In the privacy of intimate relationships, I have engaged in role-playing and other consensual sexual activity.
"""""""""""""""""" - NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman upon resigning
I'm not going to sit here, with the benefit of hindsight, and judge the very good people who made hard decisions, who were running the agency in very extraordinary circumstances.
"""""""""""""""""" - Gina Haspel, before the Senate Intelligence Committee
Life and politics are getting weirder and weirder. Now we have a powerful political figure -- the New York state attorney general -- who publicly advocated for, and allied with, the #MeToo Movement, who fought for the physical safety of women vis--vis men in the criminal justice system, who is, out-of-the-blue, outed by four women who accuse him of choking and beating them. His immediate explanation is that, whatever he did, he was participating in "consensual sexual ... role-playing."
It's becoming so weird it's now trite to say: "You can't make this stuff up."
Meanwhile, the #MeToo Movement's campaign to crash through the glass ceilings of power in America has to deal with Gina Haspel, nominated by the Teflon-coated p*ssy-grabber-in-chief to run the CIA. The Haspel nomination is actually a very savvy move on Mr. Trump's part. He's leveraging the #MeToo Movement on its own petard by nominating a woman torture proponent (and possible actor) to break the glass ceiling at the CIA. As a sop for feminists, she thoroughly defended the Bush torture years in her senate committee hearing; everybody knew that the man who nominated her has many times publicly and enthusiastically advocated waterboarding and even worse torture. Another plus for Mr. Trump, Ms. Haspel had the "balls" to willingly obstruct justice by destroying 92 videotapes of US agents torturing one or more Arab males in what must have been quite a potentially sensational piece of You Tube cinema. Under questioning from Democratic senators, she adamantly refused to say torture was immoral, as she assured the Democratic senators she would not reinstate the Bush torture regimen. It all boiled down to, "Trust me." The Republicans, of course, questioned her like cats who in some previous caucus had all lunched on members of a canary family. One question that arose in the New York Times after her hearing has to do with a man, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, and his pregnant wife, Fatima Boudchar, both Libyan dissidents captured by British MI6 agents and rendered in 2004 to a CIA black site in Thailand, where they were both tortured for at least two days, which according to the woman, included punching her pregnant belly. What lends the story credence is that British Prime Minister Theresa May did not refute it and, in fact, publicly apologized May 10th to the couple for Britain's involvement. Mr. Belhaj said the site Ms. Haspel ran sounds very much like the one he and his wife were rendered to and tortured by black-clad figures in ski masks.
"What does it mean for someone to be elevated and honored, someone who oversaw a secret prison in Thailand where torture was being practiced?" Mr. Belhaj wondered.
It was clear this woman was very capable of running the CIA, a place where morality always gets a low priority. Torture is OK after something like 9/11, because we were scared and desperate and had to reinforce the unquestioned fundamental American value of world domination. If Muslim Arabs furious over US actions in the Middle East, on the other hand, employ torture, it's immoral because they're immoral. Next question.
In the dark, secret world of Gina Haspel, real torture is honorable. That's not the case, when the acts are self-indulgent, "consensual" mock-torture of the sort Mr. Schneiderman claims he participated in. Schneiderman's actions sound quite decadent to me, but that's the culture Americans have created for themselves. But should playing BDSM games to get your rocks off be on the top on the list as a reason an otherwise effective leader should be forced to resign. I'm actually really confused here. Real torture is OK if you wave the flag while doing it and you torture Muslim Arabs infuriated at the crimes of US militarism such as the totally unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq. Sure, one must defend oneself and intelligence gathering is important to do right. But why is it laudable to oversee water-boarding torture and things like the shoving of enema tubes up the anuses of Muslim Arab men, an act the New York Times called "medically unnecessary rectal feeding"? Why are acts likes this necessary? If it wasn't "necessary," then was it self-indulgent and sadistic? Did it amount to involuntary BDSM?
I have to confess, this stuff is over my head -- or as someone in the CIA might say, "over my pay grade." One thing that this odd juxtaposition of stories makes clear is the #MeToo Movement is not a liberal or leftist movement. It's totally bi-partisan, or more accurately, a-partisan. Like a lot of things, it's about power. Who has it and what are they doing with it? In the case of torture, it's about intimidation, humiliation, busting balls. It's a tool of power, not of truth-seeking. Writing and journalism are tools of truth-telling. And in the realms of power, women are just as susceptible to the righteous abuse of power as men are. Gina Haspel should make this eminently clear. It's something that should not be forgotten in the rush to balance the books on men abusing women. And, let's not delude ourselves, the period in question (following 9/11 and leading to the invasion of Iraq) when reason was tossed to the winds and massive violence was undertaken is happening again before our eyes as we face a militarist bum's rush to go to war with Iran.
Women's Role in US Torture
There is an on-going, unresolved argument whether torture is effective. Those like Mr. Trump who enthusiastically advocate it assure us it works. They love it. While those opposed to it suggest it doesn't work. It gives them the creeps. I'd say both sides are right: It all depends on what the purpose and goal of the torture is and, of course, whose ox is being penetrated or water-boarded. If the goal is to obtain facts, truth or accurate information, the consensus is torture doesn't work. But if the goal is to obtain what the torturer wants to hear, then it seems it does work.
The French existentialist Jean Paul Sartre wrote a short story called "The Wall" in which a French resistance fighter is captured by the Nazis and tortured. The torturer's goal is to locate a resistance leader in hiding. It gets to the point the man being tortured can't take it any more and wants it to stop. So he tells them the resistance leader is at a certain school, hiding in the basement. He's relieved when they stop the torture, though he knows they'll be back and the torture will resume. At least he has a reprieve. The cruel irony is that, unbeknownst to our tortured resistance fighter, the resistance leader is actually hiding in that very school basement. In the case of POWs in Hanoi, some reportedly broke down under torture and spoke or wrote derogatory statements about US war crimes against the Vietnamese. In the minds of these patriots, these were not true statements; they were the same sort of human response Sartre's resistance fighter made: The motive was to stop the pain by saying something deemed harmless. So they gave their torturers what they wanted to hear and the torture stopped. In cases like that, from the torturer's point of view, the torture accomplished its mission. This is why a pathologically dishonest person like Donald Trump feels torture works. It's why gangsters resort to torture: It's the power to intimidate and get their way. Also, the personal sadistic component can't be discounted. Look at the audiences' faces in lynching postcards from the 19th and early 20th century: Hatred has trumped compassion or empathy; there is real joy and social bonding going on. You see the same smiles in the thumbs-up photos of soldiers with tortured or dead Iraqis.
Back in the early days of the Bush Iraq debacle, Seymour Hersh reported on the popularity of a book in the halls of our military and intelligence services. It's called The Arab Mind by Raphael Parai, a Hungarian who lived for some time in Jerusalem and later taught at the University of Pennsylvania. It's a serious 400-page book from a conservative, western point of view. According to Hersh, the chapter that was the rage in the halls of US militarism was the one on Arabs and sex, specifically issues of male sexual repression and male sexual honor. More so even than western males, the Arab male is, Parai says, really freaked out by masturbation and homosexuality, especially the passive role in male homosexuality, which is seen as being turned into a woman. Hersh emphasized that it was, thus, no coincidence -- that, in fact, it was policy -- when CIA agents operating in Abu Ghraib in the winter of 2003 induced the more stupid and sadistic National Guard troops assigned there to, late at night, "tune-up" the captive Arab males for interrogation the next morning. Let's not forget, Abu Ghraib was notorious among Iraqis as Saddam's main torture house where Saddam's henchmen would drill holes in people with Black & Decker drills. So horror was already associated with being imprisoned there. Our National Guard troops didn't use electric drills; they did their tuning-up of captive men and boys with sexual-humiliation tactics, which included forcing naked Arab males to masturbate and engage in mock homosexual couplings. This is something Americans should not be allowed to forget. This disgusting tactic was done in our names because our arrogant leaders decided to open a Pandora's box and were suddenly scared to death what they'd unleashed. In this predicament, anything and everything became OK.
I was in the parking lot of Abu Ghraib in December 2003 with a veteran's fact-finding mission when this was going on, just before the scandal blew up. The guards in watchtowers intensely eyeballed us with binoculars as we talked with family members of captives in the lot. I recall a major who came out to see who we were. He seemed to be a quite reasonable man; he could have been an insurance agent from New Jersey doing his National Guard duty. What quickly became clear was that he was someone way, way over his head. One sign of this was, like a recalcitrant private with a bad attitude might do in Vietnam, he had written sayings and drawn images with black marker on his helmet liner. I told him I was a Vietnam vet and we were peace activist trying to understand the invasion and occupation.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).