New York Times: Definition of “torture’ depends upon who did it, not what was done
May 9th, 2009
The New York Times has done excellent reporting and editorializing on US torture at times. Only they have steadfastly refused to call it “torture,” arguing against critics that to use the “t” word would be to lose their objectivity. The utter vacuity of this argument was revealed this week in an obituary of an American serviceman who was subjected to, what by Bush administration standards, are relatively mild “torture” techniques.
From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer — then an Air Force captain — was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air. [Emphasis added by Glenn Greenwald.]
Since the vile acts were done by other, Chinese in this case, there was no question that this service member was tortured.
In elite American thinking, torture thus depends on who the perpetrator and who the victim is, the Times reveals. That, after all, was the real subtext of the Office of Legal Counsel “torture memos”: It’s not torture because our government wants to do it, and our government doesn’t torture, by definition.
Here’s part of Greenwald’s comment:
Also, using the editorial standards of America’s journalistic institutions — as explained recently by the NYT Public Editor — shouldn’t this be called ”torture” rather than torture — or “harsh tactics some critics decry as torture”? Why are the much less brutal methods used by the Chinese on Fischer called torture by the NYT, whereas much harsher methods used by Americans do not merit that term? Here we find what is clearly the single most predominant fact shaping our political and media discourse: everything is different, and better, when we do it. In fact, it is that exact mentality that was and continues to be the primary justification for our torture regime and so much else that we do.
Along those same lines, I learned from reading The New York Times this week (via The New Yorker‘s Amy Davidson) that Iraq is suffering a very serious problem. Tragically, that country is struggling with what the Times calls a “culture of impunity.” What this means is that politically connected Iraqis who clearly broke the law are nonetheless not being prosecuted because of their political influence! Even worse, protests the NYT, there have been “cases dismissed in the past few years as a result of a government amnesty and a law dating to 1971 that allows ministers to grant immunity to subordinates accused of corruption.” And the best part? This: ”The United States is pressing the Iraqi government to repeal that law.”
Thankfully, we’re teaching the Iraqis what it means to be a “nation of laws.” We Americans know how terrible it is to have a system where the politically powerful are permitted to break the law and not be held accountable. A country which does things like that can fall into such a state of moral depravity that they would actually allow people to do things like this and get away with it. Who could imagine living in a place like that?
Entry Filed under: Mainstream media,Media,Psychological Torture,Torture