Wednesday, June 01, 2005
What a difference a word makes
'Gitmo Detainees Say Muslims Were Sold'
Actually, their Pakistani captors turned them over and received rewards. No title of ownership passed, and there is no allegation of chattel slavery. The Associated Press is merely passing along the words of Gitmo detainees, words which the detainees are not using in accordance with their actual or customary meanings. These detainees were undoubtedly "sold out," but there is not a shred of evidence that they were sold. The difference is essential, and the Associated Press's decision to simply repeat the allegations of these prisoners is tantamount to working with our enemy.
We have known for years that al Qaeda trains its soldiers to lie to the courts and the Western press about their treatment in captivity. While it is unfortunate that the United States has reinforced the credibility of these lies with actual violations of law, it is nevertheless inexcusable for the press to run a manifestly false headline that can accomplish nothing other than to rally the enemies of the United States.
6 Comments:
By 
Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jun 01, 09:11:00 AM:
Headlines like that are actually helpful, because they are so clearly absurd that the majority of the US population will dismiss it out of hand and begin to realize (to the extent it's not already clear to them) that sources like AP are not to be trusted. Only the truly looney or anti American will buy in to it...but they would buy into anything, so they're not especially relevant.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed Jun 01, 10:44:00 AM:
I think the most dangerous word there is actually Muslims. There is a connotation of anti-Muslim prejudice. No mention of the fact that they were almost certainly "sold out" BY other Muslims. The suspects were apprehended and a reward was paid. Whether or not they were Muslim is immaterial...but damaging and unnecessary.
The sold issue is more grey. I'll agree it is a highly charged word. However, you should be careful in your response. A claim has been made here. "There is not a shred of evidence that they have been sold."
Be clear. Are you arguing that the US never paid a cash reward for a wanted person, a discernable quid pro quo, our money for physical custody of that person? Or are you arguing that such transaction is not a sale? Which of those is "manifestly false"?
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Jun 01, 11:32:00 AM:
Paying a reward for a wanted person is not a purchase and sale transaction. So no sale was made. The allegation of a sale is manifestly false. Custody is not equal to ownership. The fact that you need to ask the question, Lanky Bastard, is frankly weird.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Wed Jun 01, 05:29:00 PM:
My wierdness is not contested. (but it's somewhat irrelevant)
I don't generally get into semantic arguments, but I would like to point out that English is a very flexible language. I'd say this is at least as much a purchase and sale transaction as say: a prostitute selling her body. Note that the hooker is not owned and there is no transfer of title. Neither titles nor ownership are prequisites of the word.
One could argue that the US had a need and the need was supplied. If it was help we would not have otherwise recieved, then it was bought. If we bought a service, then someone else sold it.
Another could argue that the proper name for such a transaction is a bounty, and that a bounties are never sales, but distinct from a sale by definition.(btw, that's what I reccomend: it holds more weight than asserting that anyone who might ask the question is "looney", "wierd", or "anti-American")
If I were to kidnap Salmon Rushdie and X him to Iran for two million dollars...well, I'd be rich. But the question is, what is a good verb for X? Would "sell" be wrong, and if so why? (rhetorical trick question...answer/justify at own risk)
As I said, I see a loaded verb, but not one that is "manifestly false". (perhaps literally incorrect, but not manifestly false...and we all know how picky people get over words these days) I think in any other context you would agree, but given your strong views on the subject matter, I doubt I'll ever sell you on my reasoning.
For the record, I don't much like the wording either. But if one is to construct a formal argument, I would suggest a little less pathos and a little more logos. Ironically, that would be my criticism of the article itself too.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jun 01, 10:12:00 PM:
Lanky, I still don't buy it (by the way, you are being tag-teamed here between me and Cardinalpark). A prostitute doesn't sell her body any more than a masseuse or a manicurist sells her body. A prostitute sells the service of sex, a masseuse sells a massage and a manicurist sells, er, whatever the hell goes on in those places. The fact that somebody -- probably somebody opposed to prostitution -- would snarkily characterize prostitution as the selling of the prostitute's body does not make it so. Similarly, the receipt of a reward for the apprehension of Muslims accused of a crime is simply not "selling Muslims," no matter how many times released Gitmo prisoners might use the phrase. It is nothing less than the parroting of propaganda for the A.P. to adopt this language in a headline, with no evidence that Muslims are, in fact, being bought and sold.
By Lanky_Bastard, at
Fri Jun 03, 12:25:00 PM:
I think your argument goes something like this: The use of the word sale, as related to people, has a strong historical association with the selling of people into slavery. Any implication that the US is buying slaves is manifestly false. Using a word with such an ambiguous meaning is irresponsible and indicative of a malicious intent on the part of the AP.
No problem. I think it is more sensationalism than maliciousness, but I'll agree to the irresonsibility: it is certainly journalistically wrong. However the word "sold" has many uses, and given a clear quid pro quo situation I think you need a more formal defense to call the word false.
I think I've made a case that the word can be used, at least in the colloquial. We do say that prostitutes sell their bodies, teams sell players to other teams, and I could sell Rushdie to Iran. If you don't agree, that's ok. It is after all, your blog.
