NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4419960.stm

The US Central Intelligence Agency has taken the first step toward a criminal inquiry into who told the media that it runs secret jails abroad, reports say.
The investigation will examine possible leak of classified information, unnamed officials are quoted as saying.



Ok, now, let's follow this. In order to have a "leak", the information must be true. Thus, if they are trying to investigate a leak, the leaked information must be true. Thus, in publicly stating that this investigation has begun, the government has just freaking admitted that the CIA runs secret jails abroad!!!!!

The government could have investigated and even tried this secretly, as it has to do with national security. But no, they decided to broadcast to the world that they actually do have secret prisons! Way to go!!!!

Actually, the information given to the BBC might be based off a leak, which would kill the point.

Probably not, but maybe.

Many years ago (mid 1960's) I was on an operation with the USAF called "Operation XX XXX." When we returned from one mission we read an article in Time Magazine about "Operation XXXXXX." We laughed our ass off as the operation described in the article was no where close to the operation we were on, and it wasn't even carried out in the same country as the article stated.

So, was this a leak, the fantasy of some reporter, or disinformation by the government to throw the reporters off track?

My point is, "What's the big deal about these so called prisons?"

My point is, "What's the big deal about these so called prisons?"

The big deals are quite numerous. Aside from exposing America as a hypocrisy- which lowers its credibility in regards to human rights and justice even more, it also throws a green signal to unsavory governments that it's perfectly all right to continue with business as usual. And to ignore America's preaching on human rights violations (*coughcoughChinacoughcough*)

My point is, "What's the big deal about these so called prisons?"

It proves that Bush has bin Laden locked up in some secret location, ready to stage his capture at an opportune moment, in a conspiracy to assure his re-election.. :p Remember that one?

Many years ago (mid 1960's) I was on an operation with the USAF called "Operation XX XXX." When we returned from one mission we read an article in Time Magazine about "Operation XXXXXX." We laughed our ass off as the operation described in the article was no where close to the operation we were on, and it wasn't even carried out in the same country as the article stated.

So, was this a leak, the fantasy of some reporter, or disinformation by the government to throw the reporters off track?

My point is, "What's the big deal about these so called prisons?"

The problem is this: They can't investigate a leak that revealed untruthful information. Revealing lies is not a crime. Revealing the truth is. Thus, if someone leaked information about secret prisons, and they are being investigated, then secret prisons (the ones the government is busy denying the existence of) exist.

If I post up on my website, "The CIA has nuclear bombs in my basement," they cannot prosecute me for a leak (unless it is true, so if you guys don't hear from me again, you'll know that the CIA had nuclear bombs in my nonexistent basement somehow).

Many years ago (mid 1960's) I was on an operation with the USAF called "Operation XX XXX." When we returned from one mission we read an article in Time Magazine about "Operation XXXXXX." We laughed our ass off as the operation described in the article was no where close to the operation we were on, and it wasn't even carried out in the same country as the article stated.

So, was this a leak, the fantasy of some reporter, or disinformation by the government to throw the reporters off track?


More likely, if the information int he article is true, then you were kept in the dark about another operation taking place.

This whole secret prison thing really bugs me. The US needs to get slapped big time for trying to worm its way around the Geneva Convention. If no one slaps them now, then (far be it from me to use a WWII comparison, because it irritates me, but...) it would be remeniscent of the appeasement of Germany during the early-mid thirties. "We really don't want to start shit with these guys, because it's gonna be a big mess if we do, so we'll let them do what they want and we'll sit on the sidelines and complain quietly." The rest of the world (since god knows American citizens won't) needs to slap some cuffs on the US.

We had Saddam in a secret prison for a couple years, yes? Some said it was in Qatar, other papers claimed he was in the Baghdad area.. right? Only the Red Cross really knew, and even they didn't know whether he spent all his time in the prison they were allowed to visit. So we've had detainees in secret prisons before without controversy, but now it's some kind of scandal that we supposedly have others? We've also had prison breaks at some known prisons, and violence directed around others.. seems like hiding the locations of some prisoners is the best way to do things. So, unless we're denying the existence of secret prisons outright, an inquiry into the leak makes sense, if there's even a single shred of truth to the published articles.

The problem is this: They can't investigate a leak that revealed untruthful information. Revealing lies is not a crime. Revealing the truth is. Thus, if someone leaked information about secret prisons, and they are being investigated, then secret prisons (the ones the government is busy denying the existence of) exist.

If I post up on my website, "The CIA has nuclear bombs in my basement," they cannot prosecute me for a leak (unless it is true, so if you guys don't hear from me again, you'll know that the CIA had nuclear bombs in my nonexistent basement somehow).

The government can,however, investigate unauthorized contact with the media which may have come about in the form of a factually incorrect leak.


And to the original question "Is there a single competent person in the US government?" The answer is yes...me:D

It proves that Bush has bin Laden locked up in some secret location, ready to stage his capture at an opportune moment, in a conspiracy to assure his re-election.. :p Remember that one?

Yes I do. I also remember the space aliens that invaded the earth. :D

The government can,however, investigate unauthorized contact with the media which may have come about in the form of a factually incorrect leak.

True, but that wouldn't be an acutal leak and they could charge anyone with leaking information...

And to the original question "Is there a single competent person in the US government?" The answer is yes...me:D

Thank God! Can we put you in charge?

The problem is this: They can't investigate a leak that revealed untruthful information. Revealing lies is not a crime. Revealing the truth is. Thus, if someone leaked information about secret prisons, and they are being investigated, then secret prisons (the ones the government is busy denying the existence of) exist.


Revealing the truth is the antithesis of a crime and should be treated as such. If the US doesn't want its dirty little secrets to be found out, it shouldn't have them. It should stick to the principles it preaches about the proper treatment of human beings, since that seems to be what all the latest international moves have been about.

And to the original question "Is there a single competent person in the US government?" The answer is yes...me:D

You're more of a puppetmaster of the US goverment though, rather than being actually in it.

More likely, if the information int he article is true, then you were kept in the dark about another operation taking place.

When I read the article, I knew it was not the operation we were on and there is only one code name for each operation. I'm sure there were many other operations going on at the time but none with that code name except ours. The leak may have been a ploy to divert attention from what we were doing because some reporter got a piece of information that could have compromised national security, Or the reporter just made up a story. (No that would never happen. :D)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4419960.stm



Ok, now, let's follow this. In order to have a "leak", the information must be true. Thus, if they are trying to investigate a leak, the leaked information must be true. Thus, in publicly stating that this investigation has begun, the government has just freaking admitted that the CIA runs secret jails abroad!!!!!

The government could have investigated and even tried this secretly, as it has to do with national security. But no, they decided to broadcast to the world that they actually do have secret prisons! Way to go!!!!
You forget, these are the same people who stated on public television that "we do not torture" while simultaneously seeking an exemption from the torture ban for the CIA.

Revealing the truth is the antithesis of a crime and should be treated as such. If the US doesn't want its dirty little secrets to be found out, it shouldn't have them. It should stick to the principles it preaches about the proper treatment of human beings, since that seems to be what all the latest international moves have been about.

Just because we may have people locked away in "secret prisons" does not mean we are mistreating them or torturing them as you suggest. Maybe we are feeding them stake and lobster with the hope they will tell us all about their plans to blow up...hotels in Jordan...buildings in Baghdad...buildings in New York...restraints in Bali...etc. Or, maybe we are just keeping them in a safe place where they can not do those things.

<snip>

Maybe. It is kind of suspicious that you'd need secret prisions to do that though. You could do that in regular prisions, and probably for half the cost too.

Just because we may have people locked away in "secret prisons" does not mean we are mistreating them or torturing them as you suggest. Maybe we are feeding them stake and lobster with the hope they will tell us all about their plans to blow up...hotels in Jordan...buildings in Baghdad...buildings in New York...restraints in Bali...etc. Or, maybe we are just keeping them in a safe place where they can not do those things.

"Damn good steak! Maybe I'll tell these people who are invading my home and have me locked up without charges, trial, and kept in secret about all of my friends' plans!"

You forget that these people came from lives as well. If you knew, would you tell your enemies secrets because they were being nice to you? The dehumanization of America's foes is one of the biggest problems with American attitudes.

What do adults tell children to do in an argument? "Talk about it. Work it out." Do they EVER say, "If you still can't agree, then whoop the shit out of them,"? I haven't heard that yet. When you ignore the people who have problems with America, yeah, they're GOING to try to get your attention. How did they choose to do that? They FORCED the US to pay attention. Bomb the people and they certainly won't ignore you.

If the US didn't have its head so far up its ass over the last several decades, it might not have been such a hated entity.

If the US didn't have its head so far up its ass over the last several decades, it might not have been such a hated entity.

And that was what crossed the line and had your entire argument rejected out of hand.

And that was what crossed the line and had your entire argument rejected out of hand.

If you asked, I betcha 95% or more of the common American citizen will not have the slightest idea WHY they were attacked. Most will probably say, "Because those people hate freedom," because they think that regurgitating the words of their leaders gives them credibility.

If you asked, I betcha 95% or more of the common American citizen will not have the slightest idea WHY they were attacked. Most will probably say, "Because those people hate freedom," because they think that regurgitating the words of their leaders gives them credibility.

So, tell me why America was attacked on 911?

American's are not as dumb as you think. They're actually good people. It's the multinationals and goverment that you have to watch out for.

So, tell me why America was attacked on 911?

Blowback.

So, tell me why America was attacked on 911?

I don't feel like writing a book, but to prove that I'm not just avoiding your question, here's a few ideas:

-Bed buddies with Israel
-Bed buddies with Saudi Arabian government
-Bed buddies with Iraq against Iran
-And then bed buddies with Iran against Iraq (or maybe my chronology is messy, whatever it was, we were down with both of them at some point)

I don't say that I agree with them attacking, but I'm not sitting here wondering why they did. Like when my little brother finally gets bit by the dog he's been kicking. It was bound to happen unless one of them changed their behavior, and nobody is going to change their behavior without an impetus.

American's are not as dumb as you think. They're actually good people. It's the multinationals and goverment that you have to watch out for.

I know a lot of good Americans. I know a lot of bad Americans. I know a lot of smart Americans. I know a lot of stupid Americans.

But in so many cases, good, bad, smart, stupid, many of them are ignorant in that they are unaware of much of the rest of the world. That's my point. They aren't paying attention to anything until it's in their back yard. Then they sit there complaining. If they'd been watching the neighbors instead of jerking off, they would have seen what was going on, and therefore wouldn't be so shocked when something happened to them.

And yes, that government thing... I agree. They're still there, aren't they? ::sigh:: :rolleyes:

Ok, now, let's follow this. In order to have a "leak", the information must be true. Thus, if they are trying to investigate a leak, the leaked information must be true. Thus, in publicly stating that this investigation has begun, the government has just freaking admitted that the CIA runs secret jails abroad!!!!!

The government could have investigated and even tried this secretly, as it has to do with national security. But no, they decided to broadcast to the world that they actually do have secret prisons! Way to go!!!!

Umm...didn't you ever wonder what it meant when a media report mentioned a terrorist being held in an "undisclosed location?" What has the CIA up in arms isn't the story about secret prisons (anyone who paid close attention could have figured that out from non-classified official documents), but rather the information in the WaPo story about specific locations and local governments thats are complacent. The knowledge that such facilities exist actually helps the CIA (the threat of sending someone to a black location is a powerful tool in the hands of an interrogator), but information about locations, even as general as a nation, hurts the CIA because those governments that cooperate will be under pressure to shut the locations down.

As for your theory about a secret trial, thats unlikely. An investigation could be held in secret, transcripts could be sealed, information classified, but eventually a charge would have to be brought in a public court. The leaker is definately not an enemy combatant, and likely not military, which means an open trial and public charges. Damage done. The CIA is savvy putting the story out now, that way, when a trial starts, its old news.

93
93/93

This whole secret prison thing really bugs me. The US needs to get slapped big time for trying to worm its way around the Geneva Convention. If no one slaps them now, then (far be it from me to use a WWII comparison, because it irritates me, but...) it would be remeniscent of the appeasement of Germany during the early-mid thirties. "We really don't want to start shit with these guys, because it's gonna be a big mess if we do, so we'll let them do what they want and we'll sit on the sidelines and complain quietly." The rest of the world (since god knows American citizens won't) needs to slap some cuffs on the US.

Care to explain how? The international community has exactly three tools: Strongly worded condemnations, embargos, and war. The first isn't worth a damn, the second won't work (embargos against nonentities like Cuba and Libya are ignored, do you really think the world would be willing to do without any American trade?), and no one with the power to even think about the third cares enough to bother (China needs the US for it's economy to survive, and we let them slide on human rights often enough).

93
93/93

Care to explain how? The international community has exactly three tools: Strongly worded condemnations, embargos, and war. The first isn't worth a damn, the second won't work (embargos against nonentities like Cuba and Libya are ignored, do you really think the world would be willing to do without any American trade?), and no one with the power to even think about the third cares enough to bother (China needs the US for it's economy to survive, and we let them slide on human rights often enough).

93
93/93

That's the big problem, isn't it? Unless the rest of the world rose as one to tell the US to sit down, shut up, and keep making wheat and outsourcing, all they have are words.

However, if the world were to use words, and the US would thus ignore them, then legitimacy is questioned. Movements can be made to grab hold of the steering wheel. The best way to stop a truck is to push on the brake pedal, not drive another truck into it. Change would have to come from the inside.

I don't feel like writing a book, but to prove that I'm not just avoiding your question, here's a few ideas:

-Bed buddies with Israel
-Bed buddies with Saudi Arabian government
-Bed buddies with Iraq against Iran
-And then bed buddies with Iran against Iraq (or maybe my chronology is messy, whatever it was, we were down with both of them at some point)

I don't say that I agree with them attacking, but I'm not sitting here wondering why they did. Like when my little brother finally gets bit by the dog he's been kicking. It was bound to happen unless one of them changed their behavior, and nobody is going to change their behavior without an impetus.

Yeah, but I'm betting that dog doesn't have a record of response to threats like the US does. Manifest Destiny, Roosevelt and his Rough Riders, Big Boy (The first Bomb). This isn't some kind of cosmic justice, its the real world. There are no good guys. America was attacked for whatever reasons you want to choose (mostly because we stood behind Britain's assinine Israeli state) by people who want to drag the world back to the time of Caliphates. Now America is responding. No one is being corrected, no behavior will be changed.

Your dog analogy is kind of on point, though. World politics is like a junkyard, and theres quite a few dogs bucking for alpha. In the end, its not the one who is most righteous, who is most civilized, who is most advanced, these are not the dogs who will be the alpha. Its the meanest, the strongest, the one with the most tenacity. The truth of the matter is, Iraq wasn't about oil, or buisness, or terrorism, or democracy. It was a takedown, a warning. It was the strongest dog in the yard tearing the throat out of the one that nipped at it's heels.

93
93/93

That's the big problem, isn't it? Unless the rest of the world rose as one to tell the US to sit down, shut up, and keep making wheat and outsourcing, all they have are words.

However, if the world were to use words, and the US would thus ignore them, then legitimacy is questioned. Movements can be made to grab hold of the steering wheel. The best way to stop a truck is to push on the brake pedal, not drive another truck into it. Change would have to come from the inside.

And the US said no. I agree, we do need a change in our government. Neoconservatism seeks to use the war to impose tyranny, I think they need to be taken down. Still, your talk to appeasment seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Between the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the weak reaction to the riots in France, I think the appeasement cuts both ways.

93
93/93

Yeah, but I'm betting that dog doesn't have a record of response to threats like the US does. Manifest Destiny, Roosevelt and his Rough Riders, Big Boy (The first Bomb). This isn't some kind of cosmic justice, its the real world. There are no good guys. America was attacked for whatever reasons you want to choose (mostly because we stood behind Britain's assinine Israeli state) by people who want to drag the world back to the time of Caliphates. Now America is responding. No one is being corrected, no behavior will be changed.

Your dog analogy is kind of on point, though. World politics is like a junkyard, and theres quite a few dogs bucking for alpha. In the end, its not the one who is most righteous, who is most civilized, who is most advanced, these are not the dogs who will be the alpha. Its the meanest, the strongest, the one with the most tenacity. The truth of the matter is, Iraq wasn't about oil, or buisness, or terrorism, or democracy. It was a takedown, a warning. It was the strongest dog in the yard tearing the throat out of the one that nipped at it's heels.

93
93/93

You know, I totally hear that. Humans are animals too. Civilization is the wood veneer over cold stone.

None of the people involved in all this war crap are more correct or more wrong than the other. I'm not taking sides with either -- I don't want my hands on that mess. I'll let all the big angry dogs bite eachother's dicks off, sitting in the corner chewing on my simple chew toy is good enough for me.

I'm off, I just got some important breaking news, and I need to update people on my airsoft forum.

Take it easy all.

You know, I totally hear that. Humans are animals too. Civilization is the wood veneer over cold stone.

None of the people involved in all this war crap are more correct or more wrong than the other. I'm not taking sides with either -- I don't want my hands on that mess. I'll let all the big angry dogs bite eachother's dicks off, sitting in the corner chewing on my simple chew toy is good enough for me.

Ahh, not quite true. Perhaps I was unclear. When I said that there were no good guys, I wasn't engaging in relativism. I do honestly believe that there are things that make America (or, more generally, western society) better than other modes. Were still not good, and we still do terrible things (particularily when we need to defend our status as Alpha), but we are closer to right than others. Take women's issues, for example. Theres a long way to go in America on those issues, but we're a hell of a lot better than Northern Africa or the middle east.

93
93/93

Ahh, not quite true. Perhaps I was unclear. When I said that there were no good guys, I wasn't engaging in relativism. I do honestly believe that there are things that make America (or, more generally, western society) better than other modes. Were still not good, and we still do terrible things (particularily when we need to defend our status as Alpha), but we are closer to right than others. Take women's issues, for example. Theres a long way to go in America on those issues, but we're a hell of a lot better than Northern Africa or the middle east.

93
93/93

One last thing before I'm gone:
I agree with you on issues such as women's rights and what not, but there are places where America has great shortcomings that other places do not. It is simply a matter of what mode of civilization the countries are in that determines what these kinds of shortcomings are.

Very Yin-Yang.

One last thing before I'm gone:
I agree with you on issues such as women's rights and what not, but there are places where America has great shortcomings that other places do not. It is simply a matter of what mode of civilization the countries are in that determines what these kinds of shortcomings are.


Name a single area that Northern African/Middle Eastern civilization bests western civilization.

93
93/93

Name a single area that Northern African/Middle Eastern civilization bests western civilization.
The family unit and the relationships between generations.

This whole secret prison thing really bugs me. The US needs to get slapped big time for trying to worm its way around the Geneva Convention. If no one slaps them now, then (far be it from me to use a WWII comparison, because it irritates me, but...) it would be remeniscent of the appeasement of Germany during the early-mid thirties. "We really don't want to start shit with these guys, because it's gonna be a big mess if we do, so we'll let them do what they want and we'll sit on the sidelines and complain quietly." The rest of the world (since god knows American citizens won't) needs to slap some cuffs on the US.

You're perfectly free to try:rolleyes:

"Damn good steak! Maybe I'll tell these people who are invading my home and have me locked up without charges, trial, and kept in secret about all of my friends' plans!"

You forget that these people came from lives as well. If you knew, would you tell your enemies secrets because they were being nice to you? The dehumanization of America's foes is one of the biggest problems with American attitudes.

What do adults tell children to do in an argument? "Talk about it. Work it out." Do they EVER say, "If you still can't agree, then whoop the shit out of them,"? I haven't heard that yet. When you ignore the people who have problems with America, yeah, they're GOING to try to get your attention. How did they choose to do that? They FORCED the US to pay attention. Bomb the people and they certainly won't ignore you.

If the US didn't have its head so far up its ass over the last several decades, it might not have been such a hated entity.

Grow up. Let me guess...you are either from Europe or San Francisco.

Put down the joint for a moment and realize that geopolitics is not just kindergarten on a larger scale.

You know, I totally hear that. Humans are animals too. Civilization is the wood veneer over cold stone.

None of the people involved in all this war crap are more correct or more wrong than the other. I'm not taking sides with either -- I don't want my hands on that mess. I'll let all the big angry dogs bite eachother's dicks off, sitting in the corner chewing on my simple chew toy is good enough for me.

Unfortunately for you the Jihadists don't really care if you sit out or not. Convert or die, infidel.

Unfortunately for you the Jihadists don't really care if you sit out or not. Convert or die, infidel.

::sad sigh::

Drives my point about "why" home.

And no, I'm not in San Francisco, or Europe -- even better, Chicago.

I don't smoke, I'm quite grown up, and kindergarten seems to be an adequate comparison, as most of the world leaders seem to be playing the childish game of "top this" and going out on the playground after school to have their little gang fights.

Yes, children are all they are.

::sad sigh::

Drives my point about "why" home.

And no, I'm not in San Francisco, or Europe -- even better, Chicago.

I don't smoke, I'm quite grown up, and kindergarten seems to be an adequate comparison, as most of the world leaders seem to be playing the childish game of "top this" and going out on the playground after school to have their little gang fights.

Yes, children are all they are.
Don't insult kindergarden like that.

World leaders are first graders or pre-schoolers. Never learned Kindergarden rules or forgot them.


In Kindergarden you learn all the important things in life:
If you make a mess, clean it up. Don't cry, don't yell, don't make a fist, clean it up if you made it.

You can't force someone to play with you. You have to be respectful and considerate. Always say please.

You can't force others to clean it up if they made the mess. You get the teacher. Keep your hands to your self!

All things that are alive eventually die. This isn't as sad thing, but a fact of life.

Learn to share: it is more fun to share toys than hog them yourself. It might seem otherwise, but you'll see.

Put things back the way you found them to show your considerate: You'd want to thers to do it for you. However, Don't touch another person's stuff without asking.

There are more but these are basics.