Despite D.C. Media Reticence, Huge Majority Says Waterboarding Is “Torture”
New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt had a fascinating Sunday article about his paper’s controversial reluctance to describe waterboarding as “torture.” Hoyt concluded that “precision and caution” urged against the word, a position apparently shared by many in the Beltway press who have grappled with this dilemma.
But now the Times has just released a poll finding that a surprisingly large majority has reached the opposite conclusion.
The relevant numbers are buried in the poll’s internals: Seventy one percent think waterboarding is torture, while only 26% say it isn’t.
Intriguingly, the paper’s article about the poll doesn’t mention this finding, perhaps because that might have necessitated using the word “torture.”
Seriously, why won’t the paper use the T-word? Times Washington editor Douglas Jehl told Hoyt that the current administration describes waterboarding as torture, but the Bush administration doesn’t. “On what basis should a newspaper render its own verdict, short of charges being filed or a legal judgment rendered?” Jehl asked.
But the bottom line is that by not using the term, the paper is rendering a verdict, too — in favor of the Bush administration. There’s a reason the Bushies don’t call waterboarding torture: It happened on their watch, and calling it torture would be an admission of guilt. Naturally, their official position is that they didn’t torture. By not describing the acts committed under Bush as “torture,” the paper is propping up the Bush argument. Period.
That’s the paper’s own choice, but it might as well admit it, instead of imagining that there’s some kind of middle ground to stake out here.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Why am I not surprised?
“By not describing the acts committed under Bush as “torture,” the paper is propping up the Bush argument. Period.”
Yes, exactly right. And this unfortunately has and continues to be the position of all of our major media outlets. Always propping up the colossal failures of Bush and the GOP. But why? To what benefit? Better sales? Ha! More advertising? Double ha! To serve the interests of the owners rather than the truth and the people? Getting warmer?
“Earth’s Shape in Doubt”
“Smoking: Health Emergency or Really Awesome?”
“Public: Alcohol, Cars Dangerous Combo; Jury: Out”
The photos exist well beyond any water-boarding incident. Torture was the policy of Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush. Torture was performed in the name of the United States. Torture is against the laws of humanity – and we would do well to embrace a judicious process to look into any crimes against humanity that may have sullied and damaged us! -Kevo
Whoa! That is a huge majority. It still doesn’t matter, AFAIC, cause the laws call it torture. But I’m kind of surprised that the majority who see it for what it is is so large.
Lost in the emotional fog of politicized issues is the shocking possibility that perhaps media are returning to the lost art of objective, ethical reporting. Objective reporters, or rather, their lawyers, seek to report both sides of a story, and use terms such as alleged when the jury is still out. Those who condemn media for not labeling an action as torture reveal their bias just any reporter who uses the label does. I feel tortured just listening to the people who leap to conclusion without any personal knowledge of facts.
To label an action torture until it is determined by a court
D.Coberly
Indeed. As John Yoo pointed out, it might well be acceptable to crush the testicles of a young boy in front of his father so as to gain important information. And until a court (you perhaps have a particular court in mind, likely resident in the US) decides (perhaps with a 5-4 majority) that it is or is not torture, there’s nothing for it but to await such a decision in order that we might conclude whether torture has taken place. You ought to be commended on your explication of the matter here.
The first time a prisoner is waterboarded under the Obama administration or hung up by their arms for days on end, it will become torture.
From Hoyt’s piece: “But Cynthia Jacobson of Phoenix said The Times is “outrageously biased” to use a term like brutal. “The Times has simply placed itself as one actor in a political fight, not a neutral media outlet,” she wrote.”
.
Who could argue contrary to Ms. Jacobson. Another example in support of her position…papers and other media outlets used the terms “brutal” and “torture” in describing Saddam’s treatment of some of his citizens. As a highly politicized matter, those media personnel clearly ought to have kept themselves above the political fray and reported objectively and without bias. An optional terminology – “Saddam, it is claimed, did stuff.”
I want these newspapers and GOP apologists to tell John McCain he was not tortured to his face. Then I want John McCain to explain why he thought the rule of law was important under Clinton but not in regards to Bush.
Let’s not use this forum to harrass or to intimate others according to the rules to which you agreed by using it. Do consider that attempting to impose your personal opinion on others as though no one else could possibly be right is simply yet another degree of terrorism. None of us have all the facts, let’s focus on getting them instead of attacking someone with a different point of view.
I actually emailed NPR’s Ombudsman about their refusal to to use the word “torture” to describe torture, despite having no trouble (rightly) lobbing the term on Pinochet, Pol Pot, et.al. nasty regimes. Oh, and about their insistence on employing the likes of Cokie Roberts, Juan Williams, and Mary Louise Kelley — who all vigorously defended the “harsh interrogation techniques” by Bushies last week and who also said that an investigation would an unnecessary”distraction.”
.
Her reply was so utterly incomprehensible and lame that at first I got angry, but then started to laugh. She actually said that in NOT using the word, NPR was upholding rigorous “standards” that ensured “ethical responsibility and integrity” for their journalists. To prove it? She sent me a link to their ethics code — which of course, did not in any way give credence to her point.
.
This is so pathetic. Until Drudge calls it torture, no one in the MSM will.
D. Coberly channels Orwell — calling waterboarding isn’t torture. Calling it torture is a personal opinion, not a fact. Arguing that opinion is not only harrassment and intimidation, it’s a degree of terrorism.
Impressive.
Indeed, Orwellian would cover those scary folk who seek to impose their opinion as the only right opinion. No one here is defending torture, although people who have been tortured defend your right to an opinion. However, your “rights” end where the rights of others begin. Veterans know and understand that concept and do not insult nor personalize forums such as this. Stick to the issue.
“eturning to the lost art of objective, ethical reporting. Objective reporters, or rather, their lawyers, seek to report both sides of a story, and use terms such as alleged when the jury is still out. Those who condemn media for not labeling an action as torture reveal their bias just any reporter who uses the label does. I feel tortured just listening to the people who leap to conclusion without any personal knowledge of facts.
To label an action torture until it is determined by a court”
Except that it is accepted as torture by most, including 71% of the population. It’s illegal almost everywhere so I fail utterly to get your point about a court.
D. Coberly – by your logic, murder isn’t a crime until a court says so. That’s not how it works.
D.Coberly – fair enough. I could easily have omitted that last sentence and ought to have done so.
So, let us be substantive. Address my example re John Yoo’s statement I noted. Would you consider such an event ‘torture’ and why or why not? Would you require a court decision? Which court?
DC – feel free to wade in on the questions I put to D.Coberly above.
Someone didn’t read the latest gallup poll published in the Post regarding statistics to the contrary. Mark Twain’s suggested the approach: “get the facts first, then you can distort them anyway that you please”. Do not confuse media reports with facts, especially not just the ones with whom you agree. World history is full of propaganda and those who believed it. If your own objectivity is compromised, we are all in trouble. Obviously there is no hope for justice here among hanging judges.
Greg, why do you think there’s such a discrepancy between the Gallup and the NYT/CBS polls on whether waterboarding is justified? You quote Gallup as saying 55% think it is, 36% don’t. The question before the one about whether waterboarding is torture in the NYT poll has only 37% saying it’s sometimes justified, 46% saying it’s not.
DC – As you properly said earlier, “stick to the issue”. It’s not clear just what “issue” you are yourself sticking to here. Proper blog commentary etiquette? The intellectual dangers of pre-judgement?
In any case, would you care to respond to the questions I posed above? If we really wish to be or get substantive, that would be a way to begin.
AllButCertain -
I’ll repost my critique of how flawed the Gallup poll is in this thread, since that thread will soon fall off the front page:
“Note Gallup’s great headline towards the bottom of their poll: “Harsh terrorism techniques used on terrorism suspects.” So the US is using terrorism techniques on terrorism suspects??? If an organization can’t double check what its polls say before it releases them, then good riddance, the poll sucks.
So if this poll is accurate, then most people are in favor of harsh techniques (and obviously must not believe these qualify as torture). Then what the hell do we need investigations into these techniques for if there was nothing you felt was wrong about them??
This poll has some serious flaws, and Gallup even admits as much by trying to “combine the questions.” In order to get a poll that would have really gotten the true reading of Americans’ viewpoint on this, they should have first asked: “Do you believe waterboarding is torture?” Then they should have asked the question about investigations into waterboarding (be specific on the technique used). Finally they should have asked if the specific technique was justified.
Gallup’s previous poll conducted only 3 months ago has 62% of Americans wanting an investigation into torture, but all of a sudden now 11% less people want an investigation into “harsh terrorism techniques?” Since there’s such a disparity from three months and there doesn’t appear to be anything national-security related that would have caused this opinion to change, perhaps Gallup could follow up by asking people if they considered the “harsh techniques” to be torture.
Horrible poll.”
Now all the criticisms of the Gallup poll don’t apply here. This is a great poll because it cuts to the chase. Also, NYT did an excellent job of breaking it down by allowing those polled to vote “Don’t Know” or “It Depends.”
Observe:
63. Do you think it is sometimes justified to use waterboarding and other aggressive
interrogation tactics to get information from a suspected terrorist, or are these tactics
never justified?
Justified 37%
Not Justified: 46%
Depends: 7%
Don’t Know: 10%
Now if you were to add those “depends” and the “don’t know” to the “justified column,” all of a sudden you get a 54%, which matches up pretty nicely to Gallup’s supposedly “consensus-forming majority.” If people don’t know, they should be allowed an opportunity to say so. Also, “waterboarding” could be considered torture but other “harsh techniques” may not. Thus the 7% “depends.” and the “10% don’t know.” Something Gallup never bothered to clarify. And so, this great poll cuts right to the chase and asks the magic question as specifically as possible:
64. In a procedure known as “waterboarding,” interrogators produce the sensation of
drowning in a restrained prisoner either by dunking him in water or pouring water over his
face. Do you consider this procedure a form of torture, or not?
Torture 71%
Not Torture 26%
Don’t Know/NA 3%
Case closed. This is how you do a poll. I hate the NYT with a passion, but they did an excellent job here. The questions were not vague and they did a followup to get a definitive answer. I would have liked to see what people thought about prosecutions, but I’m sure that too will be better addressed at some point as well.
The argument that waterboarding has not been determined to be torture is false. 1) The US prosecuted and executed Japanese soldiers for waterboarding. 2) The Geneva Conventions, the Convention on Torture and the US law against torture all make activities such as waterboarding illegal. And the US Constitution makes the above-mentioned treaties the “supreme law of the land.”
Journalism is not giving “both” sides of the story and then shutting up. One, there may be more than two sides. Two, one side may be invalid: “Moon is made of green cheese, says expert.”
Journalism is examining and reporting the *facts*, not merely what someone claims.
The problem with mainstream journalism of late is the attachment to “he said, she said” reporting.
HE-HE, Oh yes, the “internal polls.”
From the NY Slimes you say? Hah!
Let’s put Madam Speaker, belaPelosi on the stand and have her do her Sgt. Hans Georg Schultz imitation: “I see NOTHING! I know NOTHING! “
Bill Michtom | April 28th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Billy, you be wrong. Name one Japanese soldier that was executed by the US for waterboarding one US soldier? (crickets sound)
You puss liberals are going to be the end of this country. Do you wish those guys who were waterboarded (and are just fine today, by the way) would have succeeded in their next couple of terrorists acts? If you were to ask me if I believe waterboarding is torture I would probably answer yes. But then you have to ask me if I care.
Torture has a vast range of possibilities. Crushing testicles is not at all the same as making someone think they are drowning. You liberal pusses need to admit that.
None of the weaseling by various news organizations explains why they can’t refer to it as “alleged torture,” at least. Since they all refer to legal standards in their excuses, and “alleged” is exactly the terminology that would be used in any other case.
By using Bush Administration terminology, they are not being “cautious,” they are taking sides.
(And as an aside, let me express my appreciate for conservative commenters who are thick enough that they don’t know the difference between “poll internals” and “internal polls.”)
Zarik – Thanks for the comparison. It’s helpful.
James said: “crushing testicles is not the same as (waterboarding)”
Indeed. And rape is not the same as murder. And dragging someone behind a car is not the same as the holocaust.
Bernie, what are you saying? If you are saying that both of those things are terrible whether they compare to each other or not…then it makes no sense. You are listing actions that take place out of evil, without purpose. The difference between waterboarding and all of your examples is that it is done in order to save your life…and has no permanent damage to the person. I would say that draggin behind a car, murder, holocaust, and even rape are all long term or permanent…and have no positive result. Waterboarding terrorists has resulted in saved lives…without crushing their balls by the way. If you were not making the statement I assumed here, then please disregard. If you were, you need to get over your “American Guilt” and start focusing on this fight before you die. I grew up oversees and have seen the culture this islamic extremism grew out of…and they don’t just stop fighting out of boredom. They also don’t respect or respond to asking nicely for information about their friends’ plans. They only respond to their lungs filling with water. If that’s what has to be done, so be it.
Hello? Bernie?
Hi Landon,
I am new to this forum and just want to introduce myself.
Brad