"Enhanced interrogation technique" is not a euphemism so much as a complete change of topic. Torture is a means of causing suffering.

Radio discussions of torture devolve into "enhanced" interrogation vs. (by implication) ordinary un-enhanced interrogation, which can only benefit by enhancement. Torture does not enter the discussion.

Dead men tell no lies, or truths either. Is torturing somebody to death an interrogation technique?

We torture people to punish them, to terrorize the enemy, and out of pure animal desire to hurt.

And THAT is why I cringe when I hear "enhanced interrogation technique." It is not a euphemism, it is a change of topic.

excellent comments today (well, like most days). I did want to comment about the WaPo payola situation:

"This should never have happened," Weymouth told Post media reporter Howard Kurtz. "The fliers got out and weren't vetted. They didn't represent at all what we were attempting to do. We're not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

Which means, I'll bet, "Goddamn! Isn't there a way to do this without all and sundry knowing about it?!"

Couple of other things:

(Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli)

"Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable. There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values."

Which, therefore, explains this:

The first "Salon" was to be called "Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate" ... :

"Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ...

And, yet, Brauchli tells Politico, "You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist."

Let me quote Mister Slave and just say, "Jesus Christ!"

it is clear the entire thing is scripted. The host makes points in defense of Shepard and NPR, and then she reinforces the point, essentially repeating what she wrote in her articles.

This is such an exercise in bunkering it's incredible.

How does "girlish" apply when many, if not most, of our most vehement apologists on this front are actually possessed of "boyish" accoutrements?

Are you in the correct thread here? I thought the discussion of "boyish" accoutrements was in the last thread.

This thread is about manly men and their manly accoutrements.

Please stay on subject.

The good news: Glenn Greenwald continues to stay on top of an issue where he is absolutely correct and where a change in policy (in this case by NPR) could make a real difference. I'm not necessarily optimistic. Glenn was all over the FISA issue last year yet our elected officials (including Democrats and Obama) seem to have emerged unfazed.

The bad news: We live in a time where a controversy's weight can be emphasized by pointing out that a blog ran it "in a prominent headline all day long." ALL DAY LONG. Talk about a story having legs. A major civil rights issue is able to remain a major story on a liberal blog for an entire day!

Right on schedule. NPR really should hire me as a program director.

I was offering the term for the folks here who deny that the USA invaded Afghanistan and that we are at war there. The argument took place last thread, see it if you need to know more.

and I thank you for that heru-ur. I scanned the last thread very briefly and, to be honest, it reminded me of the Bronx Zoo, specifically the primate section. I was concerned that you might be misinterpreted as trying to convince the casual reader here that someone was trying to play word games or, even worse, was trying to misname a very serious event.

Speaking of zoos, did I ever tell you about the time the Tulane University Primate Research Center, located about a mile from here, somehow lost custody of about 200 howler monkeys? Some fiend from PITA broke in and turned them loose for some reason.

That was a hoot. The neighbor hood squirrels didn't have any idea about what to do with their new neighbors and those of us who love monkeys were actually feeding them so they didn't have to go "home" for a meal.

Sort of like this place at times...like last night.

link at sig

NPR represents radio for the American "management class" and must also conform to the cultural hegemonic rules of journalism as practiced by ruling class in America. Alicia Shepard is simply another bought and paid for shill spouting her deep belief in American exceptionalism. So how could America "torture" anyone? America does not torture and how does Shepard "know" this? Bush said it so it must be true. Cheney endorsed the torture so it must be effective. Yoo, Addinton bybee and Gonzalez signed off on the torture memons so it must be legal. I mean, Shepard calls them "responsible" and so in her world it is NOT America that tortures; it is those dastardly others. And bottom line? "Responsible people" pay the woman's salary so she knows "torture" when Iran or Venazuela or fill in the blank is guilty but America and Shepard and NPR contributors and their coporate sponsors can not "torture" cause America doesn't torture. Right Dick and Condi and George and Alicia?

I listened to that Talk of the Nation program on NPR with guest Alicia Shapard.

I thought just more disinformation and waffling, but then they never answered the question I emailed them, which asked why, if there are two sides to the story, is NPR unambiguous about calling it "torture" when other nations do it?

I'm still waiting for an answer.

The last question about "child abuse" being summarized as such was interesting.

Ms. Ombudsman said that if someone was accused of having committed child abuse the actual nature of the abuse would also be described (e.g. burning cigarettes applied to the child's skin). Naturally, there was no follow up to ask when NPR actually described the "enhanced interrogation techniques" used by our fearless leaders.

How will we know what the "techniques" are if they are never described? How will we ever know if the "techniques" constitute (at least a common-sense definition of) torture if they are never described?

Also, she kept defending her position in spite of the fact that most of the callers had the complete opposite opinion (which opinions she was supposed to report back to the management). Didn't know that this was National Ombudsman Radio.

NPR: RIP 2004.

The last time I had any faith in these people was before the Swift Boat debacle of 2004. Each time I listened to NPR discuss this subject (on my daily commute), NPR didn't just summarize the (ridiculous and manufactured) allegations of John Kerry's "treasonous cowardice"; instead they played a significant portion of the Swift Boat commercial - threatening music, frightening voiceover, etc. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

And of course this went on for weeks on end. Not enough for NPR to simply summarize the allegation - they had to give free air time to a phony "controversy" underwritten by T Boone Pickens and the Bush administration. (The Daily Show, that bastion of democratic free press, was so kind to point out at the time that this was a phony "controversy". Where do I send my John Stewart Pledge Money?)

Such "journalism" didn't stand alone, however. There was the election "news" consisting of: (1) on-site reporters telling us that candidate X is in Tulsa and candidate Y is in Wichita [these are facts and only news if you are unfortunate enough to live in Tulsa or Wichita and want to avoid the concomitant traffic jam; I'll trust the AP to get it right about where the candidates are; spend your/my money on something useful]; (2) poll-reporting on 20 different polls 45 days out from the election [so helpful]; and (3) "man on the street" interviews about what some random guy in Wichita thinks of the candidates [which opinion even his wife doesn't want to hear]. Analysis? Investigation of the candidates' records on the issues? POSH.