHSTAND TORTURE! Derbyshire, etc. have, without question, taken the moral relativism conservatives used to decry and have made it their own. Disgusting, immoral, and un-American, every one of them.
Goldberg and his correspondent clearly have a problem with the concept of consent. But then Goldberg is still waiting for the government to "call him up" for military service.
Ruthless
Indeed, it has occured to me that if we really want to get thru we should "torture" them by killing them with kindness.
To clarify, I have a friend who went through Search, Evasion, Rescue training when he was in the Air Force. US trainers can't do anything prohibited by international agreements to our own soldiers. Keeping you up for a long time, adjusting your diet to limit protein intake, and making sure your cell is clean by using a hose are all in bounds. I believe I was told that striking, even with the open hand, was not allowed.
He said the worst thing he encountered was after sleep deprivation, they started pumping in tunes - Yoko Ono.
"...the torture apologists seem to operate in two modes -- one in which they can't accept the fact that the abuse rises to the level of torture, and one in which they can't accept the fact that not everyone being tortured was a terrorist."
Torture apologists in both modes seem to be in short term shock over the revelation that the Bush Administration has abandoned torture as just too embarrassing. For whatever reason, I really don't know why, that fact seems to have only sank in with many of them during Gonzo's testimony yesterday.
--Oh no--the people we're apologizing for have abandoned us!
In the future, I expect we'll hear such people talk a lot more about how the Bush Administration never condoned torture and a lot less about how torture is merely a function of intensity.
...Once they get their jaws up off the floor, that is.
Ken, they don't seem to have been bothered by the administration's assertion that WMDs weren't used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Why would this be any different.
He's a good man. One who loves Jesus and hates Democrats. He doesn't have to be morally, legally, or logically consistent.
9/11 changes everything. Support the troops.
joe,
The day before yesterday, you couldn't mention the word torture in this forum without troglodytes comin' out of the woodwork to defend the use of torture. Compare that to the reaction I got--just yesterday--in the thread below.
http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/01/those_zany_atto.shtml
Well Ken, since Gonzales is transparently lying about the administration's newfound opposition to torture (remember, they assured us that they'd never do such a thing at Gitmo, then whined about Red Cross persecution when they caught), I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities for RPVs to defend Dear Leader's position that random Arab men picked up off the street can be legally tortured.
Well, first of all, it should be admitted right off that an adequate definition of torture simply isn't feasible. That's one of the reasons why the "torture memo" and like instructions simply fail to be adequate; they cannot possibly capture what is and is not acceptable, and thus those implementing these rules don't have clear guidance.
Second, nearly all of the folks involved in implementing these orders learned their interrogation techniques from TV. This only increases their lack of professionalism.
Finally, anyone who doesn't consider what was described in the letter supra torture (especially when it is not assented to) is a clueless yahoo who knows nothing of the issue. Shit like that can permanently break a man (and when I say break, I mean break), and there is no way of knowing how far one may go before that happens and permanent psychological and physical damage sets in. Indeed, its this lack uniformity in response that makes such techniques even more dangerous.
He said the worst thing he encountered was after sleep deprivation, they started pumping in tunes - Yoko Ono.
I used to whip out side 2 of The Plastic Ono Band live album to empty my house of partiers. Side 1 is worth listening to but the torture begins as soon as the needle drops on side 2.
Where's Dan to defend such acts? (And my apologies ahead of time, Dan, if you would consider the things described as toture.)
I think that some of the acts would probably qualify as torture under the treaties we've signed, while others would not.
I have little interest in defending or condemning our treatment of the prisoners because I have have mixed feelings about it. I am concerned about the possibility of that some of the prisoners may be innocent, but no more so than I am about the possibility of innocents being killed during a war -- I think we should do everything we can to minimize the chance of it happening, so long as we do not overly harm our own war effort in the process.
Gonzales' testimony was like a Plastic Ono Band song: repeatedly yelling "Don't Worry, Don't Worry, Don't Worry" above the wailing and shrieking in the background.
How'zat for bringing the thread full circle?
It's definitely a bind they're in. The Schlesinger Report makes it pretty clear that Rumsfeld changed our policy regarding torture subsequent to being presented with the infamous Gonzales Torture Memo, and the Schlesinger Report goes on to blame the abuse at Abu Gharib on the confusion caused by Rumsfeld's decision.
http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/abuse/schlesinger_report.pdf
...So they can't claim that the Bush Administration didn't condone torture.
That's one side of the squeeze. The other side is that the Bush Administration, like I said above, isn't willing to stick its neck out and claim that torture is simply a function of intensity anymore, so why would a torture apologist do that? It puts people who argue for torture in a funny category--the same one as grown men who, although they aren't arsonists, like to play with matches.
I was sickened by Gonzales bringing out the inane, "OUR ENEMIES BEHEAD PEOPLE, WE AREN'T THAT BAD."
The simple use of such a dumb cliche in response to a statement should disqualify him, as it is astounding evidence of his lack of mental creativity.
trainwreck-
A few months ago Jennifer was suggesting that we've gone from "America: Land of the Free" to "America: It could be worse."
Personally, I prefer the motto "America: Fuck Yeah!" ;->
It's rather interesting that we've gone from the likes of Krauthammer saying that
these were egregious violations of human rights and human dignity. They must be punished seriously. They do not, however, reflect the ethos of the American military
...to the NR and talk radio set vehemently arguing that, in fact, they *are* part of the American ethos that so thoroughly suffuses everything from the military to Skull and Bones.
Though the latter's straightfaced moral relativism is more disturbing, I can't help but think that it's inadvertantly more psychologically revealing and honest.
Fair enough, Dan, and I can't really say that my opinions are all that different from yours. Some of your defences in previous threads caused me some concern, is all. You seemed very blaze about it.
Dan,
Can you delineate which practice belongs in either category?
Dan,
Note that CIA officers argue that the task is largely impossible, so I'm interested in how well you do.
Actually, "America: It could be worse." has been around most of my life.
As a kid: quite whining and eat your peas, it could be worse, you could be starving in China.
In college: Well, I didn't understand a damned thing my TA said, but he's here from Bangladesh, so I should be grateful, it could be worse.
At church: It could be worse, you could have been born Baptist, at least Catholics get to drink.
Getting busted: Hey, it could be worse, at least you didn't have any baggies or scales, they can't get your for distributing.
Lowdog,
I think you mean "blase."
trainwreck,
Getting busted: Hey, it could be worse, at least you didn't have any baggies or scales, they can't get your for distributing.
You'd be surprised what they will try to turn into "distributing." 🙁
I think you mean "blase."
You would know how to spell it, Frenchie.
America, it will do until I move.
America, yeah whatever.
America, coming soon to bomb a town near you.
GG - yes, I was in a hurry. 😉
Lowdog,
No problem. 🙂
Twba,
I was a spelling geek as a child. 🙂
Tori or Aaron?
Fascinating letter to Goldberg.
Yet again, righties showing their contempt for the concept of consent.
"He held you down, ripped off you clothes, and penetrated you? So what, I did that to my wife last night!"
C'mon, Joe, easy does it.
You're foaming at the mouth again 🙂
I wonder, how does getting tortured for a week help you prepare for being tortured again later? Does the psyche build up torture callasses?
I've been hit in nuts quite a few times and none of the earlier times made the most recent any easier to deal with. The military is beyond strange sometimes.
"I wonder, how does getting tortured for a week help you prepare for being tortured again later? Does the psyche build up torture callasses?"
Judging from my experience with women and their stubborn refusal to stop harassing me while I'm watching football, I believe that repeated exposure does build up some resistance to the short term effects of torture. The toll torture takes in terms of mental stress, however, never completely goes away; it's effects can still be felt for years.
P.S. I both look forward to and dread weekends like this--two big football games a day on both Saturday and Sunday! ...And here in LA, it's gonna rain all weekend! I did hard time over the holidays, and now it's all gonna finally pay off!
I find it interesting that so many people who are so appalled at what is happening at GUTMO didn't seem too concerned when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno burned our own citizens to death at Waco. Libitarians and liberals love and will die to protect facist muslims but don't seem to give two shits about the strange if generally harmless Christian kooks down the road.
Libitarians and liberals love and will die to protect facist muslims but don't seem to give two shits about the strange if generally harmless Christian kooks down the road.
I don't know about "libitarians" (or "facists"), but libertarians were and are harshly critical of the Waco slaughter. Reason ran articles denouncing it, as did virtually all the other libertarian publications; I wrote articles attacking it, as did other people now affiliated with the magazine. Actually, I devoted a radio show to criticizing the Waco raid even before the fires broke out. What were you doing then?
"I find it interesting that so many people who are so appalled at what is happening at GUTMO didn't seem too concerned when Bill Clinton and Janet Reno burned our own citizens to death at Waco. Libitarians and liberals love and will die to protect facist muslims but don't seem to give two shits about the strange if generally harmless Christian kooks down the road."
In all the times I've seen Waco come up on this board, our actions in general and Reno's actions in particular have been roundly denounced. Do you have an example of a libertarian who was supportive of what happened at Waco that you can link to? I'm not saying there aren't any, but I'm not aware of one.
I don't know of any libertarians who are as enthusiastic about "fascist Muslims" either; in fact, all the libertarians I know are entirely disgusted by fascists of every kind. I'm starting to wonder if maybe you have us confused with something else. I know that in Europe and in the UK, when they use the word "libertarian", they're talking about something else.
Have you looked us up at Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
Must we now append to every post criticizing the Bush administration a disclaimer that "And of course, what Janet Reno did at Waco was much worse"?
Maybe he was thinking of Libit-Ishtar of Isin; whose law code was one of the sources which Hammurabi used to create his more famous code. 🙂
As I recall the text codified punishments for fornication and adultery (they are pretty gruesome as I recall).
In this case the blogger is attacking those who advocate or believe in (-arian) the Libit-Ishtar law code (Libit-). 🙂
Must ... resist ... urge ... to kill ... entire ... National Review ... Staff ...
For those who are actually interested in John Derbyshire's views on torture, rather than believe Jesse Walker's lies- http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/Torture.htm
Sample quote "Torture of prisoners? - no, not even to save a million lives. Some things are just wrong, and the deliberate torture of suspects is wrong, wrong, wrong".
The fact that so many people are too lazy to actually check out what he has said on the subject but prefer to whip themselves up into self righteous hysteria is unfortunate but not unexpected.
Here was John Derbyshire's first reaction to Abu Ghraib:
"The Abu Ghraib 'scandal': Good. Kick one for me. But bad discipline in the military (taking the pictures, I mean). Let's have a couple of courts martial for appearance's sake. Maximum sentence: 30 days CB."
He has also, as Ross notes, claimed to be opposed to torture. Faced with real torture, though, he has minimized and excused it, from that first reaction to this week's har-har it's-just-frat-fun comments. That makes him an apologist.
By the way, Ross, if you'd bother to read the post you're responding to, rather than spouting false accusations of laziness and lies, you'll find that I said Derbyshire "can't accept the fact that the abuse rises to the level of torture." It's thus perfectly consistent for him to believe he is opposed to torture and to defend the actual existing torture that went on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Cuba.
"Here was John Derbyshire's first reaction to Abu Ghraib:
'The Abu Ghraib 'scandal': Good. Kick one for me. '
As the post is headed "EMOTIONAL ROLLER COASTER" and he makes it clear that he is referring to his emotional gut reaction to the photos, not his intellectual conclusion as you appear to be attempting to imply, so I don't see what that demonstrates other than the fact he is honest enough to admit to unworthy private thoughts.
"to this week's har-har it's-just-frat-fun comments."
In the post which you link to in your initial comment he is expressing shock at what his readers have told him about fraternity initiation ceremonies not dismissing the abuse in Iraq.
"By the way, Ross, if you'd bother to read the post you're responding to, rather than spouting false accusations of laziness and lies"
All things considered I really don't think you are in any position to complain about people "spouting false accusations".
In the post which you link to in your initial comment he is expressing shock at what his readers have told him about fraternity initiation ceremonies not dismissing the abuse in Iraq.
I suppose that's one way to read it. A phenomenally silly way, but everyone's entitled to his own interpretation.
Anyone who understands context and subtext can see what Derbyshire is doing in these posts. He says he's against torture, and then he minimizes and excuses it. In short, he acts as an apologist. Maybe it's all a part of his Grumpy Old Reactionary routine, which I sometimes find entertaining. But it's obviously there.
Oh, and yeah, I know his first comment was an "emotional gut reaction." I don't think he literally wanted a maximum sentence of 30 days CB. But his gut reaction is obviously germane here. A post like that might not be an "intellectual conclusion," whatever that means, but it is a clear announcement about where he's coming from. And so is "If you've just been tapped for a college fraternity and are curious to know what you might have to go through by way of initiation, you might want to do a close reading of the Abu Ghraib scandals."
was the "kick one for me" the up or the down on the derbyshire scream machine?
i have a hard time telling with that guy.
I like nationalreview.com more than most websites devoted to political commentary; but sometimes their writers ignore some important distinctions and make logical non sequiturs; Derbyshire ought to reason better, he is trained in math.
Oh Ross!--and anyone else interested. Walker isn't the only person who read Derbyshire's account that way. Indeed, if you look at the same link, Ramesh Ponnuru posted the following about Derbyshire's comments:
"I PREFER THIS DERBYSHIRE [Ramesh Ponnuru]
"Torture of prisoners? --No, not even to save a million lives. Some things are just wrong, and the deliberate torture of suspects is wrong, wrong, wrong, in some way that the dropping of bombs on cities is not." Perhaps this statement is consistent with your comment today; I suppose it would depend on your definition of "torture." But it sure seems inconsistent.
Posted at 05:42 PM"
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_05_09_corner-archive.asp#031695
--Please note that I added the bold for effect. Also, please note that the phrase "I PREFER THIS DERBYSHIRE" in Ponnuru's comment is hyperlinked to the article Walker quoted.
I presume you'll be e-mailing Ramesh Ponnuru now and accusing him of also being too "lazy" to actually check out what Derbyshire said on the subject and preferring to whip himself up into a "self righteous hysteria" instead? Or, to be perfectly consistent, maybe you'll just go to a public forum somewhere and suggest that Ponnuru is a liar?
P.S. Have you no shame?
This kind of behavior shouldn't come as a surprise.
As I've posted elsewhere, there are a lot of torture apologists--not the ones in the media, but the ones who are driving on the freeway next to you--who were not aware that the Bush Administration had abandoned its torture policy until Gonzo testified the other day. For them, this is their Watergate moment.
I had a relative who, when I was a kid, went door to door for Nixon; when Watergate happened, there must have come a moment when he first realized that he'd been taken. He'd put his name on the line for Nixon, put himself out there for his neighbors to see, and Nixon returned the favor by embarrassing him so.
I imagine that's how these everyday torture apologists feel after Gonzo's testimony. The Bush Administration needed such people to apologize for the use of torture right up until Bush was re-elected, and now that this has been accomplished, the apologists aren't needed anymore--they're being thrown out like so many used Pampers.
How must that feel?
When torture apologists come to the realization that they were cheering for the wrong team, when they realize that they were, morally, on the wrong side of the issue; indeed, when it hits them that the captain of the team used them like a drunk cheerleader and is now laughing about them with his friends, when it all comes crashing down around their heads, we should expect the torture apologists do the same thing that jilted people have done for centuries.
...flail.
Ken-
I'm going to cut'n'paste something I wrote to you in the torture thread above, when you mentioned Watergate:
Ken-
Here's a question I forgot to ask, assuming you're still here: after the Watergate scandal broke, how long did it take for your Nixon-supporting uncle to change his view on Nixon? Did he first go through a phase wherein he invented the most outlandish reasons why what Nixon did wasn't so bad, or at any rate our enemies were far worse? Did he run around asking, "Why do Woodward and Bernstein hate America?" Did he flat-out deny the evidence and say that Nixon's detractors were liars, or invent Orwellian redefinitions of terms like "burglary?"
Somehow I doubt it. The torture apologists have gone beyond mere partisanship, here; I'm reminded more of the medieval Catholic Church, digging in its heels and refusing to look into Galileo's telescope which would tell them Earth is NOT the center of the universe. Let's not let mere FACTS get in the way of our monopoly on power, shall we?
"It's not burglary until you actually sell your stolen goods to a fence, see, and since Liddy and pals made no actual money off of Watergate they didn't really burgle anything, and besides the Viet Cong is some REALLY nasty dudes and do you want to see them take over America? Get a haircut, you goddam hippie."
Jennifer,
My Uncle died with the sudden onset of leukemia in the early eighties--I suspect this was caused by exposure to Agent Orange when he was in Vietnam. I can't ask him your question now.
I remember him telling me a little about how he felt about Nixon after having gone door to door for the guy. I think it was when I was thirteen or fourteen--I was doing the same sort of thing for Ronald Reagan at the time.
It seems to me that there must have been a moment when it first clicked, but, during the Nixon Administration, there would have been many such opportunities. The "Saturday Night Massacre"; seems a likely candidate. Learning that there were tapes of everything, but that the pertinent tapes were missing would have been another. Some people must have been upset with Nixon when he made nice with the Chinese, became a self-described "Keynesian" and took us off the gold standard. I can only imagine the disappointment some of his supporters felt about our withdrawal from Vietnam. When the effects of what we did in Cambodia became apparent, that must of hurt too. I can imagine how I would have felt if I had defended President Nixon through all that mess, and then watched him choose to resign rather than give a full accounting of himself.
A lot of people defended everything Nixon did until the very end.
Humiliation and embarrassment ultimately await the most vocal among lay people who choose which positions to support by simply defending the positions of the President. Those of us who think of ourselves as students of current events first, whose support is a function that flows from analysis, facts and principles, whose support is always tentative, we are much less likely to be taken this way.
That isn't true of the pundits, of course. The pundits abide.
Many people learn these lessons after getting burned--we should be ready to welcome such burn victims with open arms. Half of me wants to apologize for being so hard on them, but the other half wants to make sure that when lay torture apologists get burned, the burn really stings. Otherwise, such people, I suspect, would simply plow forward.
So let me see if I understand Jonah Goldberg's reader's letter's intent.
Japanese treatment of American POW's and Chinese during WWII - Torture
North Vietnamese treatment of American POW's during the Vietnam War - Torture
Americans doing the same to Iraqi/Afghani POWs (excuse me "Enemy Combattants") - Perfectly justified in the name of the Greater Good.
If we as a nation didn't like it when this stuff was done to us, then why would we consider it ok to do to others?