| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| CIA prisons leak 'to be probed' |
| 2005-11-09 |
| 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. Last week the Washington Post newspaper alleged that the CIA was running detention centres for terror suspects in unnamed Eastern European countries. The Bush administration has so far refused to comment on the allegations. On Tuesday Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice averted questions on the issue, saying only that the US was in a "different kind of war" and had an obligation to defend itself. The BBC's Fergal Parkinson in Washington says the repeated refusal by the administration to confirm or deny the reports has fuelled speculation that the secret prisons do exist. Officials quoted by the Associated Press and Reuters news agencies on condition of anonymity said the CIA had asked the justice department to look into a possible leak. The department will decide whether to initiate criminal proceedings. Some governments have already issued denials, including Romania and Poland which were named by New York-based Human Rights Watch as possible hosts for the prisons. Republican congressional leaders, including Senator Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, had called for a congressional investigation into possible leaks. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #55 Forgiven & forgotten, thanks. :-) |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-09 23:28 |
| #54 You have to put little smileys or /joke thingies for me, Besoeker. I'm unsubtle, I'm afraid, as well as naive in my own little way. I do apologize. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-11-09 23:20 |
| #53 Liten up Hilda, it was a pun, a poke, an attempt at humour. I voted for him as well. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-09 23:03 |
| #52 Nobody with a Harvard MBA is simple, Besoeker. Uncomplicated, perhaps, but not simple. 2b, remoteman, thank you. I value your judgements, especially in a case that is so heartfelt. My parents, as you and many here know, were European Jews of the Holocaust generation. Mama was a German, and spent her youth in hiding in Holland. My father was originally Latvian intellegentsia -- most of his relatives evaporated, but he and his mother made it to then-Palestine. I take accusations of fascism very seriously; to me that means a great deal more than mere torture in a few secret prisons. And Aris knows better: he has a university education, and is exceedingly well read for his age... and he really does admire America, which is why this crap really pisses me off. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-11-09 22:55 |
| #51 a simple majority of us voted for George W. Bush, the Republican candidate TW: .... or was that a majority of us voted for a simple George W. Bush ....? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-09 22:41 |
| #50 TW, that was one of the great counter arguments I have seen in my 2+ years on Rantburg. In fact it was a smackdown, but I don't want to jump on the flame bandwagon. Aris was way off base losing perspective totally. I don't think he understands the power of our republic to self correct. In fact, he sounds more like the loony libs or Lyndon LaRouche in the way he makes the exception seem like potential reality. Excellent and very coherent argument. I am, as so often here at Rantburg, impressed. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-11-09 22:38 |
| #49 Just once. I know you'll pull the same shit again, though, so I know this is a wasted effort. Come on, Robert! Tell me one kind of secret that you believe a government *shouldn't* be allowed to keep. Tell me what you feel the minimum limitations on arrent and detention powers should be. I think any information -- with reasonable cause -- should be able to be kept secret. Keep in mind we have Congressional oversight committees that can see this stuff and apply corrections in terms of budget and laws. But they're not above the laws protecting classified information, and their leaking is as illegal as it would be if I did it. Most government activity should be open and transparent -- and guess what, Aris, it is! -- and there's certainly too much classified stuff, but I don't think classifying how we handle those who are outlaws in the truest sense is excessive. We don't need to know. The world doesn't need to know. What about you -- should every bit of information in the hands of government be open to public view? Are there limits to the public's right to know? Should I be able to go down to the local library and see your tax documents? Your police record? Your service record, including any medical files? Detention: US citizens and lawful combatants should be handled according the Constitution and laws (for citizens) and according to the Geneva Conventions (for lawful combatants). Unlawful combatants -- fuck 'em. They chose to take themselves outside the law. Yep, if it's a fuzzy case, there should be some review. Military tribunals are the historically applied method. But there are some cases where they're obviously unlawful combatants, and no review is necessary. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed comes to mind. (And now you'll claim I just restated the strawmen you listed earlier.) |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 22:36 |
| #48 whew! Damn. You go girl! |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-09 22:09 |
| #47 Don't be deliberately obtuse, Aris. Any statement that generalizes to the entirety of Rantburg readers (who at moments have numbered over 9000 -- back in the old days when Fred kept a counter going) canot possibly be true, and is therefore rude. You know damned well we don't hold a monolithic viewpoint here. You cannot possibly be serious about America becoming fascist, so please stop arguing that point. The U.S. is a federal republic, not a democracy. The difference is that we democratically elect people to represent us and do the work of government. If a majority of us don't like the job they do, we replace them. If some of us really don't like what is being done in our name, we run for office ourselves, and hopefully convince a simple majority of the community to agree. And please remember, we've been doing this, successfully and continuously (as opposed to continually, I do know the difference), since about 1780. Over time we have evolutionarily modified our practices to accomodate changes in population, land area, majority economic activity, population movements, and culture. So if this is how we are, it is because we, as a society, have chosen it. When we, as a people, discussed the future direction of our country in 1999, a simple majority of us voted for George W. Bush, the Republican candidate. And four years later, in a referendum on the way the War on Terror (Afghani and Iraqi battles, inclusive) was being fought, a larger majority re-elected him, knowing, among other things, that he would have to replace several sitting Supreme Court judges due to old age. We also knew that George Bush's government was keeping secrets along the way. We, as a people, have long since chosen to permit this. Most of the time, it works out all right. When it doesn't, sooner or later it is discovered, and a new government is elected that fixes the problem. You know these things, Aris -- that's why you are essentially a Euro-style liberal (that translates to Libertarian on this side of the pond, for those who are new to Aris's arguments). Please , please, please stop getting sidetracked into vicious arguments about nothing in particular. I solemnly swear to you I will not allow the U.S. government to persecute law-abiding minorities, set up concentration camps, or set up secret prisons for the mass-torture of innocents. But you cannot ask me to worry about a few terrorists, caught in the act on foreign soil, being kept on foreign soil until they reveal their further plans, whose goal in life is to murder all those of my faith, and subject the rest of my countrymen -- as well as your fellow Europeans -- to rapine, slavery and worse, all in the name of a totalitarian, fascist view of their god's will. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-11-09 22:01 |
| #46 Ah, the Bad Old Days are back. |
| Posted by: Regnad Kcin 2005-11-09 21:55 |
| #45 Besoeker, nah....they developed cold sores, and just flat out littered. Bastards can't use a trash can, apparently. ;) |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-11-09 21:47 |
| #44 First, the USA does not have to justify itself to you or the rest of the world. America's success is its own justification. Second, I doubt that you particularly care about American democracy. I would suggest that you wish to weaken America, like the rest of the EUnuches. Third The USA is a republic and REPRESENTATIVE democracy. As was pointed out earlier, we elect people to undertake action on our behalf. Fourth Absent some system of detention, only rough battlefield justice is left. That would be my preference, but pehaps this is more humane. Fifth Foreign fighters do not have rights under the US Constitution. Nor would you if you were committing terrorist acts against Americans. Finally The mere fact that a substantial portion of Americans still have strength to reject dhimmitude annoys the rest of the world greatly. The secret prisons do not reduce the stature of America. I would suggest that the carping is motivated by envy. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-11-09 21:44 |
| #43 Very clever, Aris, to use Amendment 9. However, under our commonly accepted way of interpreting the Constitution, that is more commonly interpreted as "what is not forbidden is permitted", not the "right to know" in this country. Also, consent implies permission, not knowledge. People consent to things all the time without knowing all the details. (For a good example, see my boss....just kidding.) Neither one of the statements you quoted has ever been used to argue the citizenry's absolute right to know what the government is up to in all circumstances. We aren't entitled to know everything done by our government. Case in point.....the Manhattan Project. Explain to me precisely how knowing about that, even in the slightest detail, would have been worth publicizing during World War II. Or other operations we carried out against the Soviet Union during the cold war. The Soviets are gone now, but there is plenty that won't come out until you and I are getting our pension checks, if ever. Journalists have the right to publicize anything they want. I have not argued otherwise. However, we also have the right to question their motivation for doing so, and if they do something to endanger American lives and interests abroad, they can be punished under appropriate laws. And I know you don't want to hear this, but....foreigners overseas don't have the protection of our Constitution if they are detained. That's already been decided by our courts. Sorry. Try again. Hell, foreigners here don't have all the rights that citizens have (as I know from personal experience). You may not like it, but that's what we have decided as a nation. If there was an outcry here to change it, we would have done so. Don't assume that Americans don't know about that policy. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-11-09 21:43 |
| #42 Good news, Aris: American democracy is working just fine. I voted yesterday -- in secret. I had options. I'm satisfied that it was all done fairly and the results were available today. The losers do not fear being sent to "secret detention". The winners are my representatives -- I don't expect or even want them to bombard me with every detail of how they run my government. But I do expect them to keep secrets secret and prosecute anyone who leaks classified information. And I will sleep soundly tonight, knowing that most of the Americans in charge are not hysterical raving paranoids like *you*. Good night. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-11-09 21:38 |
| #41 *Ofcourse* you're through with me: Anything to avoid actually stating your own positions, as I just challenged you to do. Come on, Robert! Tell me one kind of secret that you believe a government *shouldn't* be allowed to keep. Tell me what you feel the minimum limitations on arrent and detention powers should be. And then let us see how long till the US Government violates your minimum standards also -- if you have any, that is. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 21:31 |
| #40 the CIA was the one who "developed" the AIDS virus, littered the streets of our cities with crack cocaine, and heaven knows what else Blondie: This isn't so? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-09 21:30 |
| #39 Oh, and since this is just you back to your old ways, I'm through with you. Again. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 21:24 |
| #38 They're the positions you've consistently held, Robert. No, they're not. They're your misinterpretations of positions taken by me and others. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 21:22 |
| #37 It's not my neighbors or even Teddy Kennedy that are going to "secret detention" -- it's a bunch of dangerous foreign whackos Is it that they're "dangerous" or that they're "foreign" that gives you the right to keep them in secret detention? Because there are lots of dangerous American citizens as well and *they* do get the right of a trial when they're caught. I don't need an *excuse*! Need is relative. Perhaps you don't need one for your conscience, you mean. But I don't care about your conscience, I care for American democracy instead. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 21:21 |
| #36 I voted for Bush. Twice. I even like what he's doing now. It's not my neighbors or even Teddy Kennedy that are going to "secret detention" -- it's a bunch of dangerous foreign whackos. Bush is not Stalin, Aris, but you *are* Jacques Chirac. I don't need an *excuse*! |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-11-09 21:13 |
| #35 we weren't angry, LOL - we ridiculed you. nite-nite |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-09 21:12 |
| #34 Just to remind you, any statement that contains the phrase, "you people," is inherently rude, Is it? I preferred to use "y'all" to signify the second-person plural, but people used to get angry about that as well. Please do tell me another way to distinguish between plural and singular uses of "you" when the distinction needs be made |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 21:10 |
| #33 The so-called "right to know" is not in our Constitution. Amendment IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Consent implies knowledge. You can't give consent to something without knowing about it. It's a fundamental of democracy. Secret jails where people are shoved without any hint due process are not a mere detail. Certainly enough people consider it a big deal that it should be up to the American people to decide *whether* it's a mere detail or not. Especially when you can't provide adequate reason for why it shouldn't become known, *other* than the fact that some people won't consider it a detail. And as for the right of journalist to publicize stuff, that for one *is* explicit in the constitution. Robert> "Aris, every one of the bullet points you have above is a strawman -- positions *YOU* invented and assigned to us. " They're the positions you've consistently held, Robert. But by all means please tell me which kind of secrets you think that the US Government shouldn't be allowed to keep, which kind of powers to imprison the US Government shouldn't be allowed to have. Prove me wrong for once, by telling me what are your actual opinions on your governments' rights and obligations, rather than just mock me about my opinions on them. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 21:08 |
| #32 Aris, the ancient Greeks were famous for their manners (when they weren't bashing people over the head, anyway). I realize there are those who say that the citizens of modern Greece are subsequent settlers from Asia Minor, rather than lineal descendents, but that doesn't mean you need to throw away politeness altogether. Just to remind you, any statement that contains the phrase, "you people," is inherently rude, and will automatically lose the argument for you with this audience -- even with me, and I am more likely to tolerate sophomoric argument styles than many here. You bring valuable information to this forum. But you've graduated from university, done your military service, and now you are an adult. Stop acting like the callow, chubby youth you were six months ago. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-11-09 21:07 |
| #31 Aris, every one of the bullet points you have above is a strawman -- positions *YOU* invented and assigned to us. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 20:58 |
| #30 You asked me a specific question, Darrell, I answered it clearly and concisely. You should have atleast acknowledged that. But like Robert and Frank you like to pretend that secret policies are the same thing in a supposed-democracy as secret codes or secret locations, no matter how ridiculous and unsustainable *that* position is. Review in your minds the powers that you want your government to have, and you'll find out that the description you'll build is as far removed from any concept of democracy as can be: -no transparency -no need to consult the public about any action whatsoever -no accountability -the right of the government to imprison anyone it wants without anyone having the right to challenge that decision or even know about it -the right of the government to *torture* anyone it wants without anyone having the right to challenge that decision or even know about it And in everything anyone says to object to all these, you parrot-like repeat the old mantra as if you were babies who had taught one and only song: "We're in a war, we're in a war". Yeah, you're in a war. That doesn't excuse you. What the hell makes you think it does? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 20:49 |
| #29 Ah, what the hell, time for me to toss a bomblet in here (can't resist, sorry guys....) Aris, just wondering. Precisely why must my government tell me every single thing they are doing during wartime as part of the plan to fight said war? Even in generalities, as in "we have secret prisons in an undisclosed location" kind of thing? My knowledge, or lack thereof, of this kind of detail isn't something that in my opinion is absolutely necessary. My government, and yours too, does plenty of things that I don't know about and/or will never know about. The so-called "right to know" is not in our Constitution. The only ones bloviating about it are journalists, and they basically use it as shorthand for "we have the right to know every blessed thing the government is up to, and we will decide what to publish....ratings and circulation uber alles." Our journalists, and I doubt they are an exception to their kind worldwide, have determined they are the ones with the right to publicize anything they don't like. Screw any possible security concerns....I didn't vote for them, I don't feel they represent me, and I don't see the reason for them to make this public now. Quite frankly, I ain't buying the "it lessens American prestige abroad" argument, either. There are plenty of people who believe the CIA was the one who "developed" the AIDS virus, littered the streets of our cities with crack cocaine, and heaven knows what else. Lots of people are already primed to believe the worst possible things about America. I don't think one more thing like a secret prison is going to have any measurable change in world opinion. I don't really see the point you are arguing, and would appreciate it if you would answer that honestly. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-11-09 20:48 |
| #28 From time to time, I thought maybe I missed Aris.... Nah. I was wrong. Goodnight, Aris! |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-11-09 20:45 |
| #27 Aris buddy, you're headed for a coronary. Recommed you ice down a six pack of Mythos, sit back and watch a nice soccer match. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-09 20:40 |
| #26 frankly, I hope we have dark holes in multiple places where those who would kill me and my family or damage my country are disassembled, mentally, and figuratively, if they have info of immediate use in saving American lives. No apologies. No arguments. You don't like it? Too fucking bad |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-09 20:39 |
| #25 Yea, I hear your pompous blah, blah, blah. Ignore. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-11-09 20:35 |
| #24 How is this "secret detention" any different than keeping Saddam in an undisclosed location? The American people knew Saddam was being held in an undisclosed location. The American people didn't know these other secret jails existed. In Saddam's case the policy was known, and the location was secret. In this case the policy itself was a secret. I would prefer that these enemies be shot where they're apprehended rather than be sent to Gitmo. So it doesn't matter to me if they stop off at "secret detention" on the way to Gitmo or a firing squad. I'm disappointed that they're alive. I'm disappointed that Saddam is alive. And you have every right to support the policy you suggest. And the other American people have also a right to support the policy *they* prefer. But the point Rantburgers don't seem to be getting is that all Americans should have a right to know *which* policy is actually taking place. So that they may judge it. So that they may hold their government accountable. Look around, Aris. Airplanes are hijacked. Buildings are leveled. Nightclubs are exploded. Trains are derailed. Subway stations are wrecked. Schools and cars are burned. Today hotels are exploding. It's a war, naive one. We are targeting those who would kill us, and they are targeting everyone including women, children, and newborn babies. So either set out to win the war or start learning Arabic and the Koran. Blah, blah, blah, was that an attempt to impress me with drama? Unlike you I've lived in a country and continent that has known more war in the 20th century than the United States has known in all its history combined. So don't try to stun me with descriptions of the commonplace, and don't you *dare* try to suggest than any external enemy is worth surrendering to internal fascisms. You call me naive? You are both naive and arrogant. External foes can be overthrown, it's the internal fascisms that stick to a nation's skin if you give way one inch to them. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 20:32 |
| #23 our Greek punk couldn't care less about damage done to US WOT efforts or the systematic breaking of classified info laws. Bet your military takes just as lax a view, huh? Ignore |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-09 20:31 |
| #22 SR-71 - Valid points, cept I still don't think the French have quite figured it out. If the Paristinian Intifadeh runs for another year or so, the French might enter the proximity of neighborhood where clues could be located. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-11-09 20:15 |
| #21 How is this "secret detention" any different than keeping Saddam in an undisclosed location? Personally, Aris, I would prefer that these enemies be shot where they're apprehended rather than be sent to Gitmo. So it doesn't matter to me if they stop off at "secret detention" on the way to Gitmo or a firing squad. I'm disappointed that they're alive. I'm disappointed that Saddam is alive. Look around, Aris. Airplanes are hijacked. Buildings are leveled. Nightclubs are exploded. Trains are derailed. Subway stations are wrecked. Schools and cars are burned. Today hotels are exploding. It's a war, naive one. We are targeting those who would kill us, and they are targeting everyone including women, children, and newborn babies. So either set out to win the war or start learning Arabic and the Koran. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-11-09 20:13 |
| #20 We are at war now, like we were against the Japanese. Some of us appear to know it. Then there's nothing wrong with knowing there are secret jails around, the same way there was nothing wrong back then with knowing that each side was trying to crack the codes of the other. Right? Oh, wait, no, it seems that currently our means of warfare are so dirty that the public can't be allowed their knowledge at all. Fine, in the name of "war", go ahead and lose a democracy that endured more than 200 years. You'll end up feeling the pain of that loss before I do, though I'm sure that in the end the whole world will suffer because of it. Just remember that it was you who chose to give up your once-cherished way of life, and I never did. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 19:50 |
| #19 Only a fool argues with a fool. We are at war now, like we were against the Japanese. Some of us appear to know it. Even the French are getting a lesson in the war. Many others, like Aris, do not. This thread is a good abridgement of the war between reality and the moonbats. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-11-09 19:36 |
| #18 What does it do for your dignity, when you pretend to be an even bigger moron than you really are, Robert? When you intentionally fail to get the point? Nothing ad hominem there, no sir. We don't need this. |
| Posted by: Thrairt Slosing5576 2005-11-09 19:29 |
| #17 I certainly think I'm a better person than *you*, Robert. Though that's really not saying much at all. "In contrast to today, right?" What does it do for your dignity, when you pretend to be an even bigger moron than you really are, Robert? When you intentionally fail to get the point? |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 19:23 |
| #16 Your people knew you were at war back then. In contrast to today, right? Idiot. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 19:18 |
| #15 Jackal, you clearly don't value knowledge. And you hate democracy. And puppies. You probably drink shakes made from the ashes of burnt books and puppies. And don't deny it -- I know what's in your mind because I'm a better person than you. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 19:12 |
| #14 I don't think you are so stupid as to think that's a correct analogy, are you? Your people knew you were at war back then. Everyone knew that both sides tried to break the codes of the other. That's the issue of *policy* -- and it was well known. If your modern policy is to keep people you consider terrorists in secret jails, then *that* policy should also become known. Not the locations of those jails (as by definition they are secret), but the *policy* about them. When policies aren't public, then it's not a democracy any longer. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 19:12 |
| #13 So, during WW2, we should have announced that we had broken the Japanese codes? Or, during the Cold War, we had broken Venona? |
| Posted by: Jackal 2005-11-09 19:05 |
| #12 Darrell at #8 you said : "So, Aris, there can be no intelligence secrets on behalf of a democratic society?" At #5 I had already said: "A democratic society doesn't need to know about the exact location of every one of the jails, if security needs dictate otherwise," So, first of all: learn to read. Your perspective remains as naive as it was for the EU "constitution" that even the French soundly trashed. Certainly. Respect for both democracy and freedom remains ever my guiding principle, and as such my opinion on the EU Constitution which I supported, remains as naive as my opinion on gulags which I oppose. My wanting the adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights by all European nations, for example, certainly is directly connected to my hating the very concept of secret prisons. Aris, as a democratic society we can decide whether we want secret prisons or not. We can also decide that we want our leaders to keep the existence of such places, you know, SECRET. Except that I've never heard of the American people authorizing even the possibility of such secret jails. But you can tell me when Congress passed such a law if you will. Certainly I had thought that America lacking secret jails was one of the propaganda points in its favour during the Cold War. We have a representative government, and we have a means of removing officials we don't like. Whether you like or don't like officials is irrelevant when you don't actually have a clue what they are doing to make you like them or dislike them. You may just as well draw names out of a box when your judgement isn't coupled with knowledge: Knowledge, being another concept you despise, especially when shared by the proles. Here's something from the bible: The Truth shall set you free. Here's something from Superman: "Truth, Justice and the American Way" The reason you hate this "leak" is not because it poses a "security risk" of whatever sort from enemy terrorists, but because the presense of such prisons may prove *unpopular* and thus detrimental to the Bush government. In sort you are afraid of the reactions of *your own people* in regards to America's own actions. As such the American government stands pretty close to invalidating any mandate she's been given by her people. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 18:58 |
| #11 The fact you people ROFLMAO! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-11-09 17:04 |
| #10 Aris, as a democratic society we can decide whether we want secret prisons or not. We can also decide that we want our leaders to keep the existence of such places, you know, SECRET. As in, not blab about it. As in, reporters who report secrets should be punished for doing so. As in, gummint officials who blab about it should be punished. We have a representative government, and we have a means of removing officials we don't like. In the meantime, they make decisions like this for us. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-11-09 16:25 |
| #9 The Greek grasped the present moment, and was the artist; the Jew worshipped the timeless spirit, and was the prophet. Isaac Mayer Wise |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2005-11-09 16:12 |
| #8 So, Aris, there can be no intelligence secrets on behalf of a democratic society? No prosecution for those who leak state secrets? Why don't you just try publishing some Greek Army secrets? That would knock you off your righteous pedestal and bring you down into the real world. Your perspective remains as naive as it was for the EU "constitution" that even the French soundly trashed. Perhaps the French had a better perspective on the real dangers to democracy than you did. They certainly do now. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2005-11-09 16:06 |
| #7 I thought everyone knew its on Diego Garcia. Incidentally, legally part of the EU. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-11-09 15:33 |
| #6 But what does truth matter to a liberal anymore? Well, given how the whole issue is about how you people wanted the truth hidden, and liberals wanted it out... ... unless in fact it so happens that a certain Republican *also* wanted it out... ... I'd say you better hope that the claim about the Republican leak is true. It may show that there are still *some* people in your party that care about the truth at all, and believe the government should be held accountable for its deeds, good and bad. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 15:28 |
| #5 A democratic society has the right to decide and hold its government accountable in regards to whether secret jails should be allowed to exist or not. It has the right to hold its government accountable about all major issues of policy. And this is a major issue of policy. A democratic society doesn't need to know about the exact location of every one of the jails, if security needs dictate otherwise, but it does need to know that such locations exist. The fact you people consider such a "leak" treasonous shows your general contempt for democracy. The traitors are in fact those who held such a major strategic issue hidden from the public -- the public that you likewise hold in contempt. The fact that people like you used to accuse the *European Union* of lacking in transparency and accountability and of holding the people in contempt is the very height of ironies. The United States seem to be forgetting the very basics of democracy, if they believe that revealing such a thing to the public is traitorous. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-09 15:24 |
| #4 And any leaker should be probed, in a Roswell sort of way. |
| Posted by: Whising Glesing6108 2005-11-09 14:12 |
| #3 But haven't you heard the latest LLL talking point? Trent Lott says the leak came from a Republican! Of course, when you look at what he said, he says no such thing. Instead, he says that details of a meeting he and other senators had with Cheney ALSO leaked, as in A DIFFERENT LEAK. But what does truth matter to a liberal anymore? (Though I must say, they seem awfully desperate to scare Republicans off investigating the prison leak. Almost as if they think it might lead to one of their own. Me, I don't care what party the leaker came from -- hang 'em.) |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-11-09 12:02 |
| #2 Amen ARMYGUY. I hated Clinton when I was in the military, but it never would even cross my mind to do things to undermine our country just to get at him. He was my commander in chief, period. Time to start killing these fuckers. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-11-09 11:15 |
| #1 My hope is to find everyone of these bastards and hold them accountable.This is a blatant act of TREASON,subversion,and espionage directed against the President. I think they should find, prosecute,and HANG everyone of them. |
| Posted by: ARMYGUY 2005-11-09 11:12 |