A skewed view of detainee rights: Difference between revisions

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
(Global replace - 'http://washingtontimes.com' to 'http://www3.washingtontimes.com')
 
Line 3: Line 3:
|source=The Washington Times
|source=The Washington Times
|date=September 15, 2006
|date=September 15, 2006
|url=http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060914-090746-9879r.htm
|url=http://www3.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060914-090746-9879r.htm
|quote="Leave aside the question of whether the rogue states confronting America today would ever afford decent treatment under any circumstances. Since actual torture is already illegal, it would be helpful if Mr. Warner, et al., could explain what interrogation methods or punishment they object to [...] even if it lessens the likelihood of preventing the next attack on Washington or on U.S. servicemen in Kabul or Baghdad."
|quote="Leave aside the question of whether the rogue states confronting America today would ever afford decent treatment under any circumstances. Since actual torture is already illegal, it would be helpful if Mr. Warner, et al., could explain what interrogation methods or punishment they object to [...] even if it lessens the likelihood of preventing the next attack on Washington or on U.S. servicemen in Kabul or Baghdad."
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 16:26, July 16, 2007

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) The Washington Times editorial board
Source The Washington Times
Date September 15, 2006
URL http://www3.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060914-090746-9879r.htm
Quote
Quotes-start.png "Leave aside the question of whether the rogue states confronting America today would ever afford decent treatment under any circumstances. Since actual torture is already illegal, it would be helpful if Mr. Warner, et al., could explain what interrogation methods or punishment they object to [...] even if it lessens the likelihood of preventing the next attack on Washington or on U.S. servicemen in Kabul or Baghdad." Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues for the position Act should be passed on the topic Military Commissions Act of 2006.


This item argues against the position Competing Graham-McCain-Warner bill should be passed on the topic Military Commissions Act of 2006.