The New York Times’ Editorial Board has rather suddenly found the boldness to call torture “torture” and is now calling on the government to release the “bad” photos from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Shall we forget the past and reward good behavior going forward?
I’m talking about the NYT‘s Editorial Board, not the country, silly.
In my opinion, the most galling thing about this debate and this legal dispute is the government’s argument that releasing the photos will so enrage international opinion that people will rise up and just start slaughtering Americans in retaliation.
When a country commits acts that are nearly universally considered to be crimes against humanity, and are actually supposed to be considered crimes against humanity, then the offending country has to be held accountable in some way. The way America can show that it is different from the thugs who torture people in Uzbekistan or Saudi Arabia or Syria or North Korea is to admit what we did and enforce the law.
Hiding the evidence is not redemptive in any way. If the New York Times can come around and admit that the U.S. government had an official policy of torturing people, then the Obama administration can come around, too. They’ve never denied it in words, but they keep going to court to try to shield us from the truth and protect us from the consequences.
The better path is to stop resisting and let the law do its work.
Otherwise, we might as well be Uzbekistan.
We’re not different, and if anyone wants to make something of it then we’ll bring freedom to their country…
Release the names of the perpetrators and prosecute them. The NYT just wants to draw eyeballs with torture porn. Let the photos come out in the process of convicting the torturers and those who commanded them of war crimes.
What would be redemptive for the NYT would be actual confession and actual repentance: owning up to shilling for the wars on Iraq and the war in Ukraine. Owning up to being a mouthpiece of the US national security and intelligence institutions with no counterbalance. Owning up to being one of the pillars in the defense of racist institutions in the US. Owning up to being a shill for a particular set of nations and biased against another set of nations.
And changing to a journalism based on a commitment to finding the truth regardless of whose interests get stepped on.
But that is beyond the capabilities of the Gray Lady.
In fairness, the NYT’s editorial board opposed the invasion of Iraq. At the same time, some of their print reporters served up propaganda straight from Scooter Libby. But the mixed record it mixed and should be acknowledged.
The Washington Post editorial board was gung-ho for war.
Michael Gordon (Judith Miller’s co-reporter) is still serving up USian propaganda at the NYTimes — Ukraine Reports Russian Invasion on a New Front
Gordon will provide the proof right after he finds Saddam’s WMD.
Oh come on, Booman!!! That’s just the good cop/bad cop routine with an overlay of plausible deniability. They call the Times “The Grey Lady” because it always straddles the fence. Grey can go either way in a pinch.
And she ain’t no “lady,” either. She’s a bought-and-paid-for whore.
Bet on it.
High-level whores…society-style whores, really successful whores like Madam Claude…are all for “morality.” Prim and proper until the money changes hands. Then the truth emerges from underneath the petticoats.
That’s what makes ’em special.
It’s the continuing set of lies about morality in general that put them in a position to make their money.
As above, so below.
Bet on that as well.
Sho’ is.
Later…
AG
Mme. Sikorski still is.
The problem for our Government is they do not start from the very beginning with holding all the various members of the Bush Administration accountable. How are they ever going to convince anyone anywhere that we are holding ourselves accountable?
The Government wants to keep looking forwards for it is the easiest thing to do. If one is to enforce the Laws of the land, then not even our Government has the moral right to pick and choose.
The problem is that as the world Empire, we are also the worlds law.
So, if we don’t admit to breaking the law, we didn’t break the law, because we are the law.
Not exactly “we,” but certain US elites and those they choose to give a pass to. It’s as if Nixon’s “Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” has been expanded to President, VP, SOS, CIA, etc. except when what is done exposes all the rot in the US government. Those people are labeled traitors and every effort is made to lock them up — even if they aren’t Americans as in the case of Julian Assange.
It’s time and past time to look backwards to the past. If we don’t prosecute our war criminals, someone else surely will. They might not be so circumspect about observing rules of procedure, due process, or even making sure the folks being punished are actually guilty or just guilty by association (like financing the torture carried out in their name).