A couple of days ago I speculated that evidence President Bush himself authorized the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would be shortly forthcoming. Now, as part of its lawsuit against the government, the ACLU is alleging that an FBI email "states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and 'sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.'" via an Executive Order.
This lawsuit has been all over the press today. The NYT article treats the "abuse" allegations in vivid detail, but omits any mention of the ACLU's question about Bush's executive order. The Washington Post mentions the claim, but dismisses it, saying "White House and FBI officials said yesterday that such an order does not exist." While both American papers treat the story as if it is an internecine squabble between FBI and DoD, the Guardian focuses on the nut behind the ACLU lawsuit: that the torture was directly ordered and controlled by the whole military, not just the brutal acts of a few "bad apples".
If Bush really did sign an order authorizing harsh interrogation tactics in Iraq, this deserves real investigation and reporting -- not lurid and pornographic focus on the ghastly details, but careful explication of the whole structure that led to them. As usual, our press repeats the technicolor detail and completely fails us on the overarching problem.
UPDATE 3:30pm PST: Eli at Left I On the News also notices the big papers burying the lede on this story, but is a tad more restrained than I:
Now there are legitimate questions about whether the Executive Order referred to actually exists; the White House denies it. Nevertheless, the fact that there exist FBI documents which allege such an order is blockbuster news, right? Well, not according to the Washington Post, who buries that fact in the fifth paragraph of their story, and uses the phrase "presidential order" (lower case) and fails to include the name "Bush" in their story. Not according to the Los Angeles Times, who buries that fact in the tenth paragraph of their story. And definitely not according to the New York Times, which does not mention the Executive Order at all!Posted by Chris at December 21, 2004 11:43 AM | TrackBack