<At the same time, the operation raises troubling questions that must not be ducked. Zubaydah was nabbed not in the rugged mountainous terrain of northwest Pakistan but in a safe house compound in the city of Faisalabad, which makes one wonder about how hard or efficiently Pakistan has been looking for him and others in plain sight within their main cities. This is to say nothing of the porous border with Afghanistan that remains largely unpatrolled.

Troubling? Ducked? Why is this troubling and why would anyone duck it? It would seem to me that a safe house in Faisalabad would be as good a place to hide as anywhere. After all, it was a
"safe house". In plain sight? What the hell is he talking about and what has the porous border got to do with finding him there?





I wonder if the New York Times staff is equally confused over the fact that actors portraying New Yorkers of authority can solve cases within 60 minutes almost nightly, while real criminals remain safe and sound in the mother's apartment in one of The City’s boroughs.

Things always seem to work out when it’s scripted to.

As for the tribunal attack, it’s probably just the word that frightens the writer. With no military experience, I’m sure the word needed to be researched several times before being added to the article -- or not at all, considering the obvious lack of thought it displays. Tribunal is just a symbol of totalitarianism -- which is what drives our militaries to victory.

Oh well... Back to Journalism - 101.

You know, journalists are the main reason most TV news anchors are either brilliant beyond words -- or completely stupid.

Dan (still hating reporters in general)