Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike F
IMO, you're reading it wrong, though it's somewhat understandable as the article's poorly written.
As I pointed out above, the article is about rendition policies -- "the practice of flying detainees to places where they may be tortured."
MI6's refusal to hand over Bin Laden (in fact or in effect) to the CIA without assurances about his treatment is used to show that they followed general international norms.
The criticism in the report (and thus article) concerning "the Bush administration's approval of practices which would be illegal if carried out by British agents" refers not the CIA's policies in 1998, but to the current admistration's well known policy of sending prisoners off to Syria (IIRC) knowing full well they'd be tortured, complelely in the face if international rendition laws.
|
sigh....
There was NO comparison.
The whole articles thesis is that Bin Laden could have been captured in 1998 but wasn't because MI6 got cold feet because the CIA wouldn't be nice to him. And then the article went on to blame Bush who wasn't in power at the time.
I am sure 3500 people feel much beter knowing MI6 played by the law and that in 1998 it was already Bush and Cheney's fault.