It's So Bad, It's Really Quite Good!

The Concord (NH) Monitor editorializes today about the horrors of water-boarding as proven by the willful and self-promoted water-boarding of that notorious belletrist, Christopher Hitchens. Mr. Hitchens writes about his "ordeal" in the August 2008 edition of Vanity Fair.

In the Monitor's somewhat embarrassing essay, "This should quell the debate over use of water-boarding," we find the paper in agreement with Hitchens' dubious verdict that water-boarding is, indeed, torture. The paper also adds that torture is "un-American."

But just a modicum of circumspection here might lead us to conclusions antithetical to the Monitor's deep moral sensibilities. Permit me to make a few simple points; I promise I can prove that there is something not only vapid in both Mr. Hitchens' and the Monitor's conclusions, there is something risible and absurd.

________________________

A SMALL POINT WORTH MAKING

First, let it be noted that Mr. Hitchens has largely been vilified by liberals and Democrats everywhere for his unapologetic support of the invasion of Iraq and the US's deposing of Saddam Hussein. Mr. Hitchens firmly believes in "Islamofascism"; he defends the West at every turn not only from Islamic insanity but also liberal pusillanimity. He is not a friend of the Left, at least when it comes to the "War on Terror." At least he's not been a friend until today.

Second, let me ask a couple of simple questions.

If I clearly warn you that, should you drive on any American highway in an intoxicated condition you will be -- if apprehended -- heavily fined, do you not voluntarily submit to that consequence if you do indeed drive drunk on I-90?

And if I clearly warn you that you will be sentenced to death should you be arrested for kidnapping a child and traveling over state lines with that abducted child (where you rape and murder that child), do you not voluntarily submit to those consequences should you choose such risky and abhorrent behavior?

No doubt I could ask many other questions like these, but I do not want to belabor the point. And the point is this: If we as Americans clearly forewarn our enemies that they will be subjected to water-boarding should they be apprehended, isn't it the case that our enemies voluntarily submit to that risk when they step onto the battlefield to do us harm? Alas, I believe that there is nothing to argue regarding this point: they DO volunteer to be submitted to such consequences.

Hence, let us conclude that Christopher Hitchens has done nothing really interesting here other than to participate in some form of masochism. He volunteered to submit to something considered by folks at the Concord Monitor (and elsewhere) to be nothing short of torture. Alas, he freely chose a set of consequences; as such, he is in every way culpable for his own suffering.

But it is not the case that either Mr. Hitchens or any enemy combatant was unaware of the consequences: what is known beforehand cannot lead to a surprise afterwards. Enemy combatants are not thrown into chaos, into a maelstrom of caprice and deceit; nor was Mr. Hitchens. Enemy combatants KNOW what they are getting into, and yet do not flinch from their paths.

Hence, the Concord Monitor cannot justify supporting Mr. Hitchens self-abuse by arguing that he submitted to water-boarding voluntarily. Mr. Hitchens, just like enemy combatants, knew beforehand what he was getting himself into. (Let it be added that Mr. Hitchens goes to great lengths to inform us about the Americans who have trained to ENDURE water-boarding, proving that at least American soldiers, who become "enemy combatants" when captured by our enemies, surely knew beforehand what they might face should they enter the fray. But it strains credulity to think our enemies are unaware of what they face if captured.)

________________________

MY MAIN POINT, REALLY


In all of this, from the Monitor's editorial to Hitchens' actions, there is a stultifying irony. Late last year, war protesters actually water-boarded a volunteer during a protest in Washington, D.C. as a demonstration of how torturous water-boarding can be. In other words, water-boarding is not so reprehensible and torturous that protesters are unwilling to torture one of their willing friends. No, water-boarding is just torturous enough to give protesters the information they want: that water-boarding is torture.

No doubt liberals, such as the editors at the Concord Monitor, believed quite sincerely that Mr. Hitchens was withholding much needed information, information he quickly and freely handed-over to editorial boards everywhere once he was subjected to torture. But again, water-boarding is not SO bad that any Concord Monitor editor has condemned the water-boarding of Mr. Hitchens. No, no, no. That sort of torture is just fine. Forsooth, Mr. Hitchens has finally received what he no doubt deserved (at least in the minds of his critics) all for the sake of a few empty and hypocritical political points scored by those who had already, a priori, condemned what is at least a very controversial method of interrogation. If water-boarding is too awful to use to extract necessary intelligence from enemy combatants, it is too awful to use to extract moral clarity from "volunteers."

Lastly if -- as the Monitor avers -- torture is undeniably "un-American," it strikes this writer as patently absurd that water-boarding for protest or propaganda IS apparently (at least to the Monitor) consistent with all things American.

Really, it is hard to believe that this is all not a joke.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2008

Can You Say "Oy Vey?" How About "Oops?" Sorry?

[I tip my hat to James Taranto for directing me toward the absurdity -- one that incites laughter and tears -- pulled from the Letters to the Editor section of the Concord Monitor (I used to work for its sister paper) that has inspired this post.]

It is striking how interesting -- and perhaps even prejudiced -- some people can be. Take Mr. Peter Davis of Laconia, NH, for example. Here is a passionate man, full of fire and political consternation. Here is a man clearly given to analyzing the most complicated issues; he is probably noted around the house for his scrupulous attention to detail. He's probably got a ferret's relentlessness for sniffing out balderdash and rot. Surely his recent letter to the editor of the Concord Monitor ably bolsters that perception. If it doesn't, well, then surely it might present him a moment to reflect on his presumed certitude.

In response to an opinion column published in the Monitor on Sunday in which the word 'kafuffle' appeared, Mr. Davis takes a very curious tack. (How could he know that kafuffle can also be spelled 'kerfuffle' and that it comes from the Gaelic words meaning 'confusion' and 'disorder?') See for yourself:

For the Monitor:

What is a "kafuffle"? It's not in the dictionary. Is it just another proofreading error? Or is it a further example of your acquiescence to the Israelization of American culture by attempting to pass obscure Yiddish words into the mainstream of the American language?

It's bad enough that we are steered toward war with the entire Arab world and beyond because our "friend" Israel won't relinquish its occupation of Palestine and make peace with its neighbors. Still we are suckered into giving Israel, the 14th richest country on earth, billions and billions of our tax dollars in foreign aid every year, and we gave it carte blanche to rampage through Lebanon destroying everything in its path and inflicting collective punishment on its people, an aggression internationally condemned as a war crime, yet condoned by the Bush administration and sheepishly accepted by the American people.

How can we hold our heads high and proud when our own county illegally attacks and invades an Arab country that had done nothing to us, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and wrecking their entire infrastructure, clearly Bush war crimes, all for the benefit of Israel because Saddam was assisting the families of Palestinian martyrs in their struggle against the illegal Israeli occupation of their land? We shouldn't be proud to be associated with Israel, and I don't appreciate their insidious adulteration of our language.

PETER DAVIS
Laconia

What Mr. Davis fails to note is that the word was actually coined by George W. Bush during a pig roast in Texas. The president had a huge and happy mouthful of ice cream and peach cobbler when he was asked, "Why are the Israelis building a wall?" Bush replied, "They're fearful." But all the scribes heard was "kerfuffle." So, in a roundabout way, the word does have Jewish origins.

But only to Mr. Davis from New Hampsha!

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.