Christopher Hitchens: It was "our society" that asked Bushies to torture

[nodramamama]

Here's Christopher Hitchens being quoted by New York Magazine as saying:

“I know something for a sure thing,” Hitchens continued. “The demand for torture and other methods I would describe as illegal, the demand to go outside the Geneva conventions — all this came from below. What everyone wants to say is this came from a small clique around the vice-president. It's not educational. It doesn't enlighten anyone to behave as if that were true. This is our society wanting and demanding harsh measures.” Therefore, he went on, the demand for prosecution or other measures against Bush administration officials would likewise have to come from below, via the grassroots. “Otherwise it's just vengeful, I suppose, and partisan.” http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/01/christopher_hitchens_blames_to.html

But is that true? Hitchens is cherry-picking data, because some polls reject his claims while others back them up:

An ABC News poll found in 2004 that "63 percent in an ABC News/Washington Post poll say torture is never acceptable, even when other methods fail and authorities believe the suspect has information that could prevent terrorist attacks. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/polls/torture_poll_040527.html

21% of Americans supported prisoners being "held under water"; 17% supported stripping them naked, 16% supported sexual humiliation; majorities only saw acceptable the following: sleep depravation, wearing a hood, and exposure to noise.

A Gallup poll found opposition to torture in late 2005:


Others polls find that most support torture at least in "rare occassions". Example: AP poll in 2005: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10345320/

and Pew poll:

Methinks Hitchens is drinking again.

A serious journalist would have chosen to tell the truth and state that polls do not agree on whether or not Americans wanted Bush and company to torture the people they tortured.

But most importantly, public opinion does not dictate what is legal, nor does it nullify international treaties or US Law.

[Occam Bandage]

1. Christopher Hitchens is a smart man.

He is also a raving douchebag who is used to speaking first, drinking next, and possibly thinking afterwards.

[navarth]

7. I agree with Mr. Bandage

Hitchens is trying to share his blame with everybody. Don't include ME in that, Hithcens.

[tekisui]

2. Torture apologist.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Deep13]

12. I don't think he is. nt

[LittleBlue]

3. Hitchens is trying to salvage his place in history, much like Bush

and failing miserably.

[Enrique]

8. he's actually a forceful anti-torture advocate

and a very effective one, imo. I hear him on RW radio programs that accept torture as being as American as apple pie, that ridicule even the most mild sentiment against not wanting torture.

Hitchens comes on these programs and makes a strong legal and moral case against torture and he has credibility with these people because he supports Bush so at least they know his motivation isn't because he's against Bush.

[navarth]

15. I'm sure he's anti-torture.

That's not what I'm disappointed in him about.

He's also saying very brave and true things about religion.

That's not what I'm disppointed in him about either.

[Enrique]

17. I agree about his defense of Bush

his ego won't let him admit he was wrong about Bush.

[navarth]

18. I'm just sayin'....

oh and,

Happy MLK Day!

[Deep13]

4. I don't think too many people cared about our obligations under international law.

As a general proposition, most Americans don't.

[nodramamama]

5. I don't think many people KNOW what our obligations are

I'd love to see a poll asking people what they know about the Geneva Conventions.

[navarth]

6. most? I wonder

I'd like to think better of them, but....you may be right.

But that doesn't excuse Hitchens.

[Deep13]

11. Excuse him for what?

He's not advocating torture. He's just trying to read the pulse of the nation, so to speak.

[navarth]

14. Perhaps.

As for 'excuse him for what?', I think that's already been covered.

[wmbrew0206]

9. Your poll data is from 2004 and just after Abu Ghraib became public

I think if you were to look at the polls in 2002 and 2003, Joe Six pack would be in favor of torture.

I don't see anything happening with investigations because several leading Democrats were read into it and did not speak out.

[Uzybone]

10. In his pile of bullshit there is a kernel of truth

Most Americans had no problems with a little "rough stuff" here and there with the "terrorists". The media certainly didn't speak out about it.

[Hansel]

13. To quote Dick Cheney "So?"

Good presidential leaders are not persuaded by angry mobs out for illegal and counter-productive retribution. They are here to do what is most effective and best to protect our country within the laws and founding values of this land.

It was Bush's responsibility to lead in a calm and rational way to the benefit of this nation, our security and our standing in the world and he failed. And not only did he fail, he made matters worse by ginning up irrational fear by constantly telling Americans to be afraid and by using 911 as a convenient self-serving boogie man. Does anyone really believe that if he had stood tall and told Americans to not cower before our enemies that "our society" would have been "wanting and demanding harsh measures"?

Bush and company created this monster. Now it is time for us, with Obama's leadership, to slay it.

[gratuitous]

16. Ah, the drink-soaked popinjay trying a new song

Sounds no better than any of the previous efforts over the last decade or so.

But, arguendo, let's just say that indeed "our" society wanted and demanded "harsh" "measures." First off, who is Hitchens including in "our" society? Drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjays? Then I'd say that he is right on the money, honey. But if by "our" society, he's trying to talk about the citizens of the United States, then he's as delusional as he is drunk, and that's saying a lot.

And what qualifies as "harsh" and what "measures" is he talking about? Waterboarding? Isolation? Long interrogation sessions? Lemon chicken served without rice pilaf? Hitchens, for all his verbosity, doesn't quite seem to have time or space to explain. I submit that that's because he doesn't want to get too specific, for fear of bringing up more evidence for a war crimes tribunal. Years from now, he can deny that he was ever a fan of torture, that what he really meant by "harsh measures" was hours long interrogation sessions or denial of certain privileges.

Hitchens knows that he was way out of the human community, and he's looking for an unobserved entrance to slither back in. His chosen method of doing so is to insinuate that "everyone" was just as callous and blood-thirsty as he was (and is), and that it's just not fair (dammit!) to judge him by his words and actions; his heart was always in the right place to hear Hitchens tell it.

[TheKentuckian]

19. I wouldn't be too quick to doubt his assertions

I remember having near knock down, drag outs with people that had been quite sane and reasonable until 9/11 and then nearly everybody I came across was demanding random Arab states be turned to glass and for the entire region to be blasted back to the stone age.

I don't think its a lie or a stretch to say that many, if not most Americans spurred on the mistreatment and torture just as they were beating the war drums to stupidly counteract seventy years of policy by attacking and occupying Iraq.

We as a people have some real responsibility for the actions of our government.

[Lord Helmet]

20. torture is illegal ... period

[wmbrew0206]

23. OK, define torture.

[Radical Activist]

21. By "our society" he means the corporate press

that served as an extension of the White House press office for 6 years.

[saltpoint]

22. Hitchens is an intelligent provocateur. I used to read him all the time in

THE NATION but his position on Bush's Iraq assault chilled me down considerably.

That isn't to say I think he's a fool. Far from it. But he knows full well that his position on this topic is going to provoke objection, and asserts it anyway.

My response is to reiterate the hierarchy of Bush/Cheney/et al complicity, so in an odd way, Hitchens prompts an even more intense distrust of BushCo and an even firmer dismissal and rejection.

But it is also fodder for potential RW propagandists at a time when we want Guantanamo and other such sites shut down, and swiftly, and permanently.

[bigdarryl]

24. He's DRUNK again