What does the decision to operate an illegal prison camp without Congressional or judicial oversight say about the US government's commitment to international humanitarian law? Very few spokespersons in the media seem to be willing to address this question directly, despite its apparent importance. Although the detention and interrogation policies implemented by the Bush administration were not particularly new in terms of the tactics employed by the U.S. government, the blatant arrogance with which they were implemented was unprecedented. While it initially indicated that he would at least superficially break with the Bush administration's policies, the Obama administration has repeatedly perpetuated and tried to legitimize some of its predecessor's most egregious abuses. While this issue occasionally appears in the headlines, the media has thus far done little more than try to pass off its parroting of the establishment's "hawks" and "doves" as objective journalism. In contrast to the more extreme examples such as FOX News---which has given up on "objective" journalism altogether and instead produces wholesale propaganda designed to terrify the public into believing that they're on the verge of being swarmed by masses of bloodthirsty terrorists hell-bent on destroying freedom, justice, and the American way---mainstream journalism does appear to possess a certain level of objectivity. The range of this objectivity, however, is always circumscribed by the interests of the eight or so major corporations that own almost all the mass media in the US. In the case of illegal incarceration and torture, this means that much of the debate has been about whether these tactics help to further the United States' foreign policy objectives, and not what those objectives are, or what harms or benefits they will bring to the US and world public. I have collected the resources listed here in an effort to present this larger context of the debate.
