Semantics? : 'exceptionally harsh questioning '

[spanone]

this is what the Washington Post uses instead of the word TORTURE in referring to the CIA case.

almost sounds kinda friendly....

~snip~ The Justice Department said yesterday that it has opened a formal criminal investigation into the CIA's destruction of interrogation tapes, appointing a career prosecutor to examine whether intelligence officials broke the law by destroying videos of exceptionally harsh questioning of terrorism suspects.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/02/AR2008010202060_pf.html

[C_U_L8R]

1. with extreme prejudice ?

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Classic 'Unspeak'

See Steven Poole's blog, on subjects such as 'Extreme interrogation', or 'Questioned by Experts'.

[bemildred]

3. "Very painful questioning", "Life-threatening questioning".

What a bunch of dishonest weasels.

[Dhalgren]

4. How about this euphemism:

"Beating someone half to death. And in some cases, actually 'to death'." Would it be too gratuitous to add, "for no damned good reason"?

[Solly Mack]

5. Mustn't admit to war crimes

Call it anything but war crimes

As long as we cloak torture/war crimes in ambiguity, some people can claim it didn't happen.

And as long as some people can claim it didn't happen, NOTHING will ever be done about it.

Which is why torture/war crimes are being cloaked in ambiguous language.

It becomes a "debate". A matter of to-mAY-toe/to-mAH-toe...and that's exactly where it is intended to go...that way Bush admin. can claim - you're only calling it torture because you are attacking me and will say anything....you're making it political and it is all lies.

Even though we all know it is torture and it is war crimes and that there is NOTHING to debate...the ambiguous language shapes it into a "debate"



You hear it all the time..

"IF" torture was committed coming from people who know full well torture was committed but pretending otherwise, as if it was a question.

It goes hand in hand with the "bad apple" lie...as long it was just a "few bad apples" then it wasn't policy...it wasn't systemic.

And it all fits right into the definition of torture bullshit "debate".