Previous Entry Share Next Entry
(no subject)
2012
unknownj
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107552,00.html

Parts in bold I've added, because they're very implied:
That makes Saddam's interrogation different in fundamental ways from the questioning by U.S. officials of senior members of the Al Qaeda terrorist organization. It is unclear whether those Al Qaeda members, captured and hustled off to secret overseas locations for interrogation, will ever see daylight again, even if they are afforded some kind of military or other trial. But it's okay, because we clearly don't care about their human rights being grossly violated

When Saddam eventually addresses his judges, he may describe the methods used to interrogate him. He may embarrass the government with revelations about its friendly relationship with his regime in the 1980s.

He might claim physical torture, even if none took place. Because clearly our government would have no desire to torture such a man.

U.S. officials say they don't resort to torture. But there's a gray area of interrogation techniques designed to stress and disorient a person through physical discomfort -- like preventing the person from sleeping. Some say that is torture. We clearly do not.
Fox scares me :o(

  • 1
But there's a gray area of interrogation techniques designed to stress and disorient a person through physical discomfort -- like preventing the person from sleeping. Some say that is torture. We clearly do not.

Neither do Channel 4, apparently. Sleep deprivation is 'entertainment' now.

I somehow doubt that Saddam will go home at the end of his trial with £100,000 though ;o)

Heh, no but I bet his Laywers will.

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account