The old drumbeat of concern about 'torture' (and terrorist comfort) is getting a little louder

This article from U.K. Metro, about supposed U.S. torture of war-on-terror prisoners is in several places including the WSJ. Here is how its headline goes: "UK 'knew US mistreated prisoners in wake of 9/11.'"

And here is the rest of the nonsense that goes with it:

BRITAIN tolerated 'inexcusable' treatment of detainees by the US in the years after 9/11, a parliamentary report says.

UK agencies supplied interrogation questions for prisoners they knew or suspected faced cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, the intelligence and security committee found.

It is 'beyond doubt' the UK knew about US practices and 'more could have been done' by security agencies and Tony Blair's government to stop them, the group of peers and MPs added.

The committee's chairman, former attorney general Dominic Grieve, said: 'The UK tolerated actions, and took others, that we regard as inexcusable.'

He added the report attached no blame to 'individual officers acting under immense pressure'.

The committee also found no 'smoking gun' proving that agencies turned a blind eye to torture, and no evidence that UK officials mistreated detainees.

But British agencies were 'concerned not to upset their US counterparts in case they lost access to intelligence from detainees that might be vital in preventing an attack', the report said.

They took part in up to 3,000 interrogations of US prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay from 2002.

In 232 cases, they are said to have supplied questions or intelligence while knowing or suspecting mistreatment. The UK was involved in – or ignored – 73 rendition cases, the committee found.

In three cases, MI5 or MI6 offered to pay for prisoners to be sent to states where they risked torture or cruel treatment.

British agents 'were party to mistreatment administered by others' in two cases, one of which has never been fully investigated and could be reopened.

The committee rejected claims that abuse of prisoners only amounted to 'isolated incidents', saying CIA briefings in 2001 'clearly showed US intent but were not taken seriously'.

One would think that with a headline like this, somewhere in the actual article, it would say what the actual mistreatment was.  Did we play loud music, make them eat something they didn't like, force them to stand up straight or stay awake too long?  I don't believe that any prisoner died from the "mistreatment," but articles like this imply that the U.S. soldiers were monsters, and the whole tone of the piece suggests that the writers are really just feeling sorry for the terrorists themselves.

It reminds me of Dick Durbin ranting on the Senate floor about the horrors of Gitmo with absolutely no evidence, back when he was trashing President Bush.  The Washington Post reports:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control," he said, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings."

First, he defended his comments, and then later he cried and lied that his comments were misrepresented.

Sound familiar?  It's 2005 all over again, and the left has yet to change its tune.

This article from U.K. Metro, about supposed U.S. torture of war-on-terror prisoners is in several places including the WSJ. Here is how its headline goes: "UK 'knew US mistreated prisoners in wake of 9/11.'"

And here is the rest of the nonsense that goes with it:

BRITAIN tolerated 'inexcusable' treatment of detainees by the US in the years after 9/11, a parliamentary report says.

UK agencies supplied interrogation questions for prisoners they knew or suspected faced cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, the intelligence and security committee found.

It is 'beyond doubt' the UK knew about US practices and 'more could have been done' by security agencies and Tony Blair's government to stop them, the group of peers and MPs added.

The committee's chairman, former attorney general Dominic Grieve, said: 'The UK tolerated actions, and took others, that we regard as inexcusable.'

He added the report attached no blame to 'individual officers acting under immense pressure'.

The committee also found no 'smoking gun' proving that agencies turned a blind eye to torture, and no evidence that UK officials mistreated detainees.

But British agencies were 'concerned not to upset their US counterparts in case they lost access to intelligence from detainees that might be vital in preventing an attack', the report said.

They took part in up to 3,000 interrogations of US prisoners in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay from 2002.

In 232 cases, they are said to have supplied questions or intelligence while knowing or suspecting mistreatment. The UK was involved in – or ignored – 73 rendition cases, the committee found.

In three cases, MI5 or MI6 offered to pay for prisoners to be sent to states where they risked torture or cruel treatment.

British agents 'were party to mistreatment administered by others' in two cases, one of which has never been fully investigated and could be reopened.

The committee rejected claims that abuse of prisoners only amounted to 'isolated incidents', saying CIA briefings in 2001 'clearly showed US intent but were not taken seriously'.

One would think that with a headline like this, somewhere in the actual article, it would say what the actual mistreatment was.  Did we play loud music, make them eat something they didn't like, force them to stand up straight or stay awake too long?  I don't believe that any prisoner died from the "mistreatment," but articles like this imply that the U.S. soldiers were monsters, and the whole tone of the piece suggests that the writers are really just feeling sorry for the terrorists themselves.

It reminds me of Dick Durbin ranting on the Senate floor about the horrors of Gitmo with absolutely no evidence, back when he was trashing President Bush.  The Washington Post reports:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control," he said, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime – Pol Pot or others – that had no concern for human beings."

First, he defended his comments, and then later he cried and lied that his comments were misrepresented.

Sound familiar?  It's 2005 all over again, and the left has yet to change its tune.