Chris Hayes was on MSNBC the other day discussing torture.
Melanie Breault has a good summary at The Nation:
"Imagine for a moment our country elected a bunch of people who thought rape should be legal…" This is what Nation Washington editor Christopher Hayes asks us as guest host of The Ed Show. He says that the pro-rape people know that just coming out and promoting rape would not be accepted by the general populous. So instead, they get everyone to call it "unilateral, physical intimacy." But Hayes knows, "this is not a neutral phrase, this is propaganda."Here's the transcript if you want to read it.
Hayes uses the same argument for the pro-torture euphemism, "enhanced interrogation techniques." He refers to a Harvard University study that compares how the media described the practice of waterboarding before the Bush administration and after. From the 1930s to the early 2000s, the New York Times called or characterized waterboarding as torture, 82 percent of the time. From 2002 to 2008, it was only 1 percent of the time. As thing for the Los Angeles Times: from the 1930s to the early 2000s waterboarding was called or characterized as torture 96 percent of the time and only 5 percent of the time from 2002 to 2008. During that later period, USA Today never referred to it as torture. "The term enhanced interrogation technique from the beginning was designed to fuse our moral circuitry," Hayes says. "It’s the job of the independent press to trigger our moral alarms. The New York Times and the LA Times failed this basic duty."
Let's just call torture what it is: torture.
It's also a crime.
The Bush Administration OKed it and they must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
10 comments:
Why should I believe anything Chris Hayes says. He lied about the Philadelphia ACORN tape?
Breitbart, ACORN Foes Release Strange Video of Philadelphia Sting
The "study" disingenuously uses words that describe methods of torture using water as being the same as waterboarding.
From the study
Before 2004, “waterboarding” had been referred to variously as “water torture,” the “water cure,” the “water treatment,” el submarino (or the wet submarine), dunking, and forced ingestion, among other terms.
According to Wiki
Water cure as a term for a form of torture refers to a method in which the victim is forced to drink large quantities of water in a short time, resulting in gastric distension, “water intoxication”, and possibly death.
So according to the “study” causing someone to experience the sensations of drowning is the same as pouring water down their throat.
As for the honesty of Christopher Hayes
Chris Hayes lies on the 01-28-10 Countdown when he claimed that James O'Keefe did not release a video from the Philadelphia ACORN Office.
Hey! Look over there!
So you are saying that if the term "water cure" was used prior to 2004, it was not water boarding as we understand it, but instead forcing someone to ingest large quantities of water (which apparently still results in pain, and might result in a painful death). So Mr. Hayes mistook one torture term for another form of torture.
And this invalidates everything Hayes says, including about water boarding after 2004?
As for the ACORN tape, I can't look at vast amounts of YouTube now, but I do think I remember there was a question of O'Keefe released edited versus unedited tapes. Part of the issue there was that the edited tapes made it appear that O'Keefe was wearing an outlandish "pimp" costume when he entered the ACORN offices, while the unedited tapes shed more light on that.
But as I recall, your world is black and white, and anything any reporter has ever done wrong (in your opinion) invalidates any other point he or she makes that you disagree with.
Ed I pulled that quote word for word about the "water cure" being the same as "waterboarding" directly from the study cited in the previous post.
It is not Mr Hayes who mistook one torture term for another form of torture. It is the study that claims that the MSM stopped referring to "waterboarding" as torture.
You will note that the "water cure" and "waterboarding" are not the same thing as the study assumes.
After seeing Christopher Hayes "reporting" on the Philadelphia ACORN tape on Countdown, I would label him a progressive hack apologist.
HAYES: Oh, that‘s absolutely right. And that‘s actually what‘s so frustrating. It‘s what‘s so frustrating about that first round with ACORN. You know, there were tapes that were made in the first round when they were going to those ACORN offices, including one in Philadelphia in which the ACORN office called the police and said, “We want to get rid of these people,” and, of course, those tapes were never released.
And 3 months before Mr. Hayes said the above a Video of Philadelphia Sting was released:
Breitbart, ACORN Foes Release Strange Video of Philadelphia Sting
He was repeating old Media Matters progressive talking points that Breitbart discredited 3 months before.
Fair enough, HTTT, the study essentially identifies water cure as a synonym for water boarding. It also mentions forced ingestion of water, so I think disingenuous is the wrong term. And in any event, your statement has no bearing on the central premise of the study, that the Main Stream Media stopped referring to water boarding as torture after 2004.
As for ACORN, I know that (heavily edited) tapes were and have been released. I think there was more than one city involved, so it's possibly Chris Hayes was wrong or confused in saying that a Philadelphia tape was not released when in fact one was. However, even your own source (The Washington Independent) says the tapes were heavily edited. Were unedited tapes later released? I don't know, but I do not remember hearing that they were.
And one final thing, as I recall Andrew Breitbart was involved in financing Mr O'Keefe in producing these tapes. That gives him a huge conflict of interest in this story. You say you don't believe anything Chris Hayes says? Why should I believe anything Andrew Breitbart says, and since you are referencing Breitbart and yet failed to mention his conflict of interest, what does that say about you?
Andrew Breitbart was involved in financing Mr O'Keefe in producing these tapes.
Another Media Matters smear that the left has no proof of.
As for releasing the unedited tape I believe that Philadelphia ACORN is still suing Mr O'Keefe
HTTT, Breitbart says he pays O'Keefe, although I could not say when he started doing so. And I guess you confirm that the unedited ACORN tapes have not been released, which to me means we don't know the truth of what happened in the ACORN offices. You know, why should we believe anything Andrew Breitbart says?
By the way, totally off topic, does the current heat wave prove global warming the way you insisted last winter's snow fall invalidated it? (not that I think we actually should look at anecdotal evidence)
Moving the goalposts.
financing Mr O'Keefe in producing these tapes.
to
Breitbart says he [hired]/pays O'Keefe
As for last winter's snow fall, I used that to mock Robert F. Kennedy Jr's anemic winters quote.
So, HTTT, you have evidence Breitbart did not finance the ACORN tapes? How were they financed, did Mr O'Keefe do them on his own, do we know he did not approach Mr Breitbart ahead of time? Bearing in mind Breitbart admits a financial arrangement between himself and Mr O'Keefe.
So what is your position on climate change, then, if I may ask? It is all very well to make fun of RFK Jr's essay, but where is the courage of your own convictions?
And is water boarding torture? If so, should members of the previous administration be held responsible for authorizing it?
Post a Comment