Posted on 01/24/2005 7:35:03 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Looks like they said X words:
"The Iraqi security forces obviously face tremendous challenges, including an insurgency that has targeted civilians," Whitson added.
"We unequivocally condemn the insurgents' brutality. . ."
So, we have a pair of halves of a 2 sentences directly dealing with the terrori- err, insurgents. Isn't that enough for you? </S>
HRW has not only been on Saddam's case for his treatment of his subjects, but has also taken issue with the insurgent's activities.
What is at stake here is whether we are able to transfer our (America's) values regarding human rights to the new Iraqi government, or if we will see them fall into that category of nations our President singled out for opprobrium in his inaugural address.
The top aide terrorist to AL Zarqawi did not confess his terror crime if he was not tortured. Torture is the most effective tool to make terrorists speak, and anyone who think otherwise is a complete idiot, or just afraid to be branded as beast.
Human rights watch is worried about some guys who say they had a bad time at one of our resorts based upon *thin air*.
Now, if these guys were escapees from prewar Iraq claiming they had seen WMD or had been in an Iraqi bioweapons faility filling shells, we would be told to discount their testimony because they are just dissidents with an agenda.
But because these guys were captured as terrorists, they are considere a satisfactory source?
Pray for W and Our Troops
No, my mistake. It wasn't Human Rights Watch that was all over Jordan for its imprisonment of Hikmat Shakir, it was Amnesty International.
An eye for an eye, and a head for a head.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.