NYT Public Editor: It's Torture Because I Said So

Since the killing of Bin Laden, there has been an extended debate about the efficacy, legailty and morality of enhanced interrogations - especially, waterboarding. Opponents of these practices regularly use the word "torture" when describing them. Readers of the New York Times have noticed that the op-ed pages always use the "t" word, but the news pages are more hesitant. They've complained to the public editor, hoping to see the news pages use the "t" word more often, and he has a column today on the subject.

The Times newsroom’s dilemma might have been removed if the courts had ruled whether the Bush-era methods constituted torture. According to several legal authorities I have consulted, however, that hasn’t happened.  

Torture is a crime, yet no court has ruled the Bush-era methods constitute torture. So, why do the opinion pages think it's torture?

“We made the decision early and relatively quickly: Waterboarding, specifically, has been considered torture for a long time,” said Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor, referring to international protocols.

Waterboarding has been considered torture by international protocols for a long time? Are international protocols the equivalent of U.S. law? What's the solution here?

The Times should use the term “torture” more directly, using it on first reference when the discussion is about — and there’s no other word for it — torture. The debate was never whether Bin Laden was found because of brutal interrogations: it was whether he was found because of torture. (emphasis added)

That's one way to win an argument: insist there never was an argument.

More narrowly, the word is appropriate when describing techniques traditionally considered torture, waterboarding being the obvious example. Reasonable fairness can be achieved by adding caveats that acknowledge the Bush camp’s view of its narrow legal definition.

This approach avoids the appearance of mincing words and is well grounded in Americans’ understanding of torture in the historical and moral sense.

So, to hell with the legal definition? Can we use this reasoning in the same-sex marriage debate? Can we say marriage is one man/one woman and that is grounded in Americans' understanding of marriage in the historical and moral sense? Would the Times buy that because this has always been the traditional definition of marriage?

The tradition of calling waterboarding "torture" goes back to the Spanish Inquisition (the Japanese also used it in WWII). However, Spanish and Japanese waterboarding is a lot different than CIA waterboarding. Throwing them all into the same category is dubious. The historical definition is inadequate, and the public editor's argument rests on it.

What if a member of the CIA is charged with torture? Will the legal definition count then? Will the Times' news pages call his actions torture, even if he hasn't been convicted yet?