Political Culture: Who’s Torturing Who?

Thursday, May 8th, 2008 by Jon Cummings

I’ve been feeling a lot of pressure to see Standard Operating Procedure, the new Errol Morris documentary about the goings-on at Abu Ghraib. I had already seen Taxi to the Dark Side, the Oscar-winning account of the detainee abuses at Guantanamo Bay and the Bagram prison in Afghanistan, as well as Rory Kennedy’s Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, so of course I needed to see S.O.P. in order to be a torture “completist.” I had read my good friend Bob Cashill’s review of S.O.P. here on Popdose a couple weeks back, and I can’t stand it when he knows something I don’t. Plus I had Jeff Giles (that sadistic bastard) hounding me to see it, claiming he wanted to hear my “take” on it. Frankly, I felt like multiple forces of man and nature were holding a filthy rag over my face and pouring Standard Operating Procedure down my throat.

Harold and Kumar at GitmoSo I went – dutifully, and with a sense of dread. And when it was over I felt suitably disturbed, disgusted with my government…unclean, even…and mostly I just wanted to see a normal movie. Perhaps one in which I could scarf my popcorn without worrying about getting a screenful of electrode-laden testicles. So I went to the multiplex, looking for a bit of frivolity, and the marquee read “Harold and Kumar.” Great! A light stoner comedy with the R-rated promise of a little T&A. So I go in, and it starts out nice and funny and a little dirty, and then these two ethnic guys head into an airplane toilet with a battery-powered bong, and…goddammit! There’s Gitmo again! WTF!?!

You know perfectly well I made that last part up. I apologize – but how else was I supposed to rationalize the fact that I’m probably the only person in America (apart from Ebert & Roeper, maybe) who saw both Standard Operating Procedure AND Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay this week?

Oh, the sacrifices I make for you, dear reader. Of course, there was a method to my madness, which was to figure out exactly where torture fits into the American zeitgeist as of mid-May 2008. It’s a fair question. We’ve had visions of “harsh interrogations” dancing in our heads at least since the Abu Ghraib photos emerged in spring 2004, if not since Kiefer Sutherland first went medieval on somebody’s ass on 24 shortly after 9/11. Just this week, a committee of the House of Representatives announced a subpoena for Dick Cheney’s Rasputin-like chief of staff, David Addington, to testify (alongside John Ashcroft and John Yoo) about the initial decision-making that led the “War on Terror” to so closely resemble the Spanish Inquisition. Heck, the presidential nominee of George Bush’s own party was a victim of torture himself, while the Democratic Party seems unable to escape the dungeon of that D.C. dominatrix, Mistress Hillary.

Lynndie England's thumbs-upIf, at this point, you’re thinking, “Hey, Jon, this is all slightly amusing, but shouldn’t you be taking a subject like torture a bit more seriously?”…well, no shit, Sherlock. I’ve been taking torture seriously for years – shocked and appalled that my country would even consider employing the types of brutal (and ineffective) methods for which we tried, convicted and executed German and Japanese interrogators after World War II. Not to mention the casual, prankish way in which the goon squad at Abu Ghraib abused their detainees (and photographed themselves doing it with thumbs aloft, seeming to revel in their descent into sub-human behavior) – and the similarly casual way that Bush-administration thugs and their apologists dismissed such behavior as akin to “fraternity hazing” or “locker-room towel-snapping.”

For four years now I’ve been waiting for the American people – or at least their representatives in Congress, each and every one of whom has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States – to get their thumbs out of their asses and call the Bushies to account for their crimes against American and international law. Why didn’t John Kerry devote part of every speech and every debate to the issue in 2004? Was it because taking such a stance didn’t poll well? And why is it only this week that Congress is whipping up subpoenas to find out just how far up the chain of command the torture policies initiated? What can they possibly hope to accomplish at this late date, with Bush and Cheney cruising toward their January 20 getaway and the current Republican nominee not only on record against torture but unable to lift his arms above his head because of it?

To be honest, I’m kinda sick of taking torture seriously – particularly if the rest of the country refuses to do so. On this issue, as on so many others, We the People – and our elected representatives – have chosen to thrust our collective head firmly into the sand, hoping against hope that we can somehow get to next January without George & Dick destroying the whole planet. We all seem to have decided that, yes, our government has been torturing/wiretapping/ destroying Iraq/denying habeus corpus/ignoring global warming/ botching Katrina/manipulating elections/soiling our good name/ spending us into oblivion/selling us out to the oil companies for eight long years — but we also seem convinced that as soon as those guys are gone we’ll turn this boat around and steer clear of the iceberg that’s already…ripping…through the hull.

Rob Corddry interrogates Harold and KumarI mean, come on! We’ve already zipped right through shock and anger and disgust, zoomed right past accountability – and turned torture into a plot point in a stoner comedy! Harold and Kumar don’t get to experience the joys of waterboarding, but they are very nearly forced by a Gitmo guard to become the bread in a “cockmeat sandwich.” Once they escape the prison, they take a Borat-style road trip through the worst Southern stereotypes (hulking black men, inbred rednecks, a Klan rally, the best little whorehouse in Texas) – all the while avoiding the Javert-like pursuit of a moronic, bumbling Homeland Security apparatchik who epitomizes the sheer idiocy of American policy circa 2008.

That all of this is played for laughs – and that most of it works, and seems just slightly exaggerated and irreverent rather than treasonous – speaks volumes about how far this country has fallen in its own estimation, not to mention the rest of the world’s. In fact, Harold and Kumar, for all its jocularity, serves as a more profound indictment of our nation’s time-out from morality than does Standard Operating Procedure.

The latter film is, in fact, a complex and deeply layered study in moral ambiguity, and offers few of the “tsk, tsk” moments engendered by such recent docs as Taxi to the Dark Side and No End in Sight. Errol Morris, breaking out his usual arsenal of extreme close-ups and metaphorical visual abstractions, allows Abu Ghraib darlings Lynndie England, Megan Ambuhl and Sabrina Harman (as well as several of their male counterparts and former superiors) to point fingers in all sorts of directions, including at themselves. Morris relies exclusively on the stories of these American perpetrators and their investigators, taking a much narrower focus than did Taxi director Alex Gibney. That focus, and the guards’ stories, are compelling – yet somehow they’re still not as compelling as the photographs, which have always been the real story of Abu Ghraib.

Lynndie England interviewed in S.O.P.Morris takes his time drawing out the ethical complexity of those photos, but eventually it becomes clear that when it comes to assigning blame for the atrocities committed at the Baghdad prison, the photos are part of the problem rather than the solution. Investigator Brent Pack notes that the presence of a soldier in a photograph that showed detainee abuse usually served as definitive evidence that the soldier was responsible for that abuse. However, Harman claims she was a participant in the photo-orgy in order to become a whistle-blower; England complains that she was made to appear such a central figure in the abuse because other soldiers were cropped out of the photos; and Private Jeremy Sivits insists (with corroboration from other soldiers) that he was not a participant in any crimes, but that he served a year in jail because he was caught on camera while escorting a prisoner to the “hard site” at ringleader Chip Frederick’s behest. (Morris confuses the issue even further with his re-creations of scenes such as the iconic hood-and-wires stress position.)

Who was cropped out of this photo?Morris makes little effort to place responsibility for Abu Ghraib higher up the chain of command. In fact, by the end of S.O.P. he makes it clear how easy it was, because of the hard photographic evidence, for higher-ups (all the way up to Don Rumsfeld) to deflect responsibility from themselves and blame the abuse exclusively on the “bad apples” within the prison. Such an outcome certainly suited the Bush administration, as it did the partisan True Believers who have been willing for eight years to excuse, deny, or simply ignore everything from incompetence to evil in order to keep the Republican Party in power.

That’s the real lesson of the (largely non-existent) torture “debate”: that all notions of right and wrong – on the part of those on the right who made immoral policy decisions, as well as those on the left who chose not to hold them accountable – have been tossed out the window in both parties’ single-minded pursuit of political dominance. Republicans will blame this trend on Bill Clinton’s indiscretions and the Democrats’ refusal to vote for his impeachment; Democrats will go back even further, to the right wing’s obsessive pursuit of the unbearable lightness that was Whitewater.

Regardless of the origins of this moral cowardice, it must in the end be seen for what it is. In retrospect, how brave and honorable must have been those House and Senate Republicans of 1973-74, who saw Richard Nixon’s crimes for what they were, and forced him to account for them! Such honor is sorely lacking in our politicians today, from either party. Thank goodness, then, that our nation’s moral failings are so damned amusing.

Popularity: 10% [?]

Tags: , , , , ,

discussion by DISQUS
Add New Comment
Viewing 5 comments — Sort by:

    Seriously, I don't think any nation that has trashed 40-50 million innocent unborn babies in the dumpster over the past 35 years is likely to be capable of any clear collective thinking on human rights. My opinion, of course, and I'm entitled to it, but you'll find *at least* 40% of us (according to the latest Gallup) are thinking along those lines. If we were going to be morally outraged, I think we'd probably start there. I don't think anyone has made an abortion comedy yet. Maybe we're not as far gone as one might fear.

    Following the Golden Rule -- which is an Old Testament and a New Testament (i.e. words of Jesus, for those of you in Rio Linda) rule -- I can't abide torture generally. But if I had been responsible for what some of the worst terrorists have done, I confess that I would deserve torture as much as they did. To save lives, in extreme cases? I don't see how one can completely rule it out. I think Alan Dershowitz has made a reasoned case for the very limited application of torture. He even points out, contrary to your assertion, Jon:

    "There are some who claim that torture is a nonissue because it never works--it only produces false information. This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives." sauce: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature...

    Also, Abu Ghraib has not been entirely counterproductive. Many prisoners think torture is still the normal mode of operation, and this can lead them to be more cooperative in regular, non-torture, methods of interrogation. They fear being sent to facilities where treatment will be... torturous. Such fear was in fact instrumental in gaining intelligence leading to the capture of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, described in Mark Bowden's piece in the Atlantic Monthly last May.

    In the end, the thought of very evil terrorists being made to suffer the horrors of the damned is probably not as upsetting to most Americans as the elitist liberals think it ought to be. It doesn't conjure up an image equivalent to beating a harp seal pup to death. It conjures up an image of Jack Bauer injecting a traitor or terrorist who plots to kill millions a taste of unimaginable pain. And *that* looks something like just desserts.

    Still, if you really don't like torture, Senator John McAmnesty is a fine candidate for consideration. I don't think anyone can seriously doubt that he has a sincere, absolutely bedrock conviction about it.

    Eric: You take unequivocally moral position on abortion as a violation of human rights, yet you’re willing to take a morally equivocal position when it comes to torture. From what I’m able to discern, it’s because you believe that those who are tortured are evil and deserve it. In short, once someone is labeled a “terrorist” the individual ceases to be human and thus deserving of torture. You included a mentioned of the Nazis in the Dershowitz quote … well, Dershowitz should know better than tread into that thicket of thorns when it comes to torture. As I’m sure you well know, Nazis were very quick to classify Jews, homosexuals, and others not considered part of the Master as non-human. This made it easier for so-called “Good Germans” to accept the Final Solution with a good amount of insouciance.

    If we're talking about the American mask here, let's do some back tracking. A good portion of the world didn't like America much, long before 9/11. In fact, I remember an interview in the late '80s from Midnight Oil lead singer Peter Garrett where he expressed moral outrage at how the US pushes into the corners of the world, obliterates the native culture and McDonalds it into submission. This is an Australian '80s pop star saying this, not a "terrorist". Keep this in mind.

    Now, a central argument a lot of the friendlier Muslim nations have been presenting is that America does not stand for the morals it preaches, that we claim to be friends yet push in through the door, drop Coke bombs and Nike bombs and trample on the beliefs of a region that didn't want our influence, thank you very much. So we somehow found ourselves in Iraq (I knew I shoulda made that left turn at Albuquerque) and instead of coming in as the proponents of the Geneva Convention, we do this. Not only do we do this, but we do it with a grin for the cameras.

    I do believe our leaders had a heavy thumbprint on these actions, yet I also recognize that many of these soldiers were enjoying some of this, if only a little. Some maybe more so. Oh, and for anyone who thinks that torture produces quality intelligence, intelligence worth the price of a nation's soul, let me tell you. You'll say anything anyone wants you to with their gun at your head and their dog at your balls.

    JonCummings 1 month ago with 1 point

    You know, Eric, this is the second time in three weeks that you've obsessed over abortion in response to a column that has nothing to do with that subject. I have to say -- and I know you expect nothing less from a liberal like me -- that I find your religious-extremist view of abortion rights to be entirely hypocritical in juxtaposition with your shaky moral center on subjects like torture and (apparently, from your fourth-grade-level name-calling) immigration.

    And have you considered that the government officials who have lowered the United States from its former first-world perch on issues like torture and habeus corpus are the very same ones who have obsessively placed federal judges who will accept Neanderthal restrictions against abortion and/or overturn Roe v. Wade? Please identify your "clear collective thinking" on that score.

    This idea that torture, if used for only a few years, can serve as a deterrent for some period of time after it's no longer in use? That's quite simply repugnant. And you were intellectually dishonest to quote one line of a Dershowitz column that otherwise argued against the systematic use of torture -- not that Dershowitz is any sort of all-knowing genius, considering that in the same column he trumpeted Giuliani's then-frontrunning tough-guy persona as the wave of the future.

    Last week in a Congressional hearing, Bush administration officials were asked to identify a single real-world occasion in which the "smoking-gun" theory of torture permissiveness might have been an effective tool in questioning a suspected terrorist. The answer? Crickets. C'mon, Eric--just because Jack Bauer makes something work on TV (even if it's Fox) doesn't make it real...

    In fact, your Jack Bauer paragraph sounds like something Stephen Colbert would say. The only difference is, he'd be making fun of you by saying it.

    By the way, I don't know what Gallup poll you were looking at, but I just looked up a poll from last year showing that only 18 percent of Americans--not 40, or anywhere near it--believe that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances; that only 31percent believe abortion restrictions should be any tighter than they already are; and that only 16 percent view abortion as a make-or-break issue when choosing a candidate. Yes, around 43 percent identify themselves as "pro-life," but that identification obviously doesn't translate into policy demands for a large number of those folks. That poll is here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx.

    Well, Eric needs to explain how he feels about Austrian men imprisoning daughters in basement gulags, raping them for a decade plus and having same daughters give birth to their brothers and sisters. I am actually more pro-life than pro-choice, believe it or not, but come on. That girl did not deserve to live out the atrocity nightmare of giving birth to her own siblings. An abomination.

Popdose represents the coming together of a veritable Who's Who of music bloggers and and an ever-expanding roster of writers who have made it their mission to experience the best and worst in pop culture — from music to movies to books, with a dash of current events thrown in for good measure — so you don't have to. Popdose delivers coverage both in-depth (the all-encompassing Popdose Guides) and snarkily brief (the weekly Cassingle Vault), surveying releases both old and new. Visit today — and return regularly: The site publishes a minimum of twice a day.