More NYTimes and Torture

The same day I read the editorial discussed below, I found this article as well. Why did I read another New York Times piece after the dismal editorial? I still hoped the paper, being the leader that it is, could redeem itself and the first paragraph was quite engaging. It reads, "INSECTS have been conscripted as weapons of war, tools of terrorism and instruments of torture for thousands of years. So should we be surprised by the news that the C.I.A. considered using these creatures to instill fear in Abu Zubaydah, a terrorist suspect? Yes, and here’s why."

The article, entitled "The Scary Caterpillar," promised to address a specific question and get started right away. I should have seen it coming; the article fell flat on its face.

The first three paragraphs offer a history of insects as weapons of war or torture, from the Paleolithic period to the 19th century. This would be all well and good, except the final, striking sentence of the opening paragraph demands that the question be answered right away. Such a detour into the past is out of place.

Mr. Lockwood finally gives his answer more than halfway through the piece: "This appears to be the first case in which insects would have been used to inflict psychological terror." Presumably other nations or regimes have not used a prisoner's worst fear(s) against them, insect or otherwise. Also, the threat of physical suffering via insects would be a powerful psychological card to play for early strong-man regimes and a tool during interrogations. So even in a specific, insect only context, the claim is weak at best.

Why does Mr. Lockwood find psychological torture so abhorrent? Because the terrorists might psychologically torture us! They could claim to release the mosquito-borne Rift Valley fever. But if we don't place physically harmless insects in a cramped cage with a leader of theirs, then they won't threaten or use biological attacks. Never mind that they flew planes into our buildings, that they kill innocent civilians and children via suicide bomber, and that they kidnap our journalists and behead them. Never mind that the "chances of this happening are slim," that the "terrorists might even be bluffing," and that reports of the disease would have to be confirmed before anyone would take the threat seriously. The fact that "terrorism - and torture - can be psychological" is reason enough not to use a prisoner's fears against him.

Ridiculous.

The New York Times on Torture

Following the release of the CIA torture memos and reading some of the commentary, I headed over to NYTimes.com to get their take on the issue. I knew that they would be less than supportive, and I desired serious insight and reflection on the topic from the opposing side.

April 19th saw an editorial titled "The Torturers' Manifesto," which was 19 paragraphs in length. Given the amount of detail disclosed, I assumed the Times would have much to say. Surprisingly, there were zero direct quotes from the memos. Only two paragraphs mention a total of four techniques. Instead, because "the dangers do not end with the torture memos," they change topics half way through to discuss "President Bush's decision to illegally eavesdrop on Americans." The editors believed this was important enough to dedicate 21% of the piece to the topic.

How long has the liberal establishment, and the Times by extension, railed against the Bush policies of torture? Couldn't they dedicate an entire editorial to the practices and policies? Is warrantless wiretapping worthy of being discussed in the same piece?

This is further highlighted by a failure to actually engage the memos. With no use of direct quotes to support them, the editors assert that the memos employ the language of "dungeon masters," are "sickening," and are "clear evidence of a government policy sanctioning the torture and abuse of prisoners." With zero direct references, why should I accept their assertions?

I sought the New York Times as an intelligent, alternate, voice but found a group that holds to their preconceived conclusions and who simply "do not think Mr. Obama will violate Americans' rights as Mr. Bush did."