Letters to the Editor
LarryRiedman
Published Letters: 5
-
A GOLDEN RULE FOR DETENTION AND INTERROGATION
[Read the article: The latest revelations of lawbreaking, torture and extremism ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Administration’s detention and interrogation practices have been questioned and defended in legislative hearings, opinion articles, judicial decisions, and other forums. Throughout -- including discussion of the iteration of the policy issued July 20 -- a fundamental question has been virtually absent: Would the Bush Administration object if captive Americans were subjected to such treatment?
There has been some speculation that our use of harsh interrogation techniques sets a precedent that might endanger future GIs who become prisoners of war. But the greatest discussion has centered on which legal regime is applicable (e.g., Geneva Common Article 3, Army Field Manual), the legal status of the persons held (e.g., prisoner of war, enemy combatant, U.S. citizen), defining classes of treatment (e.g., torture, cruelty, “enhanced methods”), and on whether specific practices (e.g., water-boarding, marathon interrogation, sleep deprivation, stress positions, exposure to cold, sexual humiliation, menacing with attack dogs) fit within particular classes.
The Administration contends that these matters are complex and subject to ambiguous guidance. But a definitive understanding of all those factors is not necessary to evaluate whether particular detention conditions and interrogation practices are appropriate policy. The fog thins if one begins the inquiry at the Golden Rule: Would the U.S. object if captive Americans were subjected to the treatment in question?
The Golden Rule often is found in some form or other in cultures that otherwise differ markedly in their traditions of law and justice. The reason: By asking whether you yourself would object to being treated in the way in question, the Golden Rule leaves no place to hide cruelty and hypocrisy behind a particular culture’s definitions or legalisms.
For example, a discussion of whether water-boarding is torture or a mere “dunking” can comfortably end with both sides “agreeing to disagree.” But it is less easy to leave the issue unresolved when the question is, “Is it acceptable to us for captive Americans to be water-boarded?”
The Bush Administration needs to be asked a similar question about every detention condition and interrogation practice. Other questions to ask: Would we object if captive Americans were treated like the captives at Guantanimo? at the CIA’s “black sites”? at prisons we operate in Afghanistan and Iraq? like suspected terrorists held in American military prisons and brigs?
If the answer is no, then American soldiers and travelers abroad ought to be told that.
There is no need to ask whether we would object to American citizens being held indefinitely without charges, counsel, or being told the evidence against them. Already, the State Department has objected to Iran’s detention of Americans under such circumstances – to no avail. It’s hard to get moral traction when you complain about practices you yourself follow.
-
Reporters BECOME liberal!
[Read the article: The liberal news media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We need to move discussions of “media liberal bias” past questions of whether such a tendency exists and whether it can be neutralized. Instead, liberal defenders of the media should acknowledge that reporters inevitably acquire some degree of the liberal outlook because of their professional experiences covering stories. The experience of digging out stories encourages such bedrock “liberal” habits of mind as skepticism, seeking and verifying the full facts, acknowledging multiple viewpoints, anticipating complexity, evidence-based analysis, and recognizing “truth” in shades of gray.
A reporter who hasn’t developed those qualities is either a novice or incompetent. For example, who is more skeptical about police practices than an experienced police beat reporter? Who has a more jaundiced view of military procurement than a veteran Pentagon correspondent? They may have started out ideologically neutral, but chances are their experiences moved them toward the conventional “liberal” views on the police or the military.
This may partially be “familiarity breeds contempt,” but in substantial part it arises from experience and acclimation to professional standards. Yet nearly all examinations of the “liberal bias” question focus on reporters’ political philosophies per se and ignore when or how those philosophies developed.
I’ll take this a step farther: The liberal habits of mind that reporters develop then logically lead them to liberal positions on specific issues. That is because the actual facts of most situations tend to support liberal positions. In turn, because experienced reporters have more (and more reliable) information than the public at large, they consequently tend to hold more liberal views than the public at large. And that is just the way things are – not something to apologize for.
Conservative critics of the media would rather allege “bias” than discuss the facts reported, and liberal defenders of the media should quit playing their game on their court. Media critics should be made to bear the burden of proving factual errors or distortions; liberal defenders of the media should not allow themselves to be manipulated into assuming the burden of rebutting baseless accusations of bias.