media criticism: Wall Street Journal Supporting Torture : Houston Indymedia

This kind of emotional appeal reinforces the unsubstantiated rhetoric of the Bush administration. It fails to show that American civil liberties are indeed intact, or how anti-torture activism could "ruin" soldiers and secret service agents. It seems to me that ordering soldiers to torture is more likely to ruin them, not to mention their victims.

The article refers to anti-torture Democrats as "anti-antiterror," accepting, as most mainstream journalists do, the Bush administration narrative that our wars are actually anti-terror campaigns, and that all who oppose these wars or any elements of them are somewhat "pro-terror." Equating opposition to torture with terrorism is the kind of rationale that short-circuits good debate about these issues. If we looked for a universal definition of "terrorism," it would have to include things like violence against civilians, and the illegal use of force against other nations. So, "anti-war" and "anti-torture" should be considered akin to "anti-terror."

The article states "The 'torture narrative' has become a left-wing favorite, playing into the MoveOn.org-New York Times fantasies that Dick Cheney has been running a conspiracy to hijack the Constitution." Has the Wall Street Journal decided that the unconstitutional Acts passed under Cheney like The John Warner Defense Appropriation Act, The Military Commissions Act, and The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives are nothing to worry about, and that concerns about them are conspiracy theories and fantasies?

The Journal concludes that techniques like water-boarding are legal and useful as anti-terror strategies. However, the 370-page report recently released by the Justice Department showed the FBI's so-called "rapport-building" techniques, which constitute more effective alternatives to torture. The report states "Obtaining information by way of 'aggressive' techniques would not only jeopardize the government's ability to use the information against the detainees, but also might have a negative impact on the agents' ability to testify in future proceedings." Again and again the Bush administration has been rebuked by the courts, which run into legitimate arguments that detainees have been held in conditions that run contrary to domestic and international laws. But to the Wall Street Journal, this is less important than finding a way to write off anti-torture positions.

It is a mistake to describe these practices as aggressive interrogations of "murderers." Those of us who have seen the Abu Ghraib photos know better. Since 9-11, prisoners have indeed been treated aggressively, but their treatment went far afield of what could be legitimately defined as interrogation. Its victims were as likely to be murderers as random people turned in by some other people in a war-zone for reward money.

The editorial stands on much firmer ground when it criticizes Democrats as hypocritical, giving certain powers to the executive branch and then complaining when they are actually implemented. However, the anti-torture position itself is not hypocritical. Unlike the Democrats, and unlike the Wall Street Journal, I am not conditional about being anti-torture, and in this, I am far from alone.