(no subject)
Numerous letters in today's SMH responding to yesterday's article defending torture at Guantanamo Bay. Amongst the points the letter writers make:
- The Chicago Tribune news report cited does not support the article's premise - that torture has saved civilian lives. (I have a copy of the news report, so more on this later.)
- Some of the prisoners were not captured on the battlefield, but "taken, unarmed, in neutral countries".
- The article understates the severity of the abuse (if Gitmo's practices were merely "mild discomfort", then the abuses at Abu Ghraib were "positively bad manners"!).
It's heartening that the responses aren't just vague handwringing about the nastiness of torture. The article is misleading (in my view, intentionally misleading), and the writer's case can be attacked solidly on facts and logic.
- The Chicago Tribune news report cited does not support the article's premise - that torture has saved civilian lives. (I have a copy of the news report, so more on this later.)
- Some of the prisoners were not captured on the battlefield, but "taken, unarmed, in neutral countries".
- The article understates the severity of the abuse (if Gitmo's practices were merely "mild discomfort", then the abuses at Abu Ghraib were "positively bad manners"!).
It's heartening that the responses aren't just vague handwringing about the nastiness of torture. The article is misleading (in my view, intentionally misleading), and the writer's case can be attacked solidly on facts and logic.