Hello All,
Washington Post Article
I read at least 98% of the other thread, and I realize I may have missed a post or two, and I didn't re-read the ENTIRE mess. If this was posted before, I apologize.
The Internet is a wonderful thing. With a simple search, I was able to find this article. Of particular importance is the details regarding the US policy of interrogation.
What I want to point out is two things.
1) The US allows foreign countries to interrogate prisoners.
2) There is no mention, in either article, what countries "members" were performing the interrogation when the two captives died.
3) The captives were NOT on American soil, and did NOT have the protection of USA Constitution.
Ok, that’s three things.
Why a new thread? Because it seems there is a lot more that can be discussed then what was in the original thread, without making a great big confusing mess.
So, what if you hand over a prisoner to someone that is more likely to have an "impression" on them because of ethnicity or religion, and "THEY" kill the prisoner. Who is to blame then? Should the USA cease the practice of allowing other countries to interrogate those that the USA has taken captive? Whether or not they are being held in a prison of a foreign country?
There is a bit more depth to the story then was presented in the original thread of discussion. Anyone care to comment?
Sprig
Washington Post Article
I read at least 98% of the other thread, and I realize I may have missed a post or two, and I didn't re-read the ENTIRE mess. If this was posted before, I apologize.
The Internet is a wonderful thing. With a simple search, I was able to find this article. Of particular importance is the details regarding the US policy of interrogation.
What I want to point out is two things.
1) The US allows foreign countries to interrogate prisoners.
2) There is no mention, in either article, what countries "members" were performing the interrogation when the two captives died.
3) The captives were NOT on American soil, and did NOT have the protection of USA Constitution.
Ok, that’s three things.
Why a new thread? Because it seems there is a lot more that can be discussed then what was in the original thread, without making a great big confusing mess.
So, what if you hand over a prisoner to someone that is more likely to have an "impression" on them because of ethnicity or religion, and "THEY" kill the prisoner. Who is to blame then? Should the USA cease the practice of allowing other countries to interrogate those that the USA has taken captive? Whether or not they are being held in a prison of a foreign country?
There is a bit more depth to the story then was presented in the original thread of discussion. Anyone care to comment?
Sprig
