The only thing that saved the paper’s honor on this subject was a superb editorial by Andrew Rosenthal, which appeared in the Times yesterday. The paper called for the appointment of a prosecutor, because the “Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; his legal counsel, William J. Haynes; and potentially other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.
The report shows how actions by these men “led directly” to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons.”
Horton summarized the contrast between the Times’s news department and editorial page this way:
This lengthy editorial highlights another sore spot: the paper’s news coverage. Why did the Times need to take 1237 words to present their editorial? Because, scrambling through the paper’s news pages for the last weeks, you will strain to find a glimpse of the essential facts upon which the editorial rests. Neither have the news pages contained any meaningful analysis of the Levin-McCain report and its broader significance. Much of the reporting has been pedestrian, and some of it has been infantile and unprofessional. For instance, the issue crept onto the front page just over a week ago with a report about Senator Diane Feinstein’s wavering from an anti-torture position in a piece that explained, relying on shadowy intelligence community sources with an unmistakable agenda, what a difficult time Obama would have implementing his anti-torture pledge. The only problem–in addition to the fact that the central premise of the article was fake news–was that Senator Feinstein didn’t waver, her remarks were misquoted, and the Times had to run a correction (though it failed to muster the honesty to note that this was what it was doing).
The problem with most reporters is that they have very little sense of history, beyond the week before last. In Paris, during the Nazi occupation, there were many “respectable people” who remained silent–or strongly defended the Nazis, and, by implication, the techniques they used to contain “ insurgents,” including waterboarding and other forms of torture.
Many of those French apologists were journalists. Their reputations declined rather sharply after Paris was liberated by the Allies.
- 1
- 2
Have you at least filed this with Clark Hoyt, whom I know to be an honorable journalist.
Posted by Curtis Gans on Fri 19 Dec 2008 at 05:41 PM
A couple of days before Cheney’s interview on ABC News, the Senate Armed Services Committee released a bi-partisan report accusing the president of acts which clearly qualify as war crimes. Among the report’s key findings:
Are you fucking stupid or just lazy? You honestly think that you can pass Senator Levin's personal statements as the committee’s findings? Wow, talk about bold!
While good fodder for left wing assholes like you, I tend to think that the vast majority of Americans approve of waterboarding guys like KSM if it means saving American lives, and all indications point to this.
Topping your article off with a comparison to Nazi war crimes was a fitting end for all your demagoguery.
God forbid another catastrophic attack should befall this country again. If waterboarding scumbags like KSM could have avoided it, guys like me will be dragging guys like Dan Froomkin from the back of our pickups.
Posted by Bill Gervas on Sat 20 Dec 2008 at 11:20 AM
For the record, Mr. Gervas, it is you who is both stupid and lazy in this instance.
The comments I quoted were not from Senator Levin, as you suggest. They are from pages XII and XXIX of the executive summary of the Committee's report, which, if you choose to make the effort, you can read here:
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/12112008_detaineeabuse.pdf
Posted by Charles Kaiser on Sat 20 Dec 2008 at 12:06 PM
Mr Kaiser, you really are dumber than you seem, either that or you think that you can pass this bullshit off as "journalism" and no one will notice.
The executive summary snippets you quoted were written by Levin
.
Chairman Levin said, “The abuses at Abu Ghraib, GTMO and elsewhere cannot be chalked up to the actions of a few bad apples. Attempts by senior officials to pass the buck to low ranking soldiers while avoiding any responsibility for abuses are unconscionable. The message from top officials was clear; it was acceptable to use degrading and abusive techniques against detainees. Our investigation is an effort to set the record straight on this chapter in our history that has so damaged both America’s standing and our security. America needs to own up to its mistakes so that we can rebuild some of the good will that we have lost.”
Liar liar, pants on fire.
Posted by Bill Gervas on Sat 20 Dec 2008 at 12:23 PM
Actually, no. What you have quoted from and linked to are Senator Levin’s comments paraphrasing the committee’s own findings. What I quoted and linked to was the actual report, issued in the name of the whole committee.
As for your confidence that “all indications” point to the fact that torture has saved American lives, there is this from the American who supervised 1,000 interrogations in Iraq:
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me – unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.
Posted by Charles Kaiser on Sat 20 Dec 2008 at 12:56 PM
The incoherence at The New York Times perfectly mimics the information incoherence that directly caused 9/11. Even though Tim Weiner in his paperback afterword to "Legacy of Ashes" noted the need to move the idea of a genuine National Intelligence University forward, The New York Times could not collate this idea from its own reporter's book with the comments by Philip Bobbitt in "Terror and Consent" about how someday there will be intelligence schools in universities.
It is not only between news and editorials that we have this split in The Times. The floundering in the book reviews, the failure to compose hard news reports on books, and the dead-end reviewing (How could Niall Ferguson have gotten away with his review of "Terror and Consent" in The New York Times, obviously based on his just having skimmed the book?) mean that The NYT approach to reporting on torture lacks any philosophical or anthropological validity.
Clark Hoyt does not appear to take this problem of information incoherence at his paper seriously. I have explained it to him, but he just does not get it. Underpinning the flimsy writing of the torture reporters is The Times's disrespect for the English language. The paper's education reporters cannot grasp the folly of ETS/ College Board/ Kaplan/ Pearson standardized test English. They cannot understand the corpus revolution in English. The New York Times should declare the COBUILD English Grammar, the Longman Advanced American Dictionary, the Longman Language Activator, and www.oed.com, official for the paper. Reporters should have to undertake a reading program, "Terror and Consent," "The Beast in the Jungle," and "Moby-Dick," and be tested on their ability to employ the reference books and understand the fiction and non-fiction.
Beyond the wealth of fiction and the great books in cognitive science, the major change in bookstores in the past 30 years has been in the high quality books in history, political science, and international affairs. Clark Hoyt should write a column on why The New York Times is failing to assimilate these books in an organized and inspired way. Paper Cuts is a lazy popcult blog. The torture reporters are lazy reporters. The NYT book review needs an editor. The paper needs new reporters on the torture file.
Posted by Clayton Burns on Sat 20 Dec 2008 at 01:50 PM
CORRECTION: I wrote above that the Times had ignored retired General Anthony Taguba’s statement that “there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes.” My statement was false.
Thanks to a friend at the Times, I have now learned that Scott Shane did catch up to the general’s remarks in a story I missed last June 25–seven days after they appeared in the Washington Post, six days after they were reported by the McClatchy Newspapers and USA Today, and five days after I sent this message to Shane’s boss, Dean Baquet:
“Anthony Taguba, the two-star general who led the Army investigation into the detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib, writes ‘After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.’ How can that not be news in The New York Times? Aside from the fact that he was forced to retire for telling the truth inside the Pentagon, is there some other reason to discount his opinion?”
FCP regrets the error.
Posted by Charles Kaiser on Sun 21 Dec 2008 at 12:18 AM
First of all Bill Gervas scares me.
More importantly, I thought we were a nation of laws, laws that we follow and apply justly. War Crimes Act is one of those laws, by joining the Geneva Conventions-treaties, we are making them the law of the land too. If we really want as a nation to be a shining example of democracy and the rule of law, then we need to practice both.
First by following our own laws, and prosecuting those that break them. And second, by not punishing those that exercise democracy that results in a ruling body that we don't favor, say Hamas, Hugo Chavez, or Jorg Haider.
Posted by End The Echo on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 11:16 AM
Actually, no. What you have quoted from and linked to are Senator Levin’s comments paraphrasing the committee’s own findings. What I quoted and linked to was the actual report, issued in the name of the whole committee.
What you used in the article above, the following:
The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques ….
Was">http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2008/12/levin121108.html">Was from Levin’s statement, not the “bi-partisan” report you continue to claim it is from.
You are a liar, a fraud, a hack, and know nothing who attempts to be relevant by parroting the work of others. Get on a plane, get your ass to Iraq, and then you might be marginally qualified to talk about it (or are you a bit squeamish considering what they do to your kind), otherwise shut your yap. And before you ask, I had the “pleasure” of spending a combined 31 months there.
As for your confidence that “all indications” point to the fact that torture has saved American lives, there is this from the American who supervised 1,000 interrogations in Iraq
While I certainly respect the work of “Matthew Alexander”, but he certainly cant qualify a lot of the more over the top statements he made. Did all the muslims who joined the insurgency, or even a large portion of them do so because of Abu Ghraib? If that’s so, what reason was given to those who joined before April of 2004, before it became public. And for that matter, considering the widespread abuse and torture of muslims in countries like Iran, Indonesia, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, the Taliban era Afghanistan etcetera … why are they not traveling there and fighting those regimes?
It comes down to a question of do they fight us for who we are or what we do? If it is for what we do, then they would fight all who “oppress” their fellow muslim brothers. Cleary they don’t because they are a group of sub-human hypocrites who despise of for what we are (non-muslim).
Prescribing rational motivations to irrational people only strengthens them.
In addition, I think that John Kiriakou would disagree on the effectiveness of methods like water boarding and it has saved lives.
Posted by Bill Gervas on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 12:43 PM
"Bill Gervas" at CJR: What was your role in Iraq? Why did you say "what they do to your kind"? If you are prejudiced, you should not be serving in any capacity at all where you would exercise authority over anyone.
If you are saying that Charles Kaiser is a plagiarist who thrives "by parroting" what others say, where is your evidence?
You seem to lack sensitivity to language. What does it mean to "qualify a statement"? You dilute its impact by providing an exception or reservation. America needs to focus on the COBUILD English Grammar, the Longman Advanced American Dictionary, and the Longman Language Activator so as to overcome this painful linguistic ineptitude. Journalism schools should take the lead by dumping all contact with the depredations of ETS, College Board, and Kaplan, in January 2009.
Your construction of your public persona, "Bill Gervas," here at CJR, is atrocious. Even if you have some points to make, you are burying your credibility with insults. Why are you trying to communicate in this way?
Your "While..., but" construction is wrong.
John Kiriakou appears to have made conflicting statements on waterboarding. He is not exactly a neutral observer. Your implication that Kaiser is setting out to mislead needs evidence.
What you have to say will not emerge if you do not learn how to write better than that. Even if Kaiser is worse than Lucifer, you still have to prove your case.
Posted by Clayton Burns on Mon 22 Dec 2008 at 04:39 PM
For the record, here is a press release from the Senate GOP minority on that report that you're touting as bi-partisan.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:Friday, December 19, 2008
Chambliss, Inhofe, Sessions, Cornyn, Thune, Martinez Statement on SASC Inquiry into Detainee Treatment
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Saxby Chambliss, R-GA, James Inhofe, R-OK, Jeff Sessions, R-AL, John Cornyn, R-TX, John Thune, R-SD, and Mel Martinez, R-FL, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, released the following statement in response to the recently released Executive Summary of the Senate Armed Services Committee inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody.
Throughout our history, even in the gravest of circumstances, the United States has embodied the ideals of individual freedom and liberty. This nation adheres to the principle that all detainees in U.S. custody must be treated humanely and in accordance with applicable law. The fallacious assertion, made in recent newspaper editorials and other media outlets, that illegal treatment of detainees was an intentional or necessary result of administration policy is irresponsible and only serves to aid the propaganda and recruitment efforts of extremists dedicated to the murder of innocents and the destruction of our way of life.
The latest inquiry into detainee treatment by the Senate Armed Services Committee breaks little new ground – merely reiterating the findings of at least 12 previous independent investigations, which reported that certain isolated and limited incidents of detainee abuse occurred in the handling of detainees in U.S. custody. The implication, however, that this abuse was the direct, necessary, or foreseeable result of policy decisions made by senior administration officials is false and without merit. It is counter-productive and potentially dangerous to our men and women in uniform to insinuate that illegal treatment of detainees resulted from official U.S. government policies.
Administration officials sought to comply with requests from the field for effective interrogation techniques within the legal constraints in place at the time. These policies and orders were developed and issued under unprecedented circumstances in which our nation was under the continuous threat of an enemy that does not comply with the established rules of war – wearing no uniform and operating behind the cover of civilians.
While it is well-documented that the guidelines and orders developed by administration and military officials were not followed in a handful of isolated and well-publicized incidents, and that certain techniques were used in areas and by individuals for which they were not authorized, all credible allegations of abuse by U.S. military personnel were and continue to be taken seriously and investigated in painstaking detail. Where applicable, offenders have been charged, tried, and punished under federal law. This commitment to the rule of law permits the United States to operate safe, humane and professional detention facilities for unlawful enemy combatants - many of whom continue to provide valuable information in preventing further terrorist attacks.
The events of September 11, 2001, represent the most horrific violence inflicted on our homeland since the bombing of Pearl Harbor. After those terrible attacks, our government faced novel and grave issues of policy while having to address the dangers confronting our country. In good faith, the administration and our military did their utmost to resolve those issues in an effective and lawful way. It is important to remember and reaffirm the honorable public service of those individuals charged with defending the country – both past and present, civilian and military, at the highest levels of government and in the field – who expose themselves every day to criticism and to many kinds of risk in discharging their solemn responsibilities. We regret that relevant facts and the contexts in which policy decisions were made were ignored in the Committee's report.
While it is often difficult to strike the proper balance between preserving America's security and upholding our nation's principles, the facts reveal that the United States is committed to providing security to its people while preserving American ideals.
Emphasis added throughout.
This is hardly evidence of unanimity. Frankly, these charges of "war crimes" and calls for prosecution are little more than the politicization of policy disagreements. That is a shame.
It also an inconvenient truth that while many on the left continue to take it as fact that waterboarding is torture (and therefore illegal), the Congress has repeatedly refused to explicitly state that in law.
The New York Times' coverage of this issue -- which you decry -- is only evidence that the Old Gray Lady is not completely senile. The reporters who have been covering the issue realize that -- like the GOP Senators noted -- there was nothing new in this so-called report. It was a political exercise, and it was treated as one.
I've got plenty of gripes with how the Times has covered the War on Terror, but this is little more than a complaint that the Times isn't The Nation.
Posted by Hoystory on Tue 23 Dec 2008 at 09:54 PM
Another deranged lefty is given voice by cjr. Amazing
Posted by Ken Hahn on Fri 26 Dec 2008 at 02:39 AM