I don't have a quick temper, but when people are being purposefully obstinate, willfully ignorant and obtuse, I do tend to raise my voice. These exchanges are extraordinary--she doesn't actually answer any of the questions, she merely says the opposite of what was just stated in the question, such as:

Q:The U.N.’s High Commissioner for Human Rights says that waterboarding is torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross have called what the U.S. did “torture.” Waterboarding is unambiguously in violation of the International Convention on Torture, which has been ratified by 140-some countries. It seems to me that the only people who think it’s a debate are the Bush Administration, who are the culprits. So how does that constituent a debate?

ALICIA SHEPARD: Well, there are two sides to the issue. And I'm not sure, why is it so important to call something torture? You know, when you describe the technique, I think that sounds like torture to me. Isn't it the job of the news media to put the facts out there, to give as much detailed information and to put it in context?

How they define the job: NPR is a broadcaster, as in one-way, one-to-many communication. They speak, we listen. "Ombudsman" is a Euro-sounding, trendy thing, like paternity leave. But having one does nothing to change the basic model, and does nothing to address real accountability issues.

How we define the job: The whole point of having an ombudsman is to enable effective two-way communication, without which there is no accountability. And, if it is National Public Radio, shouldn't the public choose its own representative?

My suspicion is this: lawyers ruin everything. I say this as a lawyer. I suspect that the reason why NPR can't call something torture is they have been told by higher ups who have been advised by faceless lawyers that calling it torture has specific legal consequences which the media companies want no part of - that is regardless of the actual view of the company or the reporter/commentator concerned. I don't have a lot of sympathy with that but I can understand it.

To those who have responded to my earlier post with the outrage that I am saying that words don't matter I say this:

It really doesn't matter what you call it. Those who consider it torture will consider it torture whatever it is called. Those who don't won't. My point is this: argue about what it is not what it should be called.

To those who think that the language enhanced interrogation techniques somehow shroud the actions in legitimacy, I disagree. Whether the actions are considered legitimate is a question of whether the actions are legitimate - not what some random spokesperson of media company decides to call it.

And I'm sorry, quoting Orwell doesn't cut it for me. I have never understood why the simple quoting of dead (or alive, for that matter) authors lends any credibility to any point. Orwell had his point of view and great if you agree with it. Just don't pretend that his views provide some sort of objective support for your own.

So when Bob Herbert calls it torture from the editorial pages of the NYT, and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC does the same, it doesn't matter, and when NPR does it will? Even Obama has called waterboarding by it's name.

Obama said he was comfortable with his decision to ban waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techiques used at Guantánamo Bay and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) secret detention centres around the world under his predecessor George Bush.

In an unequivocal statement, he said: "I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationals were used, it was a mistake."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/30/obama-waterboarding-mistake

So, it must be that NPR is the final arbiter in this debate.

That was hilarious.

I especially liked the one for Michelle Bachmann. [snort!]

"Embedsman"

Like the definition macgupta. My husband might have an opportunity at a second career. ;-}

I find it hard to believe, that as a lawyer, you think this is a quibble about language and that language doesn't matter. Isn't that what lawyers do on a daily basis?

Besides that, given how masterful politicians have become in lulling the public into submissiveness through their use of rhetoric, shouldn't we be concerned that people are unable to pierce through the fog of "language" to see what is really going on?

But if a banana republic suits them, why would they have to move? Besides, have you seen what U-Haul is charging these days?

LOL on the U-Haul bit!!

I guess I still have some hope that US courts will continue to strike down most of Obama's Bush defending positions on cases involving the destruction of civil liberties, awarding of damages to people we tortured and renditioned, illegal spying, weakening FISA, and any gimmicks Obama may create to detain people indefinitely and try them. And I am hopeful that even if Obama won't bring Bush criminals to justice some other country like Spain may or the Brits may expose the underbelly of our torture enterprise in the Mohamed Binyam investigation currently underway. I still even have hope those torture photos will come out as I don't see any good legal way to block them from coming out including retroactively changing FOIA.

I still think the issue of torture is a boiling inferno with a lid that will blow off because it can't be contained forever by any legal gimmicks Obama can concoct.

If I am wrong this country is cooked because it will mean the abuses of Bush will have been accepted by most including the courts. Do you think there are enough U-Hauls to get us all out of here? Or will Canada take me?

Based on the defense of NPR's refusal to use the word torture, the ombudsman must be asked: why ever use the word "terrorist?" That term is far more ambiguous with no international agreement defining its use.

Moreover, the dictionary definition of "terrorism" (the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes)suggests that the U.S., Israel and other nations we consider friendly routinely and openly engage in terrorism (e.g. Sadam has 48 hours to give up office or we bomb; Gaza is being bombed as a response to the Hamas election victory; Taliban must turn over bin Laden without evidence and proper extradition or we bomb). Even if you think this is justified (as most "terrorists" think their actions are), it still fits the definition.