comfort torture

Yesterday, Tuesday April 10, I saw an article by Mr. Joseph Kahn at the New York Times on China's mistreatment of one of its intellectuals. If you read the Times, you've read the same article about a hundred times before. They love writing articles about evil foreign regimes while luxuriating in the pink bubble bath background assumption that "we" aren't anything like that. And thus Kahn was more than willing, when referring to China's treatment of its reformist intellectuals, to use a word that has become, recently, "contested": torture. Earlier this year, in January, I contacted another Times reporter, Mr. Scott Shane, who was unwilling to use the 'T' word in an unqualified way concerning our treatment of detainees at Guantanomo. The contrast between these two uses of the word 'torture' is what prompted me to contact both authors.

Scott Shane is the author of the January 18, 2007 article mentioned below, which is behind a TimesSelect firewall, titled "NEWS ANALYSIS; White House Retreats Under Pressure"

Hello Mr. Shane. I had to send a note to your colleague Joseph Kahn about this whole issue of torture, and your name came up. I thought I should send you the note as well. The note below refers to today's article by Mr. Kahn, found here, titled "China Dissident Says Confession Was Forced." Best wishes, Swifty

Mr. Kahn,

But surely you can't trust people who have been tortured to tell the truth. I mean look at Guantanomo! I am sure that today American citizens and policy makers feel a lot more sympathy for the Chinese government given our experience lately. Yesterday, for instance, your colleague Tim Golden reported in the NYT concerning Guantanomo that "the current hunger strike — in which 12 of the 13 detainees were being force-fed as of Friday — seems almost symbolic." See how your perspective on these things changes when you are the one doing the torturing? You start to notice that people who are being tortured and abused (by you) are such whiners. Commander Robert Durand called the Guantanomo prisoner complaints "propaganda" and I'm sure the Chinese government feels the same way about Mr. Gao. In your piece, you write: "[Mr. Gao] said his captors had forced him to sit motionless in an iron chair for extended sessions that totaled hundreds of hours, surrounded him with bright lights and used other torture techniques aimed at breaking his will." But those aren't really "torture" techniques, are they? I had an e-mail exchange with another colleague of yours a while back, a Mr. Scott Shane on the topic of torture and Guantanomo. I wrote to him on January 19, 2007 concerning an article he authored, as follows:

Mr. Shane, you write: "Some of those C.I.A. prisoners were interrogated using techniques far harsher than anything approved in earlier wars, including waterboarding, a simulated drowning that many human rights advocates believe crossed the line into torture."

Torture, our dictionary tells us, is the "infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion." So it's not just "many human rights advocates" who think waterboarding is torture. You, Scott Shane, and any other reasonable person who reflects for a moment about this procedure knows immediately and naturally that it is torture. You wrongly slander yourself and all others who are not openly engaged as human rights advocates by leaving the honor of opposing this obvious method of torture soley to 'advocates,' who, it is implied, are merely an interest group of some kind with its own, debatable notion of what torture is. There is no reasonable debate possible on the question of whether or not waterboarding is torture. Don't you agree? Thanks very much for the opportunity to comment.

Mr. Shane was kind enough to write back to me:

Swifty, Thanks for the thoughtful note. I certainly see your point. But the fact is that 1) there's no clear and certain information on how waterboarding was conducted, and 2) the Bush administration argues that everything it's done, including waterboarding, was not torture. So as a reporter I can't take sides.   regards Scott Shane

Perhaps you feel a bit embarassed now, Mr. Kahn, using the word "torture" so loosely and irresponsibly, without having checked with the Chinese government concerning their view. All that long sitting in an iron chair -- is it really torture? Do you really have "clear and certain information" about how all this supposed mistreatment was conducted? And if the Chinese government says "no, that's not torture," then how can you, a reporter, take sides? Where, sir, are your journalistic ethics?

Comments

[Matt]

Ah yeah The New York Times..I've heard of them.

[CR]

There. You've got it in black and white, right there. Beautifully done, Swifty.

[michel]

To equate US policy with the horrors inflicted upon millions by China and Russia is akin to comparing a parking meter violation to the crime spree of Ted Bundy.

Get over yourself. Your self-righteousness appalling.

[CR]

I didn't realize that "torture" was a quantitative concept. Learn something everyday....

Do it once, or a thousand times = you're being quite mean
Do it a "million" times = you're a torturer, buddy...

[Robert Hopt]

michel,
One of the positive things about living in a country with relatively free and public political communication is that denizens of such a place can (and of course should) use this leniency to our advantage. (I type 'our' assuming you're also American) Such as by declaiming that torture by our executive branch is 'torture' to whomever will listen.
I would gladly be called 'self-righteous' for such a thing.
Even your whiny analogy admits that this torture (parking meter violation) is a crime.
Let me conclude with an imaginary scenario: Let's say that you're a bystander watching some jackass double-park in a metered parking spot on a busy street, without paying for it. You could get him ticketed for a parking meter violation.
...well in this example the guy double-parking in a metered spot is really an Army sergeant half-drowning an American citizen, chaining him upright to an exposed wall and keeping him awake with cold water and deafening Led Zeppelin, every day for three or four years... and forcing his throat open with a plastic tube to keep him from killing himself in shame. Rinse, repeat, refuse to bring charges or release, remove basic habeas corpus rights and confidentiality with one's lawyer.
...hell man, I'd put the FUCKING PARKING METER VIOLATION TICKET under his windshield myself... no matter how they PARK CARS in China.

[Dave McDougall]

Robert, I nominate you for the Chair of the Analogy Department at Long Sunday. Do I hear a second?

[Pozo]

To equate US policy with the horrors inflicted upon millions by China and Russia is akin to comparing a parking meter violation to the crime spree of Ted Bundy.

Sehr gut Michel. Occasionally the LScheks seem to have misplaced their Heineken-stained cliffnotes to Contextualism 101......(and that recent book by ex- red guard or ex-concubine on Maoist atrocities has been conveniently relegated to the remainder file. Who cares about redmonkey Mao when there's a hick like Cheney to barbeque)

[patrick j. mullins]

Yeah, pozo and michel, this is getting good when they at least start making the comparisons between such entities as the 'U.S.' and 'China', given that the only defense is to stay off the subject. Swifty writes good things sometimes, but doesn't perhaps do exhaustive enough research; he'd easily find that there are innumerable articles and editorials and and op-eds on the U.S. tortures. Very selective, but still the comparison is made from the left-leaning side, which can be a bit hilarious once started. The trick is to stay on them and not let up, because even the admirable and courageous arpege Chabert will start accusing you of knee-jerk rhetoric if you get started on Stalinist and Maoist miseries: All admission into non-embarassment to go ahead and prod includes is not thinking that the club of sad liberalism is all that much more toney, even if it has more filligree, than the coarse stuff of the conservatives and wingnuts. And, of course, torture is both quantitative and not quantitative. People getting laid off by huge corporations is terrible; but I distinctly remember a lot of talk of how Valerie Plame's 'career was ruined', and this was considered serious (and it is) even while thousands of proles lost their jobs (that's also serious.)

I suppose there has to be some false premise upon which to divide the unsubtle of both left and right, leaving some sort of high wire for anyone interested in not making comparisons, ultimately, with Chinese and U.S. torture. In the meantime, it's a worthwhile avocation--given all the activism and even the small research--once the left-leaning resort to it, because they lose their case instantly if they actually write the exposition, handing the more realist camp (which is not the right) a very nice plate of food. You see, pozo, I think Swifty has inadvertently perhaps presented us with a turning point, because before it has been necessary to go on the offensive against Stalin and Mao--those oh-so-different ones from Hitler. Well, the differences are not all that noticeable, except that in the Hitler case more ruling-class people were murdered. Now, in the zeal to pretend that the Paper of Record is just one more tabloid--which is very little different from pretending that the simulacrum and hyperreal is 'what we mostly live in by now'--we have one or two examples of people in pink bubble-bath (presumably sunken bathtubs in better taste perhaps than Bob Guccione would have used), and on their way to the Carlyle to hear Karen Akers, who are as dreadfully removed from Chinese prisons as are theorists from most of the things they talk about except tenure and faculty meetings. Or so it does seem.

[CR]

All admission into non-embarassment to go ahead and prod includes is not thinking that the club of sad liberalism is all that much more toney, even if it has more filligree, than the coarse stuff of the conservatives and wingnuts.

?
?
?

That is quite a sentence, PJ.

[Swifty]

patrick j. mullins writes:

before it has been necessary to go on the offensive against Stalin and Mao--those oh-so-different ones from Hitler. Well, the differences are not all that noticeable, except that in the Hitler case more ruling-class people were murdered [end mullins]

Yes well that I agree with. The differences are not all that noticeable. But there were plenty of ruling class people killed in Russia and China.

michel writes: To equate US policy with the horrors inflicted upon millions by China and Russia is akin to comparing a parking meter violation to the crime spree of Ted Bundy. [end michel]

To equate US torture practices with a parking meter violation, to quote patrick j. mullins, "is very little different from pretending that the simulacrum and hyperreal is 'what we mostly live in by now'.

[CBR]

I thought the issue was whether what the US did is properly called "torture," not whether the US is as bad as China.

[patrick]

'I thought the issue was whether what the US did is properly called "torture," not whether the US is as bad as China.'

Well, it is, and it is properly called 'torture' once we finally officially are known to have joined that club. It matters little what Mistah Gonazales and Ms. Rice like to think. But 'whether the US is as bad as China' is of importance too. I agree with CR that torture is not quantitative, except that it also is--because casualties of 100,000 or 6 million are worse in an important way than 1,000. Ditto if these are torture victims.

In all fairness, Swifty has written previously of his full awareness of Mao's crimes, and on this blog. The reason such a sophomoric-sounding thing comes up from time to time is that strict leftists feel weakened talking about it, because they are left--and perhaps legitimately--with the need to define some reasons why their cherished systems will now work in a way they heretofore have not--although some claim Cuba, I tend to think they may admire Castro as much as I do more than think that Cuba is a model socialist country.

Anyway, it's most likely the argument here is whether the Paper of Record, which is in bad odour with Swifty and CR, uses the 't' word enough. It may not use it enough, but I've still seen it a lot.

CR--I have to admit I had a hard time figuring out that sentence after I wrote it, despite its orchidaceous beauty. If dashes are placed after 'non-embarassment' and before 'includes', it is then slightly more comprehensible. Even so, there is some imperfect grammar, and what seems to be a characteristic run-on sentence proves itself to actually be in short-hand.

Still praying to hear about how the NINETEEN SUPERSTUDENTS read the Robbe-Grillet instead of the Quran before slipping off unnoticed to the West Virginia countryside (or was it Nova Scotia), so drones and Laura-Bush-placed explosives were put into motion..

[patrick]

[end mullins]

Is that a new CIA operation? Many would find it worthy of Apocalypse Now treatment, I say while quaking in my shoes.

[CBR]

>Well, it is, and it is properly >called 'torture' once we finally >officially are known to have joined that >club.

So whether or not it's torture depends on who is doing it? Not on what is being done? Something seems a little fishy about that criterion, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

[patrick]

'So whether or not it's torture depends on who is doing it?'

I already made it clear that I meant just the opposite, CBR. That's the 3rd time you've queried me on something I find silly, so stop doing it.

'Something seems a little fishy'

You. Another slippery type who can't hear what somebody has said, so they just keep bullshitting. Therefore, since you even asked me 'how I knew Rod Stewart was freaked', which was quite impertinent, I will tell you that we (at least you and I) will only discuss whether the U.S. is as bad as Mao's China and Stalin's Russia. Anything more subtle and detailed, see if somebody else will discuss it with you. From now one, you and I stay on rudiments or I'll just ignore your queries if they are directed at something I've written, as you are asking in what is clearly bad faith. I'm not familiar with you, you just appeared recently.

The answer for you, since you are a mere irritant, is no, the U.S. is not as bad as China or Russia, never has been and never will be--yes, even with assholes like the Bushies. Is that clear? because that's the kind of answer you might be able to understand.

[Swifty]

the U.S. is not as bad as China or Russia, never has been and never will be--yes, even with assholes like the Bushies

But doesn't that make the mistake that Jon Stewart warns us against? Remember when the Abu Gahrib photos came out, and Bush said something like, "this isn't America; this isn't us; we don't torture." And Jon Stewart commented along the lines of, "and so it's okay if we torture people, as long as we are not the kind of people who torture." That is, Bush seemed to be implying that our American 'essence' remains untouched by anything we might actually do (unless what we do is in accord with that essence, in which case 'doing' and 'being' match up just fine). But our essence is not guaranteed against any and all encroachments of our doing -- I'm sure we all agree with that, don't we? If I say I am an upstanding heterosexual anti-gay-agenda Protestant fundamentalist televangelist, and then I go and just have one session of hot gay crystal meth sex, what am I? Can I keep my upstanding anti-gay 'essence' or does my one little hot gay crystal meth session destroy all that? My commitment to my essence will probably get me to excuse, justify, repress, and lie about the 'incident,' that one time I did crystal meth and had gay sex -- which by the way didn't happen once, but has been happening pretty much once a month for a couple of years now.

This is what people mean by denial -- a pop-culture term that despite its overuse still points to something actual. Ted Haggard was "in denial" about his sexuality. What he was 'denying' was that there could be any real effect on what he (essentially) 'is' regardless of what he actually did. His 'essence' and his 'being' were two different things. The 'ideal,' so to speak, would be that all empirical being, all Ted Haggard actions and thoughts, would conform to the ideal. But of course that's impossible, because we're naturally fallen -- no one, the religionists tell us, can really equate to the ideal; "we're all sinners." Even when we're being good and not having hot gay crystal meth massages we're still not all that close to an ideal that remains pure and undisturbed even by genuine attempts to express or attain to it. But if our inability to approach the ideal frustrates us we can console ourselves with the fact that if we do give in to the devil within us and make "just one more" appointment at the Beefcake Parlor for the deluxe 'rolfing,' we still don't really touch the ideal -- because how can the ideal be touched or sullied by inconsequential me?

My essence is undisturbed by non-essence-tial acts; America 'does not torture' -- even when we torture. In fact, so true is this that we will accuse other nations -- perhaps quite accurately -- of being engaged in torture with an implied moral superiority of someone who does not do that kind of thing. Just as Haggard continued to demonize gays at public events only hours after gaying. So true is it that we don't torture that torture techniques themselves like waterboarding and so on no longer qualify as torture.

[patrick]

Swifty, the line of mine you quoted was a throwaway line because I was annoyed with CBR? Are you CBR? I already said torture by whoever was the same, even if in different quantities, and not so much a time-honoured tradition. Obviously if we are now doing it, it's the same. I'll go back and read your post now, but I'll assume you are CBR, or maybe the crystal-meth gay-tainted experimenter who can return to wholeness with a will to power--or were you talking about Haggard? I can't remember how many times a month he was fucking that number.

[patrick]

'I'm not talking 'bout moving in
and I don't want to change your life
but there's a warm wind blowing, the stars are out
and I really love to see you tonight
we could go walking through a windy park
take a drive along the beach
or stay at home and watch t.v.
you see it really doesn't matter much to me'

You look like James Spader, I bet.

Tee hee. Was that guy a bona fide rolfer? That's so archaic by now, they probably skip the professional foreplay.

'Gaying?' Oh Lord, what next.

'My essence is undisturbed by non-essence-tial acts'

That's good--like a combination of translated Heidegger and the Course in Miracles.

'Even when we're being good and not having hot gay crystal meth massages we're still not all that close to an ideal that remains pure and undisturbed even by genuine attempts to express or attain to it.'

Doesn't that depend on the person? Some people who wear married-couple-type men's sweaters might attain this if they wouldn't lie so much about nouveau roman authors.

'But if our inability to approach the ideal frustrates us we can console ourselves with the fact that if we do give in to the devil within us and make "just one more" appointment at the Beefcake Parlor for the deluxe 'rolfing,' we still don't really touch the ideal -- because how can the ideal be touched or sullied by inconsequential me?'

Yes, it would have made more sense to just go there regularly, because 'giving in the devil' is a way of attaining the ideal--except that when you're doing a double life like Haggard, it's pretty much too late, because he could only find the ideal in the hustler. But that's life, now, isn't it? People aren't always equally successful at achieving various goals. Haggard wanted to be like the hustler, so he imported when he could; but it was like going to a Jungian therapist too infrequently when one needs it--not nourishing enough, more like just another Sleazeburger from MacDo's.

[patrick]

HOW TO CONTINUE THE 'GAYING' TILL YOU GET REAL RESULTS!

'Oh, one last kiss,
Gimme one last kiss,
It never felt like 'is,
No, baby, not like 'is,
You know I need your love.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Oh, give me one last kiss!
Oh, one more time,
Oh, baby, one more time,
It really is sublime,
Oh honey, so sublime!
You know I need your love.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Oh, give me one last kiss,
Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-aby-y-y, give me one last kiss!
Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-aby-y-y, give me one last kiss!
Oh, one last kiss,
Give me one last kiss,
It never felt like 'is,
No, never felt like this,
You know I need your love.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Oh, give me one last kiss!
One last kiss, one last kiss,
Oh, give me one last kiss!
One last kiss, one last kiss,
Oh, give me one last kiss!'

Strouse/Adams, 'One Last Kiss' from 'Bye Bye Birdie'

[CBR]

Obviously, I misunderstood the quote you used. But it was a confusing quote--"joined that club" seems to tie the question of whether or not an action is torture to its relation to countries like China, so it shouldn't be hard to see where my misunderstanding stems from. If I find your posts murky, apparently that means they are nuanced and I am too rudimentary a thinker to follow. Perhaps this could be interpreted as arrogance, but I will allow for the possibility that you are having a bad day.

I asked about Rod Stewart because I thought the answer would potentially make a good story, not because I wanted to insinuate that you were bullshitting, so your defensiveness is unwarranted.

I have no idea what the third impertinence was.

People misunderstand each other and talk past each other sometimes--there's no need to act like a preening asshole who can't stand the fact that others haven't pored over his words like Talmudic scholars; I missed your point, and I'm sorry for that, but I don't appreciate the invective.

[patrick]

'If I find your posts murky, apparently that means they are nuanced and I am too rudimentary a thinker to follow.'

It might mean that.

'Perhaps this could be interpreted as arrogance, but I will allow for the possibility that you are having a bad day.'

Very generous, because then..

'there's no need to act like a preening asshole'

So much for the possibility that I 'was having a bad day.' (I wasn't.)

'who can't stand the fact that others haven't pored over his words like Talmudic scholars;'

Then shut up if you can't figure out after much demonstration and repetition.

'I missed your point, and I'm sorry for that,'

No, you're not. You wanted to miss it. That was the only place you could find a sense of 'home.'

'but I don't appreciate the invective.'

Honey, grow up. This is the flat shit of internetspeak. I'm just tired of having to re-explain things to you, but even though you know who I am, I don't know who you are, so you might as well have put 'Anonymous' for all I know. Your use of the >'s does recall someone, but I thought he at least knew better than to keep acting like Wittgenstein slipping around the parks; on second though, no I don't. Still.. no big deal..

Sorry, Swifty, no offense intended. Really to anybody, but, as the redoubtable Arpege Chabert would say, you may ask me to leave and 'we'll go quietly', as the Queen of England once lied.