I disagree here mate:

"I think many of us agree that it doesn't really matter what you call something as long as most people understand what it really is. In the case of torture is does matter what you call it because torture is clearly a war crime where investigations and prosecutions of those engaging in these acts are mandated."

There is the principle that when Justice has to be done then it has to be seen to be done. And the start of that process is the isolating and clear identification of the crime in question that has to be dealt with.

Waterboarding isn't "simulated drowning" - i.e. a practice where people "experience sensations which make them think they are drowning." That description itself is yet another way to pretend to describe the situation, but in actually is a gross mischaracterization.

I defy anyone to read the following two articles and call it anything other than "controlled drowning". It is actual drowning, where the person is revived before death (unless they aren't, in which case the correct applicable term is "homicide").

The second story is from NPR, to its credit.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

"Waterboarding is a controlled drowning that, in the American model, occurs under the watch of a doctor, a psychologist, an interrogator and a trained strap-in/strap-out team. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. How much the victim is to drown depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration –usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death. Its lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threaten with its use again and again."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834

"And you couldn't breathe?

No, I could not, and so I, for a time, lost consciousness. I found my consciousness came back again and found Yuki was sitting on my stomach. And then I vomited the water from my stomach, and the consciousness came back again for me.

Where did the water come out when he sat on your stomach?

From my mouth and all openings of my face ... and then Yuki would repeat the same treatment and the same procedure to me until I became unconscious again."

"wurdz" don't ALWAYS matter

Say cheers for that. Means the same only, like, sorrta different. Love it.

...calling something by a euphemism does not alter the fundamental nature of that "thing". By definition that's what a euphemism is.

--homeruk

Actually, yes it does. And, actually no it isn't. The point of using a euphemism is almost always to attempt to change the "fundamental nature if the" act in the mind of the listener or reader. It's really just barely this side of telling lies in hopes that the listener or reader won't recognize the lies.

n.

The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive:

No, no, no. It must never be called "controlled drowning." The word control in this context would suggest that the torturers had a keen sense of looking after the safety of the subject they were water boarding. Well of course they do but not in the subject's interest but in their own in keeping the subject alive in order to board him more.

Hi Glenn,

There is another interview of the NPR Ombudsman on Patt Morrison's show at KPCC, from June 26: Ms. Shepard takes four or five listener calls, but the bulk of the piece is a discussion with Geoff Nunberg, a professor of linguistics at Berkeley, who says that not calling torture torture is an "ethical lapse" and points out that NPR is virtually alone in its position in media round the world.

A recording of the show is available at http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2009/06/26/calling-a-spade-a-spade-use-of-the-word-torture/, and Patt mentions your June 22 article in the introductory paragraph.

She does not do well, running to "objectivity" and "neutrality", which Nunberg calls "a blind". He's all over the morality of the issue, and points out that not calling torture torture made it possible for Bush to claim that the US doesn't torture.

Your comment, even more so, puts into question the comment by Shepard that an interview with Glenn Greenwald could be or would be defined as a "shouting match" rather than an interview. Ignorance by Shepard about Glenn Greenwald and his reputation, or just flat out lying by Shepard?

Actually, yes it does. And, actually no it isn't. The point of using a euphemism is almost always to attempt to change the "fundamental nature if the" act in the mind of the listener or reader.

This is it, precisely, kitt. Someone referred to Matt Taibbi's great article on Fareed Zakaria (sp?) earlier. Taibbi's point is that Zakaria uses words to lull the reader into a nice comfortable place, where there is no thought of pitchforks and no discomfort with what our government or the corporate rulers are doing. Zakaria serves the same purpose as euphemisms; he cloaks the brutal truth in terms that don't pain the listener or reader. Taibbi is referring specifically to Zacharia's recent defense of capitalism in the U.S., which relies on a passive citizenry to maintain its privilege and the grossly inequitable division of resources. So, yes, as kitt points out, there is a hugely political dimension to the way certain words are used.

Pedinska, bamage, thanks! Bizarrely, I only noticed the dog-ass-jesus pic because it was right next to Obama in my image files. So it struck me: You think it's the messiah then you realize it's just a big asshole! That is Obama in a nutshell.