|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
 Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 8:20 pm Post subject: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
 |
|
is it really such a bad thing that a lot of these newspapers are disappearing? the mainstream media continue to provide us with depressing evidence of their cowardice and servility.
| Quote: |
Glenn Greenwald
Friday May 8, 2009 09:48 EDT
The NYT's definition of blinding American exceptionalism
(updated below - Update II)
There's been a major editorial breach at The New York Times today, in this obituary of an American fighter pilot who was captured by the Chinese:
Harold E. Fischer Jr., an American Flier Tortured in a Chinese Prison, Dies at 83. . . .
From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer � then an Air Force captain � was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air.
After a short mock trial in Beijing on May 24, 1955, Captain Fischer and the other pilots � Lt. Col. Edwin L. Heller, First Lt. Lyle W. Cameron and First Lt. Roland W. Parks � were found guilty of violating Chinese territory by flying across the border while on missions over North Korea. Under duress, Captain Fischer had falsely confessed to participating in germ warfare.
So that's torture now? To use the prevailing American mindset: a room that doesn't meet the standards of a Hilton and some whistling in the background is torture? My neighbor whistles all the time; does that mean he's torturing me? It's not as though Fischer had his eyes poked out by hot irons or was placed in a coffin-like box with bugs or was handcuffed to the ceiling.
Also, using the editorial standards of America's journalistic institutions -- as explained recently by the NYT Public Editor -- shouldn't this be called "torture" rather than torture -- or "harsh tactics some critics decry as torture"? Why are the much less brutal methods used by the Chinese on Fischer called torture by the NYT, whereas much harsher methods used by Americans do not merit that term? Here we find what is clearly the single most predominant fact shaping our political and media discourse: everything is different, and better, when we do it. In fact, it is that exact mentality that was and continues to be the primary justification for our torture regime and so much else that we do.
Along those same lines, I learned from reading The New York Times this week (via The New Yorker's Amy Davidson) that Iraq is suffering a very serious problem. Tragically, that country is struggling with what the Times calls a "culture of impunity." What this means is that politically connected Iraqis who clearly broke the law are nonetheless not being prosecuted because of their political influence! Even worse, protests the NYT, there have been "cases dismissed in the past few years as a result of a government amnesty and a law dating to 1971 that allows ministers to grant immunity to subordinates accused of corruption." And the best part? This: "The United States is pressing the Iraqi government to repeal that law."
Thankfully, we're teaching the Iraqis what it means to be a "nation of laws." We Americans know how terrible it is to have a system where the politically powerful are permitted to break the law and not be held accountable. A country which does things like that can fall into such a state of moral depravity that they would actually allow people to do things like this and get away with it. Who could imagine living in a place like that? |
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/08/torture/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
more evidence of the media's servility and cowardice! this time it's david broder being exposed as the hypocrite he is.
| Quote: |
David Broder: Eyes Wide Shut The Liberal Media
By Eric Alterman
This article appeared in the May 25, 2009 edition of The Nation.
May 6, 2009
More than eighty years ago, in his argument with Walter Lippmann about the proper role of the press in a democracy, John Dewey warned that "a class of experts is inevitably so removed from common interests as to become a class with private interests and private knowledge."
It would be difficult to imagine a more telling--and disturbing--manifestation of Dewey's prediction than the current torture debate in Washington. Even after the disgraceful performance of so many armchair warriors during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, who would have dared predict the willingness, nay, eagerness, of respected journalists and pundits to argue in favor of purposeful ignorance? Sadly, many of them have shown less interest in potential war crimes committed by the Bush administration than little Misha Lerner, the Jewish Primary Day School fourth grader who quizzed Condoleezza Rice about her inability to explain the legality of these policies to a group of Stanford students.
While many have made the case to varying degrees, Peggy Noonan made it most explicitly: "Some things in life need to be mysterious," she said of America's role in torturing terrorist suspects. "Sometimes you need to just keep walking." And while defenders of the insider establishment may note, as a mitigating factor, that Noonan is less a journalist than an ex-Reagan flack who plays a journalist on the Wall Street Journal editorial page and ABC's This Week, what, then, to say about David Broder? The "dean" of the Washington press corps sets a tone for many of his colleagues and represents a goal to which many if not most of them aspire. He, too, advises his colleagues to keep walking, eyes wide shut.
Broder mocked his colleagues following the 2004 election for writing that "the forces of darkness" were taking over the country, chortling that America did not face "another dark age." He's changed his mind, but not his tune. Yes, the dean admits, it turns out that we have just passed through "one of the darkest chapters of American history." But never mind that. Anybody interested in just what took place during this period is guilty, according to the apparently telepathic pundit, of "an unworthy desire for vengeance." Sure, Broder admits, that old-fashioned notion of democratic "accountability" offers a "plausible-sounding rationale" for an investigation. But Broder wants none of it. He worries that it would lead to "endless political warfare." He says the torture memos "represented a deliberate, and internally well-debated, policy decision, made in the proper places." And most of all, he is afraid that if George W. Bush is a "man of honor," he will ask to be indicted rather than allow his underlings to take the fall. (I swear I am not making this up.)
Much can be said about the assumptions that underlie these words. First, we note that the dean's fear of "political warfare" trumps the rule of law, to say nothing of the results of a democratic election. As for Broder's eagerness to embrace torture as the result of "internal"--that is, secret--"debate," well, he might be interested to learn that not even the Bush Justice Department has his back on this one. Five days before Obama took office, the department issued a memo disavowing its own arguments. Pointing to the atmosphere of panic in which they were written following 9/11, department spokesmen announced that those memos not already (secretly) withdrawn should be considered inoperative. (Frank Rich has argued, persuasively in my view, that it was the administration's obsession with an imaginary Saddam-Osama connection that drove its torture tactics.) As for Bush being a "man of honor" who cannot abide his underlings taking the fall for his bad judgment, I'm afraid words fail me here...
Sadly, Broder's decision to avert his eyes from the distasteful and potentially criminal actions of his government is not exceptional; it's how he defines his job. Forty years ago he scolded those in the Democratic Party who challenged Lyndon Johnson's lies about Vietnam as "degrading...to those involved." Twenty years ago he attacked independent counsel Lawrence Walsh's investigation into criminal wrongdoing in the Iran/Contra scandal. (Reagan had mused that he would likely be impeached should his extraconstitutional actions ever be discovered.) Broder supported Republican efforts to impeach Bill Clinton, whose behavior he deemed "worse" than Richard Nixon's police-state tactics during Watergate because Nixon's actions, "however neurotic and criminal, were motivated and connected to the exercise of presidential power." There is a pattern here, obviously. When a president abuses his constitutional warmaking powers, he can depend on Broder not only to defend his crimes but to attack those who would hold him accountable. This, in the eyes of perhaps the most honored and admired journalist today, is the proper function of the press in a democracy.
Back in 1988, at a black-tie dinner in his honor given by the National Press Club at which he was feted by James Baker, among others, a famous journalist--sounding a bit like Dewey--worried that if Americans were to come to view the press as just another "power-wielding clique of insiders" they were going to end up "resentful as hell that they have no way to call us to account." It was a good thought. Unfortunately, the honoree--one David Broder--should have added, "But do as I say, not as I do." Thank goodness scrupulous journalists like Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane of the New York Times, Mark Danner of The New York Review of Books and Marcy Wheeler, a blogger for Firedoglake.com, among others, chose to take Broder's advice on this story as they ignored his example. Perhaps it's not too much to say they also helped rescue the honor of their profession in the process. |
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/alterman?rel=hp_currently |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
Deleted--double post
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Sun May 10, 2009 10:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| Quote: |
From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer � then an Air Force captain � was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air.
So that's torture now? To use the prevailing American mindset: a room that doesn't meet the standards of a Hilton and some whistling in the background is torture? My neighbor whistles all the time; does that mean he's torturing me? It's not as though Fischer had his eyes poked out by hot irons or was placed in a coffin-like box with bugs or was handcuffed to the ceiling.
|
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"?
I propose we put everybody who doesn't think this is torture in the same conditions and see how quickly they change their tune. It's very easy to sit behind a computer in a comfortable easy chair and criticize the men and women of the armed forces who give their lives, so people can take this for granted. The person who wrote the article would profit from a few months of being in the captain's shoes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| Quote: |
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"? |
yeah, i'm not sure why the author felt the need to belittle the very real torture experienced by this american in china. his point could quite easily have been made without doing so.
| Quote: |
| It's very easy to sit behind a computer in a comfortable easy chair and criticize the men and women of the armed forces who give their lives, so people can take this for granted. The person who wrote the article would profit from a few months of being in the captain's shoes. |
this line of argument got tiresome a long time ago. the men and women of the armed forced are just that, men and women. they make mistakes, and so calling them on it seems reasonable to me.
anyway, the real story here is the HYPOCRISY OF THE MEDIA! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:20 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Quote: |
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"? |
yeah, i'm not sure why the author felt the need to belittle the very real torture experienced by this american in china. his point could quite easily have been made without doing so.
| Quote: |
| It's very easy to sit behind a computer in a comfortable easy chair and criticize the men and women of the armed forces who give their lives, so people can take this for granted. The person who wrote the article would profit from a few months of being in the captain's shoes. |
this line of argument got tiresome a long time ago. the men and women of the armed forced are just that, men and women. they make mistakes, and so calling them on it seems reasonable to me.
anyway, the real story here is the HYPOCRISY OF THE MEDIA! |
Well yeah, that was kind of my point. The author was jumping all over the NYT for being hypocritical by calling this torture, but not the tactics allegedly used by some American operatives. If we both agree that this indeed was torture (albeit not of the thumbscrews and rack variety) then his point about hypocrisy is greatly weakened. Plus by belittling this, the writer is also open to the same charges . He'd have done better to stick with Broder |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Quote: |
From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer � then an Air Force captain � was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air.
So that's torture now? To use the prevailing American mindset: a room that doesn't meet the standards of a Hilton and some whistling in the background is torture? My neighbor whistles all the time; does that mean he's torturing me? It's not as though Fischer had his eyes poked out by hot irons or was placed in a coffin-like box with bugs or was handcuffed to the ceiling.
|
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"?
I propose we put everybody who doesn't think this is torture in the same conditions and see how quickly they change their tune. It's very easy to sit behind a computer in a comfortable easy chair and criticize the men and women of the armed forces who give their lives, so people can take this for granted. The person who wrote the article would profit from a few months of being in the captain's shoes. |
Hahaha, you didn't get it, did you. The person knew full well that the Chinese 'whistling' was torture. He was taking a potshot at those who similarly dismissed US torture techniques, such as playing loud heavy metal music for hours and hours on end. (Some) Americans, including some posters here, scoffed at the idea that such techniques were torture. Some even scoffed at the idea that waterboarding was torture.
Excellent thread btw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:28 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Quote: |
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"? |
yeah, i'm not sure why the author felt the need to belittle the very real torture experienced by this american in china. his point could quite easily have been made without doing so. |
Was he really belittling it? I didn't think so.
Well, they do say Americans struggle with irony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Sun May 10, 2009 10:58 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Quote: |
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"? |
yeah, i'm not sure why the author felt the need to belittle the very real torture experienced by this american in china. his point could quite easily have been made without doing so. |
Was he really belittling it? I didn't think so.
Well, they do say Americans struggle with irony. |
yeah on second thought you're quite right. anyway, urbanmyth is just distracting us from the depressing point of OP.
| Quote: |
| Well yeah, that was kind of my point. The author was jumping all over the NYT for being hypocritical by calling this torture, but not the tactics allegedly used by some American operatives. If we both agree that this indeed was torture (albeit not of the thumbscrews and rack variety) then his point about hypocrisy is greatly weakened. Plus by belittling this, the writer is also open to the same charges . He'd have done better to stick with Broder |
i don't see how the writer's point about hypocrisy has been weakened. whether the writer is belittling or not, it makes no difference. plain as day, we see the nytimes basically flaunting their lack of objectivity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 12:01 am Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Quote: |
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"? |
yeah, i'm not sure why the author felt the need to belittle the very real torture experienced by this american in china. his point could quite easily have been made without doing so. |
Was he really belittling it? I didn't think so.
Well, they do say Americans struggle with irony. |
yeah on second thought you're quite right. anyway, urbanmyth is just distracting us from the depressing point of OP.
| Quote: |
| Well yeah, that was kind of my point. The author was jumping all over the NYT for being hypocritical by calling this torture, but not the tactics allegedly used by some American operatives. If we both agree that this indeed was torture (albeit not of the thumbscrews and rack variety) then his point about hypocrisy is greatly weakened. Plus by belittling this, the writer is also open to the same charges . He'd have done better to stick with Broder |
i don't see how the writer's point about hypocrisy has been weakened. whether the writer is belittling or not, it makes no difference. plain as day, we see the nytimes basically flaunting their lack of objectivity. |
Agreed. The point was, that the NYT called what the Chinese did 'torture.' And quite rightly. Yet even worse tortures have been called (in the NYT) "harsh tactics some critics decry as torture" or "enhanced interrogation techniques." The nationality of the torturer and the tortured seems to factor greatly in the NYTs decisions on whether or not torture can be considered torture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:30 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Quote: |
From April 1953 through May 1955, Colonel Fischer � then an Air Force captain � was held at a prison outside Mukden, Manchuria. For most of that time, he was kept in a dark, damp cell with no bed and no opening except a slot in the door through which a bowl of food could be pushed. Much of the time he was handcuffed. Hour after hour, a high-frequency whistle pierced the air.
So that's torture now? To use the prevailing American mindset: a room that doesn't meet the standards of a Hilton and some whistling in the background is torture? My neighbor whistles all the time; does that mean he's torturing me? It's not as though Fischer had his eyes poked out by hot irons or was placed in a coffin-like box with bugs or was handcuffed to the ceiling.
|
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"?
I propose we put everybody who doesn't think this is torture in the same conditions and see how quickly they change their tune. It's very easy to sit behind a computer in a comfortable easy chair and criticize the men and women of the armed forces who give their lives, so people can take this for granted. The person who wrote the article would profit from a few months of being in the captain's shoes. |
Hahaha, you didn't get it, did you. The person knew full well that the Chinese 'whistling' was torture. He was taking a potshot at those who similarly dismissed US torture techniques, such as playing loud heavy metal music for hours and hours on end. (Some) Americans, including some posters here, scoffed at the idea that such techniques were torture. Some even scoffed at the idea that waterboarding was torture.
Excellent thread btw. |
I'm afraid, Madame, that you are the one that doesn't get it. Making light of someone's torture for one's personal agenda may not be a negative in your books but it is mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:33 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Quote: |
This is a dumb statement "my neighbor whistles all the time, does that mean he's torturing me?"
There is a big difference between someone whistling a tune and having a mechanical device blow a high frequency note for hours on end. And having a dark damp cell with no bed is described as "a room that doesn't meet the standards of the Hilton"? |
yeah, i'm not sure why the author felt the need to belittle the very real torture experienced by this american in china. his point could quite easily have been made without doing so. |
Was he really belittling it? I didn't think so.
Well, they do say Americans struggle with irony. |
yeah on second thought you're quite right. anyway, urbanmyth is just distracting us from the depressing point of OP.
| Quote: |
| Well yeah, that was kind of my point. The author was jumping all over the NYT for being hypocritical by calling this torture, but not the tactics allegedly used by some American operatives. If we both agree that this indeed was torture (albeit not of the thumbscrews and rack variety) then his point about hypocrisy is greatly weakened. Plus by belittling this, the writer is also open to the same charges . He'd have done better to stick with Broder |
i don't see how the writer's point about hypocrisy has been weakened. whether the writer is belittling or not, it makes no difference. plain as day, we see the nytimes basically flaunting their lack of objectivity. |
How does ONE journalist or whoever wrote that equate to the entire staff at the NYT? The NYT is not some vast 'Borg collective' type institution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:48 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| Quote: |
How does ONE journalist or whoever wrote that equate to the entire staff at the NYT? The NYT is not some vast 'Borg collective' type institution.
BTW the writer is Dennis Hevesi, and according to newscred...he's got a 100% credibility rating. |
bill keller runs a meticulously edited newspaper. Apart from the opinion pieces, there are strict rules about when and how words can be used. in order for the word "unprecedented" to be used, for example, it has to satisfy a list of conditions the paper has set-out for everyone to follow.
you betray your ignorance when assuming that the writers have control over when and how words such as torture are used. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Quote: |
How does ONE journalist or whoever wrote that equate to the entire staff at the NYT? The NYT is not some vast 'Borg collective' type institution.
BTW the writer is Dennis Hevesi, and according to newscred...he's got a 100% credibility rating. |
bill keller runs a meticulously edited newspaper. Apart from the opinion pieces, there are strict rules about when and how words can be used. in order for the word "unprecedented" to be used, for example, it has to satisfy a list of conditions the paper has set-out for everyone to follow.
you betray your ignorance when assuming that the writers have control over when and how words such as torture are used. |
I never made any such assumption.
And as for the NYT's lack of objectivity...what do you think about this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04detain.html?_r=1&ref=global-home |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ubermenzch
Joined: 09 Jun 2008
Location: bundang, south korea
|
| Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: Re: the shocking hypocrisy of the new york times |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| ubermenzch wrote: |
| Quote: |
How does ONE journalist or whoever wrote that equate to the entire staff at the NYT? The NYT is not some vast 'Borg collective' type institution.
BTW the writer is Dennis Hevesi, and according to newscred...he's got a 100% credibility rating. |
bill keller runs a meticulously edited newspaper. Apart from the opinion pieces, there are strict rules about when and how words can be used. in order for the word "unprecedented" to be used, for example, it has to satisfy a list of conditions the paper has set-out for everyone to follow.
you betray your ignorance when assuming that the writers have control over when and how words such as torture are used. |
I never made any such assumption.
And as for the NYT's lack of objectivity...what do you think about this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04detain.html?_r=1&ref=global-home |
correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the article you link just prove the point the author in the OP was trying to make? they talk about the "CIA's experiment in harsh interrogations". as andrew sullivan wrote in his 'daily dish', "you have a perfect demonstration of the NYT's double-standard. If Chinese do it to Americans, it's torture; if Americans do it to an American, it's 'harsh interrogation'."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-nyt-finally-prints-torture.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
