Rumsfeld ordered prisoner heldFollow

Rumsfeld ordered prisoner held off the books



I do this largely to entertain myself, the faster gabji and company implode from self contradictions the better, but I also do it for their education. After all you just know they would skim the headline, consider it more liberal media hype and move on unless someone shoves it in their face.

I know, I am going out of my way to help the ungrateful but that’s just the type of guy I am. I am a helper.

Either way , you KNOW nothing is going to become of it.

I'm sure if they DIDN'T have some excuse cooked up, they never would have let this info... "slip".

It's just more propaganda to make it look like they're being a good wittle government.





...and no I didn't read it either, shut up, I'm right.[/Blue]

Edited, Wed Jun 16 20:29:42 2004 by Kelvyquayo

/shrug

Again. Let's wait and see what the facts are before leaping to conclusions. But let's review a bit here:

First. What does this have to do with the abuse of prisoners in Iraq? Other then to make a connection between the two events in the readers minds that is? This is clear "slant" intended to imply that since Rumsfeld did one thing that "may" not be legal, maybe he's really behind all that other illegal stuff too?

Blatantly obvious, of course, but most people will fall for it.


Second: Um... "one" prisoner detained in this way. And it "may" be illegal. Ok. This may seem obvious, but the fact that it only "may" be illegal sorta implies that depending on the specifics of the situation, it "may not" be illegal. Given that we're talking about one prisoner here, I'd lay pretty good odds that he met those conditions.


We've already had the big discussion about the Geneva Conventions, and gone over the issue's about who can and can't be held with no communication with the outside world (spys and sabateurs in case you don't recall). Anyone taking any bets this guy falls under that catagory?


Let me rephrase the story a bit:

There's a set of conditions underwhich a prisoner may be legally held without notifying the Red Cross or any other intenational organization. We found evidence that one person was held in just such a state. Instead of finding out whether this guy was correctly identified and classified under that part of the Geneva Convention, we're going to just report about him being held without contact and say that this "may" be illegal. All of this is horrible journalism, and we know this, but we're more interested in riling up the public then actually reporting the news.

Sigh...

Lawyers use this trick in trials a lot too.