

Vanity Fair writer agrees to be waterboarded in a demonstration, video - markbao
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/video/2008/hitchens_video200808

======
patrickg-zill
I like Hitchens, however, the waterboarding I saw in the video does not match
the description of waterboarding on Wikipedia: "which involved stretching
cellophane over his mouth and nose and pouring water on his face to create the
sensation of drowning".

I was under the impression that in Hitchens' case there was no cellophane over
his mouth and nose. Also the inverted (head is lower than feet) placement of
the person was not done either, as Hitchens seems to be on a level surface.
The reason for being inverted is supposed to be both a loss of control, plus
it is easier to stimulate the gag reflex.

~~~
gruseom
Good points (though I suppose they didn't use cellophane during the Spanish
Inquisition either). Even more than that is this:

 _flooded more with sheer panic than with mere water, I triggered the pre-
arranged signal and felt the unbelievable relief of being pulled upright and
having the soaking and stifling layers pulled off me_

Real torturers don't do pre-arranged signals. This is a huge difference. It
means that real waterboarding and what Hitchens endured aren't even in the
same category. Hitchens' experience would be better described as a kind of
lower bound for what people being waterboarded go through. And he does in fact
say so in the final paragraph.

Edit: interestingly, it turns out that he didn't give the pre-arranged signal.
He thought he did, but what actually happened was that he lost consciousness.

~~~
dkokelley
He lost consciousness? I thought he said he practically threw the metal pieces
to the ground, to the extent he could even though his hands were bound.

~~~
gruseom
_I was completely convinced that, when the water pressure had become
intolerable, I had firmly uttered the pre-determined code word that would
cause it to cease. But my interrogator told me that, rather to his surprise, I
had not spoken a word. I had activated the "dead man’s handle" that signaled
the onset of unconsciousness._

I interpreted this to mean that he lost consciousness and that the (what shall
we call them...) administrators were the ones who made the decision to stop.
Reading it again, though, I see that's not obvious. I confess I haven't yet
found the stomach to watch the video. Perhaps it clarifies things?

Edit: perhaps his meaning was that he felt himself blacking out, thought he
gave the spoken signal, but in fact gave a nonverbal (but still pre-arranged)
signal. In any case, the important point is that there _were_ agreed-upon
signals to stop the torture, whether he used them or not.

~~~
andreyf
_I haven't yet found the stomach to watch the video_

You're in for a disappointment, the video is a lot less frightening than they
make it seem. It would be laughable, if the topic wasn't so serious.

------
gruseom
Hitchens is one of the leading intellectuals of our time, as well as a great
wit and a master of the English language. Referring to him as "Vanity Fair
writer" is like referring to Orwell as "Former restaurant worker".

~~~
mynameishere
_Hitchens is one of the leading intellectuals of our time_

Sorry, I couldn't downmod that hard or fast enough. Hitchens is a warmed-over
Trotskyist. The fact that he _ever_ had doubts about water torture's status as
torture should give you a clue into his mental state.

~~~
gruseom
Really? I'm curious why you say that, and also why you think the two ("warmed-
over Trotskyist" and "leading intellectual") must automatically be
incompatible. I certainly don't admire him in every respect. But he changed a
lot since 1968, and even then had an individualist streak that was a little
deviant for the hard left.

Edit (responding to your edit :)) - I don't know of any evidence that he
doubted it before. I would guess the point of the experiment was more to be
able to write about it from experience.

~~~
mynameishere
I guess I've just recoiled against everything he's said. For a sample, look
under the heading "On the 2003 invasion of Iraq".

<http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens>

It doesn't warrant much elaboration. I mean,

 _I, for one, will not have [the Vietcong] insulted by any comparison to the
forces of Zarqawi, the Fedayeen Saddam, and the criminal underworld now
arrayed against us. These depraved elements are the Iraqi Khmer Rouge._

Well, whatever. The vietcong [1] are still great heroes to him, I suppose.
Fine. But the motivations of ordinary men don't change from place to place,
and the various arab defenders and the vietnamese communists are almost surely
identical morally. His defense of the Iraqi war is pure mind-fuck. I'm not
completely against the war, but I understand its grand strategic purpose: To
secure vast and necessary oil reserves from encroachment by Russia and China
(the latter has been securing incredible resources in Africa, for example.
This is no small threat.) But what's his motivation?--it's impossible to say.
He just seems inspired by dead ideology.

[1] There was no shortage of atrocities or terrorist acts committed by the
vietcong. I understand this as asymmetrical warfare. Hitchens understands this
as good vs. evil. Specifically, good.

~~~
gruseom
It seems we share a distaste for ideologues. You just think Hitchens is more
of one than I do. You could be right.

Hitchens on the Iraq war is a little puzzling, I agree. I think it has perhaps
more to do with his own evolution than with the matter as such. It's hard to
imagine him supporting that war many years earlier.

Anyway, as I said, I like his writing. Looking over that quote page you linked
to, I ran across this quintessential statement, about Michael Moore:

 _Europeans think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and
ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own, as their representative
American, someone who actually embodies all of those qualities._

I just think that's brilliant. And it makes me laugh. Ok, now I'm really going
to get flamed... I had better stop.

~~~
andreyf
_Ok, now I'm really going to get flamed... I had better stop._

He's a skillful writer, is very opinionated, and has a hobby of arguing well
against fashionable opinion - Mother Teresa, for example.

One person here likes him, another doesn't? That's not much of a shocker...

~~~
gruseom
No, I was expecting to get flamed because the discussion was political
(enough), offensive (to somebody, surely), and not about startups or Google or
Lisp. "Flamed" was hyperbolic. But I'm glad I was wrong.

------
davidw
So is the 'flag' button for stuff like this, that is not hacker news in the
slightest? What next, a series of taser articles?

------
markbao
He doesn't even last 30 seconds. Horrifying.

~~~
PStamatiou
"CIA officers who have subjected themselves to the technique have lasted an
average of 14 seconds before caving in."

------
gruseom
If anyone's still reading this thread, I ran across a great little analysis by
George Packer that is both admiring and critical of Hitchens:

[http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/07/i...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/07/i-came-
back-fro.html)

------
signa11
William Thackeray lives !!!

