Christopher Hitchen Mans Up.

After making the argument for waterboarding as "extreme interrogation" rather than "outright torture", Hitchens was challenged to actually experience and make a judgement, rather than judging on theory from afar.

Hitchens stepped up to the plate, and you can see the results, and his post waterboarding views in this article:

Linky


I don't have much comment to make, other than I have to give the man a lot of respect for having true enough beliefs that he's willing to undergo something others are calling torture, for the sake of integrity.

You give him far too much credit. Waterboarding is drowning. It's drowning where they hopefully stop before you die, but maybe they don't. That's all it is. It's not simulated, and it's far worse that whatever Hitchens had done to him. Anyone who's ever had a drink go down the wrong way and coughed convulsively in response has had the experience Hitchens had here, which is an unpleasant enough experience already and should convince anyone that waterboarding is torture. It's undoubtedly an experience Hitchens had long before now. But it's not waterboarding. Waterboarding isn't something where you "could stop the process at any time." What distinguishes it from choking convulsively on a drink is precisely that you can't stop it, you have no control, and it's going to continue, with intermissions long enough for you to confess, until you confess, or until the interrogator screws up and you die.

This isn't about Hitchens doing something to himself to show to himself that waterboarding is torture. This is about Hitchens realizing how monumentally stupid the position that waterboarding isn't torture is, and, in a bout of testosterone poisoning, looking for a manly way to change his publicly stated opinion. Hitchens is just far too big a baby to merely admit he was wrong without saving face, and he's willing to take extreme measures to save face. That speaks very poorly of him

I disagree. Without debating the central question of whether water boarding is torture -- it is, IMHO -- any prisoner can have it stop by agreeing to answer the questions put to him. (Whether that information is useful or not is also a separate debate.)

Hitchens did indeed man up and admit he was wrong, and he is a great writer no matter what he's right or wrong about.

I think his about face on this will go a lot farther in making people think than the usual rant from the usual suspects.

I already have a lot of respect from him, despite disagreement on a number of things. This sort of thing is precisely why.

Why would a prisoner in such a situation assume that his torturers will stick to their word? They're the kind of people who will waterboard a man, for crying out loud!

Forget that; even if they stick to their word, if they don't firmly believe that your answers are honest and complete, the torture continues.

No prisoner can stop torture by being honest. Maybe you can stop torture by convincing your interrogator that you're being honest, but that's a far more difficult task than simple honesty, and it's not one that is entirely or even largely within the torture victim's control.

Uh, because the whole purpose of the torture is to get them to talk?

As Pardot has pointed out, that doesn't solve the problem at all.

And in addition, if someone is waterboarding you, chances are they have other motives than simply getting you to talk. To assume otherwise is to assume that your torturers are idiots, and then their word can't be trusted anyway.

What if the person being tortured is actually innocent, but the torturers believe him guilty? They aren't going to believe him just because he says so.

You know, avoiding the obvious logic of Forbin's answer and attacking the messenger for not being ideologically pure enough is exactly why no one listens to anyone anymore.

Having some left wingnut from ANSWER or the New York Times harping about water boarding or too much starch in a prisoner's diet falls on deaf ears to anyone not already convinced.

Having Chris Hitchens, someone who has become a favorite of the pro-war set, do a turnaround is something that might actually change a few minds on the pro-war side

Plus how long have we had people demanding those who support water boarding undergo it? Well, he did.

And you're going to excoriate him for that?

Does he even know you? :flow2:

I guess I don't have a problem with making known al-Qaida members talk, however it's done.

If we got a hold of al-Zawahiri, it wouldn't break my heart if we peeled him like an onion until we got info on bin Laden or the rest of al-Qaida.

If al-Qaida wants protection, it should start wearing uniforms.

I always respect Hitch..even if I don't agree with everything he says because He's one of the few liberals that understands the real threat of Terrorism also He never fell for the Clinton's..plus he's the guy who made Keith Olberman cry..(well not really but he ruffed him up so badly he stopped having opposing viewpoints on his programs because he can't hold his own in a debate).


Even after this I don't think it's so bad to waterboard Terrorist suspects in some cases.

Or just plain sadism.

It's a touch of sadism and a touch of dehumanization, and a whole hell of a lot of rationalization. It's got nothing to do with getting people to talk, or at least nothing to do with getting people to talk truth. What it does is get victims to say things that, if thoroughly unreasonably taken at face value, justify whatever actions the torturer or his superiors were planning to take anyway. Torture is perfect for getting false confessions and getting people to falsely name names to be rounded up. Torture rarely, if ever, works better than more friendly interrogation techniques to get actionable and accurate intelligence.

All while you pose all indignant to show your moral superiority while dismissing Hitchens, how many minds do you change?

According to government sources, they had quite a number of "accidents" that lead to the deaths of prisoners.

Sometimes you can defeat the purpose by being a little too ambitious.

Apprently I've lived too sheltered a life.

I never said it was about Hitchen's showing to himself that waterboarding is torture. In fact, I said the complete opposite.

Hitchens intended on proving his view that it was merely an interrogation technique. He was challenged to undergo something that was close enough to torture. Just because you can ask someone to stop ripping out your toenails and salting the wounds after they've done three, doesn't mean your toes don't hurt.

After undergoing this, he reassessed his opinion, and publicly changed his mind.

How many people are willing to make such a strong stand, and then irrevocably admit they were wrong?

THAT is what is wrong with society nowadays. So many people are too proud to admit that they might be wrong, to change their views with new evidence.

He risked a lot by doing this, but it is a sign of great integrity that he was willing to.

Do you honest to fucking god believe that ANYONE would completely randomly reassess their (accused fanatical) position without outside persuasion, and then in a show to be "manly", undergo the metaphorical toenail pulling, or the literal sensation of being disorientated, helpless, drowning, and comatose, with real long term risks to his health, in order to save face?

THAT is a twisted point of view.

Does the following phrase "stop stop please stop I'll do anything I'll say whatever you want me to please make it stop" mean anything to you?

Now, consider someone who didn't know anything. Someone who wasn't involved, or at least, not at any useful level. Is a "confession" out of them really worth anything?

And how do you tell which are useful and which aren't? If there's no specifics, and people are under pressure to get results, and someone confesses, what is the chance that because they simply say "yes" to every charge, that they actually mean it, and aren't just fighting for their torture to end?

I think that needing to have someone who shares at least some ideology with you undergo torture to understand it is torture is more a commentary on that person than the persuasiveness of the usual rant from the usual suspects.

Maybe, and maybe not. Who gives a fuck?

How many neo-cons are going to be convinced to rethink based on yet another rant from the hippie left, compared to how many who respect Hitchens' opinions?

Are you interested in posturing, or actually changing minds? Your statement suggests the former.

Or maybe, the issue is, needing someone you respect to have empirical evidence to allow you to agree with views by people who you actively despise.

For example, Fred Phelps. It would take a lot for me to listen to anything he had to say. What it would take, is someone I respected, to say "actually, the man has a point. And I KNOW this because ... <proof>".

Does that make me any less of a person for disregarding anything that comes out of Phelps mouth?

Every single person here has people they respect, and people they ignore as banshees and their flying monkeys. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or a hermit.

Sometimes, the messenger obscures the message.

With Hitchens, many were ignoring the message because of the messenger. Hitchens said to the messanger "okay, show me what you've got". He could easily have written them off as posturing banshee monkeys. But he didn't. And when he stood up,they stood up. And he went through with it.

And now, he has shown he has learnt from the experience.

That is what we call a GOOD THING.

And he is telling people about how actually, his original message was wrong.

That is a GOOD THING.

And he is someone that the people who need to hear the message will listen to.

That is also called a GOOD THING.



I know you see him as a banshee monkey, but please stop.
It doesn't matter what his beliefs are, the point is he was willing to have them challenged, and he was willing to admit when he was wrong.

And that is the sign of INTEGRITY.

One would think that the strength of an idea would be sufficient, but it seems that unless they get their information from the right source, they won't believe the truth of it.

Says the guy that totally bought the CBS document forgeries, IIRC.




Dammit I miss Jeriko...

If echo chamber party-line bulimics changed minds, then people like Bill Maher, that Daily Kos faggot, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, and Ann Coulter would be thought leaders.

And yet they're just idiots no one with any sense listens to.

Human nature, it seems, does not work that way. Thankfully.

As least I can say, I ain't responsible for the shit this nation is in right now.

Worst president in history. Worst leader of a major nation in modern history. Worst military misadventure in our nation's history. Worst economic performance of any president in generations.

You know, 8 years ago we were earning more on average than almost any of the EU nations. Now that the dollar has died, and average income (after inflation) has risen less than 1% in 7.5 years, we're now doing worse than the average EU nation.

Anyone who believes in reasoned argument should.

If people change their mind not because of logic but because X authority figure says so, I consider that unfortunate.

Sure, it's better (in this case) that they change their mind than not. But it says something about the potential for coming to common ground if it's dependent on a cult of personality rather than thinking.

In a sense I'd almost prefer it if someone was like, "I thought waterboarding wasn't torture before and just because someone experienced something like it says it's torture now doesn't change my mind."

In short, the end of convincing neo-cons doesn't need to make me happy about the means.

Moreover, I don't think it will necessarily lead to the next step of saying, "Waterboarding is torture. We as a country should be above torture."

I think it's more likely that people will say, "So it's torture. I don't care if some Al-Qaida fuck gets tortured though."

But it seems like there are at least a couple right-wingers who thought this morning that waterboarding wasn't torture.

Did Hitchens change your mind about that, or whether America should stop that and similar practices?

Has anyone considered the notion that Hitchens is a giant sissy mary who would give up state secrets during a tickle fest?

I guess I don't see that as a very good comparision for a couple reasons.

1. Phelps is an extreme voice, whereas it's not just some fringe loonies saying waterboard is torture.

2. Phelps is talking about religion and he Bible and topics that one can't just figure out by thinking about it. By contrast, it seems like the very concept of nearly drowning someone again and again can fairly easily be worked out as torture.

At the same time, it's still a sad state of affairs IMO that it needed someone to tell them that it's torture, much as I think it would be sad (but good) if grownups needed a famous scientist to tell them the Earth really is round.

I don't have anything really for or against Hitchens. I haven't really read him, don't know much about what he stood for other than he was in some debates with Al Sharpton about whether God exists.

If time permits, I might read the piece you linked to.

Anyway, I have no quarrel with him or what he did in writing this article or in having the original viewpoint that repeatedly near-drowning someone wasn't torture (other than to think him willfully blind.) And now he can see. Amazing grace, how sweet it is.