Apparently you found that the VOA's use of the phrase "torture debate" was regressive and unhelpful.

I wonder if you read the 2nd segment quoted?

The 2nd broadcast piece quoted specifically references "alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay". That is much more direct than "torture debate".

If the notion that adding in the word "alleged" in a possibly criminal case seems to you inadequate, I would disagree and find it an unimportant distinction, similar to that of journalists & lawyers use of the term "alleged" in relation to charges of murder, rape, robbery, embezzlement, etc.

That it was not used as a verb is not persuasive. I know very well that the U.S. sponsored death squad governments of El Salvador and Guatemala were slaughtering and torturing, but had journalists clearly covered any particular incident potentially involving legal charges against particular individuals I would in no way be bothered by the use of the term "alleged" before convictions or rulings were handed down.

Finally, the point still stands; despite your sensible disappointment with the phrase "torture debate", it remains apparent that the U.S. government broadcaster VOA is clearer and more literal in reporting on instances of alleged torture by or under the command of U.S. officials than the New York Times or NPR.

Calling these practices enhanced or brutal interrogation techniques incorrectly assumes that an interrogation is taking place. It is highlly doubtful any of these prisoners are being asked questions while being waterboarded, placed in confined boxes or coffins, hung by their arms, placed in stress positions, subjected to loud music and days of sleeplessness.

No, these "techniques" are designed to physically and mentally break a prisoner down; to subject them to so much suffering and disorientation that they will do anything to make it stop. Only after the process does the interrogation begin. It's what distinguishes interrogation - the actual questioning of prisoners - from torture - being the infliction of emotional and physical pain and suffering.

If the media refuses to call it what it is, but still wants some tiny patina of linguistic logic, they should call it enhanced or brutal softening up teqniques.

to one and all.

When in the course of human events...

...same as the first.

Keep up the good fight, Glenn.

LMoE

[Maybe the difference is that when they do it, they have a sadistic gleam in their eye, while our guys get teary-eyed at how lucky the poor bastard is to suffer to keep the good guys safe.]

Using the phrase "torture debate" isn't using the word "torture" as a verb. In fact using that phrase is almost worse than using euphemisms in that it repeats the fallacy that there is an honest debate about the U.S. government committing torture, past and present, on detainees. David Gregory is very fond of that term "torture debate".

>>>On the other hand, perhaps Glenn's purpose IS to ascribe some amount of blame to US citizens for these atrocities, to persuade them to do something about it.

I think this is correct. The American government acts in the name of the American citizenry, and "we" the citizenry are responsible for its actions whenever its actions are public knowledge. When the US government tortures people, we are all stained and shamed by this. The blood of the bombed Iraqis and the tortured detainees is on ALL our hands, no matter how vigorously some of us have opposed the policies in question. To be sure, Dick Cheney is more culpable than, say, GG or myself, but we're all responsible for what our government does in our names and with our tax dollars.

There is a 18th/19th century sense of framing at play in all this. Who are the bloody/wicked savages and who are the civilized/God fearing warriors plainly scaled in/by major American political print/electric media to enchance American foreign affairs,policy pursuits and expansive militarism.

WashingtonDC has a long history of such conduct being polished by American media when it suits American policy pursuits or desires to frame American gestures,conduct and sought outcomes as being noble and above reproach while casting the worse of motives or dehumanized status on those WashingtonDC finds in the way of American policy goals or desires.

Clearly demonization of Iraq and Iran is full play on where WashingtonDC wants the framing to be placed. Going after AQ or the Taliban or using this framing of reasons why to justify other deeper American goals surely well illustrated since the year 2000 or going back another decade to 1990 or another decade to 1980 or another two decades or three or four and five. The point being this is not a new state of affairs.

What has now befallen Iraq at the hand of American militarism/expansionism surely required a boogeyman (Saddam) and a group (Baath Party) which could be linked to OBL and AQ which then gets mixed in with imagined Iraqi WMD threats that had no basis in fact or truth. WashingtonDC stoked this cauldron's fire until March 2003 came about. Six years later well over 150.000 Americans are still in Iraq and Iraqi oil has been placed in/under western energy open access. How many dead Iraqis or Iraqis made refugees or death dealing amongst Iraqis has this all meant? WashingtonDC prefers to sweep that out of sight. Hence use of torture by WashingtonDC in Iraq must be shrouded and actively removed from fields of view. If one is the civilized/God fearing warrior doing the work of the Good and True how does torture comport with that? So torture as a word must be policed out of American politcal media outlets being to do otherwise presents WashingtonDC with it's own end of WW2 narrative employed against German and Japanese "war criminals".

Expediency,duplicity and self-embraced myth and deception are all at play as WashingtonDC--despite which "party" is running WashingtonDC or who is in the WH--goes about mucking around Asia. With eyes on Asian energy access while draping that most real of objectives with stageset and role play that permits invasion of Asian lands and killing of Asians based on American goodness and exceptional exception of motive.

This being the Big Lie then that has Americans killing Asians as we have killed Native Americans,Filipinos or Vietnamese while claiming to be the "good guys".

WashingtonDC and big American political media both surely understand the power of words and with an American president just newly elected to undo the prior WH regimes excessive Rule of Law abuse or the use of torture plainly proceeding to not do so American marquee political media can in part be excused for this conduct.

President Obama is covering up torture done by Americans and is actively taking up American militarism/death dealing by choice again in Asia. Barack Obama the civilized man or Good American or Just Warrior then would seem to have some big blindspots regarding Rule of Law,condoning war crimes and the practice of saying things he either does not or will not do.