You have both a son and a brother who have served/are serving in both Afghanistan and Iraq?

He is probably from "the south" if you catch my drift.

but maybe a touch proud too that such reasoning is so abhorrent it doesn't occur to me

That's because you suffer from being a good human being, something that I would have to place into question for anyone who supports torture.

using torture has nothing to do with any kind of utility but is more about asserting dominance, power and authority

Precisely, which is why I analogize it to rape. The scary thing is how quickly the moral taboo against justifying torture fell away... and how tenuous a grasp so many among us have on their humanity.

Were it not for Mona's timely exploration of the potential use of her coochie as supplementary carry-on luggage, I can't tell you how depressed I'd be.

It's nice around here when the trolls go home.

But I effing messed it up by writing "here me." But heck, it is late, I'm tired, and this is when comments get off the rail.

I'm so far off the rails, I didn't notice until you brought it up. Maybe I was distracted by the ticking in my Depends....:)

"You put someone in their 20's in a situation where they face gunfire on a pretty frequent basis."

I realize I'm late to the party, but I find this distorted sentiment especially noteworthy, as it seems to be the birthing point of so much fatalistic and equivocal rationalization for torture arguments. Such a mindset, evincing the myth of youthful innocence, impressively marginalizes the many actual human persons of ages 1 through 19 out there living assertively in a world of choices.

One wonders how exactly these "left with no choice but to" justifications can securely take root within the minds of a scattering of citizens in a nation employing a volunteer military. The best answer I've come up with is the inadequate theorization of the discourse of childhood.

Laugh. Out. Loud.

Mona, that was funny!

Thanx.

But I effing messed it up by writing "here me." But heck, it is late, I'm tired, and this is when comments get off the rail.

Yes, you're right. I feel silly not having thought of that aspect myself, but maybe a touch proud too that such reasoning is so abhorrent it doesn't occur to me since the substance of Steve's story was some sort of 24-esque supreme emergency style rationalization for atrocity, so I was trying to think how the prurient details played any role.

Of course they don't, it's the "these savages deserve it" and thus the notion of some impending attack that these soldiers must avert has nothing to do with why the woman must be tortured. She's pure evil and torturing her will somehow help in a way that only makes sense to addled authoritarians.

Going down this road scares me because we are opening the can of worms where the right admits that using torture has nothing to do with any kind of utility but is more about asserting dominance, power and authority to put fear into America's foes. In a way, it's almost better letting them pretend they "reluctantly" accept the necessity for torture under extreme circumstances. It's a more pleasant fiction than dealing with the actual monsters under the bed which are far uglier.

Re: force-feeding captives

Tube feeding is not per se torture or cruel and unusual punishment. Ordinarily, it is considered uncomfortable and the procedure of inserting the tube is sometimes painful, though when properly done, it needn't be. I'm familiar with the procedure, and I've seen well done examples as well as examples that have gone wrong.

Force-feeding captives, however, appears to be done to deliberately cause pain and discomfort -- as much as possible, for as long as possible -- both to punish the captives for their defiance of authority (by going on a hunger strike in the first place) and to dissuade them from continuing (so as to avoid the pain.)

This report of an ACLU suit appeared in Raw Story a couple of weeks ago:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote a letter to US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Friday protesting the "inhumane and unlawful practice" of force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay prison.

"I am writing to bring your attention to the cruel, inhuman, degrading and unlawful treatment of the thirty hunger striking detainees currently held at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility," wrote ACLU Human Rights Program director Jamil Dakwar.

Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said there were 34 hunger strikers at the prison and that 25 of them were being force-fed. The ACLU said it based its estimates on media reports.

"Force-feeding is universally considered to be a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," Dakwar wrote to Gates.

"We respectfully and urgently request that you immediately order the prison camp's commander to cease all force-feeding of detainees who are capable of forming a rational judgment and are aware of the consequences of refusing food."

Dawkar also cited various reports that found that force-feeding at Guantanamo Bay amounted to torture and violated several US Supreme Court holdings and international agreements, including the Convention Against Torture ratified by the United States in 1994.

Lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees told AFP that force-fed prisoners were masked and strapped to a chair twice a day and were force fed protein-rich liquids through tubes inserted in their noses. The lawyers said the practice amounted to torture.

"Debilitating risks of force-feeding include major infections, pneumonia and collapsed lungs," said Dawkar, recalling that five detainees have died in custody at the US naval base prison.

Smith defended detainee care at Guantanamo Bay. "As always, our dedicated medical staff provides superb health care to all detainees, and they closely monitor the health of those detainees who choose to hunger strike," she said.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/afp/ACLU_protests_force_feeding_Guantan_01092009.html

There's been some dispute over whether the procedures now in use are less stressful and painful than those previously used at Guantanamo. Nevertheless, the description above is not at all comforting.

As for prolonged isolation, it has long been known to drive prisoners quite mad. The barking mad prisoner caused by being held in solitary for too long is almost iconic of the prison novel genre c. 1800 and onwards. The Quaker penitentiary experiment in Philadelphia was a true horror that served as a model for other penitentiaries. While it may turn inmates into wimpering madmen, seems that's kind of what they wanted, eh?

And so, perhaps, the misery of encagement and abuse at Guantanamo and the rest of the GWOT gulag is meant for the same purpose.