Article

2006-04-15 Terror Networks

Army report on al-Qaida accuses Rumsfeld

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by john 2006-04-15 19:06|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 In other words, it's Human Rights Watch turn to jump on Rumsfeld. There's nothing new in this story, just the repeat of old accusations. Here's the nut of this story:

The Pentagon also issued a statement in response to publication of the report. A spokeswoman said: "We've gone over this countless times, and yet some still choose to print fiction versus fact. Twelve reviews, to include one done by an independent panel, all confirm the department of defence did not have a policy that encouraged or condoned abuse. To suggest otherwise is simply false."

Expect this part to be ignored, and the idiotic claims from HRW to be played up.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-04-15 19:20|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-04-15 19:20|| Front Page Top

#2 Screw it.

We were attacked. We are at war because THEY attacked OUR civilians - the latest in a series of attacks on our government via embassy bombings, among other things.

They hid behind being "non-state actors" without a visible authority to hold responsible. They saw the heads off of living people who die in extended agony -- and boast and laugh about it.

Screw Human Rights Watch. This is not tea time. This is a war to the death.

I didn't used to feel this way. I do now.

Posted by anon 2006-04-15 19:22|| 2006-04-15 19:22|| Front Page Top

#3 What exactly is the status of these vermin under the Geneva conventions?

Since they are armed civilians, captured on the battlefield, are they entitled to any protection?

Can't they be summarily executed?

What about aggressive interogation techniques?

Posted by john 2006-04-15 19:27|| 2006-04-15 19:27|| Front Page Top

#4 they are entitled to execution, immediate and on the front. Being non-uniformed, they aren't subject to Geneva's niceties nor do they observe the same with their captives. The question of "vigorous" has been debated a lot here. I, for one would apply the truncheons and pliars. Others disagree.

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-04-15 19:45|| 2006-04-15 19:45|| Front Page Top

#5 The problem was not shooting them on the battlefield which is clearly ok per Geneva Conventions which create an incentive to conduct armed conflict in a civilized manner by allowing harsh punishments for dirtbags who do not. Now the ACLU types are involved.

Posted by JAB 2006-04-15 20:11|| 2006-04-15 20:11|| Front Page Top

#6 Does anyone actually believe what they read in the NYT? I know, I know, plenty of people buy the Enquirer and scarf up every word. At least people who believe what they read in the Enquirer know they are stupid.

The only people more stupid than the ones who believe that the NYT is real news are the ones who were too stupid to sell their stock short over a year ago and the only ones stoopyder than that are the ones who still delude themselves that tomorrow's NYT stock will be worth more than yesterday's news.

Posted by 2b 2006-04-15 21:17|| 2006-04-15 21:17|| Front Page Top

#7 Al-Guardian - 'nuff said.

Posted by DMFD 2006-04-15 22:15|| 2006-04-15 22:15|| Front Page Top

21:39 Asymmetrical Triangulation
23:53 Phil
23:50 3dc
23:42 2b
23:35 ed
23:27 Rich Saudi
23:25 2b
23:15 2b
23:09 ed
23:08 James
22:57 ed
22:45 49 Pan
22:41 49 Pan
22:31 Frank G
22:25 Baba Tutu
22:25 Rich Saudi
22:23 djohn66
22:18 DMFD
22:17 phil_b
22:16 2b
22:15 DMFD
22:15 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
22:10 2b
22:04 2b