Oh. The explanation for Congress' closed session surfaces.

[icarus]

Today's Washington Post article about CIA secret prisons scattered around the world.

I guess we now know what Tuesday's closed session in the Senate was about.

The Washington Post would have informed them that this article was coming out on Wednesday: "Do you have anything to add?" I bet the Democrats were pissed.

The two unidentified European countries that have CIA prisons are Poland and Romania. WG just informed me that Poland and Romania are both desperate for US weapons and have been given weapons deals in exchange for their participation in the Iraq war.

Comments

[milady22.livejournal.com]

It's probably more safe to say "Polish and Romanian governments", eh?:) Anyway, we simple citizens of Poland know nothing about secret prisons and CIA planes landing on our airports - which doesn't necessarily mean it's all rubbish. Plus the anti-war protests were pretty strong here in Warsaw, not that many people really cared because it all seemed so distant and surreal, even though it sounded quite good for some of the so called patriots: "The United States, Great Britain AND POland are waging war against terrorism".
Geez.

I wonder what is going to happen now that the whole politic scene after the elections is right-wing and even more right-wing (read: ultra-catholic, nationalistic and populist). I really hate this country sometimes and now I'm going to hate it even more for the next 4 or 5 years.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

It's not rubbish. The Washington Post is a damned powerful organization with high journalistic standards. They're the ones that broke the Watergate scandal and are responsible for the resignation of former U.S. President Nixon.

Trust me, this is no fly-by-night report.

They're getting the straight scoop, probably from disaffected CIA as well as Human Rights organizations.

You may not like what your government is doing, but bear in mind that I was at an anti-war protest yesterday and my government is running these prisons.

Poland was bribed into backing the Iraq war. Romania hasn't gotten much from the US (4 C-130s and a couple frigates) but the package for Poland was more generous.

Icarus

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Ah. I read further. Apparently Canada, France, Italy and the Netherlands have been conducting investigations into citizens of there's who have disappeared and are believed to be in these what the CIA calls "black sites."

Four countries have been investigating these prisons.

Reading the level of detail here, it's clear CIA who've been directly involved in the administration of these sites came forward. There's no other way they could know so much.

There are even the blunders such as a young CIA operative who ordered a prisoner stripped naked outside in Afghanistan's winter and left there chained to a fence all night (the man died). Apparently the CIA had no idea what to do with newly captured suspected terrorists so kept them in cargo containers... until some asphixiated.

Then they had a facility in Thailand in 2003, but its existence came to light and Thailand changed its mind and asked them to leave. Many of these prisoners were kept in Guantamano Bay, but were moved once there was greater US oversight. (Which... I can't imagine the conditions under which these people are being kept. Guantamano is so bad 200 prisoners went on a hunger strike in July and 28 are being force-fed.)

Early information on the situation is detailed and definitely firsthand. Later information is far more sketchy, so this is someone who was taken out of the loop at some point following... hmmm... it looks like 2003-4.

Read it. I've no doubt of its credibility.

Icarus

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Correcting typo: "of there's" should be "of theirs."

Chat is destroying my grammar, one homonym at a time.

Icarus

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

When my parents immigrated to this country, it was to get away from governments who did this. It is just horrid, simply sickening.

WG just informed me that Poland and Romania are both desperate for US weapons and have been given weapons deals in exchange for their participation in the Iraq war.

If this is true, then it's a terrible, horrible pity. Poland and Romania have sold themselves cheap.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

The arms deals in exchange for participation are reported in Jane's, which is the bible of the international arms industry.

It is very technical, highly detailed, and unbiased: a frank reporting of the military hardware that is available from all countries that produce it, who is selling what, who has bought what, and what are the political forces that are effecting the arms market. The source of his information is the same source the military arms dealers use. (It also costs approx. $500 and weighs about 500 lbs., though he reads it at the local library.)

Icarus

[byandby.livejournal.com]

Do you think that this is in retaliation for the Valerie Wilson leak? The Bush administration has been dissing the CIA, and the CIA just said, "Enough."

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I thought her name was Valerie Plume, but yes, I suspect that had a lot to do with it. There's more to it than just the Plume issue however.

The White House decided that the CIA's job should be done by the Pentagon, and within the last year Rumsfeld was named to the head of a new military intelligence operation that is completely under White House control. It's not subject to the same scrutiny as the CIA, as they can hide behind national security in a way the CIA cannot.

They do not have the training, mindset, equipment, or anything else to do the CIA's job. But once they do they will replace the CIA.

Why replace the CIA? The White House was upset, you see, when several high-ranking CIA officials refused to toe the line and "find" evidence of WMDs that didn't exist. Several high-ranking CIA officials were fired or quit over this.

Then once the case for WMDs turned out to be bogus, the White House attempted to blame the CIA. One of the former CIA head honchos went on the record, wrote a book, appeared on news shows (including 60 Minutes) to say this was bullshit. He exposed a five-man political team working for the president whose jobs were to create/find evidence of WMDs.

He said that Bush was focused on Iraq long before 9/11, to the exclusion of CIA concerns about Al Quaida (President Clinton bombed Al Quaida facilities in 1998-9).

Yeah, the bad blood between Bush and the CIA goes waaaay back to 2001. Bush ignored them, then tried to blame them for 9/11, then tried to bully them, and is now trying to replace them.

Icarus

[byandby.livejournal.com]

Aaahhhh. That makes sense. And since the CIA wouldn't create evidence, he and the rest of the team have been badmouthing the CIA - trying to discredit and replace. (Wilson is her married name.)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Yep. The CIA is too professional to just obey like puppies. They know that the president's influence was limited to his time in office. Beyond that, if they engage in behaviour that's against the standards of their field they would have mud on their faces.

(Wilson is her married name.)

Ah, that's why it sounded so familiar.

Icarus

[vichka.livejournal.com]

Gosh, I could so use ur eloquent opinion in my journal right now :)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Okay, I took a peek. But a lot of the debate's in Russian.

A tip on dealing with hot-heads: keep your initial responses simple, direct, with only one or two points, open-ended and directed at their own arguments. For example:

Hot head: "All protesters are helping the terrorists!"

Your response: "How does exercising free speech help terrorists?"

Open-ended: Note that it draws out their own argument (which promises to be entertaining and ridiculous) with a question that can't be answered with just a yes or no.

Simple and direct: Note also that you provide them with no new information about your position. This focuses the conversation so you stop them from stirring up emotions and force them talk about facts.

Directed at their own argument: Note that instead of adding new information to defend yourself, you are asking them to defend their own position. This gives the hot head nothing new to attack.

If they go back to your original argument, bring them up short with: "You didn't answer my question. How does free speech help terrorists?"

Lastly, be sure to maintain a calm, interested manner. This will either:

a) relax them so you can engage in a civilized debate (the ideal scenario), or

b) drive them bat-shit crazy (the amusing scenario).

Once they've descended to base insults, of course, you've won the argument as they're clearly out of facts and are trying to win by upsetting you. They have only embarrassed themselves: roll your eyes and move on. Never make apologies when you're on solid moral ground.

Icarus

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean. The guys who are attacking you in your journal are really arrogant. They bluster into the conversation like they're God's own experts on the universe.

When they lose a point, they don't acknowledge or take a new tack -- they simply pretend it didn't happen, hoping no one will notice. Instead pull out their pricks to say "mine's bigger!" when that has nothing to do with the subject.

On top of that, every debate point is a personal attack from them, from the start. I've run into people like this but only on the Backpacker forums, which are completely unmoderated.

Icarus

[vichka.livejournal.com]

Except for that Poland pulled their troops, and there's been a confusion with following up with a contract on both sides.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that Poland still has their troops in Iraq.

Poland's deal from US military (separate but related to our good relations with them) included an Oliver Hazard Perry class guided missile frigate. But a large part of why they supported the US is that they wanted to join NATO.

Icarus

[jaig.livejournal.com]

*blinks* Oh.

Is it just me or is the United States fucking the whole world up to protect themselves? In really stupid ways? From really inane things?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

We're a powerful, wealthy country, armed to the teeth, led by a profoundly bad leader who has no moral compunction about lying (WMDs), firing anyone who gets in his way (CIA, Colin Powell), and who doesn't listen to experts in their field (the Pentagon) -- so he's inept on top of it all.

For example, the Pentagon told him we shouldn't invade Iraq, that it would be a mess. He did it anyways, listening to the people who told him what he wanted to hear.

When the CIA said "we don't torture people, it doesn't work" he went against it and didn't care about the implications.

He throws out those in the press who ask tough or unpleasant questions. Their press passes are revoked and they're not invited back for the next press conference.

He surrounds himself with yes-men but doesn't have the leadership ability to make a decision when there's a real crisis such as 9/11 or Katrina. It took us months to respond to 9/11. He sat on his ass for three days about the Indonesia quake and didn't so much as call one world leader. Again he sat on his bum for three days about Katrina.

In short: he's an idiot. And now we're in a real mess.

Icarus

[jaig.livejournal.com]

Along with the rest of the world, yeah.

He's just incompetent. Completely.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I did mean we as in all of us, the whole world.

Or the short version of that rant: Bush *stab-stab-stab-stab*

Icarus