Danner has been way ahead of most other reporters on the subject of torture for a long time. Four years ago, on the occasion of Alberto Gonzales’s confirmation hearing to become Attorney General, Danner wrote, “We are all torturers now,” in The New York Times. He continued,
The senators are likely to give full legitimacy to a path that the Bush administration set the country on more than three years ago, a path that has transformed the United States from a country that condemned torture and forbade its use to one that practices torture routinely. Through a process of redefinition largely overseen by Mr. Gonzales himself, a practice that was once a clear and abhorrent violation of the law has become in effect the law of the land.
So for those who have been following this subject closely, there is nothing really surprising about the new details in the Red Cross report. And yet, there is something newly numbing about their specificity, and their repetition.
The only “official” American reaction to Danner’s disclosure came from an anonymous “U.S. official familiar with the ICRC report” who “noted that the claims of abuse were made by the alleged terrorists themselves.” That is true, of course, but the report points out that many prisoners described identical experiences, even though all of them have been kept in solitary confinement, and none of them has had a chance to check their stories with each other. That is one reason to believe their accounts are credible.
Danner’s piece got plenty of coverage from The Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, the Cuban, IslamOnline, and the Australian and Xinhua (Chinese) press agencies–but no mention on any of the evening network news broadcasts, or in the news pages of The New York Times.
Deputy Washington bureau chief Douglas Jehl explained the news judgement of the Times to FCP this way:
We did look closely at the Mark Danner material, both what first appeared in the Times op-ed on Sunday and what appeared in the New York Review of Books. Our judgment was that it didn’t merit an additional news story, and that the op-ed sufficed for our readers. Based on the disclosure in Jane Mayer’s book, we had already reported in the times last July that ICRS investigators had[said that] the treatment of high-value detainees amounted to torture, based on interviews with those detainees. That New York Times article, published on July 11, 2008, also included specific details of their treatment as described in Ms. Mayer’s book.
What Mr. Danner wrote included some new details but not enough to merit an additional news story, in our careful consideration.
Jehl’s position is understandable. But by not writing any story, at the very least, the Times missed the fact that Danner’s scoop had substantially increased the pressure on Congress to pursue the kind of truth commission that Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy has been championing.
The same day Danner’s excerpted piece appeared in The New York Times, former vice president Cheney was giving yet another despicable performance on CNN. In an interview with John King, Cheney asserted that the Obama administration was making the country more vulnerable to attack, by announcing its intention to close Guantánamo, and by banning the lovely interrogation techniques described above.
In a short news story about Cheney’s appearance, the Times once again credulously repeated the former vice president’s claim that “those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11”–and once again failed to point out that no less an authority than F.B.I. director Robert Mueller has said that there is no evidence that torture has prevented any attacks on America.
And as Scott Horton noted in a Harper’s piece, “In the view of the Washington press corps…the controversy about the Cheney interview stemmed not from the pathetic performance that King put in, but from events of the following day.”