It occurred to me, as it usually does reading coverage following Bush speeches, that the BBC had missed the point about Bush’s speech containing his statement on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al when they headlined it “Bush admits to secret prisons”.
They were not alone in their absurd focus- which is really a kind of ‘told you so’ journalism, the ‘told you so’ involving restating the unnecessary- and, of course, stating the untrue, that Bush mentioned “prisons”, when he didn’t.
As the boys from Powerline pointed out concerning the very similar AP focus:
“This is not exactly a news flash. We knew that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. were not at Guantanamo, and no one ever imagined that they were inside the U.S. The fact that this handful of top-level terrorists was being held by the CIA, somewhere outside the U.S., has been known and widely reported for years.”
Exactly. Not even news, agendarising in the face of some well above-par Bush performances of late.
I was impressed by a far more apt and interesting headline from Hot Air, which was far more newsy although it should properly have been something like “terrorist masterminds to get Geneva protection”. This places the balance where reasonable people would place it: regarding terror suspects as the suspicious ones; permitting them respite an act of compassion.
Paul Reynolds’ analysis is as it commonly is better than other BBC output, but he persists in the central myth of “secret prisons”. This is nonsense (as Powerline also point out) as you don’t need a prison- and could even manage with a few carefully chosen hotel suites- to interrogate 14 rather special terror suspects.
You can read the Bush speech containing descriptions of the intelligence gathering operation here. Some curiosity about detailed Bush speeches wouldn’t go amiss in the UK, I think (he said, continuing the British tradition of understatement).