Criticism of Afghan War is on Rise in Britain


by Katrina vanden Heuvel
The Nation
07/12/2009


In a brilliant essay in a recent issue of the London Review of Books ("The Irresistible Illusion, July 9), Rory Stewart, the Director of the Carr Center on Human Rights Policy at Harvard, writes that "Afghanistan..is the graveyard of predictions." I'd add that is is also the graveyard of empires. Stewart is critical of President Obama's "new policy," which he explains "has a very narrow focus--counter-terrorism--and a very broad definition of how to achieve it: no less than the fixing of the Afghan state."

Alternatives, for the moment, have been excluded. Yet too few are asking the tough questions that need to be asked about how we might better provide security -- in the region and for the US -- through a non-military regional strategy to stabilize Afghanistan. Why are too few pointing out that it is crazy to pour billions into a war whose mission we're still unable to clearly define when the U.S. economy is in crisis and millions (here and globally) face joblessness?

While the newly arrived top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McCrystal, champions a 21st century counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy, few in Congress have bothered to question the Administration about the fact that while this COIN strategy calls for a ratio of 80 percent political and 20 percent military, 90 percent of the recent war supplemental goes towards military expenses.

And just last week, according to the Washington Post, McCrystal concluded that Afghan security forces will have to expand far beyond currently planned levels. Such an expansion would require additional billions beyond the $7.5 billion the administration has budgeted annually to build up the Afghan army and police over the next several years; it will also mean the deployment of 1000s of more US troops as trainers and advisers.

Obama has so far committed to building an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000. McCrystal now appears to be pushing for what some US generals have earlier spoken about wanting: a combined Afghan army-police-security apparatus of 450,000 soldiers. Such a force would cost $2 or $ 3 billion a year to maintain; as Rory Stewart points out, the annual revenue of the Afghan government is just $600 million. "We criticize developing countries for spending 30 percent of their budget on defense," Stewart notes, and "we are encouraging Afghanistan to spend 500 percent of its budget."

As the US plans to sharply increase its troop strength, it's important to note that Britain's involvement in the war has come under the fiercest criticism yet at home. Some of this comes as a result of a sharp increase in British casualties, including the deaths of 15 soldiers in the past 10 days. (By July 7th, 176 British soldiers had died in Afghanistan, roughly the same number as were killed in Iraq. America has lost 726 soldiers in Afghanistan and 4321 in Iraq--though those figures may have increased in these past few days.)

What has also led to criticism in Britain are the grim images that have led the nightly television news. According to the New York Times, the news has shown "slate-gray transport aircraft carrying coffins landing at a military airbase in Wiltshire and being driven slowly in hearses past crowds lining the high street in Wootton Bassett, a nearby town. When live coffins passed down the street on Friday, on their way to a mortuary in Oxford, women wailed."

Where is the US nightly television (broadcast and cable) coverage of our servicepeople returning in coffins?

Where are the brutal and honest images of Afghanistan -- of Afghan women and children killed, of US soldiers in the hell of combat. Where is the coverage of the staggering increase of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, traumatic brain injuries and suicides among the many 1000s of service members who've already paid a price for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Have the networks and cable channels spent so much of their budgets covering Michael Jackson's untimely death and star-studded memorial, Sarah Palin's ramblings and Mark Sanford's personal and political derelictions that they can't give us the real news we need if we're to be a democracy informed about what our country is doing in our name?

I believe the escalation of Afghanistan will bleed us of the resources needed for economic recovery, further destabilize Pakistan, open a rift -- as we're now seeing with Britain and others -- with our European allies, and negate the positive consequences of withdrawing from Iraq and Obama's powerful Cairo speech on our image in the Muslim world. Nor will escalation secure a better future for the Afghan people, for its women and children, or increase US security.

Withdrawal or de-escalation doesn't mean abandoning the Afghan people. It means using our resources more wisely -- for reconstruction, targeted economic development, peace-keeping operations under an international mandate (not NATO, which is perceived as a militarized, occupying force), funding for alternative agriculture (not eradication of poppies), for education for women and children and support for multilateral regional diplomacy and common sense counter-terrorism measures.

It will take time, but as casualties mount Americans will turn against this war and demand a way out. For now, we need to lay out constructive, smart, effective non-military alternatives to stabilize Afghanistan and strengthen Pakistan's fragile democratic government. We need to work with those in Congress prepared to hold hearings, increase pressure for a defined exit strategy, call for oversight of contractors and transparent budgeting.

Citizens can get involved in many ways-- link up with Brave New Films' Rethink Afghanistan, and with bloggers, MoveOn, Win Without War, and with our work and activism at The Nation and thenation.com. And let's demand that those corporations which been given the rights to the American peoples' airwaves show us the reality of Afghanistan.

Source:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/451033/criticism_of_afghan_war_is_on_rise_in_britain
_________________

Senate Bill Would Allow Prosecution of Bush for Iraq War


Democratic Underground
July 8, 2009


Senators Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, and Patrick Leahy have introduced a bill in the United States Senate (S. 1346) that would allow the prosecution of George W. Bush and his subordinates for the invasion of Iraq. Before concluding that the Spirit of Justice has risen from the flames, a few caveats: First, none of these senators intends the bill for this purpose, and they would all vehemently and honestly deny that they had any such thing in mind. Second, the bill still has to pass both houses and be signed into law. Third, it has to be signed without a signing statement completely altering it. Fourth, the same Department of Justice that won't prosecute torturers would have to prosecute those who attacked Baghdad.

Nonetheless, the possibilities are worth considering.

The legislation, S. 1346, is called "A bill to penalize crimes against humanity and for other purposes." Human Rights First has praised it in a press release that makes clear the bill's purpose: to allow the prosecution of foreigners who commit crimes abroad and then come to the United States to live:

"Crimes Against Humanity Bill Would Close Loophole in U.S. Law
"Human Rights First Urges Passage of Legislation Criminalizing These Heinous Acts, Granting Prosecutors Expanded Powers to Prosecute

"Human Rights First is urging Congress to swiftly pass the Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009, legislation that would close a loophole in U.S. law that currently allows perpetrators of some heinous international crimes to avoid accountability in U.S. courts. The organization welcomed the bill, introduced today by Senator Richard Durbin, noting that it would expand existing prosecutorial powers beyond genocide, strengthening America’s ability to bring to justice those who commit horrific and pervasive crimes against humanity. . . .

"The Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009 covers some of the most atrocious crimes committed in recent history, such as the campaigns of mutilations and murders of civilians in Sierra Leone and Uganda, the systematic rape of women in Burma and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo. Because these crimes are not considered to be genocide, under existing U.S. law prosecutors do not have the ability to hold the perpetrators accountable. Crimes against humanity is a distinct category of crime and a separate statute is needed to provide United States courts with jurisdiction to indict those who commit these acts if they are ever present in the United States. . . .

"Though U.S. law prohibits grave human rights violations such as genocide and torture, alleged perpetrators of crimes against humanity may escape accountability due not to their innocence of unforgivable acts but to loopholes in the U.S. criminal code. The Crimes Against Humanity Act of 2009 would close this illogical gap in U.S. law. Just as they may pursue those who have committed related and similarly horrific crimes, U.S. prosecutors would have the authority to ensure that those in the United States who have committed crimes against humanity may not evade accountability merely by fleeing to our country."

But the bill, as written (See http://thomas.loc.gov ), would allow the prosecution of Americans for crimes against humanity wherever committed. Here is the section of the bill listing the punishable offenses (emphasis mine):

"(a) Offense- It shall be unlawful for any person to commit or engage in, as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against any civilian population, and with knowledge of the attack--

1) conduct that, if it occurred in the United States, would violate--
A) section 1111 of this title (relating to murder);
B) section 1581(a) of this title (relating to peonage);
C) section 1583(a)(1) of this title (relating to kidnapping or carrying away individuals for involuntary servitude or slavery);
D) section 1584(a) of this title (relating to sale into involuntary servitude);
E) section 1589(a) of this title (relating to forced labor); or
F) section 1590(a) of this title (relating to trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor);

2) conduct that, if it occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, would violate--
A) section 1591(a) of this title (relating to sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion);
B) section 2241(a) of this title (relating to aggravated sexual abuse by force or threat); or
C) section 2242 of this title (relating to sexual abuse);

3) conduct that, if it occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and without regard to whether the offender is the parent of the victim, would violate section 1201(a) of this title (relating to kidnapping);

4) conduct that, if it occurred in the United States, would violate section 1203(a) of this title (relating to hostage taking), notwithstanding any exception under subsection (b) of section 1203;

5) conduct that would violate section 2340A of this title (relating to torture);

6) extermination;

7) national, ethnic, racial, or religious cleansing;

8) arbitrary detention; or

9) imposed measures intended to prevent births.
b) Penalty- Any person who violates subsection (a), or attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a)--
1) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
2) if the death of any person results from the violation of subsection (a), shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life."

If George W. Bush did not conspire as part of a widespread and systematic attack directed against a civilian population to murder, arbitrarily detain, and torture (and probably a few more offenses), then nobody ever has. Now it's true that Bush is not from Sierra Leone, Uganda, or Burma. He's American and he committed his crimes in the United States, giving orders for crimes to be committed abroad. But wait until you read the section of the bill on jurisdiction:

"Jurisdiction- There is jurisdiction over a violation of subsection (a), and any attempt or conspiracy to commit a violation of subsection (a), if--
1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence;
2) the alleged offender is a stateless person whose habitual residence is in the United States;
3) the alleged offender is present in the United States, regardless of the nationality of the alleged offender; or
4) the offense is committed in whole or in part within the United States."

Oops. The authors of the bill apparently neglected to consider the possibility of the existence of the most glaring incident in the past decade of our nation's existence. How can you fail to imagine what has just occurred in front of you? I'm not sure. I think a lot of humming and averting of the gaze must be involved. In any case, I do not see how this bill can fail to accidentally criminalize in the US Code what we agreed was a crime, if not the gravest crime of them all, when we agreed to the U.N. Charter, namely aggressive war. Of course, there are a million and one ways out, beginning with simple inaction and including all sorts of legalistic sophistry, such as claiming that the bombing of Baghdad was not directed at civilians but at Saddam Hussein. However, should honesty and decency ever gain the upper hand, I would prefer to have this law on the books and available.

There is one concern I would take seriously, and that is that we not punish crimes that occur prior to the creation of laws. However, doing so seems to be the clear intent of this bill as regards foreigners, the crimes of George W. Bush and gang were already widely known crimes under the UN Charter and Article VI of our Constitution, the War Crimes Act, the Anti-Torture Act, and other laws at the time committed, and as long as we are retroactively granting immunity for warrantless spying, refusing to prosecute torture, and permitting the widespread prosecution of local elected officials for political purposes, a little retroactive criminalization of the murder of a million human beings seems to me a move in the right direction.

Source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5960435
_________________

Seattle doctors try flat-rate no-limit primary care


By David Lawsky
Reuters
July 7, 2009


A Seattle clinic for people fed up with insurance, started by doctors fed up with insurance, has gotten $4 million in private venture capital money to expand, it announced on Monday.

Qliance says it has a profit-making solution to the problems of long waits, rushed doctors and cursory care that bother patients, at the same time that it eliminates the paperwork and pressure that plague primary care doctors.

"If you spent five minutes in my office you would notice there is nobody waiting. We don't have to stack them up like jets over Newark," said Garrison Bliss, a doctor and co-founder of the primary care clinic.

The new venture funding comes from Second Avenue Partners with participation by New Atlantic Ventures and Clear Fir Partners, bringing total capital raised to about $7.5 million.

Co-founder Norm Wu said per-patient revenue is triple that of insurance-based clinics. He said many costs are fixed so the firm, now losing money, will turn to profit as business grows.

More than 50 noninsurance clinics operate in 18 U.S. states, based on different business models, Wu noted.

The backers believe Qliance can grow very profitable, and the clinic uses stock options to attract new doctors. The next step is to open a suburban office.

Qliance says it is a private alternative to the failures of insurance, which have made health care President Obama's top legislative priority in Congress, with a price tag of $1 trillion or more.

Qliance customers pay $99 to join, then a flat monthly rate of $39 to $119, depending on age and level of service. Patients can quit without notice and no one is rejected for pre-existing conditions.

Patients must go to outside brokers and qualify medically to buy catastrophic care. One broker said a 30-year-old could expect to pay $133 per month for such care, and a 60-year-old nearly $400, plus substantial deductibles.

Qliance patients get unrestricted round-the-clock primary care access and 30-minute appointments.

"Why would a doctor not want to see sick people? That doesn't make sense, unless you're an insurance company," Bliss said.

He rejected the idea that unrestricted access causes overuse, calling that "nonsense promoted by insurance companies .... There's nobody I've ever met who gets their pleasure by seeing doctors."

Bliss said dumping rigid, convoluted insurance requirements and paperwork saves large amounts of money.

UnitedHealth, which processes 60 billion health care transactions a year, argued in June that better use of technology would save $332 billion annually, with some going to physicians.

Other big health insurers include WellPoint, Humana, Cigna and Aetna.

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE5660N620090707
_________________

Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski Slams Palin


The Mudflats
July 7, 2009


It’s interesting to see the reactions coming in from Alaska’s politicos to the surprise resignation of Governor Sarah Palin yesterday. But, perhaps the most surprising of all is that of Alaska’s Senior Senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski.

We expect politicians to be…well…politicians. We anticipate all kinds of pussy-footing around, saying things without really saying them, and trying to offend the least number of people while saying the bare minimum to satisfly the public that they’ve actually responded.

That’s why Murkowski’s response was so refreshing, an so unexpected. She said what many Alaskans, especially those who have supported Sarah Palin, are feeling.

“I am deeply disappointed that the Governor has decided to abandon the State and her constituents before her term has concluded.”

Abandonment. Strong words to use against the woman who used the analogy in her State of the State speech this year of being Alaska’s mama bear, defending her cubs. Palin has often referred to Alaska as a family. And now, Mom has skipped town, and Murkowski has called her on it.

Some in the national media are speculaing that Palin will enter a run for the senate against Murkowski in 2010, but those odds are slim to none. Holding the coveted place that Palin used to hold, Murkowski is undisputably the most popular politician in the state, with approval ratings of over 70% to Palin’s rapidly plummeting 54%.

In the days that follow, my hunch is that more Alaskans will start to think of Palin as a quitter.

There’s just no glossig over the fact that a governor didn’t even make it through the first term. But questions continue to be raised about the hurried nature of the announcement, and the fact that Todd Palin flew in from the very brief fishing season in Bristol Bay to stand by her side on the Friday before a holiday weekend.

Here are some other reactions coming from the state:

Alaska’s Junior Senator Mark Begich (D) - “I’m as surprised as all Alaskans by Governor Palin’s decision to step down with nearly two years left in her term. There was speculation she would not seek re-election, but she gave no indication of a resignation when I met with her for 45 minutes in her Anchorage office two days ago.”

Alasa Gubernatorial Candidate Bob Poe (D) - “As I stated when I announced my candidacy, Alaska needs a Governor who is fully committed our state, not on other jobs and I am pleased Sarah Palin recognized this and is doing the right thing for Alaska . When I announced in January, I really saw that something like this was coming. When she came back from the vice-presidential campaign trail, she really wasn’t focusing on Alaska. She was blinded by the bright lights of national attention.””

Alaska Representative John Harris, Valdez (R) - “I am going to run for governor. We’ll begin next week.”

And remember what Sarah Palin herself said about her perceived rough treatment during the campaign. “Nobody should have hurt feelings! My goodness, this is politics! Politics is rough and tumble, and people need to get thick skin, just like I’ve got,” she said.

Source:
http://www.themudflats.net/2009/07/04/republican-senator-lisa-murkowski-slams-palin/
_____________

The still-growing NPR "torture" controversy


by Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com
July 2, 2009


(updated below - Update II - Update III)

There are several noteworthy developments since I wrote on Tuesday about the refusal of NPR's Ombdusman, Alica Shepard, to be interviewed by me about NPR's ban on using the word "torture" to describe the Bush administration's interrogation tactics.

Given the utter vapidity of her rationale ("there are two sides to the issue. And I'm not sure, why is it so important to call something torture?"), I was momentarily amazed to learn that she actually teaches "Media Ethics" to graduate students at Georgetown University (my amazement quickly dissipated once I recalled that this is the same institution that, until last year, paid Doug Feith -- Doug Feith -- to teach students "national security policy" and that Berkeley Law School has John Yoo "teaching law" to its students; next semester at Georgetown: Karl Rove teaches Civility in a Post-Partisan Age, Bill Kristol lectures on Accountability in Punditry, while David Gregory examines The Role of Intellect in Adversarial Questioning).

NPR's "torture" ban and its Ombudsman's incoherent defense of it has now turned into a significant controversy for NPR -- and rightfully so.

Yesterday, The Huffington Post trumpeted the controversy in a prominent headline all day long, focusing on Shepard's refusal to be interviewed here. The media reporter Simon Owens wrote a long column on Shepard's refusal to discuss her rationale with me despite my having been a primary critic of NPR's policy (indeed, this controversy began several weeks ago when I noted the ample documentation from NPR Check of NPR's steadfast refusal to use the word "torture" and the embarrassing contortions it employs to accomplish that).

Also, along with her On the Media appearance this weekend, Shepard went on another NPR-affiliated show -- Patt Morrison's KPCC Southern California Public Radio program -- in a quality segment that included several good questions from Morrison (and even better ones from callers); a very well-compiled, illustrative and cringe-inducing montage of NPR's repeatedly going out of its way to avoid calling Bush interrogation tactics "torture," juxtaposed with an excerpt where NPR explicitly accused Iraqis in Sadr City of "using torture" against detainees; and, finally, the inclusion in the discussion of a Berkeley Professor of Linguistics explaining why it matters so much what the media does in this regard and how virtually all media around the world -- other than what he called the "spineless U.S. media" -- call these tactics "torture" (the KPCC program credits my criticisms of Shepard for catalyzing the controversy and the segment can be heard here).

Amazingly, a caller asked Shepard about the advent of blogs and how it has diversified commentary, and in replying, Shepard put on her most condescending and self-glorifying voice to say this:

I think, um, we're now at a stage where the debate is between dialogue and diatribe, and I wish there was more dialogue. I think there's more diatribe.

That's from the same person who refuses to "dialogue" about her views outside of NPR-affiliated confines.

Along those lines, Shepard has gone back to her NPR blog to write yet another column about this controversy and to assure NPR listeners in her headline that "Your Voices Have Been Heard." In it, she references my criticisms without bothering to address any of them, and also claims, for whatever it's worth:

"For the record, I have brought this issue and the volume of comments to the attention of NPR's top editorial staff."

Finally, Shepard today will appear on yet another NPR program, the nationally broadcast Talk of the Nation, beginning at 2:00 p.m. EST, for a segment entitled "Why Doesn't NPR Call Waterboarding Torture?"

Readers here are obviously quite familiar with this controvery as well as Shepard's conduct in it thus far and could obviously pose excellent questions to her. Her appearance this afternoon on Talk of the Nation provides a good opportunity for that (the call-in number is 800-989-8255; for those in cities (such as NYC) where NPR doesn't broadcast that show, CarolynC has information about where to hear it).

* * * * *

Several weeks ago, when writing about all of the various euphemisms employed by The New York Times to avoid using the word "torture," I wrote about why I think this matters so much and why the media's use of euphemisms invented by the government torturers themselves so vividly reflects the core corruption of American "journalism":

This active media complicity in concealing that our Government created a systematic torture regime -- by refusing ever to say so -- is one of the principal reasons it was allowed to happen for so long . . . The steadfast, ongoing refusal of our leading media institutions to refer to what the Bush administration did as "torture" -- even in the face of more than 100 detainee deaths; the use of that term by a leading Bush official to describe what was done at Guantanamo; and the fact that media outlets frequently use the word "torture" to describe the exact same methods when used by other countries -- reveals much about how the modern journalist thinks.

These are their governing principles:

There are two sides and only two sides to every "debate" -- the Beltway Democratic establishment and the Beltway Republican establishment. If those two sides agree on X, then X is deemed true, no matter how false it actually is. If one side disputes X, then X cannot be asserted as fact, no matter how indisputably true it is. The mere fact that another country's behavior is described as X doesn't mean that this is how identical behavior by the U.S. should be described. They do everything except investigate and state what is true. In their view, that -- stating what is and is not true -- is not their role.

The whole world knows that the U.S. tortured detainees in the "War on Terror." Yet American newspapers refuse to say so.

That second paragraph is a pure distillation of how Shepard -- the "Media Ethics" Professor in Georgetown's graduate journalism program and NPR's Ombudsman -- explicitly thinks. And that -- a refusal to state facts and instead amplify and give credence to plain falsehoods -- is one of the principal and most destructive sicknesses in American establishment journalism. All of that was perfectly captured by penetratingly true satire back in August, 2004, from Jon Stewart and Daily Show "reporter" Rob Corddry [sent to me this week by a reader to illustrate what NPR is doing]:

Stewart: Here's what puzzles me most, Rob. John Kerry's record in Vietnam is pretty much right there in the official records of the U.S. military, and hasn't been disputed for 35 years.

Corddry: That's right, Jon, and that's certainly the spin you'll be hearing coming from the Kerry campaign over the next few days.

Stewart: That's not a spin thing, that's a fact. That's established.

Corddry: Exactly, Jon, and that established, incontrovertible fact is one side of the story.

Stewart: But isn't that the end of the story? I mean, you've seen the records, haven't you? What's your opinion?

Corddry: I'm sorry, "my opinion"? I don't have opinions. I'm a reporter, Jon, and my job is to spend half the time repeating what one side says, and half the time repeating the other. Little thing called "objectivity" -- might want to look it up some day.

Stewart: Doesn't objectivity mean objectively weighing the evidence, and calling out what's credible and what isn't?

Corddry: Whoa-ho! Sounds like someone wants the media to act as a filter! Listen, buddy: Not my job to stand between the people talking to me and the people listening to me.

That derision is also as pure an expression of how Alicia Shepard and NPR think as one can imagine. And it's not just Shepard, but American journalists generally. From a 2006 interview Jim Lehrer gave to Columbia Journalism Review:

CJR: At CJR Daily, we spent a lot of time during the 2004 presidential campaign criticizing just the sort of story that it seems [Ben] Bradlee is describing — stories that "highlight the controversy," report this claim versus these competing claims, rather than providing facts for the reader and helping them navigate toward the truth. What are your thoughts on this? How do you approach reporting what a public official has said something that is blatantly untrue?

Lehrer: I don’t deal in terms like "blatantly untrue." That’s for other people to decide when something’s “blatantly untrue.” There’s always a germ of truth in just about everything . . . My part of journalism is to present what various people say about it the best we can find out [by] reporting and let others — meaning commentators, readers, viewers, bloggers or whatever . . .

But remember: don't ever call them "stenographers." That's insulting and offensive. Rather, what they do is called "reporting," by which they mean: "We call people in power and write down what they say really accurately and then we faithfully repeat what 'each side says' without commenting on it or judging it (except where it's our Government's claims against some foreign country, in which case we state our Government's claims as fact)."

* * * * *

What makes this practice particularly destructive in the torture context is that the central enabling deceit of the Bush administration was that there are no objective, verifiable standards for what "torture" is. Instead, it's just all in the eye of the beholder, easily re-defined to include or exclude anything we want, dependent upon who is doing it, devoid of any authoritative sources on what it means, and, ultimately, entirely subjective.

It is that rotted premise -- that there is no fixed, known understanding of "torture" -- that outlets like NPR are not just accepting, but actively promoting, by refusing to use the term on the ground that "there are two sides to the question" (see ABC News' Jake Tapper for an imperfect though still commendable exception: tactics used by CIA "qualify under international law as torture").

It is vital to keep in mind -- as I noted last week in arguing why it's so vital that torture photos be released -- that there is still very much an active, vibrant debate over torture in this country.

That debate encompasses not only the question of whether we should punish those who did it, but whether or not it is right and just for us to use it. In fact, as reported just recently by Harper's Luke Mitchell, Jeremy Scahill, and Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, there is ample evidence that very serious abuse is still occurring in America's detention facilities, including at Guantanamo (all of which confirmed similar reports from earlier this year).

Whether the U.S. should torture people is a matter of opinion about which reporters need not take a position. But that is plainly not the case for the proposition that these tactics are "torture." There are not two sides to that question, and media outlets that suggest otherwise are actively deceiving their audience.

UPDATE: I neglected to mention this strange email exchange I had with Anna Christopher, NPR's "Senior Manager, Media Relations," who contacted me on Tuesday after I wrote about Shepard's refusal to be interviewed. In posting the exchange, I'm editing out one sentence from my reply which references an insignificant fact about why Shepard was out of the office last week that the Salon intern who spoke with Shepard's office (on my behalf) agreed to keep off-the-record (an agreement I therefore feel compelled to respect).

UPDATE II: In comments, Paul Daniel Ash points out the glaring dishonesty in Shepard's central defense of NPR's policy.

UPDATE III: On a not unrelated note, long-time journalist Charles Kaiser (Newsweek, NYT, WSJ) notes that The Washington Post has been caught selling lobbyist access to their reporters and political officials; declares the Post dead; and writes its obituary.

Source:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/02/npr/
__________________