Terrorist Telephone
An article in Friday's New York Times drew lots of attention from those who like to wring their hands about U.S. "torture" of terrorists, but to our mind it's awfully thin:
Red Cross investigators concluded last year in a secret report that the Central Intelligence Agency's interrogation methods for high-level Qaeda prisoners constituted torture and could make the Bush administration officials who approved them guilty of war crimes, according to a new book. . . .
The book, "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals," by Jane Mayer, who writes about counterterrorism for The New Yorker, offers new details of the agency's secret detention program. . . .
Citing unnamed "sources familiar with the report," Ms. Mayer wrote that the Red Cross document "warned that the abuse constituted war crimes...
To sum up: The New York Times reports that a new book reports that unnamed sources reported to the author that a report exists that says terrorists reported being tortured.
That is, not only are we being asked to take the word of terrorists--whose training material instructs them to claim they have been tortured--but we are being asked to trust terrorists' claims that are reaching us fifth-hand (or fourth-hand if you spend $27.50 for the book). It's a big game of telephone.
And we thought the New York Times was against listening to terrorists' phone conversations.
That was, well, so elegant, actually.
1 comment:
Lol, as if you or Taranto really cared is the terrorists (or, as we also now know, a lot of innocent people who got to Guantanamo by mistake) were tortured. More of your usual smoke screen. If confronted with incontrovertible proof of what everybody knows to be true anyway (and you, I am sure, know this too), you'll find a way to brush it off: "those are terrorists and so deserve it" or "it's just a few bad apples doing it" or any other such tactic.
Post a Comment