Here’s the text of an email I sent to Instapundit, who’s joined with Heretical Ideas’ Alex Knapp in condemning prison rape as palatable punishment. ‘Course, they seem to be talkin’ in the abstract, whereas I was quite specific in my targeting. At any rate, I’m interested in hearing comments, so chime in, y’all. Here’s my original post. Here’s Alex Knapp’s response to that post on Heretical Ideas. Here’s my rejoinder. And here’s Glenn Reynolds’ pronouncement, to which I responded, via email, as follows:
Glenn–
[cc: Alex Knapp]
I’m writing in response to your commentary on Alex Knapp’s reply to my “rape” post, in which I wrote the following:
“Johnny bin Walker, the American Taliban-cum-Al Qaeda gunman, won’t be charged with treason by the U.S. government, Attorney General John Ashrcroft revealed moments ago. Even though Walker admits he knew of the 9/11 terror attacks against the U.S, and even though he nevertheless pledged his services to Usama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network (he even volunteered for advanced training), none of the charges leveled against Walker carry the death penalty. Officially, Walker is charged with aiding the enemy and conspiracy to kill American nationals (among other charges), for which he’ll be tried in civilian court; if convicted, he could receive life in prison.
Now the good news…Walker’s lanky frame, pouty lips, and ability to yelp and moan in a number of Arab and central Asian dialects, will doubtless make him very popular in prison as the prized Tali-bitch of any number of meaty cellblock lifers…”
You’ll notice that this post was written at the moment Ashcroft was announcing the DOJ’s decision not to pursue any charges against Walker that carry with them the death penalty (“Attorney General…revealed moments ago”), and so is tinged both with disappointment in the trajectory of the prosecution and with utter contempt for Walker himself.
You write that “the notion that rape is somehow an appropriate punishment is evil and wrong — and, unfortunately, much too widespread.” Fine. I’m sure many people feel this way — even those who “cheerfully” support the death penalty, or the shooting of Bin Laden, et al., on site. But to be fair, Alex’s criticism was that the attitude behind my suggestiveness was somehow “blase,” which most assuredly is not the case. I happen to hold Walker in the highest order of contempt and, were I Dante, I’m sure I’d invent a whole new circle in Hell just for him.
But all of this rhetoric is so much posing anyway — on all sides. In a fit of anger over learning Walker wouldn’t be charged with treason (and I think he should be), I jotted up a set of snarky throw-away sentences (not unlike something you’d likely hear on “A Very Special ‘Will & Grace'”) — sentences which I stand by only insofar as they represent my contempt for John Walker alone. Alex took those lines as an occasion to rant about the evils of rape and the unfair treatment of prisoners (many of whom are innocent, he reminds us), and you’ve taken his retort as an opportunity to seize a similar moral highground. Yet we each of us know that my post had nothing to do with any “culture of rape,” or with any generalized notions of crime or punishment that can be construed, in a broad sense, as “evil.”
There’s a disturbing parallel here (and I may be looking too closely at all this, so I’d be curious to get your thoughts): I’ve become accustomed to hearing some of my more liberal peers seize on quite benign (and quite specific) instances of pronoun usage by some unfortunate student or colleague as an opportunity to express enlightened outrage over what they’ll inevitably brand the dehumanization of the “Other” (or some such tripe). It goes something like this: (Student): “Well, they strap explosives to themselves and –” (‘Outraged’ Colleague): “Wait, who’s this ‘they’? Are you branding all Muslims terrorists?” etc.; this outrage is, of course, quite contrived, but it’s sanctimoniously affected anyway — without any concern for the intent of that original, somewhat-less-than-“provocative” utterance. But responsibility follows from intention — and so I get quite exercised when I notice smart people showing off by purposely removing an utterance from its context in order to use it to make some grander point. This weakens linguistic responsibilty, because it attenuates originary “meaning.” And the relativism our culture suffers from today, I believe, is in part a result of such deconstruction of the terms of the speech act — particularly with regards to written transmissions.
If I failed to make my intention clear, then the failure of the utterance is mine. But I don’t believe that to be the case, especially as I took the time to qualify my original post. I wrote: “Alex Knapp over at Heretical Ideas is absolutely right: There
You know what I think is interesting about all of this? It’s that Alex Knapp and the rest want Walker <i>dead</i> but are outraged at the thought that he’ll be raped!
They act like rape is a state-sponsored punishment.
Of course the prison system could use a good overhaul, but for the funds they have right now, I think correction officials are doing the best they can.
Hi-
Unfortunately your explanation that your desire was in the specific and not blase is still rather problematic.
We are a nation of laws, correct (or, at least, that is the theory)? It seems fairly clear that for a variety of reasons the people in charge of such things feel that they are unwilling or unable to try and convict the Marin County Madman (my apologies to any Nugent fans) of treason as defined by the constitution. This, perhaps rightfully, angers yourself and many others as you feel he most definitely was a traitor and should come to a traitor’s rather ignominious end as soon as possible. All well and good, but, knowing that’s not going to happen, you rightly note with some pleasure the fact that given his stature he’s apt to face some rather nasty things in jail. Your pleasure is purely aimed at the one particular instance, because of your contempt for the individual in question.
You note that “Yet we each of us know that my post had nothing to do with any “culture of rape,” or with any generalized notions of crime or punishment that can be construed, in a broad sense, as “evil.””. It seems to me that your comment had more to do with your view of justice. Johnny Jihad was not going to get the justice you feel he truly deserved, but at least he was going to likely be humiliated, debased, and emasculated.
Therein lies the problem, at least as I see it – that is not justice of any kind. Who ends up on the receiving end of someone’s anal humiliations has nothing to do with who “deserves it” and Johnny Jihad may yet surprise you and end up giving as well as he gets. Where then the justice, as he forces his predations on someone smaller and weaker than he?
You comment, while perhaps understandable in the heat of the moment, is akin to many liberal’s wish that Strom Thurmand’s grandkids get AIDs – or whatever exactly the bad thing they’re wishing on someone they dislike these days is. A virus can no more deal out true justice than a prisoner who is bigger and badder than someone you dislike can simply by dent of superior force.
Johnny Jihad likely will face such predations when he gets to prison. There’s perhaps an equal probability that he may force those predations on another, too, in the infinite order of prison pecking. These are facts, for better or ill (ones that perhaps we should be paying more attention too, but that’s another discussion), but no matter how much I might wish he were going to hang for his crimes I can’t take any pleasure in them.
Myria
Fuck Johnny with a spoon.
The last commenter, Myria, asked, what if Johnny rapes somebody? What if he becomes dominant in prison?
Well, the way I read your posts, you’d probably answer that he’d be in the wrong for doing so. You’d probably also say (?)that any prisoner who rapes Johnny Jihad is wrong, too. But you DO think that, should such a thing happen to Johnny, it wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Sure there’s a degree of vindictiveness in this, but are we really hoping to “rehabilitate” Walker? No. We want to punish him. Given that he probably lived in worse conditions in Afghanistan than he will in a U.S. prison, debasement and humiliation are, as you say, “what is left.”
So once again, fuck Johnny boy with a spoon!
–B.F. Creighton
I am not so certain I understand what is the problem? Is physical humilation not the fair punishment for fighting your own countrymen? I think he should have to spend just 1 year in Army Prison instead. Let him choose and see if he takes the Army prison. I say, no.
The active, aggressive, arrogant man is still a hundred steps closer to justice than the reactive man; for he has absolutely no need to take a false and prejudiced view of the object before him in the way the reactive man does and is bound to do. For that reason the aggressive man, as the stronger, nobler, more courageous, has in fact also had at all times a freer eye, a better conscience on his side…
On the Geneology of Morals
Second Essay, Section 11
I’m with BW. The thought of humiliating spectacle, as expressed in his original post, is most satisfying as release of the frustration of Ashcroft’s announcement as well as payment for the breaking of the social contract.
I agree with Ray Eckhart, though I don’t know how comfortable it makes you feel being so perfectly in line with Nietszche…
Ideally, such brutality would be unnecessary; but we ARE hoping to make an example of John Walker, and we’re likewise (many of us) hoping he suffers for his heinous crimes. To suggest we’re doing otherwise is to muddy the ethical waters quite needlessly.
I haven’t see any response from Prof. Reynolds on his Instapundit site, by the way. Will you post his email response here?