About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media failed to contrast Frist claim that "no responsible person" would outline impermissible interrogation techniques with McCain's statement doing just that

September 25, 2006 6:20 pm ET

Trouble viewing clip? Download: QT | WMV

SUMMARY: A Media Matters review of major media outlets found that only The Washington Post highlighted the major differences between remarks by Republican Sens. John McCain and Bill Frist on separate Sunday morning news shows on August 24. While McCain stated that "waterboarding and other extreme measures such as extreme deprivation -- sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and others" could be illegal under new rules for U.S. interrogations of terrorism suspects, Frist asserted that "no responsible person" is going to "comment on individual techniques" that would or would not be permitted under the new law, because doing so "helps the terrorists."

12 Comments

On the September 24 broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told Washington Post national political editor John Harris that a new bill that would create rules for U.S. interrogations of terrorism suspects would "outlaw certain procedures" that the CIA reportedly has used in the past; McCain then explained that those procedures could include "waterboarding and other extreme measures such as extreme deprivation -- sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and others." On the same morning, in an interview with host George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) claimed that "no responsible person" is going to "comment on individual techniques" that would or would not be permitted under the new law, because doing so "helps the terrorists." Yet a Media Matters for America review* found that among major media outlets, only The Washington Post highlighted Frist's implicit attack on those -- including McCain -- who comment on the effect of the bill "on individual techniques."

A September 25 Post article reported that while the "proposed legislation does not say what interrogators can do," McCain "named three measures that he said would no longer be allowed under a provision barring techniques that cause serious mental or physical suffering by U.S. detainees." While the Post incorrectly reported that McCain said those three interrogation techniques "would" no longer be allowed -- McCain actually said they "could" be outlawed by the agreement -- McCain did offer his interpretation of the bill's impact on individual interrogation techniques, something that, as the Post noted, Frist suggested "helps the terrorists." The article reported that "McCain's remarks were unusual because public officials involved in the lengthy public debate about U.S. interrogation practices have rarely made specific references to the CIA's actions." The Post then cited Frist's comments on This Week:

A Republican senator who played a leading role in drafting new rules for U.S. interrogations of terrorism suspects said yesterday that he believes a compromise bill embraced by party leaders and the White House will bar some of the most extreme techniques said to have been used by the CIA.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) named three measures that he said would no longer be allowed under a provision barring techniques that cause serious mental or physical suffering by U.S. detainees: extreme sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia and "waterboarding," which simulates drowning. He also said other "extreme measures" would be banned.

McCain's remarks were unusual because public officials involved in the lengthy public debate about U.S. interrogation practices have rarely made specific references to the CIA's actions. Instead, they have made general claims about the need for rough interrogations or a desire to stop abusive behavior.

[...]

"We cannot and will not comment on specific interrogation measures," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said, adding that the agency will act lawfully. The CIA has asserted unofficially that its most extreme measures were used on only a handful of detainees.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who wants to shepherd the detainee bill to congressional passage this week, also declined to give a specific reading of it yesterday. Asked repeatedly on ABC's "This Week" what the legislation would allow, Frist said, "I'm not going to comment on individual techniques," and he condemned doing so.

"No responsible person is going to come in and basically say, 'These are the 10 techniques we use and these are the 10 that are not used,' " said Frist, who is sometimes mentioned as a McCain rival for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. "It helps the terrorists."

But a Media Matters search found that only the Post noted these statements by both McCain and Frist. As Media Matters has repeatedly noted, media outlets are quick to mention instances of division within the Democratic Party.

From the September 24 edition of CBS' Face the Nation:

HARRIS: This whole debate turned on things that I think most citizens couldn't understand. You said you -- severe punishment, pain should not be inflicted, but serious pain can -- what can that possibly mean in concrete terms?

McCAIN: In concrete terms, it could mean that waterboarding and other extreme measures such as extreme deprivation -- sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and others would be not allowed.

HARRIS: That's what you say. What if the administration interprets it differently, as it is allowed to do under the provisions of this law? What if you disagree with the interpretation?

McCAIN: If we disagree with the interpretation, the fact is that those interpretations have to be published in the Federal Register. That's a document that's available to all Americans, including the press. And we in Congress, and the judiciary, if challenged, have the ability then to examine that interpretation and act legislatively. These are regulations the president would issue, we would be passing laws which trump regulations.

HARRIS: If you had confidence that those were -- tactics were disallowed, why didn't you get it in the -- in the actual law?

McCAIN: What we did, John, was we called -- outlawed certain procedures, including some of those that you might think would be natural-- murder, rape, etc. -- but also cruel and inhuman -- we included cruel and inhuman treatments, not as severe as torture but could still be considered a crime.

I'm confident that some of the abuses that were reportedly committed in the past will be prohibited in the future.

From the September 24 edition of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

FRIST: Again let me -- the reason why I know, you think, and every time you ask it -- about waterboarding or other specific procedures, once --

STEPHANOPOULOS: But isn't that what's at issue here?

FRIST: No, but, no, it's defined. Right now it's very clear, and people who are doing the interrogation. If we give the playbook to the enemy, to the terrorists themselves, they'll simply train themselves against those techniques and be able to resist and therefore, nobody or I think no responsible person is going to come in and basically say, these are the 10 techniques we use and these are the 10 that are not used. I can say it is very clear, it meets international standard, it meets the Common Article 3 test. It meets the definition that we will be putting in the War Crimes Act here in about hopefully four or five days.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm going to take one more stab at this. Do you personally believe waterboarding is torture?

FRIST: I'm not going to comment. I'm not going to comment on individual techniques. It helps the terrorists, and the reason why it helps the terrorists who are going to come and try to assassinate us and people listening to us right now.

* Media Matters conducted a "News all" Nexis search for "John McCain and Bill Frist" on 9/24/06 and 9/25/06.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Blue Dog (September 25, 2006 6:26 pm ET)
         

      but frist is like bushco to me. If he utters it, I assume it's just crap.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rusty shackleford (September 26, 2006 10:19 am ET)
           

        You are correct.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by BISHAMON (September 26, 2006 3:53 pm ET)
           

        Another storyline conspicuously absent from mainstream media coverage is the one highlighting the repeated failures of Bill Frist. He has failed time and time again to achieve the GOP-hoped for outcome in the Senate.

        Given his history, if the GOP retains its majority lead in the Senate come November, is the good doctor expected to continue as majority leader? And if not, who is considered a likely replacement?

        Report Abuse
    • Author by satanicpanic (September 25, 2006 7:19 pm ET)
         

      Like those irresponsible people who wrote the Geneva Conventions...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by solon (September 25, 2006 9:10 pm ET)
         

      Bush says article three is too vague and Frist says specifics would only help terrorists so I guess the only logical thing is that the administration can do whatever they want and there is no possible basis to criticise them.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (September 25, 2006 9:58 pm ET)
           

        Do you think Article 3 is vague?

        Here it is: [link to www.yale.edu] ARTICLE 3 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

        (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

        (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

        (2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

        An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

        The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

        The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by skeptical (September 25, 2006 10:14 pm ET)
             

          That seems very clear to me!

          I think it is laid out in a very forthright manner and I cannot see anything in the article that seems at all vague.

          Do you feel that the wording is vague?

          If so, what part do you find vague.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (September 25, 2006 10:27 pm ET)
             

          I think if one knows what human dignity is then its pretty clear what attacks are on human dignity and if they dont know what human dignity is then they have much larger problems than not knowing what vague is.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by redking75687 (September 26, 2006 12:58 am ET)
             

          Reading that just proves it yet again...Bush is a war criminal, we've broken all those treaty obligations.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Watcher_IL (September 25, 2006 9:28 pm ET)
         

      It's Bush, the administration and their bobble heads (such as Frist) controlling Congress who are, with their every action, helping the terrorists.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (September 25, 2006 11:20 pm ET)
         

      about the vagueness of the document.

      Seems pretty clear it was intended for humans who have a grasp of the concepts of torture and humiliation, and would try to err on the side of humanity.

      Little did the authors know that in 2006, in The United States of America, the ruling party would be looking for loopholes on the side of barbarism.

      Here's a tip for all the Foxnews heads, am radio monkeys, and righty posters here (not all of you, the zombie ones);

      We are the U.S.A.

      If there's a reasonably divided debate about whether something is torture or not, let's give it sort of a "tie goes to the runner" status.

      Like the line my friend's kid was told in a school program to prevent abuse, a line that I've found useful in my own adult life;

      "If it feels icky, it is icky"

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Luffy (September 26, 2006 9:00 am ET)
         

      Well, Bill "stole cats from the Boston animal shelter to do torturous medical experiments on" would feel that way, now wouldn't he?

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.