NY Times Pretends That Bushies’ Bogus Torture Claim Is Matter Of Debate
Today’s New York Times has published a whole article devoted to the claim by former Bushies, and some Republicans, that Obama’s release of the torture memos endangered our national security by revealing secret torture techniques that we can now never use again.
It is a matter of simple fact that much about these techniques were already publicly known, well before Obama’s release of the memos.
But today’s Times treats this as a matter of debate, as a claim being made by “Democrats” — even though the Times has itself reported this as outright fact in the past.
Today’s article features paragraph after paragraph from former CIA director Michael Hayden and other Republicans claiming that Obama has tipped off the terrorists to all kinds of secret torture techniques. Here is the only sentence in the article addressing whether this is, you know, true:
Democrats on Sunday played down the importance of the release of the documents, saying that most of the information was already public.
So now Democrats are “saying” that much of the info was already public. But again, it is an indisputable fact that most of the info about the torture techniques has already been made public in a leaked Red Cross report and in other places.
As it happens, this info can be found in the paper’s own archives. The Times published an article earlier this month detailing the revelations in the Red Cross report — and even linked to the report itself!
But now that former Bushies and some GOPers are claiming that Obama has endangered national security by revealing techniques that were supposedly unknown, the paper is suddenly treating this as something that’s in dispute.
***************************
Update: This gives me the excuse I’ve been looking for to link Jay Rosen’s terrific take-down of the “he said she said” journalistic practice.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
The New York Times think its just a coincidence that everything in the Red Cross report mirrored the torture memos. This kind of article is what makes me wonder why they are constantly framed as a liberal rag. If anything they do more to try to have false equivalences than even the Washington Times. At least with the Moonie Times you know that they are coming from a specific point of view. The NYT thinks that cloaking themselves in being “balanced” they will shield themselves from criticism from the right. It should be obvious at this point that no matter what the right wing isn’t going to ever give them any credit so in the meantime they are ruining their credibility with this kind of sh*t. Thats why they are failing and if they want to survive they had better wise up fast.
“former CIA director Michael Hayden and other Republicans claiming that Obama has tipped off the terrorists to all kinds of secret torture techniques”
Greg, I think you’re missing what Hayden is driving at. It’s not the revelation of specific techniques he’s lamenting; it’s the revelation of the program’s “limits.” In other words, if terrorists know they won’t be slowly tortured to death, they’ll know they can endure and won’t cough up information.
In many ways, this is even more idiotic than the notion that secret techniques have been revealed. It’s also a plain admission that the program was patently illegal, as the torture statute specifically prohibits “the threat of imminent death.”
Andy, I’m aware of Hayden’s argument about the limits of the program, but it seems clear to me that this is just a level of parsing that’s solely designed to get around the obvious fact that the program’s details were well known…plus the Red Cross report also implicitly explains what the limits of many of the techniques were…
I don’t think so. It’s not the limit of any particular technique that’s at issue to Hayden. The implicit purpose of the program – made clear in the OLC memos but not in the IRC report – was to make the prisoner believe the treatment would continue escalating to more and more vicious forms of torture, from slapping to waterboarding and (in the prisoner’s mind) much farther beyond. This is how the CIA describes it to the OLC: “Zubaydah has come to expect that no physical harm will be done to him. By using these techniques in increasing intensity and in rapid succession, the goal would be to dislodge this expectation.”
Andy,
I think the 100+ detainees that died while being tortured in our custody clearly show the programs “limits.” I highly doubt a terrorist being waterboarded at a CIA black site is going to believe he won’t be killed because of an article he read in the New York Times. The point is, torture is illegal, morally reprehensible and has been proven time and time again to be an ineffective method of obtaining information.
but the Red Cross report details the use of these techniques, and the mere fact that the guy was still alive to tell the Red Cross what happened is an implicit description of the limits.
This is the kind of uncritical reporting that allowed the bushies to invade Iraq. I’m always disappointed when it appears in the Times.
I’m not trying to defend the program, Cameron, just get at the torture defenders’ “reasoning.” Many commentators are noting how ludicrous it is that Hayden would be concerned that the details of these techniques are revealed, as if the US developed a new, super-effective means of waterboarding. I’m saying that Hayden’s defense is much more sinister – he’s admitting publicly that the real point of the program was not ONLY to inflict pain, but to credibly threaten slow and excruciating execution. The latter is just as illegal (and yes, morally objectionable) as the former, and he’s essentially daring the Obama administration to come get him.
here we go again. the MSM allows the right wing to claim
things are “debatable” when they are not. waterboarding is
torture. period. it’s a violation of the treaties we have signed
and are bound by. hayden is not exactly a disinterested observer
either. i don’t think he’ll be going abroad anytime soon, lest he
be arrested and prosecuted.
so another phony issue is manufactured to create a “debate”
that does not exist.
and of course they run to torture apologists like rivkin to
maintain that night is day and up is down.