More on Rice's Non-admission
WaPo has the latest on Rice's pre-flight grilling, and her answers are most telling.
Oh yeah. The Link
She's sticking to Cheney's message awfully well.
A few things that jumped out from the Post's article are these:"The U.S. does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances," she said, and does not transport and has not transported detainees from one country to another "for the purpose of interrogation using torture."Really. She obviously needs to be introduced to Richard B. Cheney. I hear that the guy thinks torture a real hoot. By the way, Condoleezza, nobody's buying what you're selling here. You're sure to get a warm reception in Europe when spewing garbage like this.
How quaint a notion. When is it inappropriate to ensure that we send people not convicted of a crime to places where torture is routinely practiced?
Add'l: Somehow my entries from yesterday are missing. I'll have to reconstrict them, and make new postings. They were a series of environmental posts. They are in my usual stilted, clipped fashion, but I'll re-enter them regardless!
Correction: At the beginning of this entry, I penned: "WaPo has the latest on Rice's pre-flight grilling..." This is incorrect. These are the higlights from a prepared statement. I did not alter my post to reflect my error. I'll let this correction serve as notice that I am aware of my mis-step. Sorry for any mis-conceptions this may have caused.
Oh yeah. The Link
She's sticking to Cheney's message awfully well.
A few things that jumped out from the Post's article are these:
Rice asserted that the U.S. does not transport terrorism suspects "for the purpose of interrogation using torture" and "will not transport anyone to a country when we believe he will be tortured."How do you not parse this to mean that while we try to transport suspected persons(note the use of "he") to places where they will not be tortured, we can't always be sure that this is the case?
She said that "where appropriate, the U.S. seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured."My favorite one liner, which contains the curious phrase: "Where appropriate."
How quaint a notion. When is it inappropriate to ensure that we send people not convicted of a crime to places where torture is routinely practiced?
Any violation of detention standards is investigated and punished, she said, citing the case of abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison that "sickened us all" and the abuse of detainee by an intelligence agency contractor in Afghanistan.Hey, we've seen how "sickened" Dick Cheney and - as much as I hate to point it out - our people guarding these individuals were.
She said that international law allows a country to detain a suspect for the "duration of hostilities," but that the U.S. "does not hold anyone longer than necessary to evaluate evidence against them."(much more at link)Tell that to the people still held in the legal black hole that is Guantanamo Bay. I have no time for your non-admissions, Ms. Rice.
Add'l: Somehow my entries from yesterday are missing. I'll have to reconstrict them, and make new postings. They were a series of environmental posts. They are in my usual stilted, clipped fashion, but I'll re-enter them regardless!
Correction: At the beginning of this entry, I penned: "WaPo has the latest on Rice's pre-flight grilling..." This is incorrect. These are the higlights from a prepared statement. I did not alter my post to reflect my error. I'll let this correction serve as notice that I am aware of my mis-step. Sorry for any mis-conceptions this may have caused.
No comments :
Post a Comment