Wretchard Predicts Preening Hysterics About "Torture" Won't Mention AQ Torture Manual; In Unrelated News, Andrew Sullivan Fails To Mention AQ Torture Manual

He does mention torture, actually -- the "torture" committed by George Tenet. So "torture" is still apparently on his mind.

But the repellent torture-porn scrabblings of human eyes being pulled out of living faces? Sullivan, predictably, has nothing at all to say about that.

Which is what Wretchard predicted. Sullivan can't even acknowledge the real thing, because it would expose his crusade against the counterfeit as childishly mendacious:

The problem with the fake is that it is always shown up by the arrival of the Real Thing. The difference between the two is often so manifest that it seems ridiculous to think that anyone could have been fooled -- even momentarily -- by the counterfeit.

The problem with the word "torture" is that it has been so artfully corrupted by some commentators that we now find ourselves at a loss to describe the kinds of activities that the al-Qaeda interrogation manual graphically recommends. Now that the term "torture" has been put in one-to-one correspondence with such admittedly unpleasant activities as punching, sleep deprivation, a handkerchief pulled over one's face and loaded with water, searches by women upon sensitive Islamic men or the disrespectful handling of Korans -- what on earth do we call gouging people's eyes out?

Answer: we call it nothing. My fearless prediction is that not a single human rights organization will seriously take the matter up. There will be no demonstrations against these barbaric practices, often inflicted upon Muslims by other Muslims, in any of the capitals of the world. Not a single committee in the United Nations will be convened nor will any functionary in the European Union lose so much as a night's sleep over it. The word for these activities -- whatever we choose to call it -- will not be spoken.

Sullivan's not a human rights organization, though he does seem to believe he's a kind of one-man Salvation Army at times.

Isn't it funny that he's done precisely what Wrechard predicted, and undoubtedly for the reasons he's outlined? Not even the pretense of caring about real torture, because he doesn't care about real torture. His only object is the fakey-torture of red-ink menstrual-blood and belly slaps, and to even acknowledge the chthonic cruelty depicted in Al Qaeda's torture manual would expose his hysterical preening for the trivium it is.

And to repeat: He does mention "torture." Not only does he mention it, he discusses the corruption of the English language, as Wrechard does:

...the hideous term: "enhanced interrogation techniques.' I'm not sure where exactly this came from, but George Tenet seems to have been the tipping point. But it's important to note that Tenet has a very personal interest in lying about torture. After all, he will be subject to war crime charges if he concedes that he authorized it. But in his rewording, he has also, it seems to me, conceded something very important. He was clearly concerned that the term "coercive" could be legal peril. It implies physical pressure so severe it renders any choice to cooperate moot. It implies, inevitably, "severe mental or physical pain or suffering," in order to extract information. That is the only relevant legal and moral criterion for torture. Is the information coerced, i.e. is the physical or mental suffering so severe that the victim has no choice but to tell the torturers what the want to hear? If it is, it's torture, under American and international law. And Tenet is a criminal. Abuse of common English is one of the hallmarks of political mischief. I don't think any journalist should let a politician off the hook on this one. Words matter.

You know what else matters, St. Andrew? Torture. Your little pet bugaboo. And yet despite the fact that these godawful images were seen by everyone yesterday, linked by Drudge and every other site in the world, you just could not bring yourself to even mention them, eh?

What was Wretchard's prediction again?

The problem with the word "torture" is that it has been so artfully corrupted by some commentators that we now find ourselves at a loss to describe the kinds of activities that the al-Qaeda interrogation manual graphically recommends. Now that the term "torture" has been put in one-to-one correspondence with such admittedly unpleasant activities as punching, sleep deprivation, a handkerchief pulled over one's face and loaded with water, searches by women upon sensitive Islamic men or the disrespectful handling of Korans -- what on earth do we call gouging people's eyes out?

Answer: we call it nothing.... The word for these activities -- whatever we choose to call it -- will not be spoken.

If he's as maverick, indepedent, and free-thinking a writer as he fancies himself, why is it so trivially easy to predict Sullivan?

Why, predicting that was almost as easy as predicting Sullivan would link to Steve Clemons' Cheney-and-Jew-bankers conspiracy theorizing as if it were a well-sourced charge to be taken seriously.

He says he'll be on Chris Matthews this Sunday (but of course he will) discussing the JFK assassination (naturalment!).

Is there a single John Bircher conspriacy theory this demented imebecile will not gladly discuss?

Via Michelle Malkin.

Macabre content warnin for the jump.

Not The View From Your Window: And if you're Andrew Sullivan, it's not even part of the world you acknowledge to exist:

posted by Ace at 03:50 PM

| Access Comments