’Harsh Methods’ Aren’t Torture, Says the New York Times

[For the article critiqued below, see the message, ’Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited’]

’Harsh Methods’ Aren’t Torture, Says the New York Times

<http://www.fair.org/activism/times-...>

The New York Times, revealing the interrogation
techniques the CIA is using against Al-Qaeda suspects,
seemed unable to find a source who would call torture by
its proper name.

The May 13 article, headlined "Harsh CIA Methods Cited
in Top Qaeda Interrogation," described "coercive
interrogation methods" endorsed by the CIA and the
Justice Department, including hooding, food and light
deprivation, withholding medications, and "a technique
known as ’water boarding,’ in which a prisoner is
strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to
believe he might drown."

The article took pains to explain why, according to U.S.
officials, such techniques do not constitute torture:
"Defenders of the operation said the methods stopped
short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture
statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a
nebulous enemy whose strength and intentions could only
be gleaned by extracting information from often
uncooperative detainees."

The article seemed to accept that the techniques
described are something other than torture: "The tactics
simulate torture, but officials say they are supposed to
stop short of serious injury." The implication is that
only interrogation methods that cause serious physical
harm would be real and not simulated torture.

The article quoted no one who said that the CIA methods
described were, in fact, torture. Yet it would have been
easy to find human rights experts who would describe
them as such. The website of Human Rights Watch
(www.hrw.org) reports that "the prohibition against
torture under international law applies to many
measures," including "near drowning through submersion
in water." Amnesty International U.S.A.
(www.amnestyusa.org) names "submersion into water almost
to the point of suffocation" as a form of torture, and
emphasizes that torture "can be psychological, including
threats, deceit, humiliation, insults, sleep
deprivation, blindfolding, isolation, mock
executions...and the withholding of medication or
personal items."

The article did quote the Geneva Conventions’
prohibition against "violence to life and person, in
particular...cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages
upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and
degrading treatment." But it did not quote the
definition of "torture" under international law,
contained in the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which
makes it clear that psychological as well as physical
methods of coercion are prohibited. According to the
Convention, "torture" is:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a
third person information or a confession, punishing
him for an act he or a third person has committed or
is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or
coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain
or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official
capacity."

Noting the Convention’s reference to "consent or
acquiescence" would have been helpful in evaluating the
claims made by officials in the article that the U.S.
can skirt prohibitions on torture if detainees are
formally in the custody of another country. In fact, the
Convention Against Torture, which the U.S. signed in
1994, explicitly prohibits sending a person anywhere
"where there are substantial grounds for believing that
he would be in danger of being subjected to torture."

If the Times had included independent human rights or
international law experts in the article, this
information could have been available to readers. Even
talking to military sources could have produced a more
straightforward account of what kind of interrogation is
prohibited by international law; the Wall Street Journal
(5/13/04), in an article about Iraq prison tactics
published the same day as the Times piece, quoted a
former Marine judge who admitted that "there’s no
getting around it, we have ignored provisions of the
Geneva Convention in favor of gathering intelligence."

In fact, the Times might have looked back to its own
archives on the subject to find critics of U.S.
detention policies. Some of the information included in
the May 13, 2004 article was first reported on March 9,
2003— except the original story quoted Holly Burkhalter
of Physicians for Human Rights, who decried the lack of
a "specific policy that eschews torture." It also noted
critics’ assertion that "transferring Qaeda suspects to
countries where torture is believed common— like Egypt,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia— violates American law and the
1984 international convention against torture, which
bans such transfers."

While the article did impart important information about
the tactics being used by American agents to interrogate
terrorist suspects, it’s also critical to know whether
these methods violate international or domestic law. By
relying solely on administration officials to define
what torture is and what the U.S. government’s legal
obligations are, the New York Times failed to provide
the context necessary for readers to make an informed
judgment.

ACTION: Please ask the New York Times ombudsman to
remind editors that experts on human rights and
international law should have been included in the
Times’ May 13 report on CIA interrogation methods.

CONTACT:
New York Times
Daniel Okrent, Public Editor
public@nytimes.com
Phone: (212) 556-7652

Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS

As always, please remember that your comments are taken
more seriously if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc
fair@fair.org with your correspondence.