Semantics

The opposition continues to pressure the government on the involvement of Australians in the interrogation of prisoners, with the government continuing to insist that Australian personnel did nothing more than interview. According to David Kay, an interview and an interrogation are the same:

David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group that searched for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), believes Australians did interrogate detainees.

"Anyone that was in a room with a prisoner was engaged in interrogation," he said. "You weren't playing bridge."

He has told ABC TV's Lateline he does not think there is any difference between an interview and an interrogation.

"If I was talking to someone [I] would have said I've had an interview, I've had a discussion.

"I didn't often use the word interrogation but that's what it was."

Mr Kay says he did not see any evidence that prisoners were mistreated.

Labor's spokesman on defence, Robert McClelland, says Mr Kay's comments discredit the Government's argument that there is a difference between an interrogation and an interview.

"The Government is absolutely playing with semantics," he said.

"Anyone can pick up any dictionary and look at a definition of interrogation if they want.

"In circumstances where someone is brought before the interviewer, if you like, to use the Government's language, in prison overalls, shackled, someone behind them holding a gun, that is for all intents and purposes an interrogation."

Some observations: an interview is not an interrogation; David Kay should fade into oblivion; isn't it the oppostion who's playing the semantics game?; if none of the prisoners are known to have been mistreated in any meaningful way, why should anyone care?; and shouldn't we expect that some of these nasty bastards would have received a bit of rough handling?