"To call something an 'enhanced interrogation technique' doesn't alter the fact that we thought it was torture when the Japanese used it on American prisoners, we thought it was torture when the North Koreans used it, we thought it was torture when the Soviets used it. You know, it's almost the moral equivalent of saying that rape is an enhanced seduction technique"
- Ted Koppel
About this Quote
In this quote, Ted Koppel critiques the euphemistic language used to describe coercive interrogation methods that numerous consider to be types of abuse. By identifying such techniques as "enhanced interrogation strategies," Koppel argues that there is an attempt to sterilize or legitimize actions that are morally and ethically controversial. He underscores his point by referencing historic circumstances where comparable techniques were unequivocally condemned as torture when released by foreign powers like the Japanese, North Koreans, and Soviets versus American detainees. This historic viewpoint highlights a viewed hypocrisy or double standard in the way such practices are examined depending upon who is implementing them.
Koppel uses a powerful analogy to drive home the absurdity and ethical peril of rebranding fundamentally harmful actions: comparing "boosted interrogation" to calling rape an "enhanced seduction strategy." This example starkly highlights that altering the terms does not alter the hidden nature or moral implications of the act. Simply as rape, no matter how it might be rebranded, stays a violent and guilty act, so too does the ramification that these interrogation approaches are naturally troubling, no matter the language utilized to explain them.
The quote is a wider commentary on the threats of euphemistic language in political and ethical discourse. When language is controlled to obscure the real nature of questionable practices, it can desensitize the public and policymakers to the moral weight of those actions. Koppel's statement requires honesty and integrity in how such issues are presented and discussed, prompting a reflection on how easily language can be used to misshape the ethical truths of inhumane practices. Through his critique, Koppel encourages a re-examination of the ethical requirements underpinning policy choices, especially those involving human rights and dignity.
About the Author