The news showed British soldiers obviously lying under the stress of their Iranian captivity. Experts noted the flawed English supposedly used by a female soldier. They surmised the note had been written by someone not fluent in the language. Might the soldier have written it but used bad form to show the stress of their confinement? Either way, British soldiers lied under influence from their captors.
Two weeks earlier a similarly exaggerated confession was paraded around by the Bush administration. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted planning virtually every heinous terrorist act committed up until his capture. The mastermind confessed to 31 attacks and plots.
Why should the public believe British soldiers would lie from heavy handed treatment from their captors after weeks in captivity and terrorists wouldn’t do likewise after years of rigorous intelligence wringing? Khalid was captured in March of 2003. Even his Pentagon transcript indicates a statement that the prisoner was tortured by the CIA.
So why should the American public discount one confession but not the other?
No comments:
Post a Comment