More's the pity. They're still doing damage.
Have you seen this website?
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Clinton_Scandals/
Posted on 06/16/2005 9:19:18 PM PDT by CHARLITE
MANILA, Philippines -- My Fox News producers and I have just returned from documenting an atrocity. While we were at the scene of the crime interviewing eyewitnesses, a copy of this week's Time magazine was placed in my hotel room.
Our day was devoted to detailing the horrific treatment meted out to more than 75,000 Allied prisoners of war in the Philippines between 1942 and 1945. The day ended with an American "news" magazine's "sometimes shocking" classified account of how captured terrorists are treated at Guantanamo. A day that began with the Bataan Death March ended with a death wish.
Since we have been in Manila, 14 Filipinos have died at the hands of Abu Sayyaf Islamic terrorists. The murders hardly made the news in the United States. In that same timeframe, five American soldiers and more than two dozen civilians were killed by terrorists in Iraq.
In much of our media, the Iraqi butchery was offered as further proof that bringing democracy to Baghdad is a futile endeavor. Absent from U.S. reporting about the atrocities in Iraq and the Philippines is the fact that the architects of the attacks cared neither about how many non-combatants were killed, nor whether the perpetrators themselves survived. Yet, according to "experts" interviewed by Time magazine, the techniques used by the U.S. military to interrogate terrorists detained at Guantanamo are an "outrage on personal dignity."
The real outrage isn't the affront to the "dignity" of suicide terrorists being interrogated and kept alive against their will by our military at Guantanamo; the greater offense is our mainstream media's lack of context for what transpires there -- and the apparent disregard for the consequences of such revelations during a time of war.
The right of the American media to publish classified military information -- such as that in Time magazine's "exclusive" account from Guantanamo -- is well established. During World War II, the Chicago Tribune divulged that the Battle of Midway had been won thanks to the code-breakers at Station Hypo in Hawaii. Though Americans fighting for their lives in the Pacific theater died because the Japanese immediately changed their JN-25 naval code, no one was ever prosecuted for revealing the secret.
Nor will anyone at Time magazine be arrested for publishing classified data on U.S. military interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. But there should be no doubt that the material detailed in the periodical is now being incorporated in the next editions of training manuals used to indoctrinate members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, et al. That begs a broader question about the whole controversy surrounding the Guantanamo detention facility: Does our so-called mainstream media have a "death wish"?
Much of the information contained in this week's Time magazine was apparently extrapolated from a classified "interrogation log" prepared by those observing and questioning "Detainee 063" -- Mohammed al-Qahtani -- a Saudi member of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization. Though the authors of the report quote an unnamed Pentagon source saying that the illegally disclosed document was "never meant to leave Gitmo," they don't say why -- or clarify the rationale for its "secret" classification.
The reason for these omissions is simple: The publication reveals interrogation techniques that our enemies will now use against us, making it more difficult to extract valuable intelligence from terrorists in the future. In substance and consequence, this week's Time magazine is little different from the 1942 "code-breakers" report in the Chicago Tribune.
Though the right of news organizations to "break" this kind of "news" is well protected by our Constitution's First Amendment, the motive for doing so is suspect. A careful reading of this week's story -- now repeated in numerous outlets -- reveals that "Detainee 063" is subjected to treatment that is barely harsher than a military boot camp: standing for prolonged periods, isolation, removal of clothing, forced shaving of facial hair, playing on "individual phobias" (such as barking dogs), "mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing."
His interrogation cell has pictures of Sept. 11 victims, American flags and red lights. He has to stand for the playing of the U.S. national anthem. He is subjected to "Invasion of Space by a Female." And when he refuses to drink the water he is routinely offered and becomes severely dehydrated, his handlers take him to a hospital facility, where medical personnel administer fluids intravenously. Time magazine describes all of this as a "glimpse into the darker reaches of intelligence gathering."
Darker reaches? The "log" was classified so that our well-trained and very dedicated adversaries wouldn't know how to beat the interrogation "system" when captured. Time claims that their story reveals how U.S. military personnel "specialize in extracting information by almost any means." But the truth is, the means used are remarkably humane.
In response to the furor created by the al-Qahtani story, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) observed: "The guy ... is going to dine tomorrow on lemon fish with two types of vegetables, two types of fruit, and then he will be afforded his taxpayer-funded Quran, taxpayer-funded prayer beads and oil so he can pray, presumably, to kill more Americans."
Though the editors are unlikely to acknowledge it, Time magazine's much-ballyhooed story has far less to do with human rights than it does with domestic politics. The authors even admit that "the case of Detainee 063 is sure to add fire to the debate about the use of American power in the age of terrorism." Fire indeed. One should be careful what one wishes for.
You know, operation clinton cleanup, that's a very funny, original, clever remark!
Note my tagline!
Cheers to a potential buddy! Any Clinton basher is a pal of mine!
Char :)
Ollie is a Lt. Col. not a full Col., although such are
addressed as "Col."
Well, if you throw enough rocks, somethings bound to connect. Glad you liked it, friend!
If it were not for Iran/Contra, I have no doubt he would have retired full bird.
We had that in the 90's.. but the Clinton team chose to stay here.
More's the pity. They're still doing damage.
Have you seen this website?
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Clinton_Scandals/
I have now, but Mia T has the ultimate clinton archive.. and funny graphics.
Durbin should be hog-tied and forced to watch all the Saddam TORTURE videos.
I wish more people would read Col Hunt's book, "They just don't get it" - it's stunning!
That is what I would like to know. Whoever it is, I think he/she is a traitor and should be treated as such.
They are not helping the Democrats so much as giving aid and information to the enemy.
We are the most civilized country in the world..People should know by now what kind of lies the American media tell.With this Guantanamo lie we should be glad it is being sent all over the world.Look at it this way maybe some would be terrorist will read it and decide they do not want to live there..
...they are outed for who they are....
**
I wish I could share your optimism. Unfortunately, there is a large segment of our population that just does not pay attention. They do not look into news stories as most of us on FR do, so when someone on TV tells them that prisoners are being abused they believe it.
Stop referring to North as a retired Colonel. He's a retired Lieutenant Colonel.
During the Civil War, Gen. Sherman said that he considered journalists to be no better than spies, and they should be treated as such. He then went on to say that "If I had them all shot, I am fully satisfied I would be reading news dispatches from Hell the next morning." So far, I have seen nothing to prove the General wrong.
Those of us with even a modicum of intelligence know exactly what the poster meant. The term Colonel is acceptable, just as it is acceptable to refer to a Lt. Commander as a Commander, or a Lt. Junior grade as a Lieutenant.
You seem to try awfully hard to give us the impression you have some kind of military experience. If you had, you wouldn't be as anal retentive as you are in your posts."
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.