Quote:
Originally posted by tw
I cannot be sure which news services reported that day, since I had listened to Bloomsberg, CBS, and BBC. But later that day, Rumsfeld was asked about those discussions already reported by the press. I never mentioned any of this because you are responsible for knowing basic news reports, or then simply asking for details.
|
Cute. But nothing on the archives of bloomberg.com,
www.bbc.co,uk, or cbsnews.com has any such story, suggesting that what you heard was idle speculation, not reporting of fact. If they had one fact that confirmed such discussions, certainly they would report it, would they not?
I can tell you -- only because I watched Alan Dershowitz explain it on Hardball -- that there would be only one case where they would consider such a thing. If there is a clear and present danger, where a plan is underway and the torture of an individual would result in the facts necessary to prevent tens of thousands of deaths, then they would
consider extraditing him to a country where such things are done.
Instead, all we know is that this guy is the third in charge, could identify all the other Al Queda bigwigs on sight, and probably knows of bin Laden's whereabouts.
If that's not enough for the Dod to
actually torture him -- and not just to discuss it -- then we can rest assured that we still live in a righteous nation. And I'll tell you what... even if they did discuss it, if all they did was to clarify the conditions under which they would consider such a thing, it's simply not a big deal.
Tobiasly's point remains... you're being disingenuous by ignoring the relevant bits that WERE reported.