Info
Senior editor at The Daily Beast.
Blogs and Stories
Did PBS Bury an Expose on Torture?
"Torturing Democracy" premieres on affiliates as PBS ducks the torture issue.
Update: The Expose on Tonight's Torture Exposé
This spring, PBS’s distinguished Frontline series aired a mildly critical account of the lead-up to the Iraq War entitled “Bush’s War.” As the airing of the program was announced, the Bush Administration proposed to slash public funding for PBS by roughly half for 2009, by 56% for 2010 and eliminating funding entirely for 2011. Did PBS get the message? Perhaps.
According to producer Sherry Jones, PBS told her that “no time slot could be found for the documentary before January 21, 2009”—the day after Bush leaves office.
On Thursday evening WNET in New York will air an important new documentary by Emmy and Dupont Award winning producer Sherry Jones entitled “Torturing Democracy.” It appears on WNET and several other affiliates independently because PBS would not run the show—at least not until President Bush has left office. The show delivers impressively on a promise to “connect the dots in an investigation of interrogations of prisoners in U.S. custody that became ‘at a minimum, cruel and inhuman treatment and, at worst, torture’” (quoting Alberto Mora, who served as general counsel of the Navy under Donald Rumsfeld, and features in an interview). In one dramatic scene, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage describes being waterboarded as part of a training program he went through before being sent to Vietnam. Did he consider waterboarding to be torture, Armitage was asked? “Absolutely. No question.” And he continued, “There is no question in my mind—there's no question in any reasonable human being, that this is torture. I'm ashamed that we're even having this discussion.” Watch the footage here:
No one who has seen this dramatic documentary is likely to buy into the “rotten apples” narrative any longer.
Which may help explain why PBS appears to be suffering from acute corporate indigestion over the work. The project was first offered to PBS in September 2007, with the representation that it would be available to air after May 2008. It was completed and circulated to PBS decision makers on schedule in May of this year. Their response? According to producer Sherry Jones, PBS told her that “no time slot could be found for the documentary before January 21, 2009”—the day after George W. Bush and Dick Cheney leave office. Does that reflect concern that PBS would face retaliation from the Bush Administration for airing the program? I put that question to John Wilson, PBS’s Senior Vice President for Program, who didn’t respond following multiple inquiries. But January 21 is a Wednesday, and to me the only obvious reason for its selection is regime change.
showing 1-6 of 6
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review.
Please allow time before your comment is available for viewing.
Please log in to leave comments.
I just finished reading the book "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer. This should be required reading by all citizens, especially republicans. This book proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that Cheney, Addington, Gonzales and many others are war criminals. After reading this book I felt a deep sense of anger, sadness and shame. What many republicans need to understand is that we need a Democratic administration to be elected so that we can start the process of getting our country back. Of the many things I will never understand is how these people sleep at night and how, with any sobriety or critical thinking they can call themselves Christians. I'm a "values voter" and my values include justice, honesty, integrity, respect for the consitution and respect for the rule of law. This includes our obligations under treaties, like the Geneva Convention, which absolutely applies to all prisoners, as this book explains. Reverend Wright was not entirely wrong... if, with full knowledge that it's a war crime, the Vice President of the United States, with the full knowledge and approval of the President and the Attorney General and others, commit war crimes and think the ends justify the means, then God Damn America... p.s. I love this country!
mr. horton - why are you posting to this site and not at No Comment at Harper's ???
have you looked around you and taken a look at your neighbors on this site ???
like, ewwwwwwwwwwwww, dude.
is this site paying you more $$$$ ???
is that why you blog so little at No Comment ??? not enough $$$ to be made at Harper's ???
i thought i read in one of your posts at No Comment that you were ceasing the blogging effort yet i find you here.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
care to enlighten the unwashed masses ???
in any case, good luck to you - i will not be returning here - too many undesirables / nonthinkers / drones / sheeple / reich wingers.
toodles !!
Can't say I'm surprised that PBS didn't have the guts to pull the proverbial pin on THIS particular grenade until the current administration leaves town... Self-preservation is a powerful instinct. At least the stations have an opportunity to air the piece in a timely fashion.
I just finished watching all of it...
I'm a retired US soldier from the end of the cold war era. When we received training on the Rules of War and the Geneva Conventions, we were told that the US didn't engage in torture for 4 basic reasons:
1. It was simply wrong and thus not something that could be morally justified under any circumstances. (We felt we had the "high ground")
2. It was illegal under the GC and US law and would result in prosecution as a war crime and most likely execution if one were found guilty. If we saw it and didn't report it. we were complicit, and would be treated accordingly.
3. If the US were to engage in torture of prisoners, US personnel would also be subject to torture in the event of capture. If torture of US personnel occurred anyway, we could be assured that our torturers would be found and prosecuted.
4. Torture simply wasn't an effective means of extracting usable mission-critical intelligence. (It was only used effectively to make POWs "confess" to all kinds of concocted things for propaganda purposes, other than that, it's just sadistic and vindictive.)
Which of these things is no longer true in 2008?!? Can they truthfully say that their policies and actions resulted in anything of value? I'm betting not.
Personally, I want to see prosecutions at the very highest levels. It'll never happen of course...
Thanks Scott for alerting us to the Torturing Democracy documentary. I just finished watching it online. I have not seen all the war on terror documentaries, but of what I've seen, this one is the most damning of the Bush administration of them all. I'm alerting my friends to this doc (it's not being broadcast in Dallas, no surprise; but I will write to our local PBS station, KERA, urging it to do so).
War crimes, war crimes, war crimes!!!
Once we get democracy out of the way things will be a lot more stable:
http://www.islandersoftware.com/weblog/2008/10/14/democracy-to-banana-r epublic-in-a-few-easy-steps/
The chilling effect you describe here is analogous to a chilling effect we will begin to see in our personal lives. I am referring to the new(ish) disclosure laws that require political donors who give in excess of $200 to be publicly identified. I suspect it is a good idea to have some public mechanism to track campaign donations. But to see that a donation in excess of $200 compels the campaign to notify my employer is chilling.
In our increasingly monitored lives, having to worry that a political donation will make or break one's career... it's terrifying. With all donations made public, the possibilities for brown-nosing and tattling are immense. We haven't seen any major legal problems arise from this, but it is sure to come up sooner or later. I have been unable to find any coverage of this topic. I think it is right up your alley?