- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Actually, our minds think alike. I posted what I said because I was not going to let you make it all about porn exploitation.
Now that we have that out of the way, I mentioned the young prisoners in case you wanted a conversation about age based criteria. And I mentioned the female prisoners about Bagram in case it had to be all about women to be worth caring.
I can answer your question about consent. I side with Glenn, that what matters is the law. If you want a different law, try to get one passed. The law says 18 (depending on which law you are asking about) and that means 18.
I'm making it all about torture? And it's wrong, given the comparison? Why don't you answer the question of why the torture matters so much less than the porn? This country has roughly a quarter to a third of the FBI working on internet porn. How many Torture Victims Protection Act trials or investigations you seen lately?
In his book, Inside the Wire, Erik Saar details at length a female interrogator who strips to her underwear, lap dances on a male prisoner, and wipes fake menstrual blood across his face. Now that you know that there were female prisoners at Bagram, and possibly female high-level detainees at black sites, and given that you know that nudity and exploitation of sexual fears were authorized from the top, and given that you know that when the sexes were the other way around it was inappropriate touching, groping, body contact, do you care about porn or rape?
In Africa recently, the biggest (casualty-wise) single war since World War II occurred, in which women had hot coals placed in their recta so they would burn through and create fistulae. Nobody cared, nobody stopped it, nobody even really knew about it.
But you chase me away for "making it all about torture". Okay, I'll go, go back to discussing the porn guy. Nobody talks about sex and porn as much as torture.
