Why Torturing to Prove Torturing is Wrong is Never Okay: A Note to Keith Olbermann
Reposted from http://www.commondreams.org on June 9, 2009:
Although it has been several weeks since Keith Olbermann has used his MSNBC show as a platform to call for the public water boarding of fellow commentator Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel, my concerns about Olbermann's former campaign have not diminished, and this pains me because I'm a big fan of his. But in the interest of media accountability, someone needs to point out to Olbermann that on this issue, he has been nearly as exploitative and irresponsible as his colleague on the right.
As progressives, we commit ourselves to several principles, one of which is the simple belief that the ends never justify the means. Olbermann has even used that terminology to take issue with the claim of Hannity (and Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and several other prominent neocons) that torture "worked" in the "war on terror" because it produced "actionable intelligence." That may or may not be accurate (the reports on this are mixed), but for progressives, it should be utterly beside the point. We do not do unto others as we would not have them do unto us, not just because it's an ethically higher position (which is consistent with the jurisprudence that underlies the concept of the rule of law-which itself is the foundation of political democracy), but because reducing our actions to the lowest common denominator ultimately produces the worst possible results.
Given that, Olbermann's hypocrisy on the issue of torture confounds me. By calling-pushing, even-for the water boarding of his rival talk-show host Sean Hannity (who, in a moment of exceptional foolishness volunteered to be water boarded in order to demonstrate that it's "not that bad"), Olbermann gave away the moral high ground on this issue, undermined his otherwise unassailable argument against torture, and trivialized the very thing he wants us all to take so seriously. I would go so far as to say he's "normalized" it, if the ability of Olbermann supporters to twist themselves into logical and moral knots in defense of his campaign is any indication. Let's examine each of the main arguments behind the campaign:
1. Making the point that water boarding really is torture.
There are two serious problems with this justification. The first is that it presupposes that were he actually water boarded, Hannity would admit-finally-that he was wrong. Anyone who has followed Hannity over the years has surely noticed one overriding consistency in his commentary, regardless of the subject matter. He is never wrong. Facts have no effect on Hannity's conclusions. If anything, he will go out of his way to misrepresent reality in order to make it fit with his pre-drawn conclusions. Even if Hannity's mind was changed after the experience of water boarding, history tells us that he would never admit to it, ever. So the exercise is pointless if the objective is to get Hannity to admit to changing his mind.
The other problem here is more philosophical and even more serious. It is impossible to bring about constructive ends through destructive means. Even if the torture-condoning segment of the audience of Hannity's hypothetical water boarding session were themselves converted to the view that yes, it is indeed torture, it would be at the expense of our collective dignity. Surely we are capable as a people of understanding when an act is horrific without needing to witness it first-hand (which, ironically, might work in the just opposite way by desensitizing us to its brutality). Simply put, you cannot make a legitimate point that torture is wrong by advocating torture. Even if it's Sean Hannity on the board.
So not only is Olbermann's campaign hypocritical, but it is ultimately ineffective. It might even be dangerous because instead of shifting the underlying consciousness that tolerates a culture of violence, it reinforces it. While the outward message on Olbermann's part is "torture is never acceptable", the meta-message is "torture is never acceptable, except when I say so (or when I say it's not really torture)." It's a slippery slope.
2. "Holding Sean Hannity accountable" by shaming or humiliating him.
On his show on many occasions, Olbermann has referenced the wisdom of people like Martin Luther King, Jr. While Olbermann has never (to my knowledge) claimed to be an adherent of principled nonviolence, he has made it clear that he sympathizes with both the moral and pragmatic arguments that underlie the philosophy advanced by MLK Jr. and others like them. In the world of nonviolence, the second most important rule after "the ends never justify the means" is to always respect everyone, including your opponent and yourself. Don't get me wrong, I find most of what comes out of Hannity's mouth to be totally abhorrent, but when we accept humiliation (of ourselves or others) as a tool of conversion, everyone is degraded and genuine conversion becomes impossible. And while it may be true that Hannity's behavior and views are consistently egregious -even dangerous- and must therefore be addressed, by lowering himself to a tactic that Hannity himself would have used given the opportunity, Olbermann is not just disrespecting his opponent, but is more importantly disrespecting himself. In doing so, he loses credibility on the subject and should not, therefore, be taken seriously on it. Olbermann - if he is to be consistent with his proclaimed values- must be the bigger person in this discussion. Only then is his message likely to resonate with those whose minds are not already firmly fixed on one side of this debate or the other. And isn't that the real point?
And as an additional note, I have heard many justifications for this objective of Olbermann's campaign by fellow progressives. The most common are: a) it's not really torture since Hannity volunteered for it, b) Olbermann knew Hannity wouldn't accept the challenge anyway, and c) the need to hold Hannity accountable outweighs concerns about the hypocrisy of water boarding him. Each of those arguments is so weak that they hardly deserve mention. Suffice it to say that when you find yourself espousing a rationalization that any fifth grader could craft, it is time to take a closer look at your position. I expect better from the sophisticated media consumers that make up a large segment of Olbermann's audience.
3. Ratings.
Ironically, this is justification that concerns me the least. After all, Olbermann and Hannity are rival talk-show hosts, competing in an increasingly-growing market during a highly politically volatile time. I even have to wonder if Olbermann's past experience as a sportscaster contributed to his obviously competitive instinct here. In the era of the Fox News Channel and ubiquitous reality shows, it requires some serious provocation to keep an audience's attention. And what could be more provocative than calling for the public humiliation by torture of your most obnoxious professional rival?
Given that Olbermann's campaign seems to be motivated by a sincere desire to do the right thing in checking irresponsible members of his own profession, I would simply ask Mr. Olbermann to ponder this question: You have been compared- justly in my view- to Edward R. Murrow. Can you honestly imagine that Mr. Murrow would have condoned-much less engaged in-a campaign like the one you've run against Mr. Hannity? Murrow went up against the vilest of the vile, Senator Joe McCarthy, and never once did he reduce his tactics to those of his opponent. He found a way to reveal the logical weaknesses in McCarthy's views and the pathetic and desperate political motives behind it without sacrificing his own integrity. He simply gave McCarthy the rope with which to hang himself.
Trust me, Mr. Olbermann, that is all you need to do. The American people-your audience-want our public figures to help us access the better angels of our natures, not to continue exploiting what mystics call "the lower vibrating emotions"- anger, fear, judgment, envy, and in this case- a voyeuristic sadism wrapped in crude humor. You have apparently called off your campaign against Hannity, but it would be helpful to explain why (beyond noting that Hannity is a coward), and acknowledge that perhaps you were a little too human. That's what Murrow would have done, and it's what the Keith Olbermann I've come to respect would do as well.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Well, Keith *did* get 4 hiderates for his pro Hannity torture diary at the Daily Kos.
Ummm..... You DO realize, don't you, that Sean Hannity had said that he would undergo waterboarding to prove that it wasn't torture and that he would donate money to charity when he did it!!
I will grant that KO went a bit far in trying to get Hannity to undergo the procedure, but it was SEAN who brought it upon himself!!
See Cynthia Boaz's Profile
If there is a scrawny brat mouthing off and taunting the big, smart guy on the playground, does that make it okay for the big guy to smack him?
I'm sure it would be satisfying, but that doesn't make it right.
If there is a big strapping kid who says that he can take anything, is it reasonable for every other kid on the playground to dare him to do it?? That's what happened here!
You wrote, “ . . . Keith Olbermann has used his MSNBC show as a platform to call for the public water boarding of fellow commentator Sean Hannity . . . ”
I believe that is false premise. Sean Hannity claimed he would volunteer to be water boarded for charity, and Keith Olberman challenged him to keep his word.
The point, in my opinion, was to prove that Hannity had no intention of ever actually allowing himself to be water boarded. It seems to me he was just calling out a chickenhawk for his empty, jingoistic bluster.
See Cynthia Boaz's Profile
I get it, Tress, and I believe that calling Hannity's bluff does not trump the dangerous hypocrisy here.
>>I get it, Tress, and I believe that calling Hannity's bluff does not trump the dangerous hypocrisy here.>>>
And I grok "practice what you preach," Cynthia, but if you're advocating reasonableness from our side, then, for example, instead of imputing "voyeuristic sadism wrapped in crude humor" to someone I'm guessing you've never met, how about the more probable motive of "put up or shut up" -- particularly since Olbermann knew his target well enough to know he was just blowing smoke. Try to remember this was a campaign to prove Hannity to be a brave-talking bigmouth who's misleading his audience, not a wish to see him waterboarded. A person could be understood for having difficulty reconciling some of the overheated rhetoric in your article with your call for moderation.
See Cynthia Boaz's Profile
Waterboarding is either torture or it is not. Whether the person volunteered for it, is a complete fool, or a possible bad guy is besides the point. And if it is torture- as Olbermann argues-- and WE don't torture, than we can't make an exception, even for Hannity.
Otherwise we are just as guilty of justifying wrongs when they suit our political ends-- and therefore no better-- than our opponents.
Actually, you're wrong. Torture is illegal as an interrogation technique, but as something that a person volunteers for, it's not illegal, nor is it morally wrong provided that the person performing the waterboarding is not doing so in an official function of the government!
See Cynthia Boaz's Profile
Gandhi and every other practitioner of nonviolence would completely disagree with you that volunteering for something makes it morally acceptable. That's bizarre logic. People volunteer for immoral things all the time, and they are condemned because they are universally understood to be immoral (i.e. harmful to the individual or the collective). Volunteering does not exempt a person from the moral implications of their behavior.
This isn’t fair to Olbermann. He didn’t “call for Hannity to be waterboard
Regarding your #1 above, I see this as a win-win.
Hannity is coerced by torture to admit that it’s torture, which is self-affirming
Hannity resists the torture and continues to claim that it’s “not that bad,” thus drawing questions as to the effectiveness of the method.
Either way, torture doesn’t make any sense.
Hannity does not believe waterboarding is torture, therefore if he were to make good on his offer, he would only be "enhanced interrogat
I for one applaud Olberman for calling out these blowhards, who have done nothing in the way of serving their country, yet continue to hijack the word "patriot" with their "America: we'll put a boot in yer ass" mentality.
Personally I'd love to see the Dixie Chicks do the interrogat
Come on Sean... pony up for our military families!!!!
I agree with your condemnation of "the end justifying the means," but I think that would only apply if Olbermann wanted the CIA or some other group to actually torture Hannity. I'm sure you know that is not the case.
Hannity's world view holds that waterboarding is merely unpleasant. So it's reasonable to ask him to try it and see---voluntarily. Unlike prisoners undergoing actual torture, Hannity would remain in control. (I think most reasonable people would agree that the lack of control is central to the concept of torture, and duration is an important component.
It would suck, but it would be nothing like the experience of the detainees.
Sorry, not with you on this one. It was just tweaking Hannity and his big mouth about something he would never do. A conservative radio host got waterboarded and immediately said it was torture. That was pretty persuasive to a lot of people who had been on the fence. By the way, saying that your opponent's arguments "hardly deserve mentioning" and calling them 5th graders is not too persuasive either, its intellectually lazy.
There is only one issue here -
Torture is illegal. Our laws were broken.
And then the Geneva Convention -
All the talk about whether it works, is a non issue, a distraction, and the
Republicans like it that way.
Absolutely.
Few Americans on either side of the issue are appreciating this point.
And even the most ardent torture supporters have stopped arguing that it was somehow legal. Whether or not it works (it doesn't) won't change the fact that it's a crime and anyone who did it or ordered it or ignored that it was happening is a criminal.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
