The Senate Torture report is “a portrait of depravity that is hard to comprehend and even harder to stomach,” The New York Times Editorial Board remarked.
The Senate released the 528-page Senate summary report on Bush-era Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture in December of 2014. The report reveals unjustifiable abuses committed against detainees held by the American government. The report is a testament to the government’s lack of accountability and acceptance of torture.
From 2002 to 2008, the CIA used sleep deprivation, waterboarding, “rectal feeding,” and other brutal methods on the detainees. At least 26 detainees were “wrongfully held.” Furthermore, the CIA gave untruthful and misleading information to policy makers and others.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The program was neither effective in retrieving substantial intelligence about planned terrorist attacks nor successful in gaining cooperation from the detainees: “We have not concluded that it was the use of EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques) within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them,” Current CIA director John Brennan acknowledged.
Earlier in 2014, five CIA officials inappropriately carried out computer searches on Senate Intelligence Committee members creating the report on the CIA’s torture use. A panel created by the CIA director decided that the officials will not be punished. However, the panel investigating the computer searches is expected to reprimand other CIA actions in its final conclusions.
Abuses of governmental power were occurring throughout the Bush administration – not just within the CIA. During the Iraq War, the government intimidated prominent opposition and manipulated the output of news. These actions contributed to a lack of transparency in the government.
In its run up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration used manipulative, complicated tactics. First, the administration used intimidation to squash any assertive form of dissent that threatened the government’s credibility. They also tried to control the press and any oppositional figures by using strategic manipulation skills. It didn’t help that many Democratic politicians were risk-averse. Democrats were reluctant to oppose the Bush administration because they wanted to hold onto chances in the upcoming midterm election, which intentionally was when the White House was pushing for a resolution to allow force in Iraq. This was the time when the White House could increase pressure on congressmen and congresswomen for their support. Thus, the Bush administration carefully picked out certain times to roll out new propositions.
The politicians’ reluctance to interfere generated another problem. Since opinions from the major opposition (Democrats) and even the public were not clearly being voiced, the press did not report enough about the prominent anti-war feelings.
It is important to note that, like the Democrats, the journalists reporting on the Iraq War faced intimidation. Journalists were constantly trying to get over the obstructive hurdles the government had put into place. Journalists were accused of having “liberal bias” or of not being loyal enough to their country.
The need for patriotism was a part of the press ethnocentrism. After 9/11, anyone who did not support the administration was intimidated by personal retaliations. Since the press was afraid of accusations surrounding a lack of patriotism after 9/11, they were unwilling to use sources outside of the United States’ restricted bubble of news.
To further control the output of news, the Bush administration relied on VNRs (Video News Releases), a trusty public relations tool that comes in the form of pre-packaged news reports sent out to newsrooms. There are usually two parts to a VNR: (1) a finished news segment and (2) an additional unedited B-roll with a script. The news segment can be run without any edits, and the B-roll and script can be used while creating a news piece.
“VNRs look and sound like independently-gathered reports, but are designed to promote the products, services, public image and/or point of view of the client(s) who funded them,” Daniel Price wrote in an article for PRWatch, published by The Center for Media and Democracy.
VNRs, which can be used for many different reasons by the government, from covering airport safety to improving business for farmers, are also often used by TV newsrooms. Furthermore, VNRs help fill in airtime in stations. USA Today once noted that VNRs are the “Hamburger Helper for newscasters.”
On the other hand, VNRs are often one-sided and misleading. Stations do not always inform viewers and even their own reporters that they are using government reports. Some stations claim (which could be true at times) that they do not know where their sources came from. This is because the segments are often passed around many times once they leave their points of origin.In 2005, the Government Accountability Office concluded that any VNRs created or funded by the government break “the publicity or propaganda prohibition” if its origin is not made clear. The Office of Management and Budget and Justice Department disagreed with this ruling.
The government, especially within the context of the Bush era, is comparable to an advertising company selling products to the public using cunning, one-sided public relations material.
In addition, embedded journalism was used to control the output of news during the Iraq War. Journalists were given access to travel with the American military during the Iraq War. At first, it might have seemed like a good idea. After all, it was less dangerous than independently traveling. However, the practice was and is still biased. During the Iraq War, journalists were covering stories under the control of the American side in armed conflict. It is almost impossible for such treatment to have not imposed some sort of bias.
Chelsea Manning, a former United States Army intelligence analyst, published an op-ed in The New York Times in June of 2014, describing the process. According to Manning, the screening process begins after a reporter applies for an embed status in Iraq. Every reporter is assessed by military public affairs officials in terms of the likeliness that he or she will produce coverage approved by the military and based on whether the reporter has good relations with the military. Manning wrote, “This outsourced ‘favorability’ rating assigned to each applicant is used to screen out those judged likely to produce critical coverage.”
Reporters who pass the screening must sign a media agreement, which lets the military end a reporter’s embed status without the allowance of any appeal. Manning also explained, “The gatekeepers in public affairs have too much power: Reporters naturally fear having their access terminated, so they tend to avoid controversial reporting that could raise red flags.”
This leads to the public not being properly informed. As author and political science professor Lance Bennet observed in an article, “Only later did some journalists admit what they might have seen beforehand: that the Big Story was dictated from Washington, and the scenes from inside the tanks were little more than B-movie filler that authenticated a story told by the government.”
The government must be held accountable for its actions. The incidents that occurred during the Bush administration serve as timeless reminders to the public. The American government, even though it was established to protect its citizens, is fallible, as most large institutions and systems are. We take pride in our Constitution and the way our government is set up, but we cannot let that pride obstruct how we perceive our government.
In addition to the government, the press must also be held accountable. The Iraq War showed the gullibility and lack of risk-taking of members of the press at times. While the events of the war clearly reveal a lack of journalistic judgment that still exists in many media outlets today, it does seem like the press and public have continued to build integrity and learn from those mistakes.
Unfortunately, the government is still misusing federal resources. Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has used federal resources for their propaganda and public relations activities. Furthermore, we still need more transparency, which was something our founders wanted when they formed our Republic. America can’t have a pluralistic democracy until there is accountability on both sides.
Lastly, if we’re going to fix the human rights situations in other countries, we must be able to use our own country as an example. Otherwise, other countries and groups of people can justifiably point out the hypocrisy in our statements because we cannot promote certain values when we don’t even follow them ourselves.