Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Secret CIA al-Qaida prison in eastern Europe (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Secret CIA al-Qaida prison in eastern Europe
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If/when we apprehend any American citizen, I agree with you 100% Fire.

AFAICT, these are facilities for captured terrorist suspects. For them, I care not what we do in terms of harsh interrogation techniques INCLUDING water boarding and threateining with dogs. Some find that atrocious. Sorry if it offends people that I just cannot muster a shred of sympathy for islamic extremists we are interrogating like that.

As far as I'm concerned, water boarding is scaring the living crap out of the prisoner without actually physically harming him. That's not TORTURE in the sense that so many critics use the term. The condemnation of TORTURE implies the worst human rights violations known to mankind are the exact same thing as the harsher interrogation techniques we've used.

Now, I did have to get a laugh out of Ted Kennedy going into his diatribe of explicitly detailing water boarding on the floor of the Senate a while back -- I guess he would know from personal experience when he "water boarded" Mary Jo Kopechne......

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Personally, I'm past caring if anyone wants to call me a 'torture apologist' fine. I could give a rat's ass if we ARE torturing islamic extremists...the very same folks that salivate at the opportunity to cut YOUR infidel head off while ghoulishly chanting "God is Great" in their next Internet vid clip."

I'd say you're a torture advocate, you don't seem too apologetic.

Even if you're right and, unlike Abu Ghraib, everyone in the prisons deserves to be there and they'd like to cut off my head, that doesn't make torture right and it doesn't make torture smart.

"That being said, I STILL don't believe we are out and out truly TORTURING these prisoners. Perhaps some harsh treatment that a lot of squeamish people may have a hard time dealing with - like water boarding, but in comparison to TRUE torture like Saddam's regime ran? Industrial Shredders, rape rooms, cutting off limbs and tounges, ripping out fingernails, gouging out eyes....I don't believe we are truly doing such things. Of course, so many assume the worst because if fits the partisan template."

I've never been moved by the "someone else is worse" argument.

The practical problem with torturing people is that they tend to tell you what you want to hear.

"When we have concrete evidence of such things, than perhaps I'll join in on the condemnation...but for now, there has just been way too much politically motivated hyperbole about American "torture" ever since the Abu Ghraib debacle."

Maybe so. If someone is motivated by partisanship, they're still right or wrong. I wonder if you engaged in any politically motivated hyperbole last year about how John Kerry was somehow going to compromise national security if he'd won the election.

Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I've never been moved by the "someone else is worse" argument.
I'm not making it. I'm only saying that the definition of "torture" can be pretty damn broad...and a lot of people seem to be making the case that the interrogations we are carrying out are exactly the same on the moral equivalence level. Statments like Ted Kennedy when he said the torture chambers were not closed down, just re-opened under US management.

As far as I'm concerned there's a world of difference with techniques like water boarding and using dogs to intimidate, and sleep deprivation, and even sexual taunting as perhaps borderline, but WORLD'S apart from torture practices such as those done by Saddam that most agree are crimes against humanity.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma -

It is not our job to prove that some of those held are not terrorists. It is the job of the government to prove people guilty before imprisoning them.

Now most of these people are probably found in Iraq, fighting against our troops. They are probably bad guys, and it would probably be simple to prove their guilt. However, until we do, they are innocent.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A bunch of hyperventilation over what may or may not be going on here.
That's what most concerns me. That we don't know, have no way of knowing, and that those who are doing these things will create new completely unaccountable systems. That will lead to innocent persons getting tortured, and then killed to cover up the fact that someone screwed up and tortured an innocent.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As far as I'm concerned there's a world of difference with techniques like water boarding and using dogs to intimidate, and sleep deprivation, and even sexual taunting as perhaps borderline, but WORLD'S apart from torture practices such as those done by Saddam that most agree are crimes against humanity."

I don't disagree with that. I would disagree if you said 'and that makes them ok.' I wouldn't say that's there's a one-to-one moral equivalence. I would say that it puts us closer to one than we should be, as a free society.

The practical argument against torture would stand whether it's torture light or the "real" thing, in terms of damage to our reputation and in terms of the toturee telling us what we want to hear.

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Daruma said:

quote:
One quick question here....I seem to recall a whole lot of outrage by Sanc, Ricardo et al (our 'neo-con Klaxon' contingent) about the "national security breach" of the "leak" of Valerie Plame's identity.
Flydye, Daruma,

I am outraged that someone violated our national security by leaking classified information in the second case as well.

We should do whatever we must to punish, convict, and force the resignation of whoever that leaker may be.

BTW,

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-interrogate9nov09,0,802978.story

quote:
Another Republican, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, said that senators from his party might have given information to the Post. Lott told reporters that the existence of the prison system was discussed last week at the Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill, which was attended by Vice President Dick Cheney and held the day before the Post published its report.
I would wager the Republicans thought they had come up with a clever little scheme. They saw Harry Reid embarrass them last week and thought maybe they could turn the tables a bit. Instead they ended up shooting themselves in the foot.

Frist and Hastert announced they wanted a formal congressional leak investigation — not about Plame scandal, but into the leak about CIA "black sites", the secret prisons in Eastern Europe -- as a way for GOP leaders to prove that they take the leak of classified information seriously.

It was also a way to put Dems on the spot: "Aha, you want leaks? You guys are worried about leaks? Fine, let's investigate this leak. Aha!"

Almost immediately after the flydye and Daruma Republican apologists starting screaming from their rooftops, it became immediately clear that the Republicans themselves were the source of the CIA "black sites" in Eastern Europe leak.

Yes, the same Republicans who are whining the most about the leak as a political tactic...are the same ones who leaked the existence of those aforementioned CIA black sites.

So, if Vice President Cheney is the leaker, will Daruma and flydye join me in demanding his resignation?

Or is their indignation over national security leaks simply partisan stupidity?

The actual answer is: Neither. They were just regurgitating the Republican talking points because they didn't know any better.

[ November 10, 2005, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Or perhaps Flyedye and Daruma are simply being true to their principles.

Believe it or not, David Ricardo, not all politics is centered on affiliation and personality. Some people actually have principles and ideals, and apply them regardless of persons.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's just point out the obvious.

Flydye and Daruma are politicizing the issue of leaks of classified informatino that damage national security and are trying muddy the issue by diverting the debate towards the leak of CIA black sites in Eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, we know that the Republicans themselves were the ones to leak that classified information to the Washington Post.

They are saying that the first leak is not bad ("Democrats blah blah are politicizing blah blah blah the issue blah blah blah. Plame was not a real covert agent blah blah blah.").

Yet, they bring up false outrage over the second leak of CIA black sites in Eastern Europe and try to bring that up as a "real leak."

So they are not being consistent at all. They do not view all leaks of classified information as damaging to national security because they have continually tried to poo-poo the outing of a CIA covert agent who fought on the frontlines in the shadows against our nation's enemies for dozens of years.

So, yes, flydye and Daruma are being partisan hacks here, and I am calling them on it.

[ November 10, 2005, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't followed the Plame story. Was she actually fighting on the front lines in the shadows against our nations enemies when she got outed? I thought she was safely in DC. Is there an objective link somewhere that explains how this threatened national security, without asking me to contribute to Moveon.org or Al Qaeda or some other anti-Bush PAC at the end of the article?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
EDIT: double post

[ November 11, 2005, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: vulture ]

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vulture
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for vulture   Email vulture   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Point one: torture (alleged). The US has admitted that 80-90% of people detained in Iraq are innocent.

Actually, that itself is ambiguous. You could read it as '80-90% of people in prisons in Iraq are innocent', or '80-90% of people arrested are quickly released once it is determined they are innocent'. Or anywhere in between, depending on your personal bias.

I'd hope that the 'psychological pressure' techniques are reserved for the cases where not only are they convinced that have a genuine terrorist type, but also one who has useful information that is urgently needed. Others will no doubt assume that 90% of those being tortured are innocent.

The point is that we just don't know where in the spectrum of possibilities reality lies. We can confidently predict that most people in the world will assume the worst, and that many in the US will want to assume the best.

Point two: was there actually a leak here at all? The Indepenent version of the story seems to say that the existence of these camps was uncovered by Human Right Watch (surprisingly, given the name, this is a human rights pressure group...) from analysis of information in the public domain - primarily the flight logs of the (suspected) CIA plane - itself identified through flight logs and observing its comings and goings from airports IIRC. Is it possible that there isn't a leak at all, just someone putting the pieces together? I'm only going on one sentence from the report here, so there may well be other info out there pointing towards a leak.

Posts: 1768 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This is the conventional wisdom of the largely anti-Bush/anti-war on terror mainstream media and leftist contingent of the country, thouroughly immersed in the alternate reality you have all constructed for yourselves to convince yourselves that Bush is the greatest evil in the world, and the entire administration are nothing but blood thirsty liars and our only hope for salvation is the Democrat parties return to power."

Actually, the indictment concludes that her employment status was "classified." Outting her was therefore a crime whether she was covert or no. Granted, it may not be as big a deal, but it is still a crime punishable by law. I certainly never said Bush was the biggest evil in the world. Apathy and the refusal to think about an issue probably is. I never said I was a Democrat. I never said I was a liberal. You assume I am because I happen to disagree with you so you find convenient ways to dismiss me.

Quit defending the indefensible. Torturing anybody for any reason is wrong. It's not a good way to get information. Any law enforcement official would say so. That's probably why it went out of style in civilized countries a while back. Hurting them might provide certain cretins a measure of satisfaction revenge-wise, but it won't bring a single victim of the terrorists back to life, and it only pisses the rest of the world off more. It makes our situation worse because it justifies any opposition.

We are snatching God knows who for God knows what, spiriting them off to God knows where for God knows how long, to do God knows what to them for reasons we'll never be allowed to hear. Um, this is not just wrong. It is evil. And if we let it be done in our name, then we are complicit in that evil.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for this, "It's the Joseph Goebbels template applied to perfection...tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Well, I don't think any political party can be declared innocent of this one. But a fascist isn't going to argue about the truth with anyone, online forum or no. He'll tell you what the truth is and expect you to believe it. If you do choose to enter into a scholarly debate with the fellow, his rebuttal will be in lead.

Since outting Plame was a crime somebody was actually indicted for (by a Bush appointee, isn't he?), I don't think the Nazi aphorism applies.

Oh, I'm not one of those either, thanks.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sfallmann
Member
Member # 2148

 - posted      Profile for sfallmann   Email sfallmann   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vance:
As for this, "It's the Joseph Goebbels template applied to perfection...tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Well, I don't think any political party can be declared innocent of this one. But a fascist isn't going to argue about the truth with anyone, online forum or no. He'll tell you what the truth is and expect you to believe it. If you do choose to enter into a scholarly debate with the fellow, his rebuttal will be in lead.

Since outting Plame was a crime somebody was actually indicted for (by a Bush appointee, isn't he?), I don't think the Nazi aphorism applies.

Oh, I'm not one of those either, thanks.

Libby was indicted for purgery. No one was indicted for outting Plame.
Posts: 396 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is from count one of the indictment:

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hear the leak came from the Hill...don't know how accurate that is though...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Another Republican, Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, said that senators from his party might have given information to the Post. Lott told reporters that the existence of the prison system was discussed last week at the Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill, which was attended by Vice President Dick Cheney and held the day before the Post published its report.

"Information that was said in there, given out in there, did get into the newspaper," Lott said. " I don't know where else it came from …. It looked to me that at least one of those reports came right out of that room."

In their letter, Frist and Hastert said the panels should determine whether the Post's information was accurate, who leaked it and "what is the actual and potential damage done to the national security of the United States and our partners in the global war on terror."

"The leaking of classified information by employees of the United States government appears to have increased in recent years," they said, "establishing a dangerous trend that, if not addressed swiftly and firmly, likely will worsen."

Let the chickens roost where they may, David.

Your inferences about HOW the story actually got leaked is as "partisan" as my supposed hyperventilating. Let's see, a Post reporter hears a rumor about a luncheon (was it even open to the public?) and ONE DAY later brings out a highly controversial story...actually, I buy it. But my ability to be outraged by the press has been continually expanded. That is usually a good way for a reporter to get canned. Little things like FACT CHECKING, CONFIRMATION, AND COOROBORATING EVIDENCE are usual little niceities involved in journalism.

But you just grabbed that hook because it allowed you to 1) slam Republicans and 2) slur Daruma and me. Just like you probably ate up those other highly accurate report of the Koran and the toilet, Memogate, gang rapes and dead people lying around everywhere during Katrina etc. (and here I am making guesses, unlike your absolute surety about my feelings)

But now I am out of thoughts, so I need to go to my fax for the latest Republican talking points. [Roll Eyes]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now let me restate my actual thoughts on this matter.

1. There may or may not be secret U.S. prisons.* But I will grant they exist.

2. No one knows who is there or what is going on. But rabid Bush Ankle Biters (BABs) like Ricardo and Molly Ivins (Vance, haven't forgotten you) are all assuming the worst, i.e. extremities pulled off, innocents thrown into the Pit of Despair,

3. Because of their vast ignorance and skepticism, they then go on to use innuendo, incorrect analogy, and hyperbole to brand the administration as a creator of "gulags." Yes it is, but only if you broaden the definition to include any prison anywhere.

4. A gulag is a prison, much like a Nazi concentration camp, which imprisoned people for who and what they were, not what they did. The only similarity is that we house criminals because they are criminals. But they are criminals because of what they do.

5. Someone brought up a definition of a gulag. The parallels were...missing. Instead it becomes a buzzword for people who want to simultaneously criticize and smear at the same time. That robs the word of it's meaning. My son believes that picking up sticks from the lawn if forced labor. His belief doesn't make it so, and neither does this analogy.

6. Ms. Ivins is also playing a dishonest game by her memory. She forgets her outrage over Americas role in the atrocities during Vietnam, Reagens foreign policy but suddenly discovering restraint during the Nineties. Strange, but she is getting on in years. She also ignores the fact that we have hisorically "pocketed our morals" during wartime, and brought them out again when finished. But she doesn't want a debate. In fact, she doesn't want there to even be the possiblity of a debate. Thus she ignores her history while not ignoring her historonics.

7. Who would go into such a prison? One would guess only the most important of prisoners, because of the potential of breaching security with every flight, not to mention limited facilities (racks, hot irons, hunchbacked interrogators etc.) So only confirmed "bad guys" or critical intelligence sources would be guests, such as Zaraqawis' cabana boy, Bin Laden's cousin who bombed a mosque. This kind of negates somewhat the idea that innocents would go to these facilities as opposed to so many others which were available (Gitmo, et al)

8. The one point I find compelling it Pete's. We don't know who or what is going on there. This is not the same as there being NO accountability. There is no transparency. These people will be accountable to someone, just not David Ricardo, Molly Ivins, or even Lindsey Graham. But only the last should be on the accountant list. I agree there should be some accountability.

9. I don't care who leaked the story. If it's true, they should go up on charges.

10. David brings up his own "sources" which I have discussed. Is this an attempt to find other sources so the reporters don't have to answer questions they don't want to, but are legally obligated to?


*One would think Memogate, Katrina hyperventilation, and the Flushable Koran would make some people skeptical about the press. One would be wrong [Smile]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
flydye45 said:
quote:

7. Who would go into such a prison? One would guess only the most important of prisoners, because of the potential of breaching security with every flight, not to mention limited facilities (racks, hot irons, hunchbacked interrogators etc.) So only confirmed "bad guys" or critical intelligence sources would be guests, such as Zaraqawis' cabana boy, Bin Laden's cousin who bombed a mosque. This kind of negates somewhat the idea that innocents would go to these facilities as opposed to so many others which were available (Gitmo, et al)

If an innocent is imprisoned (or any American citizen not duly convicted), a mistake has been made. If there is one mistake, why not two?

flydye45 said:
quote:
The one point I find compelling it Pete's. We don't know who or what is going on there. This is not the same as there being NO accountability. There is no transparency. These people will be accountable to someone, just not David Ricardo, Molly Ivins, or even Lindsey Graham. But only the last should be on the accountant list. I agree there should be some accountability.
To a point, I agree. Any intelligence we retrieve that needs to be classified should be restricted to those members of the Senate on the Intelligence Committee. However, who is imprisoned and what we are doing to them (if anything) should be a matter for the public record.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Any intelligence we retrieve that needs to be classified should be restricted to those members of the Senate on the Intelligence Committee. However, who is imprisoned and what we are doing to them (if anything) should be a matter for the public record .


No

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There has never been a government I would trust to do away with habeus corpus, detain who they felt like for as long as they liked, and subject them to torture. The government is doing this in our name! There is simply no excuse for it, no justification. The people who made the decision should be indicted for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Dick Cheney should be be asked in the strongest terms to resign for having argued in favor of this kind of behavior.

Our survival is not at issue here. Conventional investigation techniques should be plenty to do what must be done to prevent further attacks. The argument that information gained from torture may have prevented further attacks has to be beside the point, even if it does cost lives in the end. How many would advocate the kind of research done by Nazi scientists as they experimented on concentration camp prisoners? That type of experimentation is wrong whatever the benefit. Torture is wrong for the same reason. I can't believe anybody's wits are so addled with fear of another attack that this can't be seen clearly, here of all places.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Vance, you conflate stressful interrogation techniques with torture, than express disbelief that people actually disagree with you. Than you refer to Nazi medical experiements. Please.

Like I said, water boarding, sleep deprivation and other such techniques are NOT torture. IF that is what they are doing "in our name," fine by me.

Excuse me if I don't buy into your hysteria.

Like I said, and you have sidestepped it once already, show us where Plame was actually "outted."

Because if anything, her own husband is on the record talking about her own wife as a CIA employee prior to the so-called "outing." But of course, as I stated, you have immersed yourself so thoroughly into the leftist talking point memes, that you already accept it as "fact" that Plame was "illegally outed."


quote:

THE PLAME GAME
Analyst says Wilson
'outed' wife in 2002
Posted: November 5, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore

Valerie Plame appeared in Vanity Fair magazine with her husband Joseph Wilson in January 2004
A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.

Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."


Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Paul Vallely in an interview Thursday night on the ABC radio network's John Batchelor show:

"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.

"He was a total self promoter. I don't know if it was out of insecurity, to make him feel important, but he's created so much turmoil, he needs to be investigated and put under oath."

Vallely said, citing CIA colleagues, that in addition to his conversations with Wilson, the ambassador was proud to introduce Plame at cocktail parties and other social events around Washington as his CIA wife.

"That was pretty common knowledge," he said. "She's been out there on the Washington scene many years."

If Plame were a covert agent at the time, Vallely said, "he would not have paraded her around as he did."

"This whole thing has become the biggest non-story I know," he concluded, "and all created by Joe Wilson."

Libby's charges pertained only to the investigation itself, not the 1982 act that made it illegal to blow a covert U.S. agent's cover.

The Washington attorney who spearheaded the drafting of that law told WND earlier this year that Plame's circumstances don't meet the statute's criteria.

Victoria Toensing – who worked on the legislation in her role as chief counsel for the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – said Plame most likely was not a covert agent when White House aides mentioned her to reporters.

The federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

Wilson's own book, "The Politics of Truth," states he and Plame both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997 and never again were stationed overseas – placing them in Washington at least six years before the 2003 "outing."

Moreover, asserted Toensing, for the law to be violated, White House aides would have had to intentionally reveal Plame's identity with the knowledge that they were disclosing a covert agent.

Now of course, I do expect the typical 'attack the messenger' response here...i.e. "this is WorldNetDaily, blah, blah, blah."

Stick to your fantasy world of believing that Plame was "outed" in a vendetta...just don't ask us to accept your continued belief in the fantasy as some kind of iron-clad fact beyond question, because there is no credible evidence to back this meme up...only left wing diatribes and complicit media distortion and spin.

Sorry "Fitzmas" didn't work out the way you wanted...but Plame was never 'outed' because she wasn't undercover in the first place.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've already quoted from part "d" of count one of the Libby indictment where it is stated that it is illegal to reveal the identity of a CIA employee whose employment status was classified. This is what I meant by "outted". I never said anywhere that she was covert. The Grand Jury says this is a crime, not me. If the left, of which I do not consider myself to be a member, agrees with the Grand Jury in this matter, it's no business of mine. If you'd care to examine the text of the indictment yourself, here's a link:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/indictment.pdf

If the folks in these secret prisons are simply making affirmed terrorists uncomfy, I have no problem with that whatsoever. I am familiar with modern interrogation techniques to a moderate extent by having family in law enforcement. If, however, they are using the mild-ish methods you propose, why are these prisons secret? By what methods are the people in these places put there? How was their guilt determined and by who? The point is that we don't know - would likely never have known without the leak (which is also illegal).

The Nazis tortured their victims in order to obtain useful information. Here, our country is doing the same. If you'd care to object that the Nazis' victims were innocent, I would point out that no court has determined the guilt or innocence of our victims. The end does not justify the means. The means is reprehensible.

I'm never surprised when people disagree with me. What's upsetting is when they try to dismiss me out of hand because of some preconceived notion of my politics. I thought the advocacy of torture had gone out of style quite a long time ago for good reasons. I'm sorry if you get the idea I'm hysterical. I am angry, but I'm still thinking things over.

Maybe the problem is that I don't have proof they are torturing anybody, but you don't have any proof they aren't. The burden of proof is on me, you might say, but I think the circumstancial evidence is there. See, I don't want other nations to even think we'd do anything like torturing people. We have to live in the world. Doing things like that tends to upset our allies and our neighbors and lends credibility to those who would stand against us. The existence of such secret facilities where such things might be going hurts us. Frankly, if it wasn't going on, I doubt Dick Cheney would be up on the hill asking folks to let us do it.

I take it "Fitzmas" is in reference to the glee you imagine I must've felt as Libby got himself indicted. It only depressed me.

Your efforts to dismiss me as a talking head for some imagined left conspiracy for solidarity of opinion does you no credit.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:


...why are these prisons secret? By what methods are the people in these places put there? How was their guilt determined and by who? The point is that we don't know - would likely never have known without the leak (which is also illegal).

If we caught Zarqawi or someone of similar importance, he is just the person we would want in one of these camps. Quite frankly, Gitmo, for it's supposed security, is WAY too closely watched for anyone we want kept under silent custody. You bring up a relevant point of oversight. There needs to be some, but not so much that Vance has access to the guest list. That defeats the purpose of "secret prisons".

Why a secret prison? That is also a fair question. Say we catch Zarqawi's driver when he's visiting his maiden aunt for a few weeks (the dear is feeling poorly and wants some videos of hacked up Americans to feel better). We snatch him. Because he is in a secret prison, the enemy will not know to change every single safehouse this guy's been to. They will not know to send the alert to every mole in the new Iraqi government. Assuming they are not hacking off body parts, and using only standard interrogation techniques, what is the problem? How do you know they are torturing anybody? Yup, some Senators need to check out that whoever is in charge is held to some standards. But all we need to know is someone has the lists and someone has to answer to someone.

Now we get to move every single one of these prisons because someone got clever. Fine. Has anyone even asked if there was already Senate oversight? If there was, this was needless. I want their sources and I want them now.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If we're assuming the people doing the "arresting" have probable cause, then I agree with everything you said, flydye.

A legitimate investigation would procede along the parameters you establish. If Senate oversight existed, you're right, the furor was needless. If it existed, why wouldn't they step up and say so? I do NOT mean that as a rhetorical question. Is there a good reason for them not to?

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Read the indictment in it's entirety Vance.

Count One: Obstruction of Justice
Count Two: False Statement
Count Three: False Statement
Count Four: Perjury
Count Five: Perjury

Section d that you refer to merely states a reason for the initial investigation. Scooter was not indicted for actual "outing" anybody, but rather is all related to lying to investigators and to the Jury.

Your original statment:

quote:
The people who leaked Valerie Plame's name also committed a crime. They did it in a childish attempt to "get back" at her husband for pointing out a discrepancy in what the president was telling the country. He embarrassed Bush. They got his wife outted as a CIA employee which is indeedydo against the law.
Nope. "They" did NOT "out" plame. Otherwise we would most definitley have that included in the idictments.

But since you and many likeminded folks still trumpet this meme that they "outted Plame because Wilson embarassed Bush.." that is what I'm calling you on.

Citing section d of count one of the indictment does NOT in fact give you the confirmation you seek to validate the meme you believe in.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If it existed, why wouldn't they step up and say so?"

An excellent question. The only reason I can think of is to not confirm this information. Let the Post twist in the wind, though it looks bad regardless.

However someone on this forum tried to pin the leak on the Republicans because they mentioned it in a luncheon the day before. So, did they already know? Were they just given a last minute heads up so they didn't act surprised (which strikes at the heart of the argument that they leaked the info...)?

One senator wants an investigation, so I assume they didn't know till the last minute. We don't have any good information.

And they are not gulags.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, okay. We don't know who "outted" Plame. I suspect the administration, but it may have been an honest slip, and I'm willing to stipulate that it may have been somebody else for some other reason. Libby's behavior doesn't back that up. Why would he risk an indictment unless he was trying to protect himself or his superiors? But it's possible. You're right to call me on it. They're innocent until proven guilty, still I'm not sure you can qualify it as a baseless accusation.

The reason I was quoting that part of the indictment was to show that since her employment in the CIA was classified, revealing that was indeed a crime. I was aware of what Libby had been indicted for.

Only one senator? That's embarrassing.

I'm not sure we know what they are. Gulags, secret prisons, torture chambers, whatever. That's the shame of it.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's the best thing they could be?

Arguably, when you're fighting a war against organizations with a cell structure, dissapearing terrorists without letting anyone know where they are, would create the greatest potential havoc in the organization.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not trying to justify -- just trying to figure out reasons other than torture that they'd have these secret prisons.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If they're secret with no Senate oversight then they could be anything.

Senator McCain wrote something interesting for Newsweek. Here's the link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I respect McCain's position on this as a former tortured POW. I think we can imagine the depth of depraved reasons that we might have for secret prisons. I'm interested in exploring the breadth of possibilities here. What's the most noble, justifiable reason anyone could imagine for keeping a secret prison during a war on terror. Once we know the range of possible reasons, let's ask which one seems more likely.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think flydye has an interesting perspective on that question, Pete - look up a bit...

[ November 15, 2005, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
quote:


...why are these prisons secret? By what methods are the people in these places put there? How was their guilt determined and by who? The point is that we don't know - would likely never have known without the leak (which is also illegal).

If we caught Zarqawi or someone of similar importance, he is just the person we would want in one of these camps. Quite frankly, Gitmo, for it's supposed security, is WAY too closely watched for anyone we want kept under silent custody. You bring up a relevant point of oversight. There needs to be some, but not so much that Vance has access to the guest list. That defeats the purpose of "secret prisons".

Why a secret prison? That is also a fair question. Say we catch Zarqawi's driver when he's visiting his maiden aunt for a few weeks (the dear is feeling poorly and wants some videos of hacked up Americans to feel better). We snatch him. Because he is in a secret prison, the enemy will not know to change every single safehouse this guy's been to. They will not know to send the alert to every mole in the new Iraqi government. Assuming they are not hacking off body parts, and using only standard interrogation techniques, what is the problem? How do you know they are torturing anybody? Yup, some Senators need to check out that whoever is in charge is held to some standards. But all we need to know is someone has the lists and someone has to answer to someone.

Now we get to move every single one of these prisons because someone got clever. Fine. Has anyone even asked if there was already Senate oversight? If there was, this was needless. I want their sources and I want them now.

OK, Flydye -- that's believable. But that sounds like a special scenario. How often could that happen? enough to fill multiple secret prisons?

[ November 15, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A point.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is another question. Why are we assuming that they were started special for the Iraqi situation? That idea starts it's own rash of questions. Granted Romania and Poland are probably very recent additions. Does the CIA make it a practice to always have a set of secret prisons for their own purposes; say if a submarine captain wanted to defect and drop off a billion dollar sub? [Smile]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think Clinton had that good relations with the Eastern European countries. It took some of the American lefties a long time to forgive them for leaving the Warsaw Pact [Big Grin]

(ducking and running for cover)

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Vance

Two points. The snippet you posted from the indictment has nothing to do with the indictment itself. Rather it is a formal description of the legal process that was being followed by the investigators. One of the justifications for the existence of this special prosecution was that there was the potential explained in subheading "D". It was in the course of the investigations that a descrepency was discovered over what two reporters claimed regarding the time they came to know plame's status, and the time Libby claimed to have learned ex-officio the status of plame. The indictment concerns this descrpency, namely that it is a possible purgery. Two people said that it occured one way, and a third person has given conflicting testimony that it happened another way. The prosecuter found only this descrepency during the course of the investigation and seeks to protect the judicial integrety for future investigations by making an example of willingness to prosecute purgery even if it has nothing to do with the actual reason for an investigation.

By his own public statement, the prosecutor stated that there was no evidence of any leaking coming from the administration. He also stated that although the Grand Jury had been dismissed, he was considering the investigation to be open if any other evidence comes to light. Something that is common in whistleblower cases. As to the original scope and target of the investigation, i.e. did the administration leak, disseminate, or intetionaly out a CIA opperative, he found NO EVIDENCE.

So your proviso of example fails.

The second point is that Mr. Woodward has already publicly testified to the grand jury that he supports Libby's statements that it was common knowledge amoung whitehouse and hill reporters that plame was CIA, and that there was no confirmation by administration figures concerning her status with the CIA. Which means that ultimately the sole indictment that came out of the investigation, ie Libby's purgery, will be dropped because sworn testimony from four different but of equal stature parties supports two seperate conclusions leaving wide open the possibility that although different, all four statements of testimony may be true, and are likely true, meaning no purgery was ever intended nor occurred.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Vance
Member
Member # 2612

 - posted      Profile for Vance   Email Vance       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I understand that the indictment was not for revealing Plame's identity but for perjury. I did take the description of the legal ramifications of such a revelation to mean that, yes, it is illegal to reveal the identity of a CIA employee whose status in the organizaion is "classified". That was my point. Was I mistaken? It's legal to disseminate "classified" information?

Common knowledge among people who are in a position to know or find out accidentally or otherwise does not mean that they SHOULD know, or that making that knowledge public was legal. I'll leave it up to the court to determine what happened there.

Posts: 148 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1