Quite a few months ago, maybe more than a year ago, word leaked out that the military, or possibly the CIA, was holding terror suspects in secret prisons in various parts of the world. Immediately, there were rumors that torture was to a large degree being utilized as a means of extracting information from these suspects in order to gleen information that migth not otherwise be obtained, potentially vital information that might aid in heading off, preventing, another 9/11-or worse. Of course, sides were drawn, lines int he sand, beteen the two schools of thought. Torture was wrong. Any information gleened by way of it was untrustworthy at best. A tortured detainee would say anything he thought his captors wanted him to say, it was asserted, in order to relieve his sufferring. Among the notables who took this position was Senator John McCain, himself a former Viet Nam POW.
Others took the position that, within limitations, certain guidelines became illogical when it came to the prospect of the potential of a nuclear, biological, or chemical threat in an American city. Abu Ghraib became one line int he sand in this politcal wrestling match. Gunatanamo became another. But there were others, not so well known, it was maintained, in various parts ofp the world, where interrogations were conducted in secret, where the rules of engagement were decidedly relaxed.
The problem is, this is an old story, in news cycle terms. So why is it being recycled today? Why has it suddenly resurfaced during the week following announcement of the indictment of I. "Scooter" Libby on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in regards to the leaking of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, and before Libby is-this day, in fact-to appear in Federal Court to render his plea on these charges, which no doubt will be an innocent plea?
The White House, more than any other, has proven adept at utilizing the mainstream press in getting out it's side of the story as pertains to various issues. It even managed to co-opt Bob Woodward, of the Washington Post, who seemed bemused that his account of Bush's claim that he felt moved by Jehovah himself to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East, was met by some skepticism and even rumors that this may have shown the president may have been unhinged. He seemed to think nothing of the kind. Once the controversy ensued Bush backtracked somewhat. Just one example of how he may have misread the mood and, in fact, the gullibility, of the American public in general.
But evidently, he still assumes the American public is, if not outright gullible, at least grasping for a reason to believe the best, or the worse, whichever suits his fancy., And once again he has co-opted the Washington Post as a medium for recirculating this old, old story, as though it were brand spanking new. Even the packaging is old and moldy. But no one as of now seems to have noticed.
And so, once again, the CIA, erstwhile employers of the hapless Ms. Plame, have been portrayed as the villains, potentially, while the Bush White House in the meantime assures us all that any interrogations of detainees will be met with the strictest of adherence to the rule of law, international treaties, and the most basic of American values. Were it to turn out otherwise, I am sure the Bush White House would be the first to express outrage at the CIA's betrayal of the American trust.
I wonder if the editorial staff of the Post are familiar with the old Chinese water torture trick?
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
