One more thing: the post further says that the Times did use the word torture, but only in the obituary of an American who was tortured (using the same techniques as the Bush administration approved) while a POW in Manchuria during the Korean War.
May 08, 2009
Is this true?
A post over at The Atlantic says that the New York Times has not yet used the word torture when referring to any tactics used during the Bush 43 administration. Does anyone know if this is true? If so, what other major publications have avoided that word? Have any of them publicly stated why they do not use that word, or what, for them, would constitute torture?
One more thing: the post further says that the Times did use the word torture, but only in the obituary of an American who was tortured (using the same techniques as the Bush administration approved) while a POW in Manchuria during the Korean War.
One more thing: the post further says that the Times did use the word torture, but only in the obituary of an American who was tortured (using the same techniques as the Bush administration approved) while a POW in Manchuria during the Korean War.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Interesting ... if you Google [site:nytimes.com torture] the you get quite a few results - the first couple are labeled "EDITORIAL" at the not but not the couple after that. Certainly not solid evidence, though.
ReplyDelete