Operation: Detain Afghans

|

Human Rights Watch looks askance at U.S. military activities in Afghanistan. From a Miami Herald report:

A human rights group on Sunday accused U.S. forces in Afghanistan of detaining at least 1,000 Afghans and other people over the past two years in a "climate of almost total impunity" that it contends violates international human rights law. A spokesman for the U.S. military in Afghanistan disputed the findings.

In a 60-page report released today, the group, Human Rights Watch, also called on the U.S. military to release the results of investigations into the deaths of three Afghans in U.S. custody in 2002 and 2003. Initial military medical investigators declared two of the deaths homicides.

The report also said it had received "numerous reports" of U.S. forces relying on faulty intelligence or using "excessive or indiscriminate force" that resulted in avoidable civilian deaths and the detention of innocent people. It contended that the United States was employing interrogation techniques, like shackling prisoners, stripping them naked or depriving them of sleep, that the State Department had condemned as torture in Libya, North Korea and Iran.

Full report from Human Rights Watch available here.

NEXT: Used A Little Too Much Force

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Horrifying as this is, I guarantee that some uber-patriot will sputter, “Criticizing America makes you a traitor, and those people deserve what they get. They shouldn’t have (pick one): become terrorists/ joined Al Qaeda/ impugned the majesty that is Our Nation/ been born in Afghanistan.”

    Someone else will point out that we’re still less evil than the Nazis (thus implying that as long as we don’t actually gas people to death, nobody should complain).

    Such a pity, the way America is turning into the type of monster we used to despise. And I mean that in all sincerity.

  2. Jennifer-

    It has also been observed that when people are tortured they tell you whatever they think you want to hear, not necessarily the truth.

    This isn’t to say I feel much pity for real terrorists being tortured. It just means that, unless the clock is ticking and we’re really desperate, maybe smarter interrogation techniques are in order. For our own good.

  3. Actually, things have been worse Jennifer.

    We once had slavery in this country, and we’ve done horrible things to Native Americans, Americans of Japanese ancestry, Mormons and many others.

    But in spite that, our insistence on freedom and justice for all has created a society in which we’ve righted some of those wrongs and come to be ashamed of ourselves for having perpetrated them.

    So just becuase we’re now making mistakes in judgement, stragegy and supervision doesn’t mean American is, “…turning into the type of monster we used to despise.”

    It just means that the defenders of freedom must always be vigilent, and along those lines, I thank God for organizations like Human Rights Watch for keeping an eye out.

    Having said that, regarding their contention that,

    “…it had received ”numerous reports” of U.S. forces relying on faulty intelligence or using ”excessive or indiscriminate force” that resulted in avoidable civilian deaths and the detention of innocent people.”

    It’s hard to know whether intelligence is faulty or not until it is acted upon, it’s hard to know whether or not civilian deaths are avoidable until after the fact, and it’s hard to know whether force is excessive or indiscriminate until after the victims have been accounted for.

    The report seems biased to me in that way. And although I appreciate HRW documenting the facts so I can make my own decisions, I’m not sure HRW is qualified to make those judgements themselves.

  4. Thoreau–
    What’s even worse is that there’s no guarantee that these people are even terrorists. These folk, the poor souls in Guantanamo–we’re just assuming they’re all guilty, but God Forbid we actually have a trial to discover whether or not this is so!

    I remember a few years back reading about an American city that got sued. Apparently they were trying to cut down on prostitution, so the police basically went to a busy street after midnight and arrested EVERY SINGLE WOMAN they found, on the theory that any woman on the street after midnight MUST be a whore.

    Of course, it turned out that a lot of them were just plain ladies, rather than ladies of the evening. At least the arrestees were still given the right to trial, the right to a lawyer, and the right to be innocent until proven guilty. But now, in Afghanistan and Iraq et al, we’re doing the mass sweeps and then refusing to even CONSIDER the possibility that a few innocent people may have been swept up in the net.

    And then we honestly wonder, in all sincerity, why so many people hate us. Oh, no, we sputter. WE are right and the rest of the world is WRONG! Anybody who hates America can’t POSSIBLY Have a legitimate reason to do so!

    (Covers ears with hands) “La la la la I’m not listening to you la la la America uber alles la la la!”

  5. Shultz–

    I agree with you that Americans have made past mistakes and righted them; the problem is, we no longer seem to be interested in correcting the mistakes we’re making now, and there is no guarantee that we ever will.

    Remember–I am not criticizing this country because we had slaves 150 years ago, or segregation up through the Sixties. I am criticizing what is happening RIGHT NOW. I sincerely hope that in thirty years history students will view this as an aberration, like McCarthy in the Fifties. But right now, to say that things will all get better soon is based on faith, not reason.

  6. Jennifer-

    I hear you. To spare the others the need to post here, I’ll just do their posts for them:

    “There’s a war on!”

    “The Islamo-fascists hate us because they’re Islamo-fascists!”

    “You people want to negotiate with terrorists!”

    “We need to send a message!”

    “We need to drain the swamp and spread freedom. And if that means mass arrests without probable cause, so be it. Oh, and since Jennifer is an English teacher, maybe she can explain this word ‘irony’ that people keep using around me. I don’t get it.”

    There, that saved them the trouble 🙂

  7. Shultz, compared to 1850, contemporary America is much, much less monstrous. Compared to 1997, on the hand, 2004 America is noticably more monstrous.

  8. Another thought:

    Inevitably, somebody who (allegedly) knows all the legalities will show up and say that “according to the treat of such-and-such, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the precedents established in so-and-so vs. whats-his-name, the US gov’t has the authority to do all of the things that have you upset.”

    So let’s pre-empt that post by just saying “Fine, maybe all of this is legal.” That still leaves the question: Should the government be doing what it’s doing, or should it be approaching the situation differently?

  9. If you kick my door in, start screaming at me farsi, find a steak knife and use that as the rationale to arrest every male in the house, throw me on the ground and put your foot on my throat as you shackle and then play loud Syrian music to torture me into some sort of confession, well, you may as well finish me off because I and my children’s children will dispise you and will try to retaliate.

    That hatred by innocents should be the outcome only makes simple common sense. But reason, in most political situations, is dead and has been replaced by emotion. When confronted with that thought, everyone puts on their best disingenuous “who me?” facial expression and hubristically continues on.

    Not that there is anything new in what I just wrote.

  10. Kwais-
    That’s just what I said in my first posting: YES, we are less evil than Hitler and Bin Laden. But, Christ, is that all we stand for anymore? When did we switch from “America: Land of the Free” to “America: Hey, It Could Be Worse?”

    Fred–
    If you had made that observation about any other country in the world, you would a A Human Being. But since you said that about AMERICA, you are obviously an evil terrorist! Remember, evil is only evil when OTHER countries do it.

  11. I agree.

    It is my hope that the crimes we’re committing now will be stopped and made up for, as well as they can be, as soon as possible.

    But I resist the idea that we’re going to hell in a bucket, and I was trying to point out that we’ve been worse off before and gotten better.

  12. Shultz
    you mean “hell in a handbasket”?

    Jen
    No that is not all we stand for. That is just where we will be if we lose.

  13. “America: Land of the Free” to “America: Hey, It Could Be Worse?”

    Funny!

    Just saw Dogma last night on TV. What’s-his-name played a bishop with a new marketing slogan: “Catholicism: Wow!”

  14. Better bar the door, joe, we’re coming to get you.

  15. Tell me, Kwais. When will we know when we “win” or “lose” the war on terrorism?

  16. We’ll know when Our Government says so.

  17. “Should the government be doing what it’s doing, or should it be approaching the situation differently? ”
    I.E. do nothing ?

    You are all taking for granted what HRW says – that prisoners are detained for no reason at all and are innocent. How does HRW know ? Did they ask the relatives of the arrested and claim this to be a fact ? If they had asked the US Army they would have been told the arrestees are guilty of some terrorist activity. Maybe they asked the Army but failed to report the answer, because they liked more the terrorists’ spokesmen answers.

    Jennifer just knows, a-priori, that anything the US does is bad, bad, bad.

    I don’t know the truth, but neither does anyone else (on this post). HRW have a less than perfect, unbiased record. And terrorism activists need to be fought and detained. So, go figure …

  18. I am amazed. A “human rights group” makes accusations that we have “detained” people and has “mumerous reports” of excessive force.
    Right away this is accepted as gospel by this august body.

    Who are these pople? What is their stated ideological position on the War on Radical Islam [spade!]? What standards of proof do they require before making these accusations? Is this here-say or eye-witness testimony? Is there any physical evidence? You would be skeptical of evidence of Iraqi WMD if it was found by the CIA, wouldn’t you?

    Is your customary skepticsim limited to only certain sources? Mine is: I absolutely do not believe anthing those tranzi NGO clowns say – I saw what they did in the Balkans. One single SF ‘operator’ did more for an entire town in 7 days than a legion of “concerned members of the international community” did in a year. [and he did not get rich in the process!]

    Even more amazingly, the idea that war is the systematic use of force has apprarently escaped the majority of you. Let me help a little. Change the Taliban and other Jihadi-boys’ uniforms and move the locale to Nazi Germany circa 1944. If your estimate of what is permissible to do to win a war changes ONE iota, you may not be motivated solely by the milk of human kindness in this case. Be honest.

    Some additional facts to amuse the multitudes:
    1) Under the Geneva/Hague conventions [the 1st one, actually] we can execute ANYBODY we currently have in GITMO. No uniform + armed + hiding in civilian population + part of mass murder organization = bullet in head [look it up]

    2) Under rules we used at the Nurenberg Trials, we could try and excute everybody we have in GITMO . The cases were extremely thin [no living witnesses!] and the rules of evidence were very loose. They mostly deserved what they got, IMHO, but let’s call it what was: get even!

    3) NO nation in history has ever been more solicitous of the welfare of the population of the enemy than we cuurently are. This was not previously the case. Examine the Allied fighter sweeps of Feb-Mar 1945 when every living thing found moving in Germany was cut to ribbons. It shut down the entire German nation and hastened the end of the war, but it was pretty monstrous.

    4) The is no International Government, hence no International Law, as such. There IS a webwork of mutually-beneficial treaties that are generally followed. This webwork is often called ‘international law’, but has no enfirement mechanism , other than the symbolic and impotent World Court at The Hague. [Have they done anything to Milhasovic, yet?] There are some exceptions ot this rule: Letters of Marque are outlawed, so all pirates are criminals [and not legal ‘privateers’] and are subject to immediate excution [outside territorial waters] on capture.

    5) Let me put the cost of this war into perspective for you fine folks:
    a) US combat casualties

  19. > the United States was employing interrogation techniques…that the State Department had condemned as torture in Libya

  20. Any human rights organisation is an instrument calibrated to detect noise in an empty room.

    Such an instrument can be useful, but only above a certain range.

  21. Loved Andrew’s metaphor

    I absolutely agree with all of you about Baghdad 2003 being far better than Dresden 1944 and our treatment of Iraqis being better than the Nazis’ treatment of Jews. As I said before: “America. . .Hey, it Could Be Worse!” which I’m thinking of having made into a bumper sticker.

    I never really bought into the idea that current injustices can be ignored so long as you can come up with a past example that’s even more unjust. Hell, even the Nazis could have pointed out that the percentage of the human population murdered by the Germans was far smaller than the percentage murdered by the Mongols some 700 years ago. Deutschland: Hey, It Could Be Worse!

    My main problem is that everybody automatically assumes that these people are terrorists. If these people were indeed terrorists I would support the death penalty (only after a fair trial). What I object to is the fact that these people are being swept up at random and detained WITHOUT a trial, or any evidence that they have done anything wrong.

    As a female atheist I probably hate and fear Muslim fundamentalist terrorists even more than the government, and I really don’t give a damn what the US does to those who are in fact terrorists. I object to the fact that WE DON’T KNOW THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE GUILTY and the govt. is making no effort to find out.

    I also don’t believe the idea that “A 13 year old had a good time while he was there, so there’s no reason for adults to complain, either.”

    So far, I’ve been given no reason to distrust Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International or various other sources who have found fault with what we’ve been doing over there. For those of you who protest that, for all anyone knows they’re all lying. . . fine. But suppose they are telling the truth. Now what?

  22. Small but important correction:

    As a female atheist I probably hate and fear Muslim fundamentalist terrorists even more than the government DOES,

    i.e. I hate the Muslim fanatics more than the US Go0vernment hates the Muslim fanatics. Important distinction!

  23. Assume your son is driving a supply truck through a village and is killed by an RPG fired from a crowd of civilians. The police are called, but there are no witnesses to the crime, so everybody goes home.
    Do you want your daughter to drive a supply truck through that same village the next day?
    There is enough mindless blather above my comment to gag a maggot. The first rule of life is to survive. If you don’t survive, none of the rest of the rules means shit.
    In real life I have a grandson, a grandnephew and a nephew-in-law standing by for Iraqi duty. If any of them come to harm because if some idiots applying law enforcement constraints to a combat situation I might just evert a few of those noble idiots.

  24. Walter Wallis–

    How will your relatives come to harm if the Afghanis we’ve arrested are given trials? How will your relatives be harmed if detainees are allowed to have lawyers? How will your relatives be harmed if we apologize and pay restitution to those innocents who suffered at the hands of our forces?

  25. Walter Wallis,

    A better question than Jennifer’s is how will your relatives come to harm if they are back in the United States rather than tromping through Afghans’ front yards?

    As Herbert Spencer wrote over a century ago:

    “Some years ago I gave my expression to my own feeling ? anti-patriotic feeling, it will doubtless be called ? in a somewhat startling way. It was at the time of the second Afghan war, when, in pursuance of what were thought to be ‘our interests,’ we were invading Afghanistan. News had come that some of our troops were in danger. At the Athen?um Club a well-known military man ? then a captain but now a general ? drew my attention to a telegram containing this news, and read it to me in a manner implying the belief that I should share his anxiety. I
    astounded him by replying ? ‘When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don?t care if they are shot themselves.'”

    Read the whole essay here: http://praxeology.net/HS-FC-20

  26. As a father, I can only stand to briefly imagine the abject horror that so many American families have had to recently endure of learning that a son or daughter has been violently killed while serving America overseas .

    And, as a father, I can only stand to briefly imagine the abject horror of learning that a son or daughter has been violently killed because of a military accident which is described by the military as so “unavoidable” as to not even merit investigation or even the very fundamental decency to count that son or daughter as having being killed in a military accident.

    The first abject horror stems, to some extent, from a voluntary action on the part of the deceased and it is (usually) investigated, documented, and recorded by the military for all to see and honor.

    The second abject horror is utterly and completely involuntary and it is (usually) ignored by the military.

    As long as the military refuses to conduct a body count of innocent men, women, children, and infants that it has accidently killed (seeing as it is only the very first step in recognizing the enormity of the accident and taking steps to decrease their frequency), why would anyone believe that they are doing all they can to prevent them from happening?

    Most government agencies have an inability to admit it when they make profound mistakes. It’s one of the reasons we’re skeptical when they say they’re “working” on the problem. The military is no different in this regard. But when the military makes profound mistakes, innocent people are killed.

    And I know that if my son were killed by ANY government for ANY reason, I would expect more than a shrug of the shoulders (“Hey, it’s war, whadda ya want?”) and a bewildered shake of the head when I ask if they even know his name.

    I think history has clearly demonstrated that life is so complicated that a gigantic organization which employs wonderful people with incredible capabilities who achieve amazing things can also make horrible, horrible mistakes and (worse) usually fail to acknowledge them.

  27. “International law? I had better call my lawyer!”
    G.W. Bush.

    or something like that.

  28. I think the French have troops in Afghanistan and Haiti with us. There’s probably more. They’ve only balked here lately when we do really stupid things.

  29. Jennifer,

    This does not concern the ICC; indeed, it concerns the corrupt practices of those in the business world, and the convention tracks very closely American domestic law on the matter (known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

    shultz,

    “Are you suggesting, Jean Bart, that, in spite of the seperation of powers afforded by our Constitution, a court in the United States is going to extradite a sitting Vice-President to face sentencing in France?”

    Are you suggesting that the American executive is “above the law?” Or that he is protected by “executive privilege?” As I recall, those arguments worked neither for Nixon nor Clinton. If an executive official breaks the law in the U.S. he is not immune from prosecution; indeed, prosecution cannot even be delayed; if that were the case, then Clinton would have been able to weasel out of the problems he had with Paula Jones (I realize that it was a civil trial, but if he cannot avoid a civil trial, how can he avoid a criminal one?).

    “I am almost certain that France doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the United States.”

    You are also certainly mistaken; France and the U.S. have had a extradition treaty since 1909; and in 1996 this treaty was strengthened singificantly.

    French prosecutors are basing their investigation at least in part on a 1997 international convention that allows for the cross-border prosecution of public corruption cases regardless of where the corruption occurred or where the targeted firm is headquartered. The United States has been a strong proponent of that anti-corruption convention, and it became part of French law in 2000 and has been ratified by thirty-five countries (including the U.S.).

    The Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (1997) – http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa.html ; http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/33/1827022.pdf

    The Sydney Australia Morning Herald reports the investigative judge is specifically targeting Cheney for his “alleged complicity in the abuse of corporate assets.” http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/33/1827022.pdf

    BTW, in May 2003 Halliburton admitted that, under Cheney’s stewardship, it paid “$2.4 mm in bribes to Nigerian officials to get favorable tax treatment.” Acts which are clearly illegal under the FCPA as well as the convention. http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nta34447.htm

  30. gadfly,

    I fought alongside American soldiers in GWI; France and the U.S. have joint training operations in Djibouti year-around; French and American soldiers alongside each other in the Balkans; etc.

  31. The minors who were released from Camp Delta were kept under conditions that are considerably different from the adult population. They lived in actual rooms (as opposed to cages), they were in a different part of the camp, and the techniques used during interrogations were different.

    Using their experience to judge what’s going on in Gitmo is inappropriate.

  32. “The is no International Government, hence no International Law, as such.”

    Sure there; indeed there is even customary international law. You make the fatal and rather dimwitted assumption that international law requires an international government. As to where to seek recourse, national governments in the treaties they sign that create international law use their national courts. Thus if Cheney is ever sentenced in a French court because of corruption charges regarding Haliburton’s dealings with Nigeria, it will because an multi-national treaty, which France and the U.S. are signatories to, has created an international legal scheme that allows such.

  33. The Americans, Canadians, Aussies, Brits, French,
    Russians agreeing, seeing eye to eye, being allies again,
    is a scary thought..The E-USiA…
    especially if you add in Germany.

  34. Jean Bart,
    The existence of an extradition treaty does not necessarily mean extraditions happen in a manner conducive to justice. See Einhorn, Ira.

    My bet – if France attempts to extradite a sitting vice-president they’ll have to wait until he’s out of office (I believe, though I am no legal expert, that is deemed constitutionally impermissable to indict or bring criminal charges against a sitting president – not sure whether this would apply to a vice-president but my gut says probably). Once out, they’ll have to wait through a lengthy appeals process. And with Cheney’s history of heart problems, the notoriously lengthy appeals process, and the likelihood that Cheney would have lawyers capable of delaying it as long as possible, I doubt he’ll ever set foot in a French court.

    As to whether this is just or not, I’ll remain agnostic since I simply don’t have the background to comment on the specifics of his situation.

    And, yes, Shultz – I still think of France as an ally.

  35. Jean Bart–

    Actually, I don’t think the US signed any such treaty, or else Bush unsigned it. This government is opposed to the International Court, or at least opposed to our being under its jurisdiction. In theory, this is because we’re afraid of our citizens losing their Constitutional rights because they’re being tried by some slimeball in Saudi Arabia; in practice, it’s because they want to shield Kissinger from being indicted for murder in Cambodia, and Cheney from being indicted for fraud, and various Vietnam guys from being indicted for various war crimes. . . et cetera.

    I think Bush actually wrote this into the UN charter: “America does whatever the hell it wants. Our army is bigger than your army, so either agree with us or shut the fuck up. And did I mention that we saved your ass in World War Two?”

  36. Afghans are people. Afghanis are money.

  37. Europeans are going through a period of time where their ideas of national soverignty is changing.

    They’re going through the process of surrendering national soverignty to the EU, and it seems to me, like they FEEL like we should be doing that too.

    But the United States hasn’t surrendered any of its national soverignty…in any treaty.

    Regarding:

    “to where to seek recourse, national governments in the treaties they sign that create international law use their national courts. Thus if Cheney is ever sentenced in a French court because of corruption charges regarding Haliburton’s dealings with Nigeria, it will because an multi-national treaty, which France and the U.S. are signatories to, has created an international legal scheme that allows such.”

    Are you suggesting, Jean Bart, that, in spite of the seperation of powers afforded by our Constitution, a court in the United States is going to extradite a sitting Vice-President to face sentencing in France?

    Huh? Even if Cheney was no longer Vice-President, I am almost certain that France doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the United States.

    P.S. Does anyone in this forum still think of France as an ally? If I’m not mistaken, they don’t contribute troops to NATO.

    …Oh, and, by the way, the Cold War is over.

  38. Jennifer suggests that she has no reason to distrust Human Rights Watch. Some will probably jump all over her for saying that. Here’s a thought:

    How many of you here trust the US government? I sure as hell take their statements with a grain of salt…

  39. Shultz, the existence of democratic republics like the US and France is viewed by dictators as a threat to their power and survival. And those dicators are right. Even if we do nothing but mind our own business, our very existence serves to remind their oppressed subjects that things don’t have to be this way. Thus, democratic republics are always in a state of hostility with dictatorships. Just by continuing to exist, trading with each other, and allowing people from benighted countries like Saudi Arabia to come and go, we are in effect waging war against those countries. So we are co-belligerents at least, whether we like it or not.

    We might as well admit that we’re on the same side.

  40. Funny thing about some Afghan boys wrongly held at Gitmo. They liked it there. Said they got more respect than in their home country. Better food and instruction and unlike their homies Americans were polite and well mannered.

    One boy said he wanted to come back to America and another said he wanted to join the American military.

    All I can say is that the Chinese knew nothing about brain washing.

    Lucky the Amnesty folks weren’t in American clutches. Who knows what they might have written.

    JB,

    Nice bit about Halliburton bribes. Now what about Chiraq?

  41. US DOJ Document

    Here is a place to start – again, I’m not a legal expert so I don’t know the specifics but this document seems to back my assertion that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

    Upon a deeper reading, however, it seems that a vice-president can be indicted – go figure. Though I’m still skeptical, for the reasons above and others, that Cheney will ever actually stand trial for any alleged misdeeds.

  42. Rich,

    I appreciate the link.

  43. “Funny thing about some Afghan boys wrongly held at Gitmo.”

    Let’s start with the “wrongly held” part. Any chance we knew 2 days after they were arrested that they were innocent? For the next 2 years the brass won’t let us turn them loose so the guards give them extra perks. Happens all the time.

  44. Rich,

    “The existence of an extradition treaty does not necessarily mean extraditions happen in a manner conducive to justice. See Einhorn, Ira.”

    True; but that is beside the point; the claim was one did not exist.

    “My bet – if France attempts to extradite a sitting vice-president they’ll have to wait until he’s out of office (I believe, though I am no legal expert, that is deemed constitutionally impermissable to indict or bring criminal charges against a sitting president – not sure whether this would apply to a vice-president but my gut says probably).”

    Can you give me some information on this?

    “Once out, they’ll have to wait through a lengthy appeals process. And with Cheney’s history of heart problems, the notoriously lengthy appeals process, and the likelihood that Cheney would have lawyers capable of delaying it as long as possible, I doubt he’ll ever set foot in a French court.”

    The U.S. has already tried and convicted people with this law; I don’t think it would be as delayed as you expect it to be. Plus, the U.S.-French extradition treaty allows for the domestic courts of either nation to try their own citizens on behalf of the other nation, so extradition may not even be an issue.

  45. M. Simon,

    Prosecutions against Chirac are barred by the French Constitution until he leaves office; he is immune from prosecution until 2007 in other words (if he retires then as he said he would in 2002 when he was re-elected – there are no term limits). Given that French corruption judges have been unrelenting over the past decade in trying and convicting very powerful sitting politicians (there is no bar against other office holders), I doubt that (if there is anything to the allegations against Chirac) that he would get a “pass.”

    Of course whether Chirac is guilty of anything is really beside my original point (indeed, so is whether Cheney is guilty of anything); international law exists, deal with it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.