http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644.html

Heard chatter about this on the radio this morning on the way to work.

My question is the following and perhaps it's nothing but...

Is this responsible journalism and will it place even more American lives at risk?

Now I realize the Post is a hodgepodge of nearly National Enquirer type reporting at times. But in all seriousness this is something that perhaps serves none but the extreme Doves.

Fandros

Is this responsible journalism and will it place even more American lives at risk?
The article substantiates what we already knew: the use of foreign soil for interrogation centers. The Post fills in some details and names one country (Thailand) as a current site for this activity, but otherwise it's mostly academic. I don't know that the article can increase the already considerable hatred for Americans that exists out there or that such an increase would even be measurable. And maybe taking that hatred from 99 to 100 on the scale is worth it if it informs the populace of the actions of their government.

As to the first part of your question, I'll say that it would have been categorically irresponsible had the Post named the European country against the government's request.

How is it they have said info? When we apply for our security clearences do we not take it to heart we need to shut our holes?


Fandros

According to the opening graf:

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

Hard to say what info came from whom, though clearly some check was made with the administration (since the Post complied with that request from "senior US officials" not to publish the name of the European country). As for high level US staff keeping quiet about classified security issues...dare we go there?

If the CIA considers this a leak, they'll look into it, but it might be that most of the info in the article came from foreign sources. No idea either way.

You know, the whole thing sounds to me like a journalist was high when he watched an episode of Alias and wrote an article based on that.


Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe


The thing is, there are no large unpopulated areas in eastern europe where you could hide the soviet equivalent of area 51.

The soviet era facilities in this region

1. are still under control of the local military (in this case this is not true: Details of the system are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.)

2. were sold, the place was torn down and factories, warehouses whatever else was built there. (a factory or a warehouse isnt exactly a "Soviet-era compound" is it?)

3. are left to rot because of the environmental damage (soil still soaked in aviation fuel and it is leaking into the water supply, for example). Sudden activity (guards?) would surely attract the locals' attention in this case.


The only way I see this happening if the host country actively participated in it. Like giving access to a functioning military base etc etc.

"As for high level US staff keeping quiet about classified security issues...dare we go there?"

Nice Thormir, nice!

Foreign countries do participate in it. Do you think that single Israili or Egyptian intelligence officer is standing around for fun; or do you think he's there to participate in some cross-cultural prisoner communications?

I blame Clinton!

Thats what you should do. It is definately the fashionable thing for every bible thumping, Jesus loving, God fearing, morally bankrupt, republican supporting patriotic chicken hawk should do.

If you do something that the majority of the American public finds to be "Naziesque" or "Soviet Style" in its behaviour, you can always point back to something Clinton said in order to justify your current actions. It gets the heat off of you (unless of course the democrats grow another set of balls and smack the republicans again).

This gets better and better the more comes out.

You always half-knew we had these sort of things going, since it's the most expedient way to go about the unpretty elements of modern war. To be honest I don't particularly object since it serves something more or less in my interests, but what little moral credulity we have in the world at large is rapidly washing away. The biggest irony in this being, of course, that the "if you don't have anything to hide, why be allowed to keep secrets" crowd that has been steadily eroding our civil liberties are unsuprisingly the ones with the most they feel the need to hide.

Like many other things in life, this is in the category of "I don't care because it doesn't effect me, but thank God the shoe isn't on the other foot." To be a truly compassionate, humanity loving person you need to attempt to put the shoe on the other foot every time one of these situations comes around. "Do unto others as you would have them do", or as the Jews say " don't do to others what is hurtful to you." You can create any number of justifications you want but the fact remains that if you wouldn't want to be one of the residents in said camp then you absolutely should not support them.

Even with realizing that the newer forms of torture leave no marks nor any lasting , so they say, harm I'm unsure about it.

Don't we all wish the world was black and white instead of so many painful shades of grey....

Fandros

Rover....

I blame Clinton!

Thats what you should do. It is definately the fashionable thing for every bible thumping, Jesus loving, God fearing, morally bankrupt, republican supporting patriotic chicken hawk should do.

If you do something that the majority of the American public finds to be "Naziesque" or "Soviet Style" in its behaviour, you can always point back to something Clinton said in order to justify your current actions. It gets the heat off of you (unless of course the democrats grow another set of balls and smack the republicans again).


Well, you know what? I do. Since it was he who started this..



Extraordinary rendition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition) is a procedure practiced by the government of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) (and possibly aided by other western countries) whereby criminal suspects are sent to countries in which torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) is routinely used in interrogation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogation). Critics have suggested this amounts to torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture) by proxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy).

As described in various reports in the media, suspects have been arrested, blindfolded, shackled, and sedated, and transported by private jet or other means to the destination country. The reports also say that U.S. agencies have provided interrogators with lists of questions. Although Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt) has been the most common destination, suspected terrorists have been rendered to other countries, such as Jordan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan), Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria) and Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan).




The thing that really bothers me most about this Fandros, is that there will not even be an investigation, because what is really more important?

A) the identity of a "agent" who was a desk jockey, who used influence to get her HUSBAND a trip to Africa to dig up dirt, who does not really even qualify to be protected by the "law" that was being investigated.

B) "secret" places around the world "in foreign" countries being used to fight Terrorist activities.

What the Washington Post needs to talk about is how Joe Wilson can be sent on a Official Mission and then be able to come back and write an editorial in the WSJ about it. That to me is a threat to National Security....

Shanno, if you truly believe this started with Clinton you are naive beyond words.

There have been cooperative arrangements between allied governments as far back as World War II regarding covert intelligence matters, and to use it for the express purpose of attempting to once again demonize a politician you may not like is actually quite silly.

And as far as deciding what is more important, that is what the courts are in place to do; if laws were broken, especially by those given the trust to lead the way, then the courts and due process will be the avenue to decide, and not some talk show radio host or his or her audience.

And, Joe Wilson being sent on an Offical Mission as you stated is quite different than being sent on a Secret Mission. I am unclear how divulging that he was sent to discern the facts regarding Saddam attempting to buy nuclear materials from African governments threatens our National Security. But I am willing to be enlightened. And, again, if he broke laws in writing that editorial, I am confident that he will face prosecution.

Suffice to say that Shanno is in considerable error regarding Wilson's trip. The right has tried to claim it as a boondoggle set up by his wife, but this fails for several reasons. 1) He went pro bono, with the government only covering basic expenses; 2) He was eminently qualified for such a trip, having not only served as an ambassador to Africa, but also to Iraq -- he knew all the hypothetical participants as well as anyone; 3) The CIA denies his wife made the arrangements, or even that she recommended him (though, given his qualifications I could understand why she'd mention him).


As Bylimet says, his mission wasn't secret; Wilson is not CIA (as far as we know, anyhow). Two later visits at the behest of the State Dept confirmed Wilson's findings (or lack thereof). I've not seen anyeone -- left, right, or center -- claim that Wilson exposed national secrets in his editorial, but perhaps Shanno can explain.

Even further, if the CIA didn't suspect a law had been broken, they would not have called in the Justice Dept. And while it's clear that Mrs. Wilson hadn't been abroad in some years, it's even clearer that shanno has no idea of her status, or what revealing her identity could mean. Bill Buckley (http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp) provides some perspective, but neglects to note the fact that anyone and everyone Mrs. Wilson was in contact with abroad is at risk, CIA front company Brewster & Jennings is now useless, and that it's mission -- monitoring WMD proliferation -- can no longer be performed by that body.

It's a shame we cannot know the fallout from this; perhaps then the right would abandon talking points in favor of speaking out against harming national security in favor of politics.

Well I have often wondered who bought into the "Blame Clinton" crap that the ultra-rightists spew. Thanks for the insight!

Whats with the reputation slamming? Not that it really matters, was just wondering.

You normally get reputation slams when someone doesn't have anything to say in response, but needs to sate their childish desires to "win" and to strike out at you. From these kinds of threads, I take negative rep from many people as a compliment. I fondly recall one thread I had the idiot republican shills and the idiot democrat shills giving me negative hits over the same material, good times.

It's ulgy on both sides of the fence.

But, this thread is more a concern over why a well known media publication would post what it thinks are national secrets.

I think this is reprehensible....

Fandros

Sadly it's no worse than some of the bull you hear on Fox News either. Personally I think all media outlets are full of crap and have grown exceedingly more bold with each passing story. I don't care if you're liberal or conservative, the media doesn't need to be reporting on national secrets. Frankly I don't want to know, and I sure as hell do not want the enemy knowing either. God how dumb, let's just turn all our undercover agents pink for a day so everyone knows who they are and where they are.

But even more sad, is that there is a public out there eating this stuff up not caring the repurcussions of supporting news and media outlets to continue reporting stuff. One day it's going to cross the line and on that day many people will die needlessly b/c of some reporter looking for a scoop. /vomit

Ok, Call me naive, but this discussion is about CIA camps to interrogate terrorists.. soooooooo

Once again..

Extrodinary Rendition


The procedure was developed by Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency) officials in the mid-1990s who were trying to track down and dismantle militant Islamic organizations in the Middle East, particularly Al Qaeda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda). At the time, the agency was reluctant to grant suspected terrorist due process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process) under American law, as it could potentially jeopardize its intelligence sources and methods. The solution the agency came up with, with the approval of the Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton) administration, was to send suspects to Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt), where they were turned over to the Egyptian mukhabarat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhabarat), which has a reputation for brutality. This arrangement suited the Egyptians, as they had been trying to crack down on Islamic extremists in that country and a number of the senior members of Al Qaeda were Egyptian. The arrangement suited the US because torture is banned under both US and international law.

The argument for rendition made by defenders of the practice is that culturally-informed and native-language interrogations are more successful in gaining information from suspects. For instance, interrogators of one terrorist suspect prayed to Mecca five times per day in the presence of the suspect until he became willing to talk. [2] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18709-2005Mar8.html) Nevertheless, there have been many reports of the use of torture by these governments on suspects rendered to them.

The first individual to be subjected to rendition was Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt's most wanted terrorists, who was arrested with the help of US intelligence by Croatian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatia) police in Zagreb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zagreb) in September 1995. He was interrogated by US agents on a ship in the Adriatic sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_sea) and was then sent back to Egypt. He disappeared while in custody, and is suspected by human rights activists of having been executed without a trial.

In the summer of 1998, a similar operation was mounted in Tirana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirana), Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania). Wiretaps showed that five Egyptians had been in contact with Ayman al-Zawahiri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri), Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden)'s deputy. During the course of several months, Shawki Salama Attiya and four militants were captured by Albanian security forces collaborating with US agents. The men were flown to Cairo for interrogation. Attiya later alleged that he had electric shocks applied to his genitals, was hung from his limbs, and was kept in a cell with dirty water up to his knees.



Thor,

How about you educate me how important her identity is then.... you seem to be in the know-how.. It obviously was not that important in the end, because I do not see Libby or Rove being convicted for outting her,,, no.. I see Libby getting indicted for lying about something that was not even a crime.... Instead of saying "no", he should have said "i do not recall" .. works for past Presidents...

As for Wilson,



A Senate Intelligence Committee report issued on July 7, 2004 challenged some of the statements made by Wilson.

The report suggests that Wilson's wife was involved in his selection for the mission. As reported by the Washington Post:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said. [9] (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html) However, several CIA officials have since stated that the person who wrote this memo was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen. Accounts of Valerie Plame's involvement in her husband's selection differ significantly. Wilson has claimed that she simply contacted him on the agency's behalf and escorted him to the meeting before leaving. The evidence cited above, if accurate, would indicate that Plame may also have recommended her husband and/or written a summary of his qualifications when he was being considered. In contrast, Matthew Cooper's e-mail records that Karl Rove told him that Plame had actually authorized the trip.

Wilson's report has also come under fire for inconsistency. As reported in the same Washington Post article:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

So, obviously I am so wrong on many accounts. For note, when you say that Wilson went Pro Bono... he went on his time. They covered the trip.. not "basic" expenses, while he made it clear that he was acting on behalf of the United States. So that is pretty official to me. He even said that it was a discreet mission. While it might not be officially "secret", I am sure he was not sent with the purpose of putting an OPED in the WSJ.

Here is an interesting opinion.. http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

And as for Wilson being qualified.. Well, he was qualified to drink Mint tea.. and we know that he is a qualified liar.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9?language=printer or he just mispoke... indict him I say....

The European news sites I read are already pointing the finger at Poland (both ends of the political spectrum are best buddies with the US and some civil rights group spotted a CIA plane landing there just one too many times).

I do not particularly envy the Polish now for becoming a terrorist target.

But, this thread is more a concern over why a well known media publication would post what it thinks are national secrets.
It's not a secret that the US is using rendition, nor that countries like Egypt were involved in it. The only particularly new information that came from the article was that Thailand was involved and that a European country is also involved, the name of which the Post did not report at the request of US officials. Maybe the bigger mystery is why you think rendition is a secret. ;)

Too, US officials did comment on the investigation rather than denying, as is proper protocol with classified information (this point is relevant to Rove/Plame/Libby, in fact). It's likely that officials on some level reviewed the article prior to publication and determined that the European entity's identity was the only sacrosanct information. Note, for instance, that Thailand (and not "an Asian country whose identity was kept secret at the request of senior US officials") was identified.

As to why the Post would report on this, I provided one answer previously: the US's use of torture is controversial, whatever its intended purpose. For many, this sort of thing is antithetical both to the US as a country of ideals and to one aspect of our mission abroad -- "winning hearts and minds."

It may also be illegal under international law, not only for us but for foreign signatories to the Geneva Convention who are allowing this to take place within their borders. Perhaps the Post has other reasons as well; I can't speak for them (but you might watch for an op-ed on that topic).

I believe Libby is charged with Obstruction and lying.

When people are obstructing and lying with in an investigation the charges set are usually what they are now, as the act of obstruction and lying usually make it difficult to get to the truth of the matter, which is this:

Did the government officials "out" the CIA agent as a means of political retribution thereby breaking the law of "outing" a government agent. Well, we can't find out because the people questioned are for whatever reason lying about the facts and obstructing the investigation.

Ok, Call me naive, but this discussion is about CIA camps to interrogate terrorists.. soooooooo

Once again..

Extrodinary Rendition


Thor,

How about you educate me how important her identity is then.... you seem to be in the know-how.. It obviously was not that important in the end, because I do not see Libby or Rove being convicted for outting her,,, no.. I see Libby getting indicted for lying about something that was not even a crime.... Instead of saying "no", he should have said "i do not recall" .. works for past Presidents...

As for Wilson,



So, obviously I am so wrong on many accounts. For note, when you say that Wilson went Pro Bono... he went on his time. They covered the trip.. not "basic" expenses, while he made it clear that he was acting on behalf of the United States. So that is pretty official to me. He even said that it was a discreet mission. While it might not be officially "secret", I am sure he was not sent with the purpose of putting an OPED in the WSJ.

Here is an interesting opinion.. http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

And as for Wilson being qualified.. Well, he was qualified to drink Mint tea.. and we know that he is a qualified liar.. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9?language=printer or he just mispoke... indict him I say....

What the strategy of the Whitehouse and republicans in both the Senate and Congress seems to be is, get the focus off of the real charges and the REAL matter at hand and go after Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and (because it is habit) Clinton.

Does it matter if Joe Wilson sipped tea?

Does it matter if Valerie Plame had not been in the field at the time?

I don't see where sipping tea or being a CIA agent that is not doing field work at the time has any bearing on or is in any way a crime that should be used to justify the actions of Cheney, Rove, Libby and possibly others.

How about you educate me how important her identity is then.... you seem to be in the know-how.. It obviously was not that important in the end, because I do not see Libby or Rove being convicted for outting her,,, no.. I see Libby getting indicted for lying about something that was not even a crime....

LMAO, your arguments are coming straight from the talking heads on the media outlets, Shanno. The Special Prosecutor made it clear that there were no indictments at this time other than the ones against Libby for giving false testimony and obstructing the investigation because LIBBY HAD GIVEN FALSE TESTIMONY AND OBSTRUCTED THE INVESTIGATION! Libby has been charged with these crimes so that they can on with the investigation, which he has obstructed.

This was not conducted like a previous investigation that started with Whitewater and went on to investigate a President's infidelity; this investigation is sticking to the subject it was charged with, and because a member of the administration has hampered that investigation, they are dealing with that issue first (and most likely using it to elicit truthful answers on the stand) so that the investigation can be concluded.

On topic, I am in agreement with Fildien and Fandros on this one, that it was not appropriate to print this story at this time, if ever.

How about you educate me how important her identity is then.... you seem to be in the know-how..
Education incoming. It's quite simple, already discussed in my previous post. Mrs. Wilson's undercover work was for Brewster Jennings & Associates, a front company set up in 1994 as part of the CIA's efforts to track WMD proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. In this capacity, she was likely a NOC (non-official cover operative), meaning that she did not travel with diplomatic immunity, and if caught by a foreign intelligence could be imprisoned or executed as a spy. If caught, Brewster Jennings would be rendered useless as a CIA front and any BJ&A staff abroad (also likely to be NOCs) would be threatened. If caught, the counter-intel divisions of every country she'd traveled to would look up who she had contact with and, quite possible, imprison, torture or kill them. Those persons likely wouldn't have known she was CIA either. Such is the world of espionage.

All this holds true with her outing. Her career as an operative is over, Brewster Jennings is useless, and we'll likely never know who suffered for it or how it impacted the CIA's ability to track WMDs (you know, in places that actually have them). This is no small deal. Bush Sr. (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html) put it: "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."
It obviously was not that important in the end, because I do not see Libby or Rove being convicted for outting her,,, no.. I see Libby getting indicted for lying about something that was not even a crime...
As Bylimet pointed out, we're not at "the end" yet. Rove is still under investigation. However, it's always been questionable whether an indictment under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act would be forthcoming, simply because it's very narrowly written. One must knowingly reveal the name of a covert operative, and at present the grand jury doesn't think it has the evidence to prove that.

But that doesn't mean Libby and Rove didn't act inappropriately (to say the least). Here (http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/%200/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf) is the NDA they are required to obey, complete with admonition not to reveal classified information except under two circumstances. Note the line (under 3.) that requires confirmation from an authorized official in the event of uncertainty regarding the classification of information. And as noted here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html), her identity was meant to be kept secret (along with everything else in that particular memo).

Here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/intel.officers.letter.pdf) a number of former CIA officers comment on the leak and right wing allegations regarding Mrs. Wilson's covert status.
So, obviously I am so wrong on many accounts. For note, when you say that Wilson went Pro Bono... he went on his time. They covered the trip.. not "basic" expenses, while he made it clear that he was acting on behalf of the United States. So that is pretty official to me. He even said that it was a discreet mission. While it might not be officially "secret", I am sure he was not sent with the purpose of putting an OPED in the WSJ.
Oh good grief. You can equivocate pro bono if you like, but the fact is he wasn't paid for his trip. Reimbursement for expenses hardly constitutes "getting paid," and clearly doesn't constitute the sort of boondoggle the right has alleged. I never said the trip wasn't official, nor even indiscreet; it simply wasn't a secret mission.

Lastly, he was sent to gather information on possible attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium from Niger. His investigation did not substantiate the allegation. Bush's SOTU included 16 words that conflicted with his assessment, and which was used to bolster the case for war. Only then did Wilson write his Op Ed....in the NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?ex=1121832000&en=8cea346ef683166b&ei=5070</FONT>>)

Regarding Plame recommending her husband for the trip, your source notes here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30842-2003Dec25) that the CIA disagrees:
Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.
CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.
But even if she did recommend him, so what? He was eminently qualified for the job, and there was no reason to out Wilson's wife as a CIA operative. It was a smear job, retaliation against a whistleblower, and according to one of the ex-CIA officers signatory to the above, has had a negative impact on our anti-proliferation intelligence gathering.

This case has been referred to the justice department.

See this was a real security breach about real covert intelligence. Not about some noncovert bs just to stir the press.

Fandros

Frist and Hastert signed a letter asking for a bicameral commission to look into whether classified information was mishandled, made a bit of a show of it, in fact. Then Trent Lott came out yesterday, saying that the details of the interrogation sites had been discussed in a GOP only meeting the day before the Post published the story. As details discussed at that meeting were in the article, Lott believes an attendee leaked that information to the Post. Quoth Lott, "We can not remain silent. We have met the enemy, and it is us."

Frist and Hastert signed a letter asking for a bicameral commission to look into whether classified information was mishandled, made a bit of a show of it, in fact. Then Trent Lott came out yesterday, saying that the details of the interrogation sites had been discussed in a GOP only meeting the day before the Post published the story. As details discussed at that meeting were in the article, Lott believes an attendee leaked that information to the Post. Quoth Lott, "We can not remain silent. We have met the enemy, and it is us."

OMG, it has finally happened.....

Trent Lott has said something I can agree with, and I am flabbergasted:eek:

Interestingly enough, Lott may himself be in breach of security protocols by confirming the Post story.

Very true, I like the approach of "No matter who did it, let it fall where it may" quote I heard on the radio this morning.

Guess the CIA is the one requesting the investigation, and rightly so. I was pretty sure at release of initial article that this was a breech. I also believe the reporter should be held liable. In the reports own words it was info only known by highest gov officials. Hmmmm wow dumbass maybe that means it's not meant for public dissemenation...

Fandros

I don't think the reporter can be held liable under federal law. Some other notes:
1) Cheney was also at the meeting.
2) McCain claimed not to have known about the black sites prior to the meeting.
3) Former Senate Majority Leader Lott has an axe to grind, and he's grinding it. Suggesting that Rove should resign last week, now bringing this disclosure into the open this week.
4) It's routine for the CIA to investigate a possible breach. Was it they who turned this over to DOJ? Or was it Frist/Hastert? If the former, then CIA thinks a crime was committed (as in the Valerie Wilson case).

Actually Thor reporters are liable for this type of breach. The entire paper tiger defense they use to flap their gobs is about to come to an end....and rightly so when they endager National interests. It's not Freedom of Speech when you put Airman/Soldier/Jarhead Joe in harms way....

Quite possible the reporter will be tried.

Fandros

Under what law, Fanny? I strongly doubt Dana Priest will be indicted, though a subpoena is likely. Note that neither Cooper nor Novak have been indicted for their role in the Valerie Wilson case, nor has it been even hinted that they will be.

Also, how wrong is it to report a possible flouting (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/09/politics/09detain.html?ei=5088&en=6fae30b441fa6bb4&ex=1289192400&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print) of an international law to which the US is signatory?
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 - A classified report issued last year by the Central Intelligence Agency's inspector general warned that interrogation procedures approved by the C.I.A. after the Sept. 11 attacks might violate some provisions of the international Convention Against Torture, current and former intelligence officials say.

The previously undisclosed findings from the report, which was completed in the spring of 2004, reflected deep unease within the C.I.A. about the interrogation procedures, the officials said. A list of 10 techniques authorized early in 2002 for use against terror suspects included one known as waterboarding, and went well beyond those authorized by the military for use on prisoners of war.

The convention, which was drafted by the United Nations, bans torture, which is defined as the infliction of "severe" physical or mental pain or suffering, and prohibits lesser abuses that fall short of torture if they are "cruel, inhuman or degrading." The United States is a signatory, but with some reservations set when it was ratified by the Senate in 1994.
And the truth is, Airman Joe is already in harm's way, for reasons under ever-increasing scrutiny. If the US is breaking its own laws, I'd rather know about it than be kept in the dark. If ill comes of this reveal, it's the administration and its policies that are to blame, not the revelation thereof.

Thor you're making grandious assumptions based on other stories. The truth is foes of our National Interest are often kept in secret. It's fucking outrageous that anyone would back a press article giving away possible locations and causing pressure to be put on them by the Eu and the world press.

How many East European democratic countries are there?

Outrageous man, don't make 2 + 2 = 5 because it's possible torture might be happening there...

Btw, there is no law protecting a press member from outting a national secret. Doesn't exist, don't confuse Freedom of Speech with Freedom to be a thoughtless turd, the reporter was irresponsible.

Fandros

Acting irresponsibly != acting illegally. I've made no grandiose assumptions, unless the CIA's inspector general is making a grandiose assumption, of course. If you're not concerned by possibly illegal (or just immoral, or just "irresponsible") actions by the administration, then we simply disagree. But the only 2+2=5 equation I see here is your assumption that Dana Priest is liable for reporting information from an official, secret or not. Again, if Novak and Cooper haven't been charged there's no reason Priest should be despite whatever opinions you or I might have on the subject.

True true, tho if charges come out against the official that gave said info to the reporter then perhaps b will follow a.

Fandros

I'd be interested in any precedent cases where a reporter was charged under this kind of circumstance. Nothing's coming to mind at present, but maybe there's a case out there.