I'm emailing my local (and beloved) public radio station today to tell them that I will not be participating in their next fund drive unless they take action not only to insist that NPR use "torture" to describe our brutal and illegal physical abuse of detainess in the Bush-Obama Global War on Terror, but also that Alicia Shepard be fired.

I'll update the comments with my email once I've composed and sent it.

without going through the current ombudsman. It's clear from Alicia's contradictory statements that she attempted to mislead us regarding her beliefs and NPR's stance on the use of the word torture. An obmudsman ought to be someone you can trust. You out to be able to trust the President too, but you can't have everything.

Glenn,

Thanks for writing this blog -- I really enjoy reading it. Since you haven't mentioned it, I was wondering if you were aware that Alicia Shepard did a radio interview with our local NPR station in Salt Lake City broadcast from the University of Utah. The program was "Radio West" with Doug Fabrizio on KUER 90.1, and it featured Ms. Shepard and some other guests discussing her decision to describe our torture regime in the semantics favored by the Bush administration and its supporters. The program is available here: http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kuer/news/news.newsmain/article/184/0/1526694/RadioWest/7709.The.Power.and.Problems.of.Language.

I was listening at work, and unfortunately couldn't devote my full attention to the interview, but she seemed to reiterate the points she has made elsewhere. Although I missed much of her interview, I was able to listen to another guest who is a Professor of English who articulated a very interesting argument about the power of language to control thought. It was a very interesting interview, and I largely agreed with the Professor's arguments.

-Ed

You really ought to read an earlier comment, made by Ondelette in response to another poster, that addresses the topic of your comment.

To make it easier for you, you can click on my sig...or here:

http://tinyurl.com/mquqwp

If only the so-called Global War on Terror could be fought under the terms of normal warfare. None of these “preventive detention” or “presidential post-acquittal detention” issues would exist.

If a terrorist wore a “terrorist uniform”, identifying him as the enemy, we could hold him under a prisoner-of-war type status until his terrorist group (al Qaeda or affiliate) could be reasonably determined to be neutralized.

Civil libertarians have a “right-to-trial” mindset that prohibits them from thinking of these detainees as enemy soldiers who can (should) be held without trial. Our government most likely has adequate evidence to support the fact that the current detainees in question have been al Qaeda trained, but cannot present this evidence in a courtroom due to the potential of compromising classified intelligence-agency sources or procedures. By saying that these known terrorists “must” have a trial, we are essentially saying that they “must” be released.

Is that what we really want? We don’t march captured enemy soldiers into a courtroom. Why should we be required to do this for our known terrorist enemies?

The “length-of-detention” issue is obviously a critical concern. Since there will never be an official terrorist surrender or armistice date, there cannot be an easily identifiable detainee release date. However, if our government can develop a reasonable identification of a terrorist group’s neutralization, we could then establish a recognizable detention end-point.

Besides, having a prospective al Qaeda trainee know that he can be held until al Qaeda lays down its arms would be an effective deterrent.

Obama fans voted for Barack because they were "in love" with Barack. There was zero pressure on the campaign to adopt or display any liberal tendencies or policies then and there is zero now that he's in office. All he has to do is impress conservatives now. Nobody should be surprised by this. The shock would have been if he turned out to be different from Bush.

Here's the email I just sent re: boycotting NPR stations.

Dear ____,

I'm not sure if you've been following the uproar over Alicia Shepard, the National Public Radio ombudsman, and her refusal to engage critics who have (rightly) lambasted NPR for using the Bush-Obama administration weasel words "enhanced interrogation techniques" as opposed to "torture" to describe our government's criminal abuse of detainees in the "War on Terror."

For some information on the current status of this controversy, please see this link (Update III in particular):

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/08/obama/index.html

I love WAMC, and I support the station financially through participation in your fund drives. Unfortunately, I will not be able to do so in good conscience as long as WAMC continues to subscribe to NPR programming and NPR and Alicia Shepard continue to take this shameful stance.

Please let me know what, if any, actions you and WAMC plan to take to address this situation.

Best regards,

i acknowledge the difficulties of fighting a 'war' against an enemy that wears no uniform, but to date the Bush & Obama administrations have made NO EFFORT of any kind to introduce a timetable under which a detainee's status must be reviewed. therefore, they are all subject to possible indefinite detention.

if there was ANY indication that the administration is trying to create a structure and timetable so that detainees don't become lifetime prisoners, then i could be more optimistic.

what reason is there for us to have to try them?

OK, those whom we can prove to have committed real crimes, like those involved in the 9/11 conspiracy, it might be OK to try them -- but in a regular court, provided there's enough admissible evidence to bring them to trial.

If there isn't enough such evidence, why on earth do we have to try them? Especially if, to do so, we have to set up the kangaroo courts known as military commissions. We can hold them anyway, so where's the pressing need to violate our own principles?

"Is that what we really want? We don’t march captured enemy soldiers into a courtroom. Why should we be required to do this for our known terrorist enemies?"

You of course will now proceed to tell us how you have determined that everyone who is currently detained is, in fact, a "known terrorist" and how you came to know that.