Yesterday on "Fox and Friends", the weather guy, Steve Doocy, commenting on a story about an American al Qaeda member captured in Pakistan, said that it was good news that this person was captured in Pakistan, where they can use "enhanced" interrogation techniques.
I think Mr Doocy is wrong on a couple of counts, and sent him an EMail saying so.
First off, "enhanced" interrogation techniques are not as effective as straight interrogation, where questions are asked and answered checked. This even works across cultures, as American interrogators learned in Viet-nam and Iraq.
Secondly, to have a national policy of eschewing enhanced interrogation and then to cheer someone being in the hands of those who use such techniques is hypocrisy (and this is even if you disagree with the current US rules). This hypocrisy is seen by others and is thus detrimental to our public diplomacy efforts.
That second point made, Pakistan is a sovereign nation and if they captured this person on their territory and kept him for themselves, then they get to use whatever technique they wish. That is what sovereignty means.
But, we shouldn't be cheering it. I expect better of Fox.
It was 24 hours ago that I sent Mr Doocy an EMail and I am still looking for an answer.
Regards — Cliff
7 comments:
Someone from another local town asks:
"Don't confuse me with the issues. Why is a weatherman offering his opinion on a major network?"
Regards — Cliff
My response is that since they have trouble getting the weather correct, they need to be branching out into areas where they might have a chance of getting it right.
You know how to tell when a weather person is lying?
Watch to see if their lips are moving.
Regards — Cliff
PS: The previous commenter has an interest in aviation and a license to prove it.
I agree with you, until the bit where you say you expect better of fox. Sorry to say this is about exactly what I expect of fox.
Oh how we abhor a messenger with the wrong message......We profess discerning intelligence for ourselves but relate other views as porn, stupidity, absurdity, and unintellectual blather.
We like our "news" predigested and agreeable to our current thinking.
It's one reason that Kutie Katie and her associates on the other to MSM 6 O'clock follies have enjoyed "success."
Hmm, do you really mean "we" or are you accusing me of something? Come on now, don't be coy. But if you think you know something about me, or how I like my "news", you don't.
To start, I'd appreciate it if my "news" would drop the irony quotes and just be the damn news, thank you very much.
We is generic. And news is not "news" and far from factual. Sadly, "news" media panders mostly to sensationalism and little more. You will never see in any of the commuications media venues a demonstration and discussion of a regression analysis of the impact of, say for instance, local tax rates on mortgage defaults. There just isn't enough excitement in differential calculus....sort of like watching snooker on British TV...which I am told is quite popular there on the BBC...which is of course state run. Snooker is one step up from watching paint dry....at least...for me.
Sex and violence sells news. That is why Tiger Woods and most of the politicians in NY continue to dominate the brain droppings of all the talking heads....well....and the neverending saga of John Edwards.
For my part, when I was in graduate school for one of my Master's degrees, my prof on Researcch Methodololgy got me (and the rest of my seminar group) hooked on Christian Science Monitor simply because it presented perhaps the most balanced, fact based discussion of events. Not sure that CSM has been able to retain that characteristic and remain in business.
I guess I read a bit too much into your comment there...sorry about that.
Post a Comment