Karl Rove’s Definition Of “Torture”

Agabuse

It is worth remembering given the current state of the debate. Karl Rove has been aggressively arguing that nothing that the Bush administration did could be construed as torture, not even the Khmer Rouge technique of water-boarding, let alone the long-term sleep deprivation, stress positions, hypothermia, forced nudity, hooding, dietary manipulation, sensory deprivation and all the other "EIT"s his president authorized. And yet here was have an op-ed written last year in which the word "torture" is used quite clearly and defined quite precisely:

Another McCain story, somewhat better known, is about the Vietnamese practice of torturing him by tying his head between his ankles with his arms behind him, and then leaving him for hours. The torture so badly busted up his shoulders that to this day Mr. McCain can't raise his arms over his head.

This is called a "stress position." You can see an example of this CIA-approved, presidentially-authorized technique above (on a rare instance of it being photographed by a US soldier following orders to soften up detainees by forcing their limbs into painful positions for hours on end). Karl Rove needs to be asked on the record if he believes that John McCain is exaggerating when he says he was "tortured," and if he believes that McCain's interrogators were war criminals, and whether the confession McCain gave was true. At some point, these blatant double standards need at least to be explained – whether they are sustained by Karl Rove, Nancy Pelosi, or the New York Times. Because the issue goes to the heart of whether the US was governed by war criminals for seven years.

The NYT And Torture

A letter to the writer of that obit:

Mr. Hevesi, I was dismayed to see in your obit of Col. Fischer the

description of his detention in a Chinese prison as 'torture'. As I'm sure you're aware, there is a debate throughout our country as to which interrogation techniques constitutes torture.

What you may not be aware of is that your paper has already declared its position in that debate: Undecided. I will refer you to Clark Hoyt's April piece titled 'Telling the Brutal Truth', in which Washington editor Doug Jehl was quoted saying "I have resisted using torture without qualification or to describe all the techniques. Exactly what constitutes torture…hasn’t been resolved by a court." He then added "On what basis should a newspaper render its own verdict, short of charges being filed or a legal judgment rendered?"

Your article made no mention as to whether Col. Fischer's interrogator, Chong, was either charged or convicted of torture. As such, in order to help the Times retain its' consistency, I request that you change every instance of 'prisoner' in your article to 'enemy combatant' and change 'torture' to 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. I'd also think it to be prudent if you could also expand the scope of the obit to better flesh out the background of Chong, the interrogator. Perhaps describe the pressure he was under from his superiors to produce intelligence about germ warfare from Col. Fischer as a way to explain his heavy-handedness.

Praying Alone

Hilzoy tells the religious right to chill:

Apparently, it's a big deal in some quarters that Barack Obama did not hold a ceremony for the National Day of Prayer, preferring instead to issue a proclamation and pray in private, "something that the president does every day". This is an instance of something that generally bothers me about many discussions of politics: the assumption that political figures are not doing things for normal human reasons, but should instead be seen as communicating in a sort of code.

Everything they do has a symbolic meaning: it's a symbol of disrespect for this, or craven obedience to that, or whatever; and if we want to understand them, we should not try to figure out why some comprehensible human being might have done what they did, but try to crack this code.

This is, in my view, silly. It's what leads to things like outrage over Obama's shaking hands with Hugo Chavez: if you view that handshake as the normal civil response to someone's extending his hand to you, it seems completely innocuous; but if you see it as a Fraught With Meaning, it looks like a sign that Obama thinks that Chavez is a wonderful guy.

Carrie And Bristol, Ctd

A reader writes:

I really appreciate the way that you point out how unjust it is that Carrie Prejean has to go through all of this solely because she espoused an opinion that the mainstream elite disagree with.

You should ask your readers this; if she had gone the other way, and said that she supports Gay Marriage, can anyone imagine that all of this dirt would be coming out about her? Would the National Organization for Marriage be digging up her parents divorce records, or lying about her appearing topless (those aren't topless photos) like NBC did? What does that say about the decency of each "side"?

I say this as someone who supports same-sex marriage, although through legislative action, not judicial. Which is noteworthy only because I'm a graduate of Liberty University (yes, Falwell's school – I was young) and am otherwise a social conservative. At Liberty, I would estimate that close to a third of the students support same-sex marriage, believe it or not. However, it absolutely kills me to see the way that Carrie Prejean is being treated because of her beliefs. If things were reversed, and Conservatives were sliming a beauty queen because she supported same-sex marriage, I would speak out against them.

Pelosi Busted, Ctd

Greg Sargent questions ABC:

Last night, ABC News made a big splash by reporting that it had obtained intelligence documents proving that Nancy Pelosi was briefed about torture techniques in the fall of 2002, as Republicans have been charging. Folks on the right have been saying that the story proves Pelosi has been lying about what she knew about waterboarding and when.

But I have a copy of the documents, and a PDF of them is right here. They don’t prove the “lying about waterboarding” charge by any means.

Emptywheel points out other problems with the report.

The NYT Finally Prints “Torture”

Here we have it in broad daylight: the New York Times' cowardice in the face of its own government. In an obit today, the editors manage to use the word "torture". It's in an obit. The obit runs:

Col. Harold E. Fischer Jr., an American fighter pilot who was routinely tortured in a Chinese prison during and after the Korean War, becoming — along with three other American airmen held at the same prison — a symbol and victim of cold war tension, died in Las Vegas on April 30. He was 83 and lived in Las Vegas. The cause was complications of back surgery, his son Kurt said.

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.

After a short mock trial in Beijing on May 24, 1955, Captain Fischer and the other pilots — Lt. Col. Edwin L. Heller, First Lt. Lyle W. Cameron and First Lt. Roland W. Parks — were found guilty of violating Chinese territory by flying across the border while on missions over North Korea. Under duress, Captain Fischer had falsely confessed to participating in germ warfare.

You will notice how the NYT defines torture when it comes to foreign governments – isolation, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation. Much milder than anything the US did to one of its own citizens, Jose Padilla. But the parallel is almost perfect: these are, after all, the exact Chinese Communist techniques that were reverse engineered from the SERE program. So you have a perfect demonstration of the NYT's double-standard. If Chinese do it to Americans, it's torture; if Americans do it to an American, it's "harsh interrogation." Does Jill Abramson really expect us to take this lying down?

You will also notice the quality of the intelligence procured through methods milder than the Bush administration's:

“He wanted me to admit that I had been ordered to cross the Manchurian border,” Captain Fischer told Life magazine. “I was grilled day and night, over and over, week in and week out, and in the end, to get Chong and his gang off my back, I confessed to both charges. The charges, of course, were ridiculous. I never participated in germ warfare and neither did anyone else. I was never ordered to cross the Yalu. We had strict Air Force orders not to cross the border.”

“I will regret what I did in that cell the rest of my life,” the captain continued. “But let me say this: it was not really me — not Harold E. Fischer Jr. — who signed that paper. It was a mentality reduced to putty.”

Dick Cheney believes that a "mentality reduced to putty" is the best source of reliable intelligence; that methods designed to give you false confessions should be the basis for national security assessments.

The NYT's incoherence and double standards, equally, are self-evident. But I would like to know if Bill Keller will remove the t-word from this obit and replace it with "harsh interrogations" as he does when referring to the US government's use of identical techniques. If not, why not? Remember: these people won't even use the word torture to describe a technique displayed in the Cambodian museum of torture to commemmorate the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge – as long as Americans do the torturing.

I mean: the NYT isn't just a vehicle for US propaganda, is it? It's a newspaper, right? It has standards that it maintains across its copy. Right?

School Is Out

Democracy in America doesn't approve of Obama putting a kibosh on DC's school voucher program:

Here's a programme that every indication shows is working. So why aren't we moving forward? "It's a cop-out," says Joseph Robert, a supporter of the progamme. Quite right.

Yglesias posted some research on the voucher program last month. I'm with the Economist.