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.

It's an interesting point, but I do think the citizenry bears responsibility for the acts of its government, especially where the government is democratically elected and some -- but not much - efforts are expended to stop those practices.

It wasn't "the Bush administration" that tortured. It was the United States.

On what basis should a newspaper render its own verdict, short of charges being filed or a legal judgment rendered?

In the first example given of the new use of the word torture, it said "rights groups say". The subsequent uses were in direct quotes. It wasn't the Times using the word, but repeating a word used by others.

The problem, he said, was that he was not sure what he was supposed to confess to. So over the next several months, he said, he and his interrogators “negotiated” what he would say — and, more ominously, whom he would implicate. Once his confession was complete, he said, he practiced it for 7 to 10 days, and then it ran on state-run television.

Iran was doing exactly the same thing that the U.S. government was doing in regards to trying to force by torture a confession of collusion between "reformers" or, in the case of U.S. government, a confession through force by torture, a collusion between Hussein/Iraq and bin Laden/9/11. But The New York Times claims to be blind to that similarity?

Glenn wrote: "Just read the details of what we did to this adolescent"

I stopped using "we" in that way around the time of the first gulf war. Here's a quote from page 49 of Michael Parenti's 2002 book "The terrorism trap." (great book, by the way).

Part of the problem may lie in the bad habit that many people have in using "we" when they mean the US political and financial elites. To say that "we" are thwarting democracy abroad, impoverishing other populations, or bombing innocent people, when really referring to the actions of the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the IMF and the WTO, is to assume a community of interest between the general public and those who regularly prey upon it, which is just what the predators want.

Using "we" when really meaning "they" also deprives us of using "we" when we really mean the general public or at least the dissenters from orthodox policy. It keeps us from recognizing the distinct interest we have in opposing those who pretend to rule in our name.....

And I would add that the use of "we" when describing horrendous crimes implies part of the blame for these acts lies with me, when in fact I have been working hard for years to stop them.

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. Almost as in "look what you did to this adolescent".

Old George, full of the rot of the grave would only say this: told ya so!

George Orwell, our prescient Cassandra.

The official U.S. broadcaster of news and information to foreign audiences is the Voice Of America, part of the U.S. government's International Broadcasting Bureau. It is prohibited by law from broadcasting its signal to domestic U.S. listeners as this would be considered government-sponsored propaganda operations.*

The VOA Charter, which became the basis for all BBG broadcasters, requires that broadcasts:

* Be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.

* Represent all segments of American society and present a balanced and comprehensive view of significant American thought and institutions.

* Clearly present the policies of the United States.

http://www.ibb.gov/broadcasters/voa.html

When the VOA broadcasts news stories regarding allegations of U.S. torture, the VOA uses the term "torture".

Example 1:

Battle Lines in Torture Debate Harden

By Jim Malone | Washington | 12 May 2009

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and several religious leaders are the latest to add their voices to the national debate over harsh interrogation techniques used on some terrorism suspects during the Bush administration.

The political battle lines in the torture debate seem to be hardening.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-12-voa48.cfm

Example 2:

Spain to Consider Prosecuting Bush Officials Over Torture Allegations

By VOA News | 29 March 2009

A Spanish court has agreed to consider charging six former U.S. officials with providing legal justification for alleged torture at Guantanamo Bay.

Human rights lawyers brought the case before leading anti-terror judge Baltasar Garzon, who agreed to send it on to prosecutors to decide whether it had merit.

Under Spanish law, courts can prosecute offenses such as torture or war crimes even if they occurred in other countries.

The former officials, who include ex-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former defense official Douglas Feith, could face arrest if Spain charges them.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-03/2009-03-29-voa3.cfm

Now, they are careful to use the term "allegations" or "alleged" since they may be talking about criminal and legal issues. Nevertheless, they apparently aren't frightened away from using the most relevant and direct term for torture, i.e., "torture".

One would hope that presumably independent and private / non-profit institutions such as the New York Times and NPR might have the sort of journalistic integrity shown toward the fair application of the term "torture" to both foreign government-alleged and U.S.-alleged torture as the U.S. government's own broadcaster itself.

If the New York Times and NPR cannot manage to be as gutsy and independent as the official U.S.-government broadcaster, perhaps they could hire the U.S. government broadcasting agency, the IBB, to teach them about the basics of journalism again.

(*Yes, many jokes could be made here about how it's illegal when it's overt and direct and pretty thoroughly encouraged when it's covert and/or indirect.)

Dear Editors,

I'm really puzzled - the practices mentioned in your story about Iran:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/world/middleeast/04confess.html

are all perfectly legal in the United States. No government official will ever be investigated for these practices. We have been told this by President Obama himself. Why is it wrong for the Iranian government to use these methods? Maybe US-Iran detente can be promoted by sharing knowledge about these techniques?

{excerpt of article detailing torture followed, not reproduced here.}

Sincerely