Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Looking at Torture
We torture modernly in secret—in prisons, covert locations, other countries. At the same time our movies and television are full of violent images of mangling bodies and brutal interrogations. But the film and tv images belie reality and permanent damage. When James Bond was beaten mercilessly in the testicles he survived to soon woo his betrayer. We think we know what torture is like, but in fact we don’t look at it. The infamous Abu Ghraib photos were sanitized and often posed. The documentary tapes of actual torture and interrogation were destroyed or censored.
Former Vice President Cheney rejects the word ‘torture’ but extols ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ and sneers at shrinking from them. To him the end of security justifies violent means. President Obama opposes torture as unlawful and immoral and not useful he but has ordered torture photos suppressed for national security reasons. He says he must protect our troops against the anger and violence the photos might incite. Though on opposite sides about the use of torture, both leaders cite war as a justifying reason. For Cheney war licenses torture; for Obama war requires concealment of torture.
This is logical as war is the usual and radical rationalization of torture. In war’s shadow torture even seems restrained. I do not destroy you because I think you a danger, I just hurt you until you submit to my superior right to live, until you give me what I want from you.
The ticking bomb scenario popularized in the tv series “24” and rationalized legally by Alan Dershowitz argues that to save many you can, even should, torture a few. Basically this is the economy and danger of war. We destroy the enemy who wants to destroy us. It’s us or them. Torture exists in a dangerous present tense. It is poised in pain. The images are not of dead bodies (as in the mass graves, heads, hair, fillings, and skin lamps of Nazi footage) but of breathing bodies on the edge of death or terrible mutilation or hurt. Bodily vulnerabilities have always fueled fantasy—branding, flaying, sexual harm. Literature and movies approach, evoke, explore, and give catharsis about our bodies’ frailties. They are part of our imaginative human repertoire and as familiar as our fears. Imaginatively torture is in our consciousness. It is explicit in religious images of hell, which like the movies are artistic, imagined. They are not real, involving specific living people.
Many people see the tortured Christ as an emblem of human suffering. He is whipped, beaten, mocked, degraded, punctured, speared and nailed to a cross. His torturers carry out orders as he remains noble and forgiving. His drama is called ‘the passion,’ meaning the suffering story he enacts, as in Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. What distinguishes that film from Braveheart is not the thorns, but the character of Christ who really survives the movie torment of torture and death for believers. Christians often divide over whether to emulate the non-violent submissive Christ who reveals the violence of others by suffering it, or a resurrected Christ who returns with punitive judgment. In Michelangelo’s Last Judgment Christ has his right arm raised as if to smite rather than beckon to the reward for kindness to fellow men.
Torture invokes not only the sense of bodily pain and danger of death but large tropes about power. From spanking to eternal smiting the infliction of pain for a purpose triggers human fear and caution and debate.
Against movie histrionics and hysteria many professional interrogators argue that torture doesn’t work and instead foments war fury. That is why Obama wants the photographs hidden. People say that the US used to be known as decent to its prisoners of war. Many world citizens see us now as guilty of war crimes, violators of the Geneva Conventions, callously inured to our right to rule and dominate. The photographs document that charge.
Rumsfeld called the Abu Ghraib photos “radioactive” and deplored their publication. His labeling spun them as the danger, not the story they told. That story, the administration said, was of a few depraved people doing despicable acts, not our story. Cheney repeats the chant. But it is harder to spin razored and mutilated bodies than stories or fear. We should look at torture. And we should confront the images that document its reality rather than hide the faces in fictions that they don’t exist. And we should expose as well the ugly sire of torture, war.