"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Friday, May 05, 2006

US defends treatment of terror suspects to UN body

I hate to take this tack, but it is necessary. The UN and Human Rights do not belong together in the same sentence (I apologize, as I have not figured out a way yet to separate them). It is not a body consisting of those interested in Human Rights unless it serves as a means of accusing the U.S.


The United States on Friday defended its treatment of foreign terrorism suspects held abroad, telling a U.N. committee it backed a ban on torture and stressing there had been "relatively few actual cases of abuse."
I'm sure I am reading into this, but when Reuters says, "defended its treatment," doesn't it imply there is something to defend? In the majority of cases it is more over-reaction and fiction spread liberally (literally) by the msm.

It would do a disservice to "focus exclusively on allegations" as "relatively few actual cases of abuse and wrongdoing have occurred in the context of U.S. armed conflict with al Qaeda."
But it would not do a "disservice" to those that spread anything negative that they can further expand upon.

In 29 cases where abuse was suspected in a detainee's death in Iraq or Afghanistan, Stimson said an inquiry was conducted and action taken, but offered no further details.
Defensible, although I won't waste the time, especially where numbers/percentage of interrogatees are concerned. But of course we live in a perfect world. Right?


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks