The times is covering up story of American citizens being tortured

[gorbal]

quote-

"WSWS : News & Analysis : North America

Why is the New York Times covering up the torture of Jose Padilla?
By David Walsh
3 November 2006
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The editors of the New York Times have decided to bury the US government’s horrendous treatment of Jose Padilla, the American citizen declared an “enemy combatant” by George W. Bush in June 2002 and held for three years and eight months in military detention.

Lawyers for Padilla filed a motion October 4 asking a US District Court judge in Miami to throw out charges against their client on the grounds of “outrageous government conduct.” The 20-page brief spells out the various means by which Padilla was mentally and physically tortured by American authorities. The lawyers quite rightly call the prospect of his prosecution “an abomination,” describe his treatment as “a blot on this nation’s character, shameful in its disrespect for the rule of law” and argue that it “should never be repeated.”

The news of the motion to dismiss all charges, as well as the allegations of torture, did not receive serious coverage in the American media, much less enter into the election campaign as an issue. Relatively brief articles, based on wire service reports, appeared in the media the week the motion was filed, including in the Washington Post. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel printed a somewhat longer piece. The Bloomberg news service ran a story on October 19. The New York Times published nothing in October.

A new round of Associated Press, United Press International and Reuters stories on the torture allegations appeared at the end of October. On November 2, four weeks after the original report, the New York Times published an Associated Press account, which also appeared in dozens of other newspapers. The Times discreetly placed the item on page 19. The 334-word piece reports some of the lawyers’ charges contained in “court papers filed last month.”

Let us remind our readers of the essential facts of the case. An American citizen, Jose Padilla, was arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare airport May 8, 2002 as he stepped off a plane from Zurich, Switzerland. He was declared a material witness in connection with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and transported to New York City, where he was appointed legal counsel."

(snip)



http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/nov2006/nyt-n03.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRkja88zWRo

[Igel]

1. It's not a big deal because some of the WSWS's

"facts" aren't facts in the legal or empirical sense. They are allegations. Allegations need no evidence to be allegations, they need evidence or acceptance by a jury to be facts.

Hard on the heels of a big torture flap over the summer, Padilla suddenly files allegations of torture. Pardon me while I put on my critical thinking cap.

Padilla's smarter than the other guy who alleged his dick was repeatedly lacerated with a razor blade (and, oddly, never bothered to whip it out so we could check for scars, or have a doctor examine him in private--not that anybody actually wanted evidence). What Padilla alleged leaves no physical traces, so unless a corroborating witness comes along, we're left with allegations ...

[Ms. Clio]

2. what a piece of work

:puke:

[Igel]

3. You're a judge.

Somebody makes an accusation. The person accused denies it.

Do you
(1) Accept it with no further ado, assuming all accusations must be true?
(2) Accept it if the accusation furthers your agenda?
(3) Accept it if you already think the person accused is guilty of other things?
(4) Say that in the absence of evidence you have no basis for judgement?
(5) Other.

I go with (4); I might go for (5), depending on what it turns out to be. I'd hate to be in front of a judge that goes with (1), (2), or (3).

The timing is suspicious, and the fact that all the methods Padilla asserted were used leave no traces makes me wonder; it doesn't lead me to say Padilla's lying. As I said, at least the guy who said his dick was repeatedly lacerated made a falsifiable assertion.

Sorry for not having a bias.