Suspected Terrorist Tortured?
Slightly strange goings-on in this morning's AMNY.
An article by Anthony DeStefano appeared in the print version with the above headline, referring to Pakistani "scientist" Aafia Siddiqui, arrested for shooting at American soldiers while being held in an Afghan police facility. The version of the article on newstands is shorter than that featured on the website, and linked to above. However, the print version, oddly enough, despite its truncated length, features a rather significant paragraph that appears nowhere in the online article.
The missing paragraph reads, in whole:
Siddiqui has undergone strip searches while in U.S. custody, something Fink believed was "torture" for a Muslim woman.
Not only is this particular sentence absent from the online article, but the rather vital information contained therein is completely missing from the version linked to above. The online version contains absolutely nothing related to the alleged torture, beyond Siddiqui's attorney's (Fink) unsubstantiated claims.
I would think it would be quite relavant to know that the entire basis of the "torture" claim is the terrorist's attorney's belief that a strip search constitutes torture. And why on earth does AMNY and Mr. DeStefano feel that it's worth blaring a headline alleging torture, when
A) said torture constituted nothing beyond a standard security procedure performed at airports everyday on completely innocent passengers, not to mention on pretty much every single person arrested and suspected to be dangerous?
and
B) the actual story here, that the woman apparently had in her possession of list of NYC landmarks, charecterized by reports as "targets," is a hell of a lot more interesting, particularly to New Yorkers, than any notion of some made up torture.
Slightly strange goings-on in this morning's AMNY.
An article by Anthony DeStefano appeared in the print version with the above headline, referring to Pakistani "scientist" Aafia Siddiqui, arrested for shooting at American soldiers while being held in an Afghan police facility. The version of the article on newstands is shorter than that featured on the website, and linked to above. However, the print version, oddly enough, despite its truncated length, features a rather significant paragraph that appears nowhere in the online article.
The missing paragraph reads, in whole:
Siddiqui has undergone strip searches while in U.S. custody, something Fink believed was "torture" for a Muslim woman.
Not only is this particular sentence absent from the online article, but the rather vital information contained therein is completely missing from the version linked to above. The online version contains absolutely nothing related to the alleged torture, beyond Siddiqui's attorney's (Fink) unsubstantiated claims.
I would think it would be quite relavant to know that the entire basis of the "torture" claim is the terrorist's attorney's belief that a strip search constitutes torture. And why on earth does AMNY and Mr. DeStefano feel that it's worth blaring a headline alleging torture, when
A) said torture constituted nothing beyond a standard security procedure performed at airports everyday on completely innocent passengers, not to mention on pretty much every single person arrested and suspected to be dangerous?
and
B) the actual story here, that the woman apparently had in her possession of list of NYC landmarks, charecterized by reports as "targets," is a hell of a lot more interesting, particularly to New Yorkers, than any notion of some made up torture.
Also quite interesting is AMNY's decision to go with this picture to accompany this fabricated "torture" story:
I'm not really sure whose behavior disgusts me more in this case: the terrorist Siddiqui, AMNY and Anthony DeStefano, or the lawyer, Elizabeth Fink.
Eh, I'm just gonna go with D) all of the above
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment