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.

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.

"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.

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....:)

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 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.

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.

This is the reason I don't necessarily separate the tortures that were done following precisely the orders from the top from the ones that didn't. Darius Rejali, in discussing whether or not torture works, makes a clear case for the fact that torture can't be made scientific, can't be made squeaky clean, and always oversteps any bounds. It's because of this: The interrogation goal can't be separated from the confessions and from the delivery of revenge or fear.

That's why Gerald Gray believes that there has been mass torture, and it was created by design: put MPs in exactly the conditions dictated by the Stanford Prison Experiment to cause the descent of Beelzebub (the Lord of the Flies). That creates 'administrative torture', which has as its usual purpose intimidation of an entire population. Dehumanization is one of the prerequisites, together with anonymity of the torturing group, and an authority figure that approves of the behavior (asks them to "soften up prisoners" for instance).

He argues that the chain of command was far too cognizant of Zimbardo and Milgram and hired far too many psychologists to design the program who knew their work for there to have been anything but a deliberate implementation that would obscure the need for direct orders to abuse prisoners. In the event of discovery, the whole thing can then be blamed on the specialists and privates.

That the soldiers themselves pass along the dehumanizing stories and the torture techniques completes the mission of converting the military from a 'timid' organization too 'scared' to 'take the gloves off' to one that takes them off and keeps them off.

Does anybody here still think torture works? Does anybody here still believe torture is effective? Are you fucking kidding me? Did you know the Earth is not flat? Did you know cavemen did not ride dinosaurs to work?

Torture is a form of politcial terrorism. And the best, most experienced terrorists in the world are the Israelis. Just ask Rahm Emanuel's father.

What’s So Bad About Torture?

http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/whats_so_bad_about_torture_20060324/

‘24’ producer Howard Gordon : Our only politics is to have an exciting show

http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/24_producer_howard_gordon_our_only_politics_is_to_have_an_exciting_show_200/

An exciting show, in which torture is condoned and works. an exciting show, in which a nation is propagandized into believing torture works. An exciting show, in which Zionist propaganda brainwashes millions of Americans into giving up their nastion's most cherished values, in order to fight Israel's enemies, in order to fight Israel's wars.

or, don't, about steveindallas, we can be reasonably sure that he doesn't read Scott Horton and knows little of Augustine.

An Epitaph for the Bush Years

What is the message to be carved over this massive cesspool of a failed presidency? I turn to Augustine, the early church father whose writings represent the first effort by a Christian theologian to come to grips with the duties of civil governance. “If it does not do justice,” he writes in the City of God, “what is the government but a great criminal enterprise?” That fits the Bush Administration perfectly, for it shows its key failing and it serves as admonishment to the government that follows him.

In the chapters in which this sentence appears, Augustine reminds us of the importance of process and the risks inherent in the temptation of power. It is easy, he says, for those with an inclination to politics to stumble down a false path. The process of accretion of power becomes means and ends both; the vision of a more noble society which serves humanity fades in favor of the “realities” of the quotidian struggle for still more power. Augustine approaches the problems as part practical political philosopher and part divine. He reaches instructively for the example of a criminal band. How ultimately can a gang of thugs be distinguished from a government? He asks. The question is ironic, but it is also earnest. There is a distinction, and it lies in the concept of justice. Essential to the legitimacy of a government is a commitment to justice in the treatment of the state’s citizens or subjects and in the treatment of other states. Absent this, the state is no more than a criminal enterprise.