« One Lousy Deal | Home | MA and RI Have Worst Drivers »
Amnesty Irrelevant
By Matt Margolis | May 25, 2005
So, Amnesty International calls Guantanamo Bay the “the gulag of our time.”
Should we care about what Amnesty International thinks when they are a group that supports a convicted cop killer?
UPDATE: NRO : Amnesty International Knowingly Misleads..
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
May 26th, 2005 at 4:36 pm
How dare they?
How dare they point out that we’re not the good guys?
How dare they stick to the facts?
How dare they state, plain and simple, that we are responsible for the death, by TORTURE, of innocent people?
How dare they?
And indeed, why should we care what they, or anyone else think?
The imperial Japanese didn’t’ care about these matter in the 30s, and look how it good it worked out for them.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:15 pm
I’ll send them some more money. These days we desperately need an organization that takes a principled stand favoring adequate representation and humane treatment of everybody, rather than somebody’s notion of who is an is not deserving of his fundamental human rights. Human rights are meaningless if they are only for “good guys,” because everybody imagines that they are the good guys.
The fact that somebody was “convicted” means little if he was not properly represented at his trial. Note that Amnesty International is not demanding that the guy be released, merely given a new trial. If he is really so clearly guilty, what harm does it do to follow our legal procedures correctly and find him guilty again? It certainly does harm not to do so, damaging respect for our legal system both in this country and abroad.
Morality aside, I do not believe that prisoner mistreatment is in our national interest, or that the short term intelligence gain (if any) justifies the long term damage to our national goals.
May 26th, 2005 at 5:30 pm
Gee, Matt. I guess, based on the above comments that the answer to your question would be, “yes”.
Next time you might want to actually read the articles you use to support your position before linking them. it’s a pretty good bet that the rest of us will.
May 26th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Matt is too busy training to go to Iraq to read those articles, right Matt? Matt? Matt?
May 26th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
I beg to differ with you on the issue of the relevance of Amnesty International.
Amnesty International is not “supporting a cop killer” as you say, rather, they are saying you have no right to refer to him as a cop killer because he has not had a fair trial.
From the evidence I have seen in movies such as “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and other interviews with key figures in the case, I do not feel comfortable that the trial was fair.
For a life, we should give him a fair trial. Amnesty isn’t saying release him from having a fair trial at all. So, you are incorrect in saying Amnesty is trying to release him. They are just making sure due diligence is done so an innocent man doesn’t have to die for a crime he did not commit.
If the evidence of the prosecution is strong, why do they resist a fair trial?
Don’t you believe in justice?
May 26th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
I’m sure I know more about the trial than all of you. The evidence pointd to Mumia. The witnesses all said it was Mumia. It was Mumia himself who tried to make a mockery of his own trial.
He killed a cop for crying out loud.. Why do you people defend him????
May 26th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Since AI has never been to either prison, they largely based their “conclusions” on a predisposition to hate the U.S.A. They have virtually no facts at all and chose to believe every insane accusation made by Al Queada operatives whose training manuals say they should lie and make up atrocities. These people wore no uniforms, pledge allegiance to no nation, and hence do not enjoy the benefits of protection under the Geneva Convention. Their ONLY value to us is information – otherwise they really shouldn’t have been taken prisoner at all. Note – that does not mean we should have let them go. Get it?
You all seem so quick to believe every piece of crap told about out troops. Do ANY of you know ANYONE in uniform? If you do – do you believe they are evil or something? I’m glad none of you were on any sports team with me ever – you are born self hating losers. The idea of any of you next to me in a hole some night while we strain to figure out if that noise is a bird walking towards us or somebody about to pitch a grenade at us makes me glad that none of you have the will to serve nor the understanding of honor and duty. No, no Marine has to worry about YOU backing him up. He knows you won’t and he knows who he can count on.
You all claim to support our troops. But the truth is in the pudding isn’t it? You hate our troops. You don’t care what crap people say to incite violence against them. And you think we can “all just get along.” Idiots.
I wonder what the United States will look like in 20 years with a completely conservative and largely Catholic military? You do understand that that is the trend don’t you?
May 26th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
As a vet and a life-long Republican I can say with confidence that your reasoning is hogwash. The Geneva Convention serves to protect our own troops by making all signatories hold to standards. By spitting on this we basically are saying that we don’t care how our own troops are treated. We should be setting an example, not acting like a third world dictatorship.
We are the ones acting without honor and it shames me. You speaking of matters of honor is an insult to all who serve now.
Personally I expect more out of our country that what is going on in Gitmo.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
to #6: The point is that they don’t believe he did it. The way you phrase things make it sound like amnesty condones killing cops.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Adam,
Well sir - with respect - you are an idiot. What signatories do you think are involved here? And FYI - these guys are NOT covered. For cryin out loud look the damn treaty up on-line. Don’t tie our hands in this war. AND, there is no proof we did anything wrong anyways. These guys are trained to lie. Get it? And YOU buy it. “we should be better than this” - that accepts the fact that we are wrong. So with no proof and proven enemies who we know have instructions to lie – you accept that our troops are assholes and sell them out. Great. Just wonderful. I’m glad I never had to rely on you to back me up.
Did this treaty protect any of the beheaded and other executed Americans? How do you think it worked with the Japanese who brutalized, starved, and did biological warfare experiments on British or American Troops? How about the great job it did with the North Koreans and Chinese? Oh - and if you were not a pilot flying over Hanoi- what do you think your chances of survival as a grunt POW in Viet Nam were. Oh yah, it protects us - but only from civilized nations who believe in human dignity and individual rights. These Islamic wackos do NOT fit that bill.
You all make me sick. You self-hating anti-American hypocritical ignorant liberals. This is why you can’t be trusted with government. Not having any concept of honor or duty yourselves – you can’t fathom it in an enemy that does.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
You are making my point for you. I realize other dictatorships won’t respect the convention. But, if we then say ’screw it because they will anyway’, whose level are we on? That defense is pathetic. We should set the example instead of acting like the very countries you hate so much. Once we stoop to acting like those types of governments and groups we are fighting against, we are NO BETTER THAN THEY ARE.
And, disagreement with you does not equate hate for the USA. It does, however, indicated hate for your faulty logic.
As for honor and duty, I gave 4 years of my life to this country so zip the self righteousness. And, I have voted Republican in every election until the last one, so I don’t fit your spewing of ‘liberal’.
May 26th, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Adam - I refuse to get dragged into irrelevant details. These people are NOT signatories and as ununiformed combatants and killers of civilians are NOT protected even under the rules. One of my neighbors was a corporal on Iwo Jima – he tells me his squad did not take any prisoners. We are in a war and these people are the enemy. They honor no rules and exploit ours.
And AGAIN – you assume that the charges which are not specific (name five specific charges and with dates – I challenge you) are true. Automatically selling out our troops and assuming they did wrong. I don’t care if you are a veteran or not, you are selling out our troops based upon charges made by a vile enemy trained to lie and a proven anti-American organization. So, what is it? Anti-American or stupid you tell me? You say we should be better than this – that assumes we are not already better than this.
May 27th, 2005 at 1:40 am
Kahn, why don’t you read the order given to all troops in Vietnam, direct from the President. That should be a source you would trust, and it makes the case against mistreatment of the enemy very convincingly.
Also, by selecting who is and is not elegible for human rights, you sort of lose any moral high ground about keeping your own.
May 27th, 2005 at 4:33 am
He killed a cop for crying out loud.. Why do you people defend him????
Um … I think the idea is that it hasn’t been properly established that he has killed a cop …
I would think this was simple enough that you wouldn’t need it explained to you, but I guess not.
May 27th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Are saying that the statements about abuse are false?
May 27th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Actually Mumia DID kill Daniel Faulkner. To believe otherwise means you have to believe a hooker, a transvestite, a jogger, 12 jurors, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office and the Daily News all simultaneously conspired to frame Mumia for political writings he had done years before.
May 27th, 2005 at 10:53 am
This whole argument here is based on the fallacy that torture works. It doesn’t. You torture a man enough, he’ll admit to starting the Chicago Fire of 1871. That don’t make it so.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
“This whole argument here is based on the fallacy that torture works.”
Actually, even before that it is based on the fallacy that torture has even occured.
May 27th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
“Do ANY of you know ANYONE in uniform? If you do – do you believe they are evil or something?”
I know somebody in uniform, who has in fact requested posting to Afghanistan–and who feels that the treatment of American prisoners has been a disaster for American policy, and that the rejection of the Geneva standards places American troops at unnecessarily increased risk.
I suppose that it must make it easier for you if you assume that anybody who doubts the value of mistreating prisoners must “hate our troops.” It’s a facile excuse for dismissing points of view that make you uncomfortable.
May 27th, 2005 at 1:00 pm
“Actually Mumia DID kill Daniel Faulkner. To believe otherwise means you have to believe a hooker, a transvestite, a jogger, 12 jurors, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office and the Daily News all simultaneously conspired to frame Mumia for political writings he had done years before.”
I make it a rule not to form judgments about guilt or innocence when I did not sit in the courtroom and hear all of the evidence. What I do think that I can make a judgment about is the importance of making sure that everybody, no matter how strong the evidence against them may seem, is provided with adequate legal representation.
May 27th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
tgibbs,
Mumia was given adequet representation. Mumia attempted to switch lawyers in the middle of the trial and get someone who was not a trained lawyer to represent him. but PA law required an actual lawyer to represent people accused of capital crimes… so for anyone to imply Mumia didn’t have adequate representation because Mumia wanted an unqualified non-lawyer to represent him is just foolish.
May 29th, 2005 at 7:06 am
You see everyone, this is the common argument of the silly neocon. They take a group that has done the world a tremendous benefit by improving lives everywhere by shining an exposing light onto those who would disregard human rights, and they criticize it for one example of something that they think is a misgiving (though it has not been proven).
After this, they feel that they can easily discredit the entire organization. This is truly blindness. America IS at fault here and we have to take responsibility if we torture people. Why do we hold all of the other countries to this principle and then destroy it ourselves?
May 29th, 2005 at 9:05 am
Well Jay, the left seem perfectly willing to discredit the entire military and the White House over the actions of just a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib… or a fake story about flushing the Koran down a toilet…
Give me a break Jay.
May 29th, 2005 at 9:45 am
Matt, be careful who you call the left because last time I checked, most of them support our troops. Donald Rumsfeld calls the shots for the military, and he should be rightly criticized. He is a Hawk and is in charge of the atrocities of Abu Ghraib.
The White House should be discredited, again and again, for the horrible desicions that they have made since 2000.
Again, as a neocon, you have decided not to attack my original argument, but only the side of the ‘left’ (a large, imaginary, threatening beast that dares to try and check the enormous and greedy power of those currently in charge).
AI is a great organization. Only the most loony-tunes of pundits would disagree, but like all organizations they are not perfect and they certainly can never be in such a politically charged climate that now exists in America.
May 29th, 2005 at 9:50 am
Also, you display an immeasurable amount of maturity by featuring a silly picture of John Kerry, a respected politician, in a rabbit suit. This after you have defeated him? Haven’t you anyone else to pick on? Why rub it in like a middle-school football team that won the big game? I am not a huge fan of Kerry, bought he fought for his country and deserves better. He fought while Bush dodged. Explain that to me.
May 29th, 2005 at 11:59 am
and lefties calling Bush “shrub” or “chimp” is really mature…
May 29th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Matt you started on the wrong foot and stumbled the rest of the way. You said and implied that Amnesty International is irrelevant and that people shouldn’t care what it thinks of the United States simply because you happen to disagree with their stance on one unrelated case out of the thousands of cases they are involved in. By the same token your line of argument could use the Mumia case to disavow their criticism of France’s ban on religious symbols in public schools or their calls for the Chinese government to free Christians and AIDs activists who are denied freedom of religion and speech.
A few years ago I was a member Amnesty chapter, and nothing we did was partisan, when I was there we worked on informing people about Professor Yury Bandazhevsky, who is still under house arrest right now in neo-Stalinist Belarus for criticizing his government’s handling Chernobyl’s effects on Belarussians. Its sad and unfortunate that you ignore what good Amnesty International does and has done just because of their stance on the Mumia case, my opinion of that case is close to yours but I don’t see that as making the rest of Amnesty’s information and causes irrelevant.
May 29th, 2005 at 10:27 pm
Miles, your argument assumes that groups with an agenda can’t or don’t cloak themselves under a seemingly noble cause. PETA claims to support animal rights, which is fine, but they have an extreme agenda. AARP considers themselves to be an advocacy group for seniors, but they have a leftist agenda as well. Unions, they might as well be a political group now… Amnesty International, like other groups, has proven to have an anti-US agenda, and a radical liberal one too. I saw the executive of director of amnesty internation on C-SPAN, and he is an absolute nut… he was citing interrogation tactics which are not torture, and using them as examples of of torture…
miles, you live in a fantasy world if you think every group that claims to have a good intention doesn’t have an agenda.
May 29th, 2005 at 10:58 pm
Jay and Dave - the left does NOT support our troops. You are not paying attention to to reality. Your immediate acceptance of unsubstantiated allegations about “torture” and “mistreatment” prove it.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Quislings.
May 30th, 2005 at 12:30 am
Kahn-
Again your ignorance shines through your entries. Your refusal to believe that prisoners have been mistreated displays your blindness.
Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib? Have you forgotten Gitmo?
You attack the entire ‘left’- again, I’m not sure who this imaginary collective of mercenaries is that you are claiming to be so wrong, but I happen to be left-thinking (for liberty and against the administration)and I support our troops! I don’t pander to any psychos that don’t support the military. I want our brothers and sisters to come home safely, and I believe that most other rational people want the same.
Remember though, that the military leadership does need to be kept in check, like every other facet of government, so when the media shows us the misdoings of soldiers, they are not traitors- quite the opposite. We must stay honest and true.
May 30th, 2005 at 7:29 pm
JayW - Abu Graib is a place - so is Gitmo. The incidents in Iraq were minor by most standards and individuals are in jail or on their way there now.
As far as Gitmo - you EXACTLY prove my point. You are accepting unsubstantiatied allegations (please - again - name 5 allegations with names and dates and a description of the infraction) with not one iota of proof because you assume we are wrong. You assume we were bad. You assume the AI is correct.
Well - so what is your verdict on this request you America hating Quisling? Can you name ANY specifics? I notice you dropped the POW argument as soon as I posted the actual treaty text without so much as an acknowledement. You pompus ass.
May 30th, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Kahn-
Did you learn a new word? Quisling, eh? Why am I a traitor for wanting what’s best for my country? Why do neocons always say that if we criticize (i.e. Thomas Payne, Martin Luther) in order to make people understand their mistakes, then we are necessarily “America-haters”?
Again, you should learn the word Patriot. Also, the second meaning of quisling is collaborator, as in the Norwegian politician who collaborated with the Nazis in WWII. Who is the quisling now? Could it be the contributer, me, who opposes the dictatorship, or you, who supports an illegal war where many innocents have died.
Answer me this: can America do wrong? Are we the police force of the world? Are you the voice of righteousness?
Also, I never dropped a POW argument because I never had one. You may be confusing me with someone else. I merely said that AI was a solid group with the politically charged atmosphere in the USA, any rights-minded group comes under attack because they end up butting heads with those who take away rights- conservatives.
And I find it ironic that you call me pompus (actual spelling pompous) when you are writing on a website that bathes in its own self-importance without a care for any other opinion.
You pompous quisling. Heh heh
May 31st, 2005 at 7:13 am
I see you couldn’t come up with five actual incidents again asshole.
May 31st, 2005 at 8:46 am
The Newsweek story was true Matt. The Red Cross confirmed it. And Abu Ghraib was wrong on so many levels—torture doesn’t work, it’s horrible for our PR over there, most of those guys were Iraqi civilians, and if you torture don’t take photographs of it—that it should have been handled with something more than calling anyone who suggested maybe this was wrong a traitor. And it was more than just a few grunts—blaming the little guy is just s.o.p for this administration when bad PR happens.
May 31st, 2005 at 11:23 am
There’s a difference between calling something torture, and something actually being torture. Further, the attempt to paint the actions of a few as administration policy.
May 31st, 2005 at 12:34 pm
I don’t think flushing the Koran down the toilet is torture, but it sure as hell won’t get any needed info and it won’t endear us to people who already don’t like America.
And I don’t think is a few guys low on the totem pole. This administration forces everyone to march in lockstep and controls everything down to the slightest detail. You can’t even get a chance to hear what the President says about Social Security unless you already agree with him anyway (no wonder his plan is tanking, you don’t win new converts by preaching to the choir).
May 31st, 2005 at 4:47 pm
Jay - Where do you come up with that being true? The military admits to a few incidents of mishandling - which means dropping it on the floor and kicking it. But they maintain that the flushing incident was a third hand rumor with no credibility. Its bad enough that you guys hate our military - do not make things up.
And by the way - torture may be wrong - but it DOES work. If you are looking for information and not “confessions” it has proven to be an extemely effective way to get it. I agree that actual torture should be banned - but not because its ineffective. I think if you do some real research - you’ll find out I’m right about this.
June 1st, 2005 at 1:04 am
Kahn and Matt-
I am not subject to your ridiculous need for me to give you five examples of torture. If you follow the news on any network, you can see that Abu Ghraib detainees and Gitmo hostages are being treated, in the least, unfairly, and at the most, these are war crimes.
I wish that Rumsfeld and Bush could be charged with crimes against humanity, but the victor never does, do they? The victor gets what he wants, because according to brainless neocons, might makes right.
Why do you think that prisoners are held in Gitmo? Could it be because they can be tortured there without given the rights that they would have in the US? Hmmmm
And Kahn, who is really the angry one here? You have been reduced to a name-calling hypocrite. If you don’t have anything productive to say, then don’t write.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:40 am
Jay, it seems to me that groups like Amnesty International, and the Democratic Party for that matter, think that captured terrorists deserve suites in the Plaza Hotel with room service 24 hours a day… anything less is torture…
June 1st, 2005 at 11:30 am
Kahn, interrogation can work, but torture doesn’t. All it does is get you what you wanted to hear. And I don’t think the Red Cross has an axe to grind against the US. This happened, and it’s bad PR. I think it can be handled, but this administration just blames someone else or shoots the messenger or both. It only makes the US look worse.
Matt, Abu Ghraib was mostly Iraqi civillians. Those guys didn’t deserve to be there in the first place. This whole campaign has been FUBAR.
June 1st, 2005 at 7:38 pm
JayW - You won’t list any specifics - because you can’t.
Jay - Don’t get me wrong - I’m not for torture. But the way you feel about it is does not matter. It is a proven interrogation technique. Torture can take many forms; phsychlogical breakdown, denial of sleep, deminishing someones self-worth, physical pain. The reason it is used is because it does produce results. I don’t like it - but Stalin, and Hitler, and Pol Pot, and countless others have used it to great effect.
Oh - and about those “civilians” you are 100% correct. “Civilians” bearing arms against us out of uniform or blowing up innocent women and children should have been shot - not captured.
June 1st, 2005 at 9:46 pm
Kahn and Matt (ignoring the truth in the name of the empire)-
Shame that even if this stuff is in your face, you still refuse to see it.
March 25- Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament report says that at Guantanamo Bay, US military committed “grave violations of human rights”. They had British citizens detained there and were concerned. And this is from our strongest war ally.
May 2004- Afghanistan- In internal Army criminal files, “Members of an Army Special Forces unit punched, slapped, kicked and beat Afghan civilians (!) in two villages southeast of the capital of Kabul”
Abu Ghraib- If you haven’t paid attention to the mountain of evidence here (photos, guilty verdicts for those involved, etc.), then it’s not my fault. I’m not going to further spell it out for you twits.
If the US never committed these atrocities, then why did Rumsfeld (the steel Hawk) offer his resignation to Bush? Hmmm
Kahn, I LOVE that you alligned Bush with Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot when you spoke of abuse. Though not as bad, their armies used the same techniques. Again, thanks for proving my point.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:47 pm
JayW - ah, but no specifics for Gitmo. And I did NOT align Bush with those people. I do not believe that we are torturing people - so an association is non-existent. I was discussing with Jay how I agree that torture is bad - but that it can be effective. You did see that right? I mean, you are really reaching here.
By the way, the only actual specific you named above is from Army criminal files (you pip)in Afghanistan. That means these men were investigated and probably charged. That means (I’m leading you through this because you’re so dim) it is NOT policy.
As to Rumsfeld offering his resignation. He did that as a way to deflect the intense and idiotict attacks on president Bush by the liberal press. A press that does not care if Americans are put at risk - or indeed if anyone is by their continuued anti-American drum beat. Much the same as you.
One specific, and it was from incidents already under criminal investigation and in the wrong county (indeed the wrong continent). I give you a 12% on your assignment. Hate-filled and stupid is no way to go through life JayW. You will end up flipping burgers as you mutter to yourself. And no - aluminum foil hats will not stop the voices.
June 1st, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Kahn-
No, no specifics, just the findings of an investigation by the government of our ally. Not enough though, eh? Typical neocon stuff again- show him a mountain of evidence and he will argue about one rock.
And it’s the ‘wrong’ country? Anything outside of America is wrong, right?
Afghanistan- oh, it’s ok if they are charged. Then they were punished so don’t worry about it. It’s not ‘policy’. Let’s go commit more war crimes, invade more nations without proper cause. If we get a slap on the hand, then it makes it ok.
You and the other Bush defenders are what’s wrong with America. This Blog entry is about attacking Amnesty International! Jesus man, wake up. I’m not anti-American, just trying to overthrow an evil ruler and keep the politicians honest.
The reason that the press exist is to inform the people about what is going on in the world, to ensure that there is a check on the government so that they won’t have too much power. We need this, and they are not anti-American- they are one of the best parts about our great country.
I won’t even honor the drivel in your last paragraph. What are you, like 12?
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:38 am
JayW - you continue to ignore whole sentences and just read them partyly. If people are being charged - then we are NOT ignoring them. Really, take a logic class will ya? And, THIS string is about Gitmo, You do know that is in Cuba - don’t you?
So, as soon as I try to get you to come up with some actual facts you launch into another “neocon” rant. FYI - there is nothing new about my conservatism. And - though I’m older than twelve - a twelve year old would recogonize you as a liberal clown. Short on facts and long on hatred.
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:55 pm
So now it turns out that senior A.I. officials were large Kerry contibuters. The circle is complete. There is a web of left wing anti-American propaganda aimed at damaming George Bush with no concern as to how it will affect us in the world or what danger it may put our troops in. I was 100% correct with the Quisling description.
June 2nd, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Can’t believe I spelled damaging wrong.
June 5th, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Here’s something from todays wires:
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite highly publicized charges of U.S. mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, the head of the Amnesty International USA said on Sunday the group doesn’t “know for sure” that the military is running a “gulag.”"
It goes on to say that A.I. is not sure of many statements it has made. I am.