spare the gun and spoil the child
Tim, over at the Road to Surfdom, blogs:

Well, a euphemism is a wonderful thing, but apart from the use of them ("agressively targetting") the only specific denial given here is that children won't be shot. Those old softies. Other than that, there doesn't really sound like there is a much of a change at all.

I'm appalled. How could Tim accuse that nice Mr Rumsfeld of being an old softie. Next he'll accuse him of being a pointy-headed, panty-waisted, knock-kneed, lily-livered liberal. Secretary Rumsfeld may say that he's not going to shoot children but he obviously means non-threatening children. If any of those dangerous Guant�namo-style children are around they'll be filled full of lead as fast as the secretary can whip out his six-shooter.

Just so we can all sleep safely in our beds, we are told:

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has defended the detention of the boys - aged between 13 and 15 - at Camp Delta, saying they are "enemy combatants", captured while fighting for the Taleban or al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

General Richard Myers, chairman of the US military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the boys were being held "for a very good reason - for our safety".

"They may be juveniles - but they're not on a Little League team anywhere," he said at a news conference along with Mr Rumsfeld at the Pentagon on Friday.

"They're on a major league team, and it's a terrorist team. Some have killed. Some have stated they're going to kill again.

Shame on Tim for misrepresenting the new policy in this way.