Oct. 25, 2005 - 19:02 MDT

KNOW MORE

Back mid-paper today in "National Briefing" is an item from Virginia. In full :

JUDGE OKS CONFESSION ALLEGEDLY FROM TORTURE

ALEXANDRIA -- "A federal judge ruled Monday that prosecutors can use a confession by a man charged with joining al-Qaida and plotting to assassinate President Bush, despite defense claims that the confession was obtained through torture."

"The ruling came after a six-day hearing in which Ahmed Omar Abu Ali testified that Saudi Arabian security officers whipped his back, kicked him in the stomach and pulled on his beard to obtain a confession."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Items like this make me wonder, "What the heck has been deliberately left out of this news bit ?"

Was it written by a person who wasn't even at the trial ? Why is there no discussion on the merits of the defense or faults thereof ?

Makes me wonder - was it even worth the trouble of the editors to allow it to be put in print -- or was it a sin of omission that the article did not say enough ? Who should be doing the mea culpa bit ?

In regards to this case I would dearly like to KNOW MORE . . . . . . . . .

Blog