Amos, That is the funniest, most ludicrous, contradictary piece of crap I think I have ever seen you post. I mean really, have you read it??? Here it is again with a bit of common-sense thrown at it:

"...A bipartisan report by the Senate Armed Services Committee has made what amounts to a strong case for bringing criminal charges...."

Simple question here Amos does this Armed Services Comittee recommend filing criminal charges? Or is it the case that it is simply the opinion of the NYT correspondent that it might provide the basis for filing criminal charges, i.e. the aforesaid Senate Armed Services Committee actually said sweet FA about filing criminal charges.

"The report shows how actions by these men "led directly" to what happened at Abu Ghraib, in Afghanistan, in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and in secret C.I.A. prisons."

What?? Donald Rumsfeld ordered English to stack naked Iraqi prisoners in a pyramid?? Where about in the report does it state that. I think that on closer investigation of what the report said with regard to treatment of prisoners, a minute proportion of personnel exceeded their orders, and that Amos does not equate to "led directly" to, not by a bloody long shot. Do you know how many prisoners passed through those establishments?? Do you know how many did so unharmed?? One thing I can tell you for certain Amos, especially with regard to Abu Ghraib, damn sight more came out unscathed from being in US custody than ever did when Saddam ran the place.


Oh, this bit is priceless:

"It said these top officials, charged with defending the Constitution and America's standing in the world, methodically introduced interrogation practices based on illegal tortures devised by Chinese agents during the Korean War."

Eh?? "charged with defending the Constitution and America's standing in the world" Where on earth did the pillock who wrote this rubbish come up with that requirement. I can just see Obama come January 19th 2009 standing there at his inauguration trotting that line out:

"I hereby solemnly swear to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the standing of America in the eyes of the World"

Absolutely brilliant!! Little hint here Amos, when it comes to defending the security of the United States of America, as far as all those "officials" goes, including you President, it is America first and foremost, that consideration above all else to the exclusion of all others, and the perception of America held by anyone outside the USA can go hang, if they didn't think that way they need sacking.

"Until the Bush administration, their only use in the United States was to train soldiers to resist what might be done to them if they were captured by a lawless enemy."

Take it the NYT is talking about "water-boarding" here eh, Amos? Now you tell me what makes that sentence idiotically ludicrous beyond belief?? Oh don't bother Amos, I'll tell you - This prat from the NYT is saying that it is perfectly OK to "water-board" your own soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines as part of their training, but it is a heinous crime against humanity to do the same to people trying their absolute damnedest to destroy you. I don't know about you Amos but I'd call that Bullshit.

On another thread Weelittledrummer put it perfectly, but paraphrased it goes something like this - If you go to war, make damn sure you win at all costs".

The NYT Prat, whose piece you felt sufficiently moved to post here then comes out with this classic:

"The officials then issued legally and morally bankrupt documents to justify their actions, starting with a presidential order saying that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to prisoners of the "war on terror" — the first time any democratic nation had unilaterally reinterpreted the conventions."

The President is quite correct, Geneva Conventions do not and should not apply to prisoners of the "war on terror". Reason behind that being that terrorists do not give two hoots for the Geneva Convention and as such they can hardly bleat about it applying to them when they themselves do not extend its protections to others in the prosecution of the acts of violence. Do you want a list of infringements of Geneva Conventions by terrorist Groups Amos??? Or do you agree with the writer of this sorry article that only democratic nations must be hampered and disadvantaged by having to obey the Geneva Conventions, while all others blythely ignore them - grow up. War IS hell, you therefore make sure that it is as short as possible and that your side wins - otherwise don't fight wars.