It's Torture-But Let's Not Call It That
The Washington Post (3/31/14) got a big scoop on the massive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the CIA's Bush-era torture program. But they wouldn't call it.
The Washington Post (3/31/14) got a big scoop on the massive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the CIA's Bush-era torture program. But they wouldn't call it.
Under the headline "CIA Misled on Interrogation Program, Senate Report Says," reporters Greg Miller, Adam Goldman and Ellen Nakashima explain that the still-classified, 6,000-plus page report finds that the CIA misled lawmakers and the public about the effectiveness of torture.
But the piece doesn't call it torture. Readers learn about a "brutal interrogation program," "harsh techniques," "excruciating interrogation methods," "brutal measures," "harsh interrogation techniques," "coercive techniques," "previously undisclosed cases of abuse," "harsh treatment" and "enhanced interrogation techniques."
The descriptions were at times quite vivid. Readers learn of the treatment of one prisoner:
CIA interrogators forcibly kept his head under the water while he struggled to breathe and beat him repeatedly, hitting him with a truncheon-like object and smashing his head against a wall.
But they still won't call that "torture." The only time that word was used was in reference to critics: "methods that Obama and others later labeled torture."
It's important to understand that, as many critics have pointed out, that these kinds of tactics would be labeled as torture if they were happening in another country (Extra!, 6/08). The media's role in endorsing and excusing torture has been an issue as long as the US torture program has been public (Extra!, 6/04). The press has done its part to justify torture, even pushing the false idea that torture was key to finding Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (FAIR Media Advisory, 5/4/11).
So while it's not new that some media outlets are still hesitant to call torture "torture," it's still revealing-and probably not an accident. Post reporter Miller appeared on the PBS Newshour (4/1/14) to talk about his piece. Host Judy Woodruff referred to "harsh techniques," and Miller explained that there was
very little evidence that these enhanced techniques, as they're called-we're referring to water-boarding, sleep deprivation, things like that-delivered any significant intelligence in the aftermath of 9/11.
What reporters call torture is important-even when they're reporting illuminating and very useful information about the scope of the program.
The Post isn't done covering the issue; Wednesday (4/2/14), columnist David Ignatius made it sound like the Senate report is shocking-it "includes gruesome new details about interrogation practices in the first year after September 11, 2001, before the CIA's program was formally established with the misplaced approval of President George W. Bush's Justice Department."
Ignatius uses the "T-word," and suggests that some of the details "will shock the conscience in the same way that the Abu Ghraib and waterboarding revelations did."
He also writes: "The heart of the dispute isn't whether torture is immoral-nobody would argue that question today-but whether it was ever effective."
Of course, there are still people who would argue that torture is, in some cases, perfectly moral. Like his Post colleague Charles Krauthammer, who wrote this a few years ago (5/15/09):
Our jurisprudence has the "reasonable man" standard. A jury is asked to consider what a reasonable person would do under certain urgent circumstances.
On the morality of waterboarding and other "torture," Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.
Perhaps Ignatius thinks Krauthammer has changed his mind. I suspect not.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The Washington Post (3/31/14) got a big scoop on the massive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the CIA's Bush-era torture program. But they wouldn't call it.
Under the headline "CIA Misled on Interrogation Program, Senate Report Says," reporters Greg Miller, Adam Goldman and Ellen Nakashima explain that the still-classified, 6,000-plus page report finds that the CIA misled lawmakers and the public about the effectiveness of torture.
But the piece doesn't call it torture. Readers learn about a "brutal interrogation program," "harsh techniques," "excruciating interrogation methods," "brutal measures," "harsh interrogation techniques," "coercive techniques," "previously undisclosed cases of abuse," "harsh treatment" and "enhanced interrogation techniques."
The descriptions were at times quite vivid. Readers learn of the treatment of one prisoner:
CIA interrogators forcibly kept his head under the water while he struggled to breathe and beat him repeatedly, hitting him with a truncheon-like object and smashing his head against a wall.
But they still won't call that "torture." The only time that word was used was in reference to critics: "methods that Obama and others later labeled torture."
It's important to understand that, as many critics have pointed out, that these kinds of tactics would be labeled as torture if they were happening in another country (Extra!, 6/08). The media's role in endorsing and excusing torture has been an issue as long as the US torture program has been public (Extra!, 6/04). The press has done its part to justify torture, even pushing the false idea that torture was key to finding Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (FAIR Media Advisory, 5/4/11).
So while it's not new that some media outlets are still hesitant to call torture "torture," it's still revealing-and probably not an accident. Post reporter Miller appeared on the PBS Newshour (4/1/14) to talk about his piece. Host Judy Woodruff referred to "harsh techniques," and Miller explained that there was
very little evidence that these enhanced techniques, as they're called-we're referring to water-boarding, sleep deprivation, things like that-delivered any significant intelligence in the aftermath of 9/11.
What reporters call torture is important-even when they're reporting illuminating and very useful information about the scope of the program.
The Post isn't done covering the issue; Wednesday (4/2/14), columnist David Ignatius made it sound like the Senate report is shocking-it "includes gruesome new details about interrogation practices in the first year after September 11, 2001, before the CIA's program was formally established with the misplaced approval of President George W. Bush's Justice Department."
Ignatius uses the "T-word," and suggests that some of the details "will shock the conscience in the same way that the Abu Ghraib and waterboarding revelations did."
He also writes: "The heart of the dispute isn't whether torture is immoral-nobody would argue that question today-but whether it was ever effective."
Of course, there are still people who would argue that torture is, in some cases, perfectly moral. Like his Post colleague Charles Krauthammer, who wrote this a few years ago (5/15/09):
Our jurisprudence has the "reasonable man" standard. A jury is asked to consider what a reasonable person would do under certain urgent circumstances.
On the morality of waterboarding and other "torture," Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.
Perhaps Ignatius thinks Krauthammer has changed his mind. I suspect not.
The Washington Post (3/31/14) got a big scoop on the massive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the CIA's Bush-era torture program. But they wouldn't call it.
Under the headline "CIA Misled on Interrogation Program, Senate Report Says," reporters Greg Miller, Adam Goldman and Ellen Nakashima explain that the still-classified, 6,000-plus page report finds that the CIA misled lawmakers and the public about the effectiveness of torture.
But the piece doesn't call it torture. Readers learn about a "brutal interrogation program," "harsh techniques," "excruciating interrogation methods," "brutal measures," "harsh interrogation techniques," "coercive techniques," "previously undisclosed cases of abuse," "harsh treatment" and "enhanced interrogation techniques."
The descriptions were at times quite vivid. Readers learn of the treatment of one prisoner:
CIA interrogators forcibly kept his head under the water while he struggled to breathe and beat him repeatedly, hitting him with a truncheon-like object and smashing his head against a wall.
But they still won't call that "torture." The only time that word was used was in reference to critics: "methods that Obama and others later labeled torture."
It's important to understand that, as many critics have pointed out, that these kinds of tactics would be labeled as torture if they were happening in another country (Extra!, 6/08). The media's role in endorsing and excusing torture has been an issue as long as the US torture program has been public (Extra!, 6/04). The press has done its part to justify torture, even pushing the false idea that torture was key to finding Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (FAIR Media Advisory, 5/4/11).
So while it's not new that some media outlets are still hesitant to call torture "torture," it's still revealing-and probably not an accident. Post reporter Miller appeared on the PBS Newshour (4/1/14) to talk about his piece. Host Judy Woodruff referred to "harsh techniques," and Miller explained that there was
very little evidence that these enhanced techniques, as they're called-we're referring to water-boarding, sleep deprivation, things like that-delivered any significant intelligence in the aftermath of 9/11.
What reporters call torture is important-even when they're reporting illuminating and very useful information about the scope of the program.
The Post isn't done covering the issue; Wednesday (4/2/14), columnist David Ignatius made it sound like the Senate report is shocking-it "includes gruesome new details about interrogation practices in the first year after September 11, 2001, before the CIA's program was formally established with the misplaced approval of President George W. Bush's Justice Department."
Ignatius uses the "T-word," and suggests that some of the details "will shock the conscience in the same way that the Abu Ghraib and waterboarding revelations did."
He also writes: "The heart of the dispute isn't whether torture is immoral-nobody would argue that question today-but whether it was ever effective."
Of course, there are still people who would argue that torture is, in some cases, perfectly moral. Like his Post colleague Charles Krauthammer, who wrote this a few years ago (5/15/09):
Our jurisprudence has the "reasonable man" standard. A jury is asked to consider what a reasonable person would do under certain urgent circumstances.
On the morality of waterboarding and other "torture," Pelosi and other senior and expert members of Congress represented their colleagues, and indeed the entire American people, in rendering the reasonable person verdict. What did they do? They gave tacit approval. In fact, according to Goss, they offered encouragement. Given the circumstances, they clearly deemed the interrogations warranted.
Perhaps Ignatius thinks Krauthammer has changed his mind. I suspect not.