Boy, the Tribune really WANTS US TO KNOW ABOUT TORTURE. They printed a guest piece two days ago (I couldn't find it online) about the "American Gulags." Now, today, they print this piece by Molly Ivins on the subject.

Molly's piece is long on allegations (she uses the word "torture" 7 times), but short on facts. She includes this reference about "our country having a gulag of secret prisons in which it tortures people," yet never makes any specific allegations of torture other than the fact we apparently keep some terrorists in secret locations. (Considering terrorists' predilections to violence, random at that, it might not be such a bad idea if other terrorists don't know where they're being held.)

Then she throws in this old canard, complaining about locations where "suspects are held and tortured indefinitely, without trial, without lawyers, without the right to confront their accusers, without knowing the evidence or the charges against them, if any." (There's that unsubstantiated T-word again.)

The people she is talking about are, at best, prisoners of war. Imagine that. The left proposes that the enemies of our country, if captured, be given attorneys at our expense, and rights of redress against us. What, are we going to have a new federal court to hear their claims? Court of Claims. Bankruptcy Court. Enemy of the State Court? Terrorist Court? This is, with all due respect, freakin' silly.

And yet the Tribune thinks it is so important, we get two doses in three days.


The Raving Norseman said...

Ivins et al reserve to themselves the right to define torture. From the sounds of it, to Ivins simply being in one of those prisons is torture.

For me, reading Ivins is torture.

a-fire-fly said...

The Tribune says it does not archive AP articles, or guest editorials, which that one was.
The article was written by David Love for The Progressive Media Project.