If we now must call terrorism "man made catasrophe", why don't we call torture "man made divulging". There are plenty of euphemisms to go around. Obscene growth in government and government spending authorized by immature politicians should be called "stimulus".

I'm glad Glenn is on MY side...he's sort of like the Left's Lawyer. One that never misses a trick.

They had no problem calling beatings, overcrowded cells, electric shock and toenail extraction "torture" this morning. Of course, they were talking about Cambodia.

Nationalism makes people stupid.

you are my designated agent in questioning all these people and holding them to some standards of logic and argument: I appreciate it. And when I get some extra money come August from teaching an extra class I will be sure to contribute to your fund mentioned last week. Is there some permanent link we can use to contribute so that I can go back to it later, or how are you working that?). Anyway, I appreciate your rigor and commitment.

alt. title: another reason why Shepard is full of shit.

"Enhanced Interrogation Technique" as was "freedom fighter" are not common usage words. Unlike "torture" and "terrorist" they are POLITICAL INVENTIONS introduced into the lexicon for the specific purpose of masking unpleasant realities. By adopting these words, therefore, NPR is implicitly siding with the inventors of those words. This is a distinction lost on the "ombudsman."

So she claims NPR won't call, say, the PLO, IRA, Hezbollah, etc., "freedom fighters" when they are terrorists. But what about the Contras (about whom the Newspeak term "freedom fighter" was first introduced)? How many times did NPR call them "terrorists?"

Mr Greenwald,

I suggest that you interview the Miami Herald's Pulitzer prize winning columnist Leonard Pitts about his contention that Bush's use of torture was not criminal but simply incompetence. And that an investigation is not a good idea.

Still, most of the signature sins of the Bush gang -- Katrina, Iraq, torture, politicizing the Justice Department -- are not so much violations of law as defilement of the public trust.

That is not -- obviously -- a small failing. But that doesn't make it prosecutable.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1061617.html

...how Shepard changes her argument half way through the audio clip? She goes from talking about not taking sides to "admitting" that using the moniker of enhanced interrogation is a clear act of siding with the administration (but only after being challenged by Bob Garfield with this very point). This, she explains, is why her argument "all along" was to just describe the facts in full detail -- kept perfectly in context -- by describing torture as....wait for it....enhanced interrogation techniques. This broad is a real piece of work.

She was probably hired precisely because she could not do the Ombudsman's job as it was previously thought to be defined.

"Ombudsman" was just another of those "vague" terms [like "Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment"] that needed to be clarified and redefined, and she is one of the tools being used for that process.

Has anybody found any good analysis of the CO2 Crap and Trade Abomination the House just passed? (Billions in Corporate Welfare) Fer fuck's sake the Democraps fecking suck.

I listened to her 5 minute interview on NPR. Shortly after the interviewer inquires why NPR wouldn't use the word torture to describe watreboarding, a practice that has been identified as torture by all human rights organizations and by the Geneva Convention on Torture, she replies proudly that NPR has also refused to use the word terrorist to describe doctors who perform abortions. Not for one moment had it entered her mind that not using the word terrorist to describe doctors performing a legal procedure is the exact opposite from not using the word torture to describe a highly illegal activity like torture. Why exactly did NPR pick a person so astoundingly dumb to be their Ombudsman?

I apologize if this was posted already and I know this is slightly off topic but Bob Herbert has written a must-read column today. If this doesn't convince everyone still defending Obama for adopting similar policies as Bush on indefinite detention, who we are labeling a terrorist and still holding indefinitely in our worldwide prison network and still torturing, and why we shouldn't be rigging our legal system to convict these people using confessions obtained because they were tortured, than I would politely suggest you move to another country - one with a banana republic legal system that best suits what you believe in.

How Long Is Long Enough?

By BOB HERBERT

NYT

Published: June 29, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/opinion/30herbert.html

What is needed in this country is a real "Shock Doctrine" applied to most Americans so they stop defending the dismantling of our system of Justice and thus our values for any reason including fighting terrorism. And it doesn't matter which political party is doing this.

I heard the On the Media segment in my car over the weekend, and the thing that struck me was the way Shepard kept saying there was a debate about whether these techniques constituted torture, and thus NPR was reluctant to call them torture.

But there really is no debate. The Geneva Conventions clearly label them torture. The Army Field Manual does the same.

Just because someone says down is up, doesn't mean there's a debate. And yet, she kept falling back on the argument that the government says something that contradicts the accepted view, so there must be a debate.

It reminded me of that Monty Python bit where the guy goes looking for an argument, and all he can get is simple contradiction.

It's torture. No, it isn't.

Um, ok.

...seeking out a public forum in which to express controversial views (as Shepard has done) entails the obligation to confront critics and criticisms. Refusing to do so is irresponsible cowardice that singularly enables reckless opining...

While I otherwise agree with what you've written about the "emptiness of Shepard's rationale", the above excerpt strikes me as too harsh. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but wasn't Shepard just doing her job in addressing listener response to a management policy? It is the nature of an ombud's job that there is a public element, but I don't think it's quite fair to say that she sought out a public forum in which to express a controversial view. Instead, she publicly responded to criticisms of her employer's controversial policy.

To be clear, her explanation for refusing to be interviewed by you is, as you've put it, "empty" and indefensible. But I see a difference between what she did and, say, what Krauthammer does.