The Latest Euphemism From The Torture Party

By GottaLaff

Words are what we use to communicate. Without them, we'd be silent, so it's important to choose them carefully. The Rushpublics are awfully good at selecting just the right ones to perpetuate their lies, whether subtly or more obviously.

Sully nails them on their latest twisted attempt to mislead on the subject of torture and BushCo's culpability:

Max Boot deploys a new one (they keep coming up with them):

It would be easy to conclude with a “high degree of confidence” that one of the most effective intelligence-gathering tactics in the war on terrorism — the aggressive interrogation of captured terrorists — has been eliminated and, along the way, the agency charged with being on the front lines of the war has been severely degraded in operational effectiveness. In other words, the Obama administration has taken some of the most effective changes implemented by the Bush administration and reversed them in what could be a Carter-style emasculation of American intelligence capabilities.

"Aggressive interrogation of captured terrorists" needs translation into plain English. It means "the torture of captives suspected of being terrorists."

Thank you. Thank. You.

Next:

"One of the most effective intelligence-gathering tactics in the war on terrorism" also needs translation, since there is no evidence, as Bush DHS official Frances Townsend and every neutral observer has noted, that the intelligence, if accurate, could not have been achieved by legal, American and ethical means.

I'm drowning in gratitude here, Sully. More? Bring it on:

We also know for a fact that the majority of all those who have been abused and tortured by the US under Bush and Cheney were innocent of any terror offenses. (At Abu Ghraib, one of the test-sites for Cheney's methods, up to 90 percent were completely innocent, according to the Bush administration).

Home run.

Now take a peek at what "aggressive interrogation" means. Hint: It means torture:

"Aggressive interrogation" means, in plain English, stripping suspects, hooding them, beating them, putting a collar around their neck and launching their bodies against a plywood wall up to thirty times, subjecting them to sleep deprivation in one case as long as 960 hours over 54 days, shackling them in stress positions used by the Vietnamese against John McCain, denying medical care in some cases, sexually traumatizing them, using Islam as a weapon against them, putting them in upright coffins, threatening to kill their children and spouses, threatening to drill their skulls with power-drills, freezing them in iced water or freezing air-conditioning until near-death, subjecting them to extreme heat, and sensory deprivation in isolation for months until they become mental and physical shells.

Don't believe him? Read The Dark Side by Jane Mayer, or this, from the L.A. Times. Or the series I've done on this subject (see below).

It means Abu Ghraib, the one place where we have been able to see what neoconservatism has come to stand for: the brutal torture and abuse of Arabs and Muslims. It means murdering over a hundred of such prisoners - merely because they are suspects and Arab Muslims. [...]

As for "Carter-style emasculation", let us also remember that the return to ethical, legal treatment of prisoners is just as easily described as "Reagan-style emasculation." It was Reagan who signed the UN Convention on Torture which these neocons have torn up and despise.

They want euphemisms? Here are some now: BushCo consisted of a collection of brazenly criminal sphincters who have done to this country what Phillip Garrido did to Jaycee Lee Dugard. Interesting how the authorities didn't insist that we don't look back/just look forward when it came to that series of crimes.

****************

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

"Intense Interrogation"

By GottaLaff

Glenn Greenwald posted an appropriately indignant rant about the euphemistically-called "news media's" refusal to call torture "torture":

In today's New York Times, William Glaberson describes a proposal being circulated by the Obama administration to enable Guantanamo detainees to be put to death upon a mere guilty plea, i.e., without the need for a full-blown trial. The article describes the purpose of the proposal this way:

The proposal would ease what has come to be recognized as the government’s difficult task of prosecuting men who have confessed to terrorism but whose cases present challenges. Much of the evidence against the men accused in the Sept. 11 case, as well as against other detainees, is believed to have come from confessions they gave during intense interrogations at secret C.I.A. prisons. In any proceeding, the reliability of those statements would be challenged, making trials difficult and drawing new political pressure over detainee treatment.

The primary reason to avoid trials upon a guilty plea is to prevent public disclosure of the details of the torture we inflicted on these detainees. Despite that, the word "torture" never once appears in this NYT article. Instead, according to the NYT, detainees in CIA black sites were merely subjected to "intense interrogations." That's all? Who opposes "intense interrogations"?

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...

He goes on to cite another example from an NPR interview with retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

All of this gives me intense indigestion. We should write letters to these various outlets using intense verbiage.

Dear "news media": You suck Dick Cheney. How's that for a euphemism? I hope it wasn't too intense.

H/t: Ryking