It takes some guts to print the Gitmo leaks, but it that’s just one measure of a media outlet. Let’s see who can call torture by its real name, and who pussyfoots around.
Here’s the clearest possible statement of what happened, as printed in The Guardian:
US authorities relied heavily on information obtained from a small number of detainees under torture. They continued to maintain this testimony was reliable even after admitting that the prisoners who provided it had been mistreated.
The underappreciated but always high-quality McClatchy does pretty well:
Marked “SECRET // NOFORN,” the documents consist of more than 750 intelligence summaries […] They make little mention of the abuse and torture scandals that surrounded intelligence gathering — both at secret CIA detention centers abroad and at the Guantanamo camps.
A decade of euphemism continues, and it’s enhanced by a wimpy “opinions differ”/”controversy exists” takeback in the Times:
The documents are largely silent about the use of the harsh interrogation tactics at Guantánamo — including sleep deprivation, shackling in stress positions and prolonged exposure to cold temperatures — that drew global condemnation. Several prisoners, though, are portrayed as making up false stories about being subjected to abuse.
At least NPR names waterboarding (which is universally recognized as torture) before assuming the fetal crouch:
Al-Nashiri is one of three prisoners who were held overseas and subjected to harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding.
It starts with a “T” and ends with an “E”, and apparently it’s a dirty word, because neither the nation’s “paper of record” nor the supposedly most-liberal media outlet can bring themselves to put it in print.