contentious.com

Can actions really speak louder than words, when speech is the realm of words?

The words we choose to describe actions play a key role in shaping perspectives, opinions, and responses. When it comes to the great evils of this world – torture, genocide, war, and so on – it seems to me that muted words often are selected to publicly describe and discuss what happened – and what should be done in response.

This is not always a deliberate propaganda tactic. Indeed, some words, like “torture,” are inherently loaded. Avoiding loaded language often reflects an effort to avoid sensationalizing an issue before the facts are in. However, in some cases muted word choices may reflect an attempt to avoid running disastrously afoul of public opinion or even international law.

Case in point: Abu Ghraib…

Right now there’s a huge public controversy over the recent “abuse” of Iraqi prisoners at the hands of US soldiers within US-run prisons.

Would the public reaction, official US response and accountability, and international response be more intense if English-language headlines and official discourse around the world used the word “torture” instead of “abuse?”

I suspect it might. That’s a point worth pondering.

“TORTURE” VS. “ABUSE”

First of all, does the word “torture” accurately describe the US soldiers’ actions? That depends:

• I have no doubt that the prisoners who endured that treatment would describe it as torture. On the one hand, theirs would be an inherently biased perspective. On the other hand, theirs is also an extremely relevant perspective on this issue.

• The American Heritage Dictionary defines “torture” as: (1) To subject (a person or an animal) to torture. (2) To bring great physical or mental pain upon (another). (3) To twist or turn abnormally; distort: torture a rule to make it fit a case.

• The 1949 Geneva Conventions (which the US has signed and sworn to uphold) specifically prohibit torture, humiliation, and inhumane treatment. However, those documents do not specifically define those terms. As far as I can tell, as long as torture remains undefined, and the word “torture” is assiduously avoided when describing certain acts, the perpetrators of those acts (and their governments) probably could avoid charges under this law.

• The 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment does define torture, as follows: “For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means 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. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

  The US has agreed that this law applies to the Abu Ghraib incidents, so it will be up the the UN to determine whether those actions can be classified as “torture” as defined by this convention. It’s unclear whether the UN intends to take a stand on this matter. Today (May 21) the UN Committee Against Torture concludes its first 2004 meeting to review measures adopted by several countries (including, intriguingly, New Zealand – but not the US) to prevent and punish acts of torture. It’ll be interesting to see whether the US shows up on this committee’s agenda anytime soon. (More on this from Newsweek.)

• In a May 20 article, Sgt. Samuel Provance (a military intelligence soldier who worked at Abu Ghraib prison last fall) told the Washington Post that much of the humilation-oriented “abuse” at the prison was part of a deliberate, culturally specific strategy crafted by military intelligence officers in order to “break” the prisoners. (See: Sergeant Says Intelligence Directed Abuse) If true, this would indicate that the soldiers in question were not merely willful actions of a small group of soldiers or a failure of leadership by their commander, but rather part of an orchestrated intelligence strategy. If true, this may push the acts of “abuse” closer to the “torture” end of the definition spectrum in the eyes of the public and of international law.

• On May 5, Xeni Jardin observed in the popular Boing Boing weblog, “It’s torture when they do it. It’s abuse when our guys do it.”

THE NEWS: WHO’S USING THE “T” WORD

In most parts of the modern world, the mass media plays a key role in shaping public opinion. One way to keep tabs on what the mass media are saying is to conduct keyword searches of Google News and Yahoo News. So far, if you keyword-search either of those services for “torture,” the vast majority of news stories will be related to the Abu Ghraib incidents – but are published by non-US news organizations.

Considering the vast amount of coverage Abu Ghraib is receiving, so far very few US news organizations have opted using the word “torture” in that coverage. And in many cases, those that have even mentioned the “t-word” have only done so in very circumscribed ways. Here’s what the past few day’s headlines have to offer on that front:

• The current issue of newsweek magazine appears to have taken the strongest linguistic stance on the “t-word” to date with this investigative feature: “The Roots of Torture: The road to Abu Ghraib began after 9/11, when Washington wrote new rules to fight a new kind of war.”
• Today the Detroit News ran a staff-written article “Ex-prisoner details Iraq torture claim that uses both terms, “torture” and “abuse.”

• On May 13, PBS Newshour ran a segment entitled, “Bending the Rules?” which featured an in-depth expert discussion of whether the events at Abu Ghraib can be considered torture.

• The Contra Costa Times today ran an article syndicated from the Washington Post under the headline “Rape threats, torture at Abu Ghraib detailed.” The Post’s own version of the story bears the headline “New Details of Prison Abuse Emerge: Abu Ghraib Detainees’ Statements Describe Sexual Humiliation And Savage Beatings.” The only mention of the “t-word” appears at the end of the story, in this hearsay quote:

  “The detainee said the soldiers handcuffed him to a bed. ‘Do you believe in anything?’ he said the soldier asked. ‘I said to him, I believe in Allah.’ So he said, ‘But I believe in torture and I will torture you.’”

• A May 19 USA Today story bears the headline, “Conyers asks whether torture denial was a lie. This use of the “t-word” echoes a specific line of Congressional inquiry.

• Today the Baltimore Sun ran a guest-written op-ed piece with the headline “Torture damage won’t soon heal,” by Mary Cogar (director of Advocates of Survivors of Torture and Trauma). However, the Sun appears to be generally avoiding the “t-word” in its staff-written stories.

• Similarly, Time Magazine recently published a guest-written “Viewpoint” piece, “The Real Shame of Abu Ghraib,” by Darius Rejali (a “nationally recognized expert on the causes and consequences of torture,” Professor of Political Science at Reed College, and author of the forthcoming book Torture and Democracy. This article offers a detailed historical and cultural perspective on torture, and frames Abu Ghraib within that larger context.

• On May 16, New York Times staffer Michael Slackman penned an editorial for the “Week in Review” section entitled, “What’s Wrong With Torturing a Qaeda Higher-Up? The article does not focus on Abu Ghraib, but does include this anecdote illustrating the unreliability of information obtained through torture:

  “In Iraq, a man named Saddam Saleh Aboud told The New York Times that after being hooded and handcuffed naked, doused with water, threatened with rape and forced to sit in his own urine over 18 days at Abu Ghraib prison, he was ready to confess to anything. [Mr. Aboud recalled in an interview in Baghdad that they asked], ‘Do you know the Islamic opposition?’ ‘I said yes. [At one point, Mr. Aboud said] ‘They asked me about Osama bin Laden. I said, I am Osama bin Laden. I am disguised.’”

• Today the Associated Press story “U.S. Military Releases Group of Prisoners mentions the “t-word” only in this context: “The military periodically frees prisoners from Abu Ghraib, which was also notorious as the site of executions and torture during Saddam Hussein’s regime.

• Chicago news radio station WBBM today ran the story “Chicago Demonstrators Denounce Iraq Prison Torture,” which confines the use of the “t-word” to the protestors’ perspective.

In contrast, here are just a few typical headlines from the non-US major news media:

• “US faces more allegations of Iraq torture,” Financial Times, UK
• “Torture Scandal Grows With New Photos,” Zama, Turkey
• “Soldier Accused of Torture Pleads Guilty,” The Scotsman, UK
• “Troops, torture and the politics of ambiguity,” Taipei Times, Taiwan. (Commentary by Michael Manning, a former specialist interrogator with the 142nd Military Intelligence Battalion, US Army National Guard.)

US NEWS ORGANIZATIONS: PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR CHOICE OF WORDS

…I’m not saying that US news organizations necessarily should be saying “torture” alongside (or instead of) “abuse.” However, as a journalist I am unsettled at how the US government and military’s choice of terminology to frame this controversy has been almost universally repeated, with little examination, by highly trained and experienced editors and journalists throughout the US.

Loaded language is a regular topic of discussion in newsroom meetings throughout the world, and particularly in the US. However, depending on the situation the most intense term is not necessarily the most (or the only) “loaded” one. Sometimes less-intense words are heavily loaded with an intent to deflect or dissuade – which may not serve the purpose of accurately portraying the news.

Given the severity of the Abu Ghraib events, I would like to see newsroom staff publicly debate this particular choice of words. They probably have very sound reasons for saying “abuse” rather than “torture” – but their audiences deserve to have that decision clarified, I think.