Sunday, March 06, 2005
Rule Change Lets NY Times' Douglas Jehl Be Tortured
(NOTE - The bastards at The New York Times force you to subscribe so you can read (but only for a week) this outrageous article: "Rule Change Let's C.I.A. Freely Send Suspects Abroad." So, I'm not going to directly link to it.)
An unnamed official from an unnamed organization in an unnamed body in an unnamed location under an unnamed sky on an unnamed street named The New York Times reporter Douglas Jehl as a person of interest in an unspecified ongoing or outgoing unspecific possibly unintentional investigation that may or may not be accurately described as an investigation or may or may never be officially regarded as one but one of interest to a number of unnamed officials who will not speak on the record.
For more on why The New York Times allows Douglas Jehl (and David Johnston and whomever else helped) to use the front page as a way to softpedal America's newest democracy-approved product (Renditioned Torture coming soon to a household near you) then please check out The Common Ills (like I do every day for its sometimes laudatory more-than-sometimes denunciatory coverage of "The Paper Of Record") and follow the links that are there to learn even more.
As for the provocative title of this post? I'm thinking about Lynne Stewart. I'm thinking about Brandon Mayfield. I'm thinking about James J. Yee. And I'm thinking about what Douglas Jehl or David Johnston or someone else wrote on the front page of today's New York Times:
"In providing a detailed description of the program, a senior United States official said that it had been only aimed at those suspected of knowing about terrorist operations, and emphasized that the C.I.A. had gone to great lengths to ensure that they were detained under humane conditions and not tortured."
And I'm also thinking about what Douglas Jehl or David Johnston (or the C.I.A.) included in one of the last paragraphs of the article:
"The officials said that most of the people subject to rendition were regarded by conterterrorism experts as less significant than people held under direct American control..."
So, let's say a New York Times reporter gets a tip about something that is in any way related to a terrorist operation: financially, organizationally or operationally. Doesn't this mean that that New York Times reporter might face rendition or uninsured though ensured-by-great-lengths-not-to-occur torture if he doesn't betray all of his journalistic codes and ethics? Oh...I forgot...they don't have any of the latter anymore...do they.
(ENDNOTE - Hey, Doug, are you a fan of Japanese auteur Takashi Miike? If you're not familiar with his work, I'd suggest you order one of his DVDs online (you won't find them at Blockbuster). The one you really need to see is Ichi The Killer just in case your future renditioners already have)