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.

You should go back and read the NYT's excuse for not using "torture" to describe Bush tactics. It's not based on a distinction between various tactics; it's based on the claim that where there's no court ruling, it's not up to reporters to call it "torture":

But he said: "I have resisted using torture without qualification or to describe all the techniques. Exactly what constitutes torture continues to be a matter of debate and hasn’t been resolved by a court. This president and this attorney general say waterboarding is torture, but the previous president and attorney general said it is not. On what basis should a newspaper render its own verdict, short of charges being filed or a legal judgment rendered?" Jehl argued for precision and caution.

They're not saying what you're saying they are. They're not claiming that where it leaves no scars, it's not clearly torture. They're saying that where there's a denial and no court has opined, they shouldn't judge.

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.

How do you know this? They don't say this. What techniques did the Iranians use that the NYT is calling "torture"?

7/4/09

Dear Glenn,

This whole series you are doing here is really good so thank you. By holding up the mirror for these people you bring them to the absurd extreme of their position. Finally, those who live by the sale words are frightened to use them honestly. How sad for them.

I fundamentally disagree with any suggestion that Americans support torture. We are all ashamed of our government for taking this course and dismayed that our press is complicit in these crimes. They hide behind their sanitized euphemisms and run away from an individual blogger who asks only that they say the "T" word out loud and declare their own condoning its use. They are cowards.

Thank you,

Conrad C. Elledge

Glenn: you use a broader landscape and I agree with your commentary. I made an entirely different point: the NYT reporter does not say that e.g Iranian prisoners are being tortured. In the "old days" they would have done so. Now this reporter is quoting either a former detainee or a group. They use the word torture.

OTOH: the NYT will not quote an American source who tells them that a detainee was tortured at Guantanamo. Instead weasel words will be the default choice: "allege"etc. I hope you get my drift.

>>>The world is so sick and tired of the Arabs and Muslims whining about the injustice done to them.

Substitute "Jews" for "Arabs and Muslims" in the above sentence. How does it read now?

I'm so sick and tired of being sick and tired of racist claptrap.

Go to Democracy Now at www.democracynow.org for a talk by Noam Chomsky "CRISSES AND HOPE".

but my fren barnbert tol me that she puts all here faith in the New Yawk Times becuase it is allways acurit.

i am now cornfuzed. is barnbert wrong for once?

p.s. i like u grenn but i no like u foir luver like adnomo and his gang. twogether they r not so gud as calamari and jonathanintelevision.

u jus gud writer!

I'm not defending the NYT, but just are we talking about here:

The VOA article you submit:

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.

The NYT:

Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials

LONDON — A Spanish court has taken the first steps toward opening a criminal investigation into allegations that six former high-level Bush administration officials violated international law by providing the legal framework to justify the torture of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, an official close to the case said.

I don't see a lot of difference in the two. I found a few examples of the NYT using the word torture, though carefully. I think Hoyt seems to not actually know what's going on at his own paper. The biggest difference to me in the way that the NYT has sparingly used torture, is that it almost always is an "alleged" activity. I think that's fine and traditionally ethical journalistic practice--they should use the right terms, but unless the person has been tried in a court of law for something that is obvioulsy a crime, it should always be "alleged". And obviously the appropriate terminology needs to appear--not "alleged meanie" but "alleged murderer".

Where they go off the rails is in sweeping accusations without evidence of what other countries are doing--that really creates a prejudicial view of the way other countries function. How do they know that Iran always gets information through torture? Where's the proof that these confessions were produced via torture [not that I doubt it, personally, for a minute].

I knew this was going to happen. Let me try again. No they are not explicitly claiming that if it leaves no scars it's not torture. They are explicitly breaking out those techniques which leave no scars, and claiming they are controversial and there are no court rulings. In fact, there are court rulings, but some of them, on some techniques, rule the other way, stating that they rise only to the level of CIDT.

You should go back and read the NYT's excuse for not using "torture" to describe Bush tactics. It's not based on a distinction between various tactics; it's based on the claim that where there's no court ruling, it's not up to reporters to call it "torture":....

I've read it many times. It isn't true that there are no court rulings. It is true that some of the techniques have been ruled by courts both ways. The techniques that have been ruled both ways are specifically those which cause no scars (they line up nearly perfectly, Glenn, even if nobody wants to explicitly say it). It's also true that the torture memoes specifically go after such techniques and such distinctions and attempt to construct a regime that will be psychologically totally brutal and devastating, but will be ruled not torture by a court.

They're not saying what you're saying they are. They're not claiming that where it leaves no scars, it's not clearly torture. They're saying that where there's a denial and no court has opined, they shouldn't judge.

NO, I'm saying it. The denial is only about those techniques that leave no scars. Waterboarding leaves no scars, sleep deprivation leaves no scars, extreme isolation leaves no scars, degradation leaves no scars, light and noise leave no scars.......... They are a recognized body of torture techniques known by the term "clean torture".

The scars distinction is very real and very instinctual. It's the whole reason for beating people's feet with a nylon stocking filled with sand and other such strange techniques (that one is called falaka, and was used on rendered prisoners by other governments). What I'm saying is that they claim these techniques are not definitively torture in court decisions. I'm not agreeing with them, but that's the set of things they refuse to call torture. They are wrong that no court has judged them.

How do you know this? They don't say this. What techniques did the Iranians use that the NYT is calling "torture"?

Whipping, beating with flexible electrical conduit, some evidence of cutting the webbing between fingers, some reports of breaking bones, some evidence of beatings causing deep lacerations to the face, and some allegations of use of electricity. Some reports of hot water. Some allegations of rape.

I'm sorry, I don't want to set off a firestorm on this, but the distinction is there. It is a false distinction, but it's easy to slip into, and it works well with the media's audience. The NYT is also on record extolling the use of extreme solitary confinement as a prison punishment by the State of New York -- they used it on an uncontrollable violent prisoner to the tune of 20 years and the Times thought it was the greatest innovation since sliced bread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/nyregion/23inmate.html