The quicker we get Sean Hannity waterboarded the better. But we can hope for better than merely shutting him up about whether or not waterboarding is torture. Let’s figure out WHAT we can waterboard him for!
Is there a secret we want to extract from Sean Hannity? Or is there just something he’s done for which America could feel comfort in exacting redress? Wouldn’t that be the real point of torture? And actually, not to draw Hannity’s blood, but to extrude the shit from his colleagues looking on, who might fancy themselves next, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, et al.
I understand Hannity already has a volunteer to administer the procedure, what we really need is the person to direct it. To issue the thumbs up or thumbs down, irrationally, to heighten the torment.
Hannity has volunteered to subject himself to what he considers no more than fraternity hazing. Olberman has offered $1,000 for ever second Hannity lasts. Which I predict will be calculated in fragments of the first second. A subject of waterboarding can hold his breath, but the torturers will start the clock by forcefully expelling that reserve. Waterboarding begins when the victim gasps for air, and inhales water instead.
The media debate around waterboarding asks two questions. Is waterboarding torture? And does torture work? Both questions are flawed. The first is simply an insult, the second is misdirected.
Perhaps the average American is disconnect enough from reality to question whether the unimaginable can be. If you’ve never stepped into the sea, you can speculate that water is not really wet. Fast-food eating television viewers can wonder, does the stove burn?
Does torture work? Of course it does. To wonder if torture is an effective method of interrogation is to get the question entirely wrong.
In one debate about the efficacy of torture, the FBI claims the with one terror suspect they were making gains with psychological methods until the CIA seized custody in order to give the waterboard a try. Apparently with no success, after which the FBI had another promising run interrupted by another CIA inter-department rendition. Sound like the ol’ good agency, bad agency interrogation ploy to you?
Ignored in the torture efficacy assessment is the absence of a control sample. Did the subject have anything to reveal? How unfair to judge an interrogator if his subject doen’t have a secret to crack. And even that misses the point. What is the purpose of torture? Is it to extract information, such as learning of ticking time-bombs to save innocent lives, or is it about preemptive subjugation of people?
To torture someone is to terrorize them with their own helplessness under the thumb of brutal inhumanity. Torture is directed less against the terrorized subject themselves, than the public looking on. Torture is terror. It get the predicate reversed in the phrase “Global War On Terror.” Terror is the subject not the object; actually the objective. It’s the Global War OF Terror. In our GWOT, torture is an important weapon in the US arsonal, and of course it works. Against brave people, it “works” solely to provoke them.