I don't know if you can understand this Pat, But long before we invaded
Iraq the first time in 91 these people wanted to kill Americans and run
this
country into the ground. I think you should consider this while trying to
formulate an otherwise fine response.
John
"Patrick" <pjm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:cbct4p$kug$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "John De Gennaro" <rhadts1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:txgCc.10802$bs4.2438@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > This story was reprinted 641 times in the U.S. and more than 1,000
times
> > world wide. Source http://www.marumu****.com/apps/newsmap/newsmap.cfm
> >
> > Rumsfeld OK'd harsh treatment of suspects in U.S. war on terror
> you don't think that's news-worthy? i would think suppressing it would
have
> shown a bias.
> >
> >
> >
> > USA TODAY
> > June 23, 2004
> >
> >
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> > WA****NGTON -- In an extraordinary disclosure of classified material,
the
> > Bush administration released 258 pages of internal do***ents Tuesday
that
> > ****tray harsh interrogation techniques -- including stripping terror
> > suspects and threatening them with dogs -- as a necessary response to
> > threats from al-Qaida terrorists.
> >
> > The release of lists of interrogation techniques and other do***ents
> > previously kept secret even from U.S. allies was a bid by the
> administration
> > to quiet harsh criticism over its handling of prisoners in the war on
> terror
> > and the conflict in Iraq.
> >
> > Though some of the memos argued that Bush had the right to approve
> torture,
> > the administration said it had never done so, and pointed to
techniques
it
> > said fell far short of torture. In a separate press briefing Tuesday,
the
> > Justice Department backed away from a memo written in 2002 that
appeared
> to
> > justify the use of torture in the war on terror. That memo argued that
the
> > president's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties.
> >
> > Bush made his most explicit comments yet about the issue Tuesday: "We
do
> not
> > condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order
> torture,"
> > Bush said.
> >
> > The do***ents reveal Bush, senior administration officials and
> hard-pressed
> > commanders in the field grappling with the need to extract information
> about
> > future terror attacks from suspects skilled at defeating many
> interrogation
> > techniques. In a Feb. 7, 2002, finding, Bush said the Sept. 11 terror
> > attacks require "new thinking in the law of war."
> >
> > Bush said al-Qaida members and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan
were
> not
> > covered by the protections of the Geneva Convention. But he ordered
U.S.
> > armed forces to treat them "humanely" anyway, and to observe Geneva
> > Convention standards "to the extent appropriate and consistent with
> military
> > necessity."
> >
> > Just such a necessity arose months later when the first anniversary of
> Sept.
> > 11 brought new fears of terror attack. Intelligence officers at the
U.S.
> > prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, told their superiors that Mohamed
> > al-Kahtani, believed to be the would-be 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11
> plot,
> > was withholding information about new attacks, Daniel Dell'Orto, the
> > Pentagon's deputy general counsel told re****ters at a White House
briefing
> > Tuesday.
> >
> > The alert set in motion a review that culminated with a Nov. 27, 2002,
> > "action memo" in which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved
> > interrogation techniques that included "removal of clothing" and
"inducing
> > stress by use of detainee's fears (e.g. dogs)."
> >
> > Eventually, after military officers raised moral and legal concerns
about
> > the techniques and the Pentagon conducted an internal review, Rumsfeld
> > issued revised rules for Guantanamo in April 2003 that omitted the
> stripping
> > and use of dogs.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Let the name calling begin!!! (its all you libs have)
> >
> >
>
>
|
