Hitchens wanted to make a discrimination between “harsh interrogation” and “torture” in a discussion about the CIA on Slate. It’s not that he was ever in favor of waterboarding, but that he found it defensible in contrast to what he (initially) considered frank torture. His position was strongly inferred and his agreement to be water-boarded was a test of the binary distinction. He wanted to be able to support the idea that the US was not actually torturing people.
I would find very loud, obnoxious music over an extended period, prolonged sleep deprivation and forced body positions to be torturous. Hitchens, at least initially, would argue they are “harsh interrogation.” I think his eventual conclusion is that it’s a false binary, though he hedged on that too, by implying in his conclusion that the concept of torture may be flawed.
Hitchens wanted to make a discrimination between “harsh interrogation” and “torture” in a discussion about the CIA on Slate. It’s not that he was ever in favor of waterboarding, but that he found it defensible in contrast to what he (initially) considered frank torture. His position was strongly inferred and his agreement to be water-boarded was a test of the binary distinction. He wanted to be able to support the idea that the US was not actually torturing people.
I would find very loud, obnoxious music over an extended period, prolonged sleep deprivation and forced body positions to be torturous. Hitchens, at least initially, would argue they are “harsh interrogation.” I think his eventual conclusion is that it’s a false binary, though he hedged on that too, by implying in his conclusion that the concept of torture may be flawed.
How would you define torture?