Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy Does the Media Cover Up War Crimes?
In last week's column I cited New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau as a prime example of what ails us: reporters who don't report, a.k.a. journalists who love the government too much.
When Lichtblau found out that the Bush Administration was listening to Americans' phone calls and reading their e-mail, he decided to hold the story. Instead of fulfilling his duty to the Times' readers and running with it, he asked the White House for permission. By the time the NSA domestic surveillance story finally ran, 14 months had passed -- and Bush had won the 2004 election.
Again, in a May 17th piece bearing the headline "FBI Gets Mixed Review in Interrogation Report," Lichtblau is running interference for the government. "A new Justice Department report praises the refusal of FBI agents to take part in the military's abusive questioning of prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan," begins the article, "but it also finds fault with the bureau's slow response to complaints about the tactics from its own agents."
"Abusive questioning." "Harsh interrogation tactics."
According to the Justice Department report, "routine" treatment of Guantánamo prisoners -- witnessed by the FBI -- includes "bending the detainee's thumbs back and grabbing his genitals." Military and CIA torturers chained detainees' hands and feet together for as long as a full day, "left to defecate on themselves." They terrorized them with dogs, stripped them and made them wear women's underwear and subjected them to blaring music, freezing cold and searing heat.
Torture. Such a simple word. Why not use it?
Lichtblau's "mixed review" appellation notwithstanding, the report by the Justice Department paints a shocking, uniformly negative portrait of a federal law enforcement agency whose officers react to appalling conduct with the Nuremberg defense -- "I was just following orders."
"Indeed," reported U.S. News & World Report, "time after time, the report concludes that FBI agents saw or heard about numerous interrogation methods -- from sleep deprivation to duct-taping detainees' mouths to scaring them with dogs -- that plainly violated their own agency's code of conduct." (Not to mention the Geneva Conventions.) Rather than report their scruples to someone who might raise hell and put a stop to the systemic torture at Gitmo and other U.S. concentration camps -- i.e., the public -- FBI agents turned to the criminals. Just like Lichtblau did with domestic spying.
"When [one] agent mentioned [a torture] incident to the general [at Guantánamo], the general's response...was 'Thank you, gentlemen, but my boys know what they're doing.'" Ultimately the FBI, worried that agents could be charged with war crimes if they continued to witness the torture by CIA operatives and mercenaries, pulled its employees out of Gitmo and other camps. No one called a Congressman. None called a press conference.
FBI agents kept quiet -- even when the CIA frat-boy-style torture tactics screwed up their interrogations.
In 2003 one FBI agent had "begin building a rapport" with Yussef Mohammed Mubarak al-Shihri, a Saudi citizen. Al-Shihri told the agent that female CIA agents had "forced to listen to the 'meow mix' jingle for cat food for hours and had a women's dress 'draped' on him." As usual, the agent turned to the torturer. "The agent said he confronted a female military intelligence interrogator who admitted to 'poaching' his detainee, but there was little more the agent could do. Following the incident, al-Shihri became uncooperative, and the agent said he never bothered to tell his superiors about the military interrogator's actions."
Turning a blind eye to torture. Watching passively as CIA goons destroy the trust of a possible material witness to terrorism. What "mixed review"?
As usual, the Newspaper of Record's worst sins in Gitmogate are those of omission -- the really weird stuff that could deprive the Administration of its few remaining supporters. "Buried in a Department of Justice report," reported ABC News, "are new allegations about a 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guantánamo and interrogate Chinese Uyghurs held there."
Like their Tibetan neighbors, the Uyghurs of western China are victims of government oppression, including mass executions. Throughout the 1990s, U.S.-funded Radio Free Asia urged Uyghurs to revolt against Chinese occupation. After 9/11, however, the U.S. agreed to help China capture and torture Uyghur independence activists -- as a quid pro quo for not using its U.N. veto to stop the American invasion of Afghanistan. (There's more about the U.S. betrayal of the Uyghurs in my book "Silk Road to Ruin.")
"Uyghur detainees were kept awake for long periods, deprived of food and forced to endure cold for hours on end, just prior to questioning by Chinese interrogators," said ABC. "When Uyghur detainees refused to talk to Chinese interrogators in 2002, U.S. military personnel put them in solitary confinement as punishment."
It's a tale bizarre enough to make Rush Limbaugh blush: intelligence agents from communist China invited to an American military base, where they're allowed to torture political dissidents in American custody, with American soldiers as their sidekicks. In light of China's crackdown on Tibet during the run-up to the Olympics, it's a tasty news tidbit. But it didn't run in The Times -- as far as I can tell, it only ran in one newspaper, the Christian Science Monitor.
At the same time journo-wimp Lichtblau was penning his "balanced" take on the Justice Department's bombshell report, the U.S. government admitted that it has more than 500 children in its torture and concentration camps. More than 2,500 children have gone through U.S. secret prisons since 2002, including at least eight at Guantánamo.
I know a lot of right-wing conservatives. We don't share much political common ground, but it's hard to imagine any of them thinking the indefinite detention and torture of children, against whom there is no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing, is anything other than the behavior of a monster.
If a man screams in a government torture chamber, does he make a sound? Not if the only one who hears him is an American reporter.
Ted Rall is the author of the book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.
© 2008 Ted Rall
15 Comments so far
Show AllWow, look at the all caps! I don't remember Daniel ever shouting. One of us must've hit a nerve!
No, drift, his post isn't completely incoherent. It completely ignores most of what I wrote and has some childishness thrown in, but it's not incoherent. I kind of hate to admit it, after all, doing so might be too "milquetoast." (You know, like editing the "shit" out of "shitless" when quoting someone.) I suppose challenging him to pistols at dawn would've been the manly Democratic thing to do.
Childishness: illogical ad hominem. A username is not literal, nor is it a claim. So it's far from a literal claim. That should be obvious to those with critical thinking skills.
Then he lops off the point when quoting me (shades of "scared '____less'"). Fine, he disagrees with my point; such editing is the shill thing to do.
Why do I think his plan is not a real, fool-proof plan? As I said before, how realistic is it to believe Democrats will gain such a huge majority that the conservative wing won't unite with the Republicans? Will it take a virtual One Party State? Is that what Mr. David wants? Would that require us all to answer all questions with "Just vote Democrat?"
Such a scenario is sure to lead to corruption!
Which brings me to my main objection. It already has. I believe it is possible to assemble majorities of Democrats to rule in ways that defy the liberals that helped put them there, particularly when the president is a conservative Democrat. I'm not a kid, and I remember the Clinton years. I remember how he strong armed NAFTA through both minority Democratic and minority Republican opposition. I remember how the Democrats regurgitated Law-N-Order talk to defend against Republican inquiries into the mishandling of the Branch Davidians. I remember how few made a peep when Madeline Albright said "we" think 500,000 dead Iraqi children is a price worth paying.
That's the problem with political parties in a two party system. Look at how Republicans have overlooked Bush's profligate spending and growth of government powers. (And, for that matter, how the Naderites overlook Nader's suspicious investments.) When it's "our guy" we look the other way, because it's either "us" or "them." It's like a fucking football game.
The reasons Mr. David gives for bowing and scraping before the Two Party System are precisely why the Two Party System must be destroyed. It prevents necessary change. If we must have political parties, we should have smaller, weaker ones that are more answerable to the people and can form coalitions which are more adaptable to the crises we face.
Put down the crack pipe, DD. Your post is completely incoherent.
well, drift, here's a quote for you to "consider", taken from the milquetoast post you are bragging on by someone literally claiming to be barely human:
"Now, do I have a fool-proof plan for controlling those who would put children in camps? No,"
THIS IS THE POINT. He, she, (they) DON'T HAVE A PLAN. I DO! HERE IT IS!
The reason a "stable full" of Democrats can work for you is not that those individual politicians are more virtuous than others. The REASON is that corporate-over-reach and MIC-dominated legislation will not pass a MAJORITY of them (having liberal constituencies, as they do) and be also signed by a liberal president (him or her also having a liberal constituency). IT'S NOT THAT DEMOCRATS ARE SUPER PEOPLE, IMMUNE, FOR INSTANCE, FROM LOBBYISTS. IT IS THAT YOU CANNOT ASSEMBLE MAJORITIES OF THEM (INCLUDING A DEM PRESIDENT) TO RULE IN WAYS THAT DEFY THE LIBERALS WHO PUT THEM THERE.
barely human,
Absolutely right on. That's the best come back to DD I've read on a thread here.
DD-
A quote for you to consider:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen..."
-Emerson
The lack of comments on articles concerning torture(among so-called "progressives") speaks volumes about the moral state of our country. The U.S. is in big, big trouble.
My my, you seem threatened. Maybe you're not, but nonetheless you're reaching.
Neither curmudgeon nor I ever said every personal Democrat is a shill, and you (should) know it. I said you talk like one. I know Democrats who make good arguments. You're not one of them.
They don't imply that I have the power to elect "a stable full" of Democrats, which I don't. I can vote for the ones on the ballot in my area, and if enough people agree, some of them will be elected. That's a course of action that can be rationally suggested. To suggest it at every possible opportunity, as the one and only solution to almost every problem, however, is shill-like.
And it's the "and only" part that I take extreme exception to. You, on at least a couple of occasions, have suggested people not protest or other such things. My impression is that you want people to give all governmental power to the Democratic Party, and for their political activity to stop there. Just leave all decisions, including who we should vote for, to the Democratic Party leaders. That idea may not trouble you, but unless you really are a paid DNC shill, it should. In effect, if not intention, you are attempting to channel all dissent into a single channel which is acceptable to the system and status quo. I believe a term for that is "Judas goat."
That kind of thing is exactly why not every Democrat should be trusted.
Would you approve if a bunch us types of people joined our local Democratic chapters and started turning the party to the far-left? Would you approve of us running for office as Democrats? Would you approve of us opening our "incoherent" mouths in the name of the Party? Or would you rather we just shut up, press the lever, and get back to work?
Now, do I have a fool-proof plan for controlling those who would put children in camps? No, and I don't believe you do either. One doesn't need to know where the hose is to point out the theater is on fire. And voting for each and every Democrat on the ticket is not a firehose. I'm not one of those who believes every Democrat is an evil corporate stooge, but neither am I one who swallows the lie that none of them are. I might trust Obama to free the children, but I surely don't trust Clinton to.
Voting a straight ticket is for people who don't think.
Wisdom has come unto you from people who call themselves barely human and (a) curmudgeon? With eye rolls and the notion that every personal Democrat is a shill from a committee? I say ask THEM how THEY plan to control those putting children in camps.
Be prepared, too, to wait a long time for a coherent answer. Because these types of people have no answers.
(Yes, "types" of people.)
Ah yes, Daniel David, the DNDC shill is heard from again.
Maybe, kent, but I'm not scared "____less" to elect a full stable of Democrats to Washington, and you shouldn't be either. 2008 is the year to get it done, and it's ALL that needs to be done to reverse a lot of damage on this topic and dozens of others.
*rolls eyes* The DNC needs to hire a better ad agency.
Bernice the Murderer in Chief has not taken the 2nd and 10th Amendments away yet so according to those 2 Amendments we grab about 500,000 all armed to the teeth and storm 1600!
I'm game....
Ethiopia's former dictator, Mengistu Haile Mariam, faces an uneasy 31 days while he still enjoys the protection of Robert Mugabe.
The regime has vowed to continue protecting Mengistu, despite an Ethiopian Supreme Court sentencing him to death on Monday for a genocide that claimed the lives of 2000 people and the torture of 2400 others.
- SW Radio Africa
Compaired to Cheney and Bush Mengistu is a real piker!
George Monbiot plans to carry out a citizen's arrest of John Bolton for war crimes when he speaks at a "festival of ideas" in England this week. Wow!!!
With a big enough crowd of citizens, could Americans do that here and hustle the arrestees off to the World Criminal Court?
To those of us who believe 911 was planned, allowed or an inside job, the entire debacle of prisoners becomes its own premeditated fiction. What info could they have if they are not in any sense an enemy, only a contrived member of a plot so dark that it almost calls for devices to deter minds from realizing what in fact IS underway.
Maybe, kent, but I'm not scared "____less" to elect a full stable of Democrats to Washington, and you shouldn't be either. 2008 is the year to get it done, and it's ALL that needs to be done to reverse a lot of damage on this topic and dozens of others.
"the U.S. government admitted that it has more than 500 children in its torture and concentration camps. More than 2,500 children have gone through U.S. secret prisons since 2002, including at least eight at Guantánamo."
This just makes me SO proud to be an American. THESE ARE PRE-MEDITATED WAR CRIMES. Bush is no better than Mussolini or Hitler.
So. What are you gonna do about it? Nothing. What am I gonna do about it? Nothing. Because we are scared shitless of what might happen. We are wimps who hide behind a keyboard and cower in fear of the government. We can't risk losing our jobs, which of course are soon moving to our good friends the
Communist Red Chinese anyway. Oh, hell, its 8000 miles away and I don't know any Iraqis. They're just little brown non-humans, anyway, right? They don't feel pain. They don't grieve. They really are sub-human. They DESERVE torture, no matter how young. Right? Right?