What do you call it when prisoners are slammed into walls, forced to wear diapers, placed in stress positions and subjected to drowning? You call that torture–unless you’re the New York Times, and the United States is accused of being the torturers.
A new report from Human Rights Watch indicates the group has found another victim of CIA waterboarding. This is especially significant because the Agency has long claimed that they had only tortured three people this way.
The Human Rights Watch investigation was reported in the New York Times (9/6/12) by Charlie Savage and Scott Shane. But their report recalled the Times‘ record on what to call torture when the United States is doing the torturing.
In 2004, FAIR called out the Times for the paper’s unwillingness to call label torture committed by the United States as torture. A study by Harvard students in 2010 established that major outlets called waterboarding torture–until it was revealed that the United States was doing it. The problem didn’t go away; in 2010, the paper referred to “harsh interrogation techniques” in a review of a George W. Bush book.
So what does today’s New York Times call water torture?
Libyan Mohammed Shoroeiya claims he was detained in Pakistan in 2003 and held by the CIA before being returned to Libya. His description of waterboarding and being forced to stand on a box would qualify as torture–and would likely be called that, were it not for the fact that it’s the CIA that’s accused of torturing.
So instead readers get euphemisms: “waterboarding,” “interrogation methods,” “CIA techniques,” “treatment of terrorist suspects” and “other mistreatment”–which is an unusually sanitized term for what Shoroeiya and another detainee are talking about:
They described being stripped naked and chained to walls; being left in diapers in dark cells for weeks or months at a time without being allowed to bathe; being forced into painful stress positions; being slammed into walls while their necks were protected by a foam collar; being forced into a small box; and being subjected to continuous, loud music.
The Times does not completely avoid the T word. There is one reference to a “board being used in water torture” halfway through the piece.
But contrast the overall tone of the Times account to Human Rights Watch’s approach. This is their lead:
The United States government during the Bush administration tortured opponents of Muammar Gadhafi, then transferred them to mistreatment in Libya, according to accounts by former detainees and recently uncovered CIA and UK Secret Service documents, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. One former detainee alleged he was waterboarded and another described a similar form of water torture, contradicting claims by Bush administration officials that only three men in U.S. custody had been waterboarded.
As Human Rights Watch reports, the detainees were reportedly tortured–and then handed over to Libya. If the report was devoted solely to detailing the torture they suffered under Gadhafi, one might assume the Times would call it torture.
No they don’t have a torture problem, they have a problem with reality.
http://www.mondopolitico.com/library/1984/1984_c17.htm
In one combination or another, these three super-states are permanently at war, and have been so for the past twenty-five years. War, however, is no longer the desperate, annihilating struggle that it was in the early decades of the twentieth century. It is a warfare of limited aims between combatants who are unable to destroy one another, have no material cause for fighting and are not divided by any genuine ideological difference. This is not to say that either the conduct of war, or the prevailing attitude towards it, has become less bloodthirsty or more chivalrous. On the contrary, war hysteria is continuous and universal in all countries, and such acts as raping, looting, the slaughter of children, the reduction of whole populations to slavery, and reprisals against prisoners which extend even to boiling and burying alive, are looked upon as normal, and, when they are committed by one’s own side and not by the enemy, meritorious. But in a physical sense war involves very small numbers of people, mostly highly-trained specialists, and causes comparatively few casualties. The fighting, when there is any, takes place on the vague frontiers whose whereabouts the average man can only guess at, or round the Floating Fortresses which guard strategic spots on the sea lanes. In the centres of civilization war means no more than a continuous shortage of consumption goods, and the occasional crash of a rocket bomb which may cause a few scores of deaths. War has in fact changed its character. More exactly, the reasons for which war is waged have changed in their order of importance. Motives which were already present to some small extent in the great wars of the early twentieth century have now become dominant and are consciously recognized and acted upon.
They think they are the Minitrue of Big Brother.
For the Times
These horrors are literally unspeakable
War itself is torture, totally wasteful of humans, energy and resources. Adding bizarre methods of harming the “enemy” only makes it even more repugnant. Furthermore, drone bombs used against countrymen with whom we are not officially at war ought to be outlawed as war crimes. The world needs caring and sharing to survive the actions of rapacious entrepenuers who profit from greed, exploitation, racism and hate. For starters, Christians should actually practice “doing unto others as they would like to be treated themselves.”
our government and its allied media components shame me
I am heartbroken and ashamed to realize that my country is so cruel as to torture prisoners in any way. “Waterboarding” –making people have the terrible sensation of drowning helplessly–is despicable, as is all torture.
The “Golden Rule” for human relationships is found in all major cultures, and is historically ancient. It should be followed in the U.S. treatment of prisoners of war: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
We must be able to imagine ourselves in the position of those prisoners.
There is retributive justice, which is vengeful. There is restorative justice, which first does no harm and second provides for forgiveness and rehabilitation, with care and wisdom. I choose restorative justice!
I agree with everything that the posters above have said. It is very sad to see that what used to be called The Fourth Estate, and the “watchdog for the nation. Media has often seem to have become more of a lapdog than anything else.
I think this makes the citizens even more schizo too; it’s hard to not laugh at “exceptional” when it seems that so many are making integrity and real research into a “Where’s Waldo” game.
The other freaky thing is that this seems to be creating a weird version of
trickle down” in terms of what governments do. Some people seem to be using government behavior as what they should do.
For example, the man who tried to kill his girlfriend because her politics opposed his; the man who waterboarded his girlfriend to get the “truth.” The use of internet bullying by parents for their children. Maybe it goes back to The weirdness of an elected official yelling “you lie,” during the State of a Union message. Maybe with all those cable channels and people sitting at home and yelling at their TVs, maybe that Joe guy forgot where he was and thought he was in a sports bar.
I know that’s not a lot of examples, but read your local news and look at how many peculiar things that citizens are doing to each other, and compare that with how the politicans act. If the government is supposed to lead by example, I wonder where are they leading? Maybe reporters can look at that, and even their own responses as to why
they seem to write things that often say nothing much at all.
I have always believed water boarding was torture.Period!Certainly if Some foreign power kidnapped our secretary of state let say….. and water boarded her…..it may be considered torture.If one of Bushes girls were water boarded by her man in a domestic dispute….it may be considered torture.Any argument that it is not is deluded.
What strikes me about this article is this.I read the first line and I knew…I just knew it would harken back to Bushes days.As if abuse is not going on as we speak.Obama clean…Bush dirty.God FAIR but you are so predictable.
Gloriana I thought that fellow yelling “you lie”……or the supreme court justice mouthing “that is not true” were GREAT American moments.Where in the midst of the pomp and circumstance of knowing your rightful place -a dudes head just exploded because he knew he was hearing a blatant lie,and he spurted.I was at a wedding were i knew the girl was continuing an affair as she took her vows.If only I had the guts to say something.Oh well…. alls well as ends well.He finally caught her 6 months in ,and showed her to the curb.Same deal with Obama 4 years in
Some will dispute whether “waterboarding” “is” “torture.”
This depends on the meaning of the word “is” ( Clinton) as well as the meaning of the word “torture”(Bush and Obama). And let’s get the meaning of the word “terrorism” straight too, while we’re at it.
We the people have to get our hands on that top secret dictionary used by Clinton, Bush, and Obama or we’ll never figure out what these drunkards and dope heads are talking about.
Wow, michael e. ” …great American moments?”
Well let’s see… I think the Marshall Plan was a great military moment, as parachuting food in for people is much better than droning them. Edward R. Murrow calling out Joe McCarthy for what he was, was certainly a great Journalistic and truth moment. Everyone else seemed afraid to do it.
Even Richard Nixon and THE CLEAN WATER Act was a great moment. WATERGATE coverage was really a great moment, because there was real investigative work! The DOJ suing BP is another great moment too. ( although it took a while.)
Why do you think that showing RUDENESS is a great American moment? If a Supreme Court Justice and a congress person act like little bullies on the playground, all that shows to me is that they have no argument at all, just a penchant for hissy fits.
And if the NYT thinks that torture is only what OTHER nations and people do, then their reporting is even worse that of William Randolph Hearst.
Is anyone still surprised the the US government (or pretty much any government) lies and tortures? The NYT main purpose is to support US policy, with only mild ‘tut-tuts’ from the sidelines. They will never actully show elite power and its workings, as they are themselves part of the power structure, whose main purpose is to propagandise for the status quo. Telling the truth is not for the NYT or other mainstream media, as it would mean no more “exclusives”. This would be a good thing in my mind as the “exclusives” are propaganda of the worst kind as people don’t see it as such, but believe it to be the truth. Soviet people knew they were being lied to but most readers of western mainstream media don’t think so. Wonder which form of lies is worse?
Gloriana …You said Ed Morrow calling out Joe McCarthy was a great journalistic moment of truthfulness.Yet you don’t see people calling out Obama …who is doing a million times more damage to this country than Joe ever could of dreamed of anything but rudeness?Gloriana sometimes Im amazed that Boehner and the rest of them don’t roar to their feet shouting till their viens pop in their throats…. “you mother f-ing liar”!!!!!But we must all keep ourselves in such a way that our grandmothers would not find fault with us i agree.We must find a quiet, respectful way to nail this jello to a tree as it were.I know we can count on you to show the same respectful attitudes to people like George Bush for their service to this country.
LOL michael e.:
G.W and “service to his country?” I think that both he and Mr. Cheney were only doing service for themselves. : ) However, both of these men had an opportunity to “serve” their nation during the Vietnam war, and neither did that, and all the “swift boating” in the world can’t change that bit of history.
Although, I don’t think I’m alone in this thought about what service means, as it seems really hard for either one to leave the country without some other nation wanting to arrest them for war crimes. : )
FACT CHECK: your prior comment re: ” I was at a wedding where I knew the girl was continuing an affair as she took her vows..” Hmmmm, what your know for sure? The only way you would know this FOR SURE was if YOU were the one having the affair with her. : )
Friends don’t let friends get punked. : )
Gloriana I did know for sure….. because she told me.She was my friend.Knew her since we were little kids.Sad
As for Bush…did you know…..
When he signed up, and was excepted for the fighter program ,that immediate deployment was the name of the game for that type of aircraft?He knew that going in.
-That he scored as high on tactics as his trainer was able to give.He called Bush a brilliant fighter pilot.The best he had seen in his 12 years teaching?Guts and balls to spare?
-That 2 months prior to deployment, his plane was deemed unfit due to new developments in Vietnamese anti aircraft missiles?
As for Kerry did you know?
When he joined the swift boat it was expected he would do his training and service in the great lakes region?He in fact was promised that.But when the new counter insurgency methods were developed within the ‘”brown water navy”,that he hit the roof when he found where he was going?This according to his friends at the time.
Suffice it to say that they both joined at a time when the young people actually were FOR the war.By the time that turned around a few short years later both Bush and kerry were disillusioned, and wanted out.
So Bush is worried about travel abroad and being arrested you say?The hell you say.Gloriana do you have any idea how his….or Clintons…..or Jimmy Carters secret service detail would view such a threat?Or how any standing president and his sec of state would react?Dont be silly.Suffice it to say that any former president is in danger for his very life for ,as long as he lives, from a select few.That I agree with.
As far as Cheney,well like Joe Biden he to had two deferments.Was that wrong?I will leave you to be judge and jury
Former presidents still have secret service people? Well, there’s something in the budget to cut. Unmm, “The hell I say.” : well actually other nations have talked about and done something about the war crimes people, including Spain. I think Mynamar did finish their court case and the verdict re: Bush and Cheney..guilty.
LoL, Bush…”…..guts and balls to spare?” I guessed that’s why he wore a flight suit when he announced that the war was over. Silliness ….to spare, I guess. : )
What are you reading to get this GW information ? Are you sure it wasn’t a satire? : )
Micky e,
Bush was and is a war dodging yella’ bellied coward. Would you like to take this opportunity to condemn his illegal use of torture seeing as how you admit water boarding is, and was used under his miserable regime? … Thought not.
Michael I will take this, and any opportunity to say that torture is wrong.Bush was wrong.It is torture in my estimation.Did Obama use that information gleaned to save untold American lives ,and kill OBL?Yes he did.Yes he did.Mike It is an ugly business.People trying to nuke you lets say ,and the president allowing water boarding to find the bomb before it goes off.That may be in the future.It makes me squirm the horror of it all.It truly is above my pay grade to be moralistic about it ,above and beyond the death that could result..And it makes me wonder why these men fight so hard for the job.You seem to think Obama is clean?This stuff goes on.The seamy underbelly of national security.As we speak it goes on and you will never know it.I respect Bush for being open about it and opening it to debate(and your hatred).And yes we must debate it.
Gloriana yes they do have secret service for life.Yes that is all true about Bush.He was top of his class in fighter tactics school( pre top gun).The idea sold that he was dumb or a coward or any of the other slurs was just political circus.
oh Gloriana one other thing.That giant sign that said mission accomplished was put up by the sailors on board that ship.It was not due to any people working for Bush.It was a moment of esprit de corps bravado shared with the commander n chief.Was it politically smart that it was allowed.Obviously not due to how it was spun.
As far as Bush landing on the carrier in a flight suit.Well anyone landing in that jet would have to wear a flight suit.As a fighter pilot he chose to land in a jet- not a helicopter.He also flew to Afghanistan to be with the troops,spiraling in to avoid being shot down.Gutsy or foolish?A hard ass or silly?Risking life and limb at a time of war to show his men that he was with them?Or political theater?Your call I guess as well as mine and the men who served under him.One thing Id bet on…….Obama would of needed a change of shorts .Yeah that is my guess.