Pixelated Semantics

A schizotypical inventory

How to attend a voluntary interview with a hessian bag on one's head

Following yesteday's torrent of revelations and lies over the "interrogation" of Irakis, Defense Minister Hill conceded Australians did "interview" prisoners but maintains they were not involved in "interrogations" - "When Australians participated the witnesses had to do so voluntarily" he said. This drew a sharp response from Labor's Kevin Rudd who described Hill's response to Mr Barton's claims as "lame", and accused the minister of splitting hairs over the definition of interview and interrogation.

"What Mr Barton has to say is that these Iraqi prisoners had hessian bags on their head and they were accompanied by Iraqi guards who had guns... If that's Senator Hill's definition of a bit of voluntary chit chat on the side about what have you been doing in Iraq for the last 30 or 40 years, I think we have passing strange definitions about what constitutes an interview."

To say as Hill did that "in military terms... there's a clear distinction between interrogations and debriefing or interviewing" is probably right semantically, but in correspondance with Barton's reported facts, it again highlights the government's deeply established tendency to answer a different question than that which they were asked. Sure there's a clear distinction, but Barton unquestionably interrogated, and the debate is not about the definition of the activity, it is about the government's prior knowledge. And even News.com recognises the evasive linguistics in reporting "Senator Hill [...] relied on semantics to defend himself".

Item posted by AutoEditor at 8:50 am ::