How Many Smoking Guns Does it Take to Unscrew a Dim Bulb?
Today is the hallowed day of the week when I get to dive into (or totally reject) my fresh copy of the NY Times. I love the NY Times, but I can’t read it quietly, much to the chagrin of poor Steve, who just wants to read his paper in peace. Every few paragraphs I snort or sigh and then read aloud the culprit, and Steve dutifully looks up, and feigns interest. Good man, he is. But Steve’s greatness is not the cause for today’s missive.
First, let’s talk journalism. I get the NYT, Steve gets the Seattle Times, and on Sundays the ST syndicates pieces from the NYT. Today’s issue was no different, with the right column reserved for an NYT-penned news piece. The title, in 20-pt type, is arresting: “U.S. relying on regime notorious for torture?” Of course, it screams to be read. The NYT offered the same piece a bit differently. Their title, column two on the front page, reads, “U.S. Recruits A Rough Ally To Be a Jailer.” It took a few reads for me to comprehend what the headline implies. I find this fascinating (and Steve claimed to, too): Which headline explains more? Which headline is more enticing? Which headline shows bias? Talk amongst yourselves.
Now, from headlines to body copy! Well, not that, but may I bitch about what this article reports? To those who line up on the left and listen to NPR even once a month, the concept of rendition of prisoners is nothing new. Rendition is this: send your prisoners to other countries for incarceration and interrogation. Of course, the between-the-lines message reads like this: choose the rendition country carefully, and pick countries with interrogation tactics which may not line up with your own country’s rights requirements. Today’s NYT (and Seattle Times) piece describes, finally, evidence of the U.S. rendition process, in action. A quick summary: Uzbekistan is well-known for its human rights violations. Numerous reports have emerged over the years describing the extreme torture foisted upon Uzbek prisoners. After 9/11, the U.S. began shipping terror suspect detainees to Uzbek for incarceration and interrogation. Some of these prisoners have since been released, and have been telling tales of their torture. Human rights groups continue to decry Uzbek’s practices, and other governments have severely criticized the government there as a rights violator, and a near-dictatorship. So, what does our culture-of-life-loving president do? He invites the much-maligned president of Uzbekistan to the White House for a meeting and show of solidarity, he sends $500 million dollars to the country, and continues sending detainees to their sentences of untold pain.
(I have a point here, I promise.) How can any pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war constituent look past these facts and continue their support of this administration? Really, I want to know. I truly want to understand. I spoke with a Christian supporter of Bush and Iraq last weekend. This woman is very intelligent, and when I asked how a follower of the word of Christ could support violence (I phrased it differently, FYI), she replied, “We really needed to liberate the poor people of Iraq.” She really believes that. Will she be able to continue that belief when presented with this new evidence of politically-charged torture? And, finally: What more do we have to learn about before this administration has to answer to the international community, or (god forbid) its own country? Hell, Bill C. was strung up for his cigar tactics, and this administration is responsible for repeated and constant evidence of major violations of every international convention regarding human rights. Can we form a class and sue the administration? How can we force an international trial investigating this administration? I’m serious. What will it take?
First, let’s talk journalism. I get the NYT, Steve gets the Seattle Times, and on Sundays the ST syndicates pieces from the NYT. Today’s issue was no different, with the right column reserved for an NYT-penned news piece. The title, in 20-pt type, is arresting: “U.S. relying on regime notorious for torture?” Of course, it screams to be read. The NYT offered the same piece a bit differently. Their title, column two on the front page, reads, “U.S. Recruits A Rough Ally To Be a Jailer.” It took a few reads for me to comprehend what the headline implies. I find this fascinating (and Steve claimed to, too): Which headline explains more? Which headline is more enticing? Which headline shows bias? Talk amongst yourselves.
Now, from headlines to body copy! Well, not that, but may I bitch about what this article reports? To those who line up on the left and listen to NPR even once a month, the concept of rendition of prisoners is nothing new. Rendition is this: send your prisoners to other countries for incarceration and interrogation. Of course, the between-the-lines message reads like this: choose the rendition country carefully, and pick countries with interrogation tactics which may not line up with your own country’s rights requirements. Today’s NYT (and Seattle Times) piece describes, finally, evidence of the U.S. rendition process, in action. A quick summary: Uzbekistan is well-known for its human rights violations. Numerous reports have emerged over the years describing the extreme torture foisted upon Uzbek prisoners. After 9/11, the U.S. began shipping terror suspect detainees to Uzbek for incarceration and interrogation. Some of these prisoners have since been released, and have been telling tales of their torture. Human rights groups continue to decry Uzbek’s practices, and other governments have severely criticized the government there as a rights violator, and a near-dictatorship. So, what does our culture-of-life-loving president do? He invites the much-maligned president of Uzbekistan to the White House for a meeting and show of solidarity, he sends $500 million dollars to the country, and continues sending detainees to their sentences of untold pain.
(I have a point here, I promise.) How can any pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war constituent look past these facts and continue their support of this administration? Really, I want to know. I truly want to understand. I spoke with a Christian supporter of Bush and Iraq last weekend. This woman is very intelligent, and when I asked how a follower of the word of Christ could support violence (I phrased it differently, FYI), she replied, “We really needed to liberate the poor people of Iraq.” She really believes that. Will she be able to continue that belief when presented with this new evidence of politically-charged torture? And, finally: What more do we have to learn about before this administration has to answer to the international community, or (god forbid) its own country? Hell, Bill C. was strung up for his cigar tactics, and this administration is responsible for repeated and constant evidence of major violations of every international convention regarding human rights. Can we form a class and sue the administration? How can we force an international trial investigating this administration? I’m serious. What will it take?
posted by O'Mc Bloggivan at 11:10 AM
0 comments
