Things Left Unsaid
Why is it that the American press (in news articles, not in opinion columns) can't call a spade a spade?* I can understand the government wanting to avoid using the word "torture," since such practice is explicitly illegal:
(Emphasis added)
But, you might ask, since there's no official declared war going on, doesn't that nullify the Geneva Convention? Nope. Consider:
Right. But, still, the US government, especially the current administration, so sensitive to image control and projection, would clearly want to avoid using the word "torture," preferring instead to employ the less-offensive term "abuse." Technically, in a denotative sense, what the Army, CIA, and those shadowy "civilian contractors" did in Abu Ghraib constitutes both "abuse" and "torture." Of course, when you start splitting hairs like that, you're in big trouble.
But what about the press? I mean, why would they want to use the Karl Rove-approved, watered down language of the White House? Look at these media outlets: New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters (though they do quote the ICRC using the word "torture"), LA Times, Boston Globe, and, of course, USA Today.
Also, I heard it on NPR this morning and on the CBS Evening News last night.
The foreign press doesn't share the timidity of the US press.
Props to Seymour Hersh (see earlier post) for using plain language. Also, the Washington Post comes close in a different article, but they still dance around applying the term to any US soldiers.
It pains me to think that anyone in the US military could so enthusiastically engage in obvious torture. It pains me to think that torture by US soldiers could happen at all, much less with glee. But using a wimpy euphemism like "abuse" simply obscures the truth, and that I don't stand for.
*The phrase "to call a spade a spade" is not racist. Prosaically, it refers to calling a shovel a shovel, and comes from at least mid-sixteenth century England, if not before then. Though the term "spade" became a racist slur in 20th century America, the phrase used here was not coined with race in mind; indeed, the 20th century conception of race was not imaginable in the 16th century.
Why is it that the American press (in news articles, not in opinion columns) can't call a spade a spade?* I can understand the government wanting to avoid using the word "torture," since such practice is explicitly illegal:
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.
(Emphasis added)
But, you might ask, since there's no official declared war going on, doesn't that nullify the Geneva Convention? Nope. Consider:
the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Right. But, still, the US government, especially the current administration, so sensitive to image control and projection, would clearly want to avoid using the word "torture," preferring instead to employ the less-offensive term "abuse." Technically, in a denotative sense, what the Army, CIA, and those shadowy "civilian contractors" did in Abu Ghraib constitutes both "abuse" and "torture." Of course, when you start splitting hairs like that, you're in big trouble.
But what about the press? I mean, why would they want to use the Karl Rove-approved, watered down language of the White House? Look at these media outlets: New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters (though they do quote the ICRC using the word "torture"), LA Times, Boston Globe, and, of course, USA Today.
Also, I heard it on NPR this morning and on the CBS Evening News last night.
The foreign press doesn't share the timidity of the US press.
Props to Seymour Hersh (see earlier post) for using plain language. Also, the Washington Post comes close in a different article, but they still dance around applying the term to any US soldiers.
It pains me to think that anyone in the US military could so enthusiastically engage in obvious torture. It pains me to think that torture by US soldiers could happen at all, much less with glee. But using a wimpy euphemism like "abuse" simply obscures the truth, and that I don't stand for.
*The phrase "to call a spade a spade" is not racist. Prosaically, it refers to calling a shovel a shovel, and comes from at least mid-sixteenth century England, if not before then. Though the term "spade" became a racist slur in 20th century America, the phrase used here was not coined with race in mind; indeed, the 20th century conception of race was not imaginable in the 16th century.
posted by Jude at 7:03 AM
