Why can't America call its torture *torture*?
A front page story in the New York Times today begins:
Senior White House officials played a central role in deliberations in the spring of 2002 about whether the Central Intelligence Agency could legally use harsh interrogation techniques while questioning an operative of Al Qaeda, Abu Zubaydah, according to newly released documents."Harsh interrogation techniques"? I know our current president and his administration wants to distance from the "t-word," but why are we, the people and the press, afraid to just call torture torture? Link to related items in the Times about the CIA's destruction of tapes that document the use of torture in the Zubaydah case, Salon has this related piece, also good background reading. Even this former CIA agent who believes torture is helpful calls it "torture." What kind of cowards are we? (via Dan Gillmor)In meetings during that period, the officials debated specific interrogation methods that the C.I.A. had proposed to use on Qaeda operatives held at secret C.I.A. prisons overseas, the documents show. The meetings were led by Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, and attended by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top administration officials
the latest
latest episodes
I think the main reason that we as Americans have such big issues with calling aggressive interrogation torture is the negative images that invokes in our minds. The images that the media has placed there. When the majority of Americans think of the word torture they think of death and inhumane things being done to humans. they only see the negative sides of torture they don't see its usefulness to our government. The images that the word torture invoke in most Americans make them shudder and not want to think about or say that word in particular. TO give and example I know many people who when I say torture their immediate thought is of the SAW and HOSTEL movies. Because while those are some forms of torture they only show the negative effects and the most extreme forms. It is because of this media image that we as Americans can't use the word torture
It's not torture, it's enhanced interrogation. Harsh interrogation on the weekends.
It's not a recession, it's an economic downturn.
It's not a bailout, it's a financial adjustment.
It's not global warming, it's global climate change.
It's not governing, it's marketing.
Ever read Unspeak, by Steven Poole?
It's a very informative read, well researched, and deals with this exact issue.
Lavazo.. WTF?
It's because it's illegal and wrong, and because it has zero usefulness as an information gathering technique.
"When the majority of Americans think of the word torture they think of death and inhumane things being done to humans."
HUH? EXACTLY. Waht else is there? What benefits? I'm so hoping I've read the tone of your post wrong.
I feel like the government is hiding something that is SO OBVIOUS to the people, to the point where they've accepted torture as an every day reality in their country.
And not enough people are fighting it.
And yet they still call it Tickle Torture...
When people think "greenhouse effect," they think the earth will get too hot to live on. But, they fail to realise that they will no longer have to buy expensive sweaters, so global warming is inherently useful.
The ends do not justify the means.
The media, by allowing conservatives to use inaccurate descriptions of legislation, encourage the use of inaccurate descriptions of actions.
When something like the "Healthy Forests Initiative" is announced the media feel that technically they have to refer to the bill by that name. By now saying "harsh interrogation techniques" instead of torture, they are demanding that the media either go along or challenge them. If they are challenged they can turn around and say, "Technically WE never called it torture. You are being inaccurate. Our exact quote was..."
One way of dealing with this is for the editors who create style guides of the publication to stand up for accurate descriptions of legislation as well as actions. This helps give the reporters backbone when they call "harsh interrogation techniques" torture. "Hey, Yoo, it's in the style guide, I've got to call it torture. Sorry. It's not me, it's my editors." Of course then the pressure from on high comes down.
Demanding the media use the same words they do means they can control the debate.
The use of the inaccurate term "harsh interrogation techniques" should be questioned every time it is mentioned for more detail.
If it includes acts that are clearly defined as torture by the 99 percent of the world, then the press will have done their job in an accurate portrayal of the situation and then can write it down. By dancing around the term they are emboldening the torturers.
For a great article from someone who knows what he is talking about check out this article
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
It's from Malcom Nance, a counter-terrorism and terrorism intelligence consultant for the U.S. government’s Special Operations, Homeland Security and Intelligence agencies.
I was watching an interview with Justice Anthony Scalia and defining torture came up.
His response is one of the reasons we can't get anywhere on this issue.
Paraphrasing as I can't find a link to what the hell it was that I saw, he said that Torture is referred to as "cruel and unusual punishment".
"OK" he said "What are they being *punished* for? If they are NOT being *punished* for something, then how can it be TORTURE?"
It is this kind semantics that keeps "Torture" as something that someone else does, but not us.
Americans don't want to think of themselves(our Govt.) as torturers...they also don't want to think of our unwanted forceful presence in a foreign country as terrorism
D-
Whats the source/context for the picture?
More importantly, why aren't Americans up in arms over the fact that your government does this? Why aren't millions marching on the Mall in Washington demanding an end to this? Do you honestly believe Obama is going to come in and shut it all down on Day 1?
"We the people..."
Three simple words.
Nothing like pounding our iron fist to get what we want.
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Bush has said that America does not torture. Therefore, whatever American agencies are doing (no matter how unpleasant) is not torture.
QED.
All you have to do to make it true is change the definition of the word.
We've always been at war with Eurasia.
@#7...
nice post...can reporters write "Harsh Interrogation techniques" I.E. torture?
Don
@Microcars #8
Funny you should mention Scalia re: punishment.
Meet Col Steven Kleinman:
"In far too many cases, we simply erred in pressing interrogation and interrogators beyond the edge of the envelope; as a result, interrogation was no longer an intelligence collection method; rather, it had morphed into a form of punishment for those who wouldn't cooperate," Col. Steven Kleinman said in his prepared testimony.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_go_co/interrogation_treatment
Lavoza
"they don't see its usefulness to our government."
Sir, your ideas sounded better in the original German.
...because Mark Mazzetti and the NY Times are cowards, that's why. See? I called them what they are. It's not that hard.
I mailed the NY Times and asked them to stop the cowardice, you can too.
If you call it torture, you are a biased liberal. Simple as that.
People associate "torture" with the bad guys. And some people's eyes are so full of stars and stripes and eagles etc they refuse to believe the US could be involved in anything less than heroic.
Then it seems reasonable to take issue with John McCain's personal history during the war of enduring harsh interrogation techniques.
He didn't survive torture, just some bad-ass questioning, so I guess we won't be hearing any more campaign positioning on THAT point any longer.
And thank god we need no longer worry about other countries treating dissidents badly because the U.S. has drawn a new line in the global sand that says this crap is AOK!! There you go, China! Wanna buy some debt?
#13 Clamatus touches on the doublespeak angle that drives this entire story. "Torture" is illegal, a war crime, against the Geneva Conventions. If the US tortured, then the US would be guilty of war crimes, so there's no way "whatever we did" is torture, because then it would have been illegal. I believe that to be Occam's reasoning.
Because the USA are the good guys. Good guys don't torture.
Gotta keep up the self-image, you see. Is that what they mean when they say High Jingo?
nd, f crs, t's nt bs nd cnsrshp,
t's 'mdrtn' nd 'dsmvwlng'
although, 'harsh interrogation' actually makes it sound like there's a point to it. The whole idea of the end result justifying the means or something.
"Torture" not only sounds worse, it sounds pointless.
Denial is a long American tradition, it took a brutal and bloody war for us to admit that "all men are created equal" cannot coexist with slavery. The argument that torture is "useful" to the government, is not much different than the argument that slavery is useful to our economic interests; both arguments involve dehumanizing people in the name of some larger government interest (which in turn reminds me of the Soviets and Chinese using political prisoners as forced slave labor for the greater good of the state.)
Basically, they call torture 'enhanced interrogation' because their lawyers told them to. Torture is a crime, even in the US. 'Enhanced interrogation' is not. They may turn out to be equivalent, but if anyone hauls Bush into court over this, he can argue that he did not know that 'enhanced interrogation' was 'torture'. Arguing that is a lot easier than arguing that he didn't know that 'torture' was 'torture'.
Torture is a crime under the US constitution punishable up to life in prison when it result in death. I want to see Bush Sheney, Romy gonzales, all those involved in torture CIA agents, militaries and contractors involved in torture in prison!
If they have tortured Elkada mwnbers and talibans it would have been bad and criminal already. But to make matter worste and their crime more ainous is that most of those they captured in Afganistan and Iraq have been captured eroneously since they have nothing to do with either El-Kada the Taliban or the Iraquis resistance!
@15 donopolis
@#7...
nice post...can reporters write "Harsh Interrogation techniques" I.E. torture?
Thank you.
Yes, reporters could put quotes around the phrase but that would be a style guide and/or an editorial decision.
I first noticed the issue of defining terms and demanding the press use the terms as defined by an advocay group when I heard people demanding that anti-abortion people be called pro-life.
What the reporters would have to do is to always ASK what acts the "harsh interrogation techniques" include. Then, if they included anything that was considered torture by the majorty of the world, they could use the quotes and define the terms.
The newspapers have given up their role in the defining of terms. They haven't even used the hoary old approach of going to the dictionary and using that defination.
One way to get clarity on this issue is to ask to see the New York Times style guide section that talks about how they define phrases like torture and when they can and can not mention them.
You poor sheep! Don't you understand?! If we call it 'torture', THE TERRORISTS WIN!!!
Torture is actually a really crappy way of interogating, besides the inhumane afwulness of it all, I mean you can't really get an honest confesion out of anyone, thay just want you to stop so they'll say anything.
As #10 asks, so do I.
(1) Where did the picture come from?
Is it blood or fake? If blood, whose?
Whose prison cells are these?
(2) The post says What kind of cowards are we?
We (in the US at least) have a deep taboo against death. Can't speak of it. Many laws about dead bodies, etc. In the same vein, we have acquired a taboo against speaking hard truths. Thus the euphemisms for torture, eradication of the meaning of words, double-speak, "unspeak," (@#3)and on and on.
Elsewhere there is "realpolitik." Here there almost of worship of the unreal.
That image hurts my brain a lot.
Where'd it come from?
For the most part, the US Government uses psychological techniques to gather info from detainees. The word torture should be used to describe what our enemies use to gather info and apparently to enjoy themselves. Sleep deprivation, deceit, humiliation can't compare to the horror movie type torture that our enemies inflict.
Steven Colbert nailed it when he said, "Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions and you people in the press type them down. Make, announce, type. Just put them through a spell check and go home!" Therefore, if the President calls it "harsh interrogation" or "the comfy chair" or "smurfy smurf tickles" then whatever he says becomes the argot.
I don't know. Maybe the press would say that translating euphemisms into plain language could expose them to charges of bias or editorializing. Maybe they are too lazy. I'm of the opinion that if you leave euphemisms untranslated, then you become complicit in the propaganda apparatus. Hey, that would make a good slogan for a t-shirt.
#24 said, "Denial is a long American tradition..."
Denial is a psychological force of human nature that is expressed/experienced equally across the world. America is not special in this regard.
the image has no exif data. where'd it come from? it looks similar to the (known) abu ghraib images (salon.com, hundreds here link: www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/)but that one isn't in those sets. it could also be from the abu ghraib images that didn't circulate. or any other of bloody, secret places all over the world (ask google maps for: CIA Extraordinary Rendition map by Christopher).
Why do news anchors and newspapers use "forced sex" or sometimes just "sex" instead of "rape"? Why do they refer to 11-year-old-girls as "prostitutes" instead of "sex slaves" or "rape victims"?? (Hrd tht n jst ths mrnng.) Grw pr nd cll spd spd, y wmps.
(nd tht sn't rcst trm: t dts bck t th 16th cntry nd th wrd "spd" s n nslt fr prsn f clr ddn't cm bt ntl th 20th, s dn't wnt ny PC plc lbtrds jmpng dwn my thrt.)
#29 - Laws against dead bodies, as in, laws against creating dead bodies?
#35 - I didn't even know a spade was a racial slur. Is there no gardening tool that isn't a derrogetory term?
And over-all, maybe I'm ignorant about the Geneva Convention too, but wasn't liquid LSD and/or sodium pentathol a useful truth serum? Isn't that a much cleaner way of getting information. Seem's like it would be easier to inject them with something than it would be to bash their head open and scream at them. Too much evidence for a supposed clandestine 'interrogation.' Plus you get all sweaty and get terrorist juice everywhere. And I'm sure the terrorists would much prefer a shot in the 'ol brachial artery than water boarding or naked pyramids.
Any thoughts while I brush up on my dead body laws, term of disparagement, and Geneva Convention?
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." -- The apostle Paul, explaining how the "Man of Sin" will clothe himself in religiosity, but will be known by his depraved and sadistic actions.
It seems like Bush is modeling himself on Paul's Man of Sin sometimes...
signed, PC_Police_Libtard
To some degree, I have to take issue with the title of this BB post. It's our *government* that can't call it torture. From what I've experienced, most Americans can and do call it torture.
The government hasn't truly represented Americans in a long time, and a good deal of that is our own fault. We think of the government as "them," when in fact it's supposed to be "us." We rely too much on government to solve our small problems, behaving as if it's some other entity. (And I'm a liberal, but I still think "the government" does too much for us.)
#37 The government won't call it torture because
(1) it lies
(2) it thinks (correctly or not) we're a bunch of infants that can't deal with facts.
On (2), they may be right.
#31 posted by Trvthiness , September 25, 2008 10:57 AM
Fixed that for you.
Sex in prisons is a very complicated, social act, often tied to everyday survival in a different way than the way we think of rape (once, violent). People sometimes "consent" in prison to choices they normally wouldn't make because it's a stressful or uncommon situations. i don't expect that most news people or papers bother to take it that far when they choose their words, but there are people trying to figure out the actual difference between the many different sexual acts and levels of force involved in these highly complicated, charged sexual situations.
#36 - that was "laws about dead bodies." Like (A) you can't legally bury granny in the back yard most places. (B) Failure to report a dead body is a crime if they catch you. (C) You can't legally own a skull or tibia or whatever.
Fr th sm rsn sm dn't cll brtn th wllfl kllng f chld bt nstd th rmvl f lmp f tss.
For the same reason some ignore global warming instead of initiating lifestyle changes.
For the same reason some justify the exploitation of others for their own benefit instead of standing up for equality.
To make ourselves feel better about the choices we make to get what we want, we dissociate ourselves from their reality.
#42 DOUG
Thanks for clariffying that; I couldn't possibly be any less familiar post-mortem canon.
But still, any thought on torture/truth serum from #37?
It's not torture it's sexual abuse, pain compliance, it's really demon h*ll
http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-2005-may.html
download the pdf report
check out what the media doesn't report
and be mad about the nature of reality
because what goes around comes around
really
Maybe one of these days W will have to stand before the 'explain yourself person' and then spend some time in the 'think about what you've done place.'
Microcars @9, is this the Scalia interview you were referring to?
If so, what he's arguing is not that torture is punishment, but that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishments" applies only to penalties applied as punishment for a crime, and not to attempts to gather information. Not that I agree with him -- I think he's straining to find an excuse to allow something that the Founders would have considered appalling -- but that's the argument he's making.
@#48
Sodium Pentathol makes a person gabby, but doesn't guarantee that whatever they're babbling about is the "truth".
LSD was abandoned by the CIA in the 60s, and I think it wasn't the application of LSD that they hoped would make people talk, but rather the withdrawal of it. They'd hook people on it then take it away. (Because drug addicts in dire need of a fix always tell the truth :|)
The best method of interrogation is still gaining the subject's trust, despite what idiocy like "24" and Rush Limbaugh have fooled mushbrains into believing.
Only when those "harsh interrogation techniques" come home to roost will this country rise up and raise holy hell over it. Wait till they waterboard somebody's little Johnny looking for answers over a joke threat to blow something up.
When it's done to someone else, it's harsh interrogation, when it's done to an American, it's torture. After all, we're better than everyone else, right? I'm so tired of the double standards.
Its probably because "torture" implies illegality.
Nobody wonders whether the US considered the legality of using "murder" against enemies that it considered worthy of death. Murder is illicit killing by definition.
I find the redaction of my post at #47 interesting which, in my opinion, contained nothing obscene or off topic. It was not intended to take the discussion off topic. Maybe the editor assumed I had objections against the action I mentioned, which I don't. Maybe the editor had objections against the comparison, which is too bad considering we are talking about torture and not a friendly encounter of tickle. I just know when to call something what it is and used strong comparisons which are on topic with this discussion.
This edit seems to only reinforce the idea that we don't call something what it is to maintain a sense of well being and happiness with our decisions. Sometimes its just easier to avoid cognitive dissonance than confront it.
Wow, thanks for reminding me why I quit posting here for months at a time, BB. You disemvoweled a part of my post that wasn't even remotely offensive; and also the part where I explained precisely why another phrase wasn't offensive.
Drp m ln f y vr grw fckng bckbn.
"I find the redaction of my post at #47..."
"You disemvoweled a part of my post..."
Perhaps in anozer vorlt undt anozer time, ze peeplez at ze Boing Boing vill re-vord ze posts undt take part in ze interogations?
Simple.
Because most Americans are pussies.
Regarding use of the word torture:
In my view, it stems from two cultural factors:
1. Torture is viewed as 'bad', and if you use torture you are 'bad'.
2. Torture is very loosely defined: It's hard to say where to draw the line between just punishment, interrogation, and torture. Especially in a culture where it widely believed that capital punishment is a just form of punishment.
So, when faced with the decision on deciding whether something is 'torture' or something else, the average american has the two following options:
1. "My country uses torture, therefore my country is bad, and therefore I am bad."
2. "This isn't torture."
Option one would cause an enormous amount of cognitive dissonance - we have been told, over and over, that we are good people and that our nation is great and just. So people choose option two, almost every time.
Prediction: People will go to ridiculous lengths to justify why something is not torture:
"Sure, government interrogators push glowing pins under the nails of suspects in secret prisons, but those captives have really comfy chairs and top-grade medical care that they would not otherwise be able to afford - so really, it's not torture."
#55: uh. I can read enough of your disemboweled post to say most certainly that was trollish.
Perhaps not intentional.
But that particulary subject is HIGHLY in contention and has NOTHING to do with this thread. Injecting your beliefs on that subject into this thread was totally inappropriate.
dsmvwlng m prvs my pnt! Cll t smthng ls t dsgs wht t rlly s.
I hear the word "torture" and I think of sickos that mutilate puppies, psychopaths that get off on hurting people, whatever. Unfortunately, there are people in every walk of life that would do those kind of things.
But then there are these "harsh interrogations". Maybe the actual acts being performed on the victims are the same, but the motivation is totally different. If the victim tells the interrogators what they want to hear (even if it's not the truth!) the bad stuff stops.
The motivation isn't necessarily gratification on the part of the aggressor. It's institutionalized, and when you do that, you can get people to commit acts like that by making they thing they are doing the right thing. I think that's the distinction, trying to portray it as a necessary evil or something.
#37 posted by Jeff , September 25, 2008 11:04 AM
#24 said, "Denial is a long American tradition..."
Denial is a psychological force of human nature that is expressed/experienced equally across the world. America is not special in this regard.
No #37, you are in denial
Bagoombah,
Read the Moderation Policy.
June,
Your comment seemed quite rude to me. Your second comment also seems rather rude to me.
Cube,
You didn't just fall off a turnip truck. You know where meta-comments go. As to comparing disemvowelling with waterboarding, it's your own credibility that you're eroding.
if you start calling torture torture, you end calling collateral damage murder.
Q: Why can't America call its torture *torture*?
A: Because it helps make the arterial liquid that's on all of our hands disappear from our deluded minds
If they lie to you and you know it's a lie and still you allow them to do it then with your complicity its not really a lie
You allowed the lie of torture and terrorism on your behalf as a citizen now with the travesty in full view its a tiny bit late...
Why are the Americans torturing prisoners? I thought the Stanford prison experiment proves that the best way to get compliance is to torture the cell mates of your intended target? Everyone broke down in just a few days. Surely you don't need to torture prisoners for months and years, or are they doing it because someone is enjoying themselves?
Erica Asahan wrote:
It's not only the Americans torture their prisoners! In Other countries, they do worst things to their prisoners. Its very sad.
I didn't compare disemvoweling with waterboarding.
I compared disemvoweling with censorship, because it is. It's your site, and your right to censor comments, but it's still censorship.
And I know where the meta-comments go, but this is relevant to the topic: When it comes to the moderation being biased, you know full well it is, especially on topics like torture. There's only one right way to think around here.
Rabid right wingers that "spew kool-aid", troll, and flame get moderated, but left-wingers that me-too Cory with their cries of NAZI POLICE STATE every time he rants never seem to get censored. In fact, I see a lot of crap that is rude and baseless stand as long as the mods are nodding in agreement. It's not kool-aid when the elite are drinking it: It's a fine whine.
No wonder a lot of news sites are eliminating open forums. Free for-all commenting brings out the worst in everyone. On the other hand, one sided discussions are about as interesting as talking to yourself. So, you moderate the worst of one side, but not the other. You muffle the less erudite (but often the most impassioned) dissenters and steer the conversation not just to the topic at hand, but the prevailing opinion.
Let me give you an example:
Q: Why can't America call its torture *torture*?
A: Because it helps make the arterial liquid that's on all of our hands disappear from our deluded minds
A: Because it's what those terrorists deserve for endangering the God-fearing American way of life
Now, both of those answers are equally WRONG, they both make false assumptions about vague groups of people, and both are inflammatory, but one of the is up there and has kept it's vowels for quite a while now. If anyone had posted the latter as a serious response, it would be toast.
"Free for-all commenting brings out the worst in everyone."
yet you remain.
I think most Americans WOULD be willing to call torture what it is.
But most Americans aren't the ones in charge.
Takuan - Compare our comment histories. You seem to have a lot more time to say so very little on so many topics than I can possibly fathom.
and yet you still remain
#69 So, your point is that it isn't torture because they deserve it..?
Personally I'd say that the first answer, if a little dramatic, is very close to the truth, that not calling it torture takes some of the political heat of the current US administration.
The second answer seems only inflamatory to me..
@#52
GRIMC said "LSD was abandoned by the CIA in the 60s, and I think it wasn't the application of LSD that they hoped would make people talk, but rather the withdrawal of it. They'd hook people on it then take it away. (Because drug addicts in dire need of a fix always tell the truth :|)"
LOL! You've never had LSD, have you? Nor even read much about it. It's certainly not a drug of addiction in the sense that users are desperate for their next "fix".
LSD was used because it can cause disorientation and personality breakdown, particularly in certain settings, and this can cause people to reveal things they wouldn't otherwise.
Its use by the CIA, particularly on poorly informed volunteers, some of whom were heroin addicts and were supplied heroin for participation in the tests, was definitely unethical and in the doses administered, possibly torture.