Reading Comprehension, Anyone?

I just saw this amusing line in a commentary about the “no comprehensive files at Gitmo” story (I have bolded the line I am referring to; the rest is included for context and clarity):

It is interesting that the Bush administration believed it had the right to detain terrorism suspects indefinitely, without assembling a comprehensive file on them. The administration itself may not have known why specific individuals were detained, why they weren’t brought to justice, and why they posed a danger to the United States.

In any case, the above means that Obama will have to take his time with both closing Gitmo and with deciding what to do about the prison’s detainees. 60 of them are considered too dangerous for release. The rest can be set free, the question is where and when. Will they be brought back to the country in which they were captured, or their own native country, or will the U.S. accept (some of) them?

Here is what the former senior Bush official said (emphasis mine):

All but about 60 who have been approved for release,” assuming countries can be found to accept them, “are either high-level al-Qaeda people responsible for 9/11 or bombings, or were high-level Taliban or al-Qaeda facilitators or money people,” said the former official who, like others, insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to reporters about such matters.

When English is not your first language, and even more to the point when you are the sort to be — mmm, shall we say, intolerant? — of factual errors or inaccuracies when they come from someone whose point of view you disagree with, you really should take the time to re-read — more than once if necessary — what you write before you hit the Publish button.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook