I see an opportunity for clarity and consensus.
Would it be too constrictive of the fluidity of definition so zealously guarded by the administration and its toadi----defenders, if we all signed on to the propositiong:
If you boil the motherfucker to death, it’s torture–no argument.
After four interrogations by parliamentary committees and a session in parliament today, there is some news on the affair from Germany.
There will be further investigations, but so far we have a few official statements.
There was a lot of discussion on the question who was informed when and by whom and whether German intelligence was involved in capture.
Short answer: No German agencies were involved, the Government first heard about the affair after al Masri was released and everything was legally correct after that. (surprise! :rolleyes: )
However there were some interesting details. For the first time there was a real official confirmation of the meeting between US Ambassador Coats and Minister of the Interior Schily.
According to his successor Wolfgang Schäuble:
[ul]
[li]The meeting between Coats and Schily did happen on 31/5/04[/li][li]Coats acknowledged the capture[/li][li]There was an apology (Schäuble was ambiguous whether this was an apology to al Masri or to the Government)[/li][li]Coats said that al Masri was paid a sum of money and they had agreed to treat the affair as confidential[/li][li]There was no information on the precise timeline, not even Afghanistan was named[/li][li]Schily did not inform the rest of the administration[/li][/ul]
So far al Masri denies having received any money.
Well, it maybe sounds like the CIA did fuck-up (and we all fuck-up) but then apologized and paid off the poor “fuckee”, but now he wants more dinero. :dubious:
It’s starting to stink all around, now.