First of all, "fantasizing" is a bit harsh.

Secondly, perhaps you're more familiar with journalistic writing techniques and can explain to me why, if the Times considers equivalence amongst torture and the cited techniques they would not simply say, "often subjected to pressure tactics like sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and other methods of torture." Or alternatively, they could have said "often subject to torture, such as sleep deprivation and solitary confinement." By listing them out in the manner they did, it appears that they intended to imply a distinction. Should they have provided a clarification as to what they consider torture? Yes.

Thirdly, I would hardly call what I wrote a "defense" of the NYT. Instead, I was pointing out what seemed to be a disingenuous representation of the facts so they could cover their hide.

Pointing to other [ ] and highlighting their [ ] behavior can be cathartic, fun and gratifying in a self-justifying sort of way. Ask [ ]; it's virtually all [ ] ever does. But the first duty of the American media -- like the first duty of American citizens -- is to oppose [antisocial] behavior by our own [Daddy figure]. That's not as fun or as easy, but it is far more important. Moreover, obsessively complaining about the [ ] behavior of other [conformists] while ignoring the same behavior from our own [shadows] is worse than a mere failure of duty. It is propagandistic and deceitful, as it paints a misleading picture that it is other [in-groups] -- but not our own -- which engage in such conduct.

The message I posted in the next universe slipped into this one... hmm I think I'll go say hi to that blonde again today.

I’m trying to shake off their status-quo. The world is so sick and tired of the Arabs and Muslims whining about the injustice done to them. They are very rich people with great history , and yet, they seem so paralyzed they can’t rise up- for as long as it takes- to gain their freedom at home. They allowed themselves to be ruled by some of the worst dictatorship in modern history. No country on earth will give them their freedom.…they have to earn it themselves.

As to the double standard of calling the Iranians practices torture and not ours….it’s because,in my opinion, how the Times regard these regimes.

So, back to square one: You allowed yourself to be ruled under martial laws,rigged elections, imprisonment of political opponents, and think the world will have any respect or regard for your life…. I don’t think so.

Don't forget, let the corporate media know that because they have failed to report the news accurately you will henceforth depend on other outlets for accurate information and include a list of those that call a spade a spade. Let them know their policies of acting only as stenographers and government mouthpieces has cost them. Share with others where they can find good reporting instead of the euphemisms and passing on lies and calling it 'news'

Go back and look at the Slackman article again. He specifically breaks out the techniques that the NYT consistently refuses to call torture, lists them, and then appends torture as among the tactics used by the Iranians.

It brings the media vocabulary into very stark relief: They refuse to call any psychological technique, or any of the deprivation techniques (sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, bright lights, noise, etc.,) or any of the degradation techniques (criticizing sexuality, causing people to urinate or defecate on themselves, threats of force or death) torture. The are completely reserving the term for techniques that explicitly leave scars or cause agonizing immediate pain.

What they are doing is using a distinction that is nearly instinctual (even people who constantly write about torture find themselves appending adjectives like "brutal" when "unclean" torture is used) and splitting out so-called "clean torture" and calling the label controversial on it. That is indeed a controversy that the Bush administration officials and others would like to grow. But it seems strange that as far back as the Albigensian Crusade, the Catholic Church would know that these techniques were indisputably torture and the 21st century NYT and NPR would say there was controversy.

They want these distinctions because many, many people who operate under color of law in the U.S., and not just those who tortured during the Bush administration's torture program, don't want that line blurred. That's how Doug Jehl can, with a straight face, claim there are no court decisions. There are plenty court decisions, but some of those that decide about individual tactics (they are never used individually so this is a false distinction) call some of the clean tactics CIDT.

Since the whole thrust of all the Bush administration's memoes was to attempt to do only CIDT on the (mistaken) grounds that it was legal if overseas and during war) these people, like Jehl, far from being neutral, are directly and fully supporting the Bush administration's legal viewpoint. Mostly because they refuse to submerge their instinctual and gut reactions and look at the facts, mostly not because they are in any way "objective".

I find it interesting that Doug Jehl was the guy mentioned -- because I have experience with him, and understanding that gives insight into the current mess.

During the fight over the saving roadless areas on our National Forests, that resulted in the Clinton Roadless Initiative, Jehl was the lead reporter sent to Idaho. He had built up the issue in the classic 'loggers/millworkers vs. enviros' framework, with the idea that this was some battle of East Coast elites vs. the 'poor working people' of Idaho. Nothing was further than the truth.

Jehl called Orofino, ID, 'Ground Zero' in the battle, and came to report on a public hearing there. He wanted screaming timber workers, but what he got was a majority of folks that supported saving our roadless lands.

He didn't end up writing on that -- because it went against his cultural meme that he was trying to promote. Instead, he finally found some conflict that matched his prior perception of the story, and wrote about that. The venue was in (I believe) Nampa, a suburb of Boise, where Boise-Cascade had bussed in and organized workers. Instead of crusty lumberjacks, though, my friends that were there told me that many were Mexican, probably temporary workers.

Jehl, and others like him, serve to promote upper-middle-class memes of stories, rather than doing real reportage and challenging perceptions. It's no surprise that they're doing this with Iraq and torture, because we have to remember that the upper-middle-class, represented by the Senators, were for this war, simply because it seemed like the expedient thing to do at the time, it matched the story, and importantly, THEY do not have children in the military, by and large.

I don't think Jehl is unique. In fact, he's emblematic.