Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 24, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE....Mark Kleiman relates the latest Twilight Zone delusion from red blogistan: the CIA never had any secret prisons in Europe after all. In reality, it was all an elaborate hoax, part of a sting operation to catch leakers like Democratic Party mole Mary McCarthy.

Really, you can't make this stuff up.

Kevin Drum 11:24 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (70)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I don't know why you doubt this, Kevin. Once you realize that George W. Bush *can do NO wrong*, everything becomes clear. Al, tbroz, and I will always defend his brilliance, no matter what. Just as God's ways are mysterious to mere mortals, so are W's!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on April 24, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Implicit in that argument is that secret torture prisons in Europe are bad, right? I wonder what these same people were saying last year about it.

Posted by: Martin on April 24, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Clearly, the fact that she was a Democrat is enough to warrant a treasonous charge. All us Democrats want to see the United States fall to the Islamofacistcommunistnazi-enemey-of-the-day. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. We're just wired that way apparently ...

Posted by: DanF on April 24, 2006 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Well, they've certainly covered all the bases. There is an explanation for *everything*.

Nothing to see here folks. On your way now.

Posted by: Tripp on April 24, 2006 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, the twilight era for the Cult of Bush. Even Bill Kristol knows when to jump ship.

Suckers.

Posted by: HeavyJ on April 24, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

the CIA never had any secret prisons in Europe after all. In reality, it was all an elaborate hoax,

This makes a lot of sense. Dana Priest, the liberal "reporter" who made up the hoax about the secret prisons, is married to William Goodfellow, the Executive Director of the the Center for International Policy. It turns out that the Center for International Policy "mainly acted as Fidel Castros greatest think tank ally. Much of its million-dollar budget was spent lobbying to end economic sanctions and travel restrictions against Cuba.

Now, it has another mission. Fenton has established a war room with CIP called The Iraq Policy Information Program (IPIP). Its main job is getting the anti-Bush foreign policy message out to the media and providing guests for talk shows. A featured speaker of the IPIP is former ambassador Joe Wilson, one of the Bush administrations most vocal enemies."

So what's really going on is that Dana Priest was put up by her husband and Joe Wilson to make up a false story about the secret prisons as a way to retaliate against the Bush Administration.

Posted by: Al on April 24, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

My God, the whole thing is just like a John le Carre novel. Is Porter Goss really George Smiley?

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 24, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

I think we need to coin a new term here. The opposite of Occam's razor. Occam's pretzel perhaps?

Posted by: Cognitive Dissonance on April 24, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, I'm sure the detention centers existed. I agree that the idea (which I don't see anyone credible pushing) that it was an elaborate sting operation is idiotic.

With that said, Kleiman's certainty that she couldn't be prosecuted (because it can't be a crime to reveal a "criminal activity") is less than thought through. Assuming that his assumption that it can't be a crime to reveal a "criminal activity" is correct (which, btw, it isn't necessarily), I'm confused as to which "criminal activity" he's talking about. The detention centers don't appear to have violated any U.S. law.

Posted by: Nathan on April 24, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

I thought Fidel Castros greatest think tank ally" in terms of getting sanctions and travel restrictions lifted was the U.S. business community. Or is it the CATO Institute? You really are an ignorant dude, Al.

Posted by: Tom on April 24, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

"So what's really going on is that Dana Priest was put up by her husband and Joe Wilson [and Fidel Castro] to make up a false story about the secret prisons as a way to retaliate against the Bush Administration."

You forgot Sandy Berger, Goerge Clooney, SpongeBob Squarepants, and Jane Fonda.

Posted by: HeavyJ on April 24, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Mary McCarthy:
$2000 - John Kerry for President
$5000 - Ohio DNC

'Nuff Said.

Posted by: Al on April 24, 2006 at 11:54 AM | PERMALINK

"The detention centers don't appear to have violated any U.S. law."

LOL. Call me crazy, but I'm sure that somewhere in all those treaties we've signed--which, when ratified by Congress, ARE US law--there's a clause about respecting, ya know, our allies' national soverignty. Secret prisons and snatching people off the street are a pretty clear-cut violation of that.

The legality of secret prisons are kind of like the legality of cannibalism--I can't cite you the statute, but I am 100% sure it's not kosher.

If you want, you can look for a technicality or loophole to plead the Administration's case, but I can't see how this argument is going to be anything more compelling than, "well, the statute prohibits the eating of human flesh. I pureed it, so technically I was drinking it, so I didn't break the law."

Posted by: theorajones on April 24, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

That's Jane Fonda-Squarepants. They were married in a secret Bejing wedding for Chinese covert agents.


Posted by: DanF on April 24, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

The detention centers don't appear to have violated any U.S. law.

It may depend on what was happening in the secret prisons:

18 USC Sec. 2340A - 01/05/99
CHAPTER 113C - TORTURE
HEADING
Sec. 2340A. Torture
STATUTE
(a) Offense. - Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction. - There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if -
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

Posted by: Wapiti on April 24, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

But if this is true and the prisons didn't exist, then McCarthy didn't break any laws. FOIA and classification procedures require that the government have a legitimate reason for classifying material. There is no legitimate reason for classsifying fiction, ergo, what she revealed was not a secret, because it was just the figment of somebodies imagination and could not be national security information.

If the prisons do exist, I would argue, that just like members of the military have the affirmative duty to refuse an illegal order, government officials have no duty to conceal the illegal activities of the government, even if classified, any oaths notwithstanding, (since by definition illegal acts by the government cannot be subject to classification as secret and any such designation is illegitmate and null.)

And by the way, illegal prisons in foreign countries violate all kinds of U.S. and international laws and treaty obligations.

Posted by: Freder Frederson on April 24, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Mary McCarthy:
$2000 - John Kerry for President
$5000 - Ohio DNC

Yes Al, being politically active is the sure sign sedition. Funny, I look at those donations and I see someone who's convictions are such that she couldn't remain silent about an atrocity - even if it cost her her job.

Posted by: DanF on April 24, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Why is the political affiliation of critics of the president prima facie evidence that they have ulterior motives, while no one ever mentions the donation patterns of Republicans? See Digby.

Posted by: SP on April 24, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

The sole requirement to be a member of the Repukeliturd Party today: Total Stupidity.

I tried to be a Repukeliscum, but they threw me out because I can read.

Posted by: POed Lib on April 24, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

It's just amazing that the right wing thinks that being a Democrat is anti-American and should subject you to criminal penalties. I just hope that desperation is the sign of the last throes of that wing of the Republican party.

Posted by: Boots Day on April 24, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Where are the secret prisons, Kevin?

The EU commissioned a group to find the secret prisons, and couldn't find them.

Hmmmmmmm.

Posted by: MountainDan on April 24, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, the conspiracy theory of history. Such a huge favorite, despite the overwhelming evidence of the cock-up theory being much, much more likely.

Posted by: craigie on April 24, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

I understand that in their zeal to bring down the President, the liberals have to like each and evry type of anti-American activity by their fellow travelers, by just how treasonous and anti-American does a person have to be for the Democrats to say enough? Do they want the USA to be the land of people like Mandela and Gandhi who did so much damage to their own governments for the ostensible purpose of achieving some leftist ends?

Posted by: tbrosz on April 24, 2006 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, I'm afraid I'm with Kevin on this one.

Simple common sense--the reaction to the initial leak was not what it would have been if the story was fake. And if they were all "going along with it," that's a hell of a lot of work to catch one mole.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 24, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

Wait. I thought it was an article of faith among you guys that the leaking classified information for political purposes was wrong. (Is it Fitzmas yet?) Isn't this exactly what Ms. McCarthy is accused of doing?

Posted by: Chicounsel on April 24, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

I haven't been at the Washington Monthly in a while. When did TBROSZ become such a joke? We're talking about secret prisons. Secret FUCKING prisons. To turn the question back on you, how treasonous does the administration have to get before Republicans stop licking Bush's taint?

Posted by: DanF on April 24, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

OK, somebody tell me, did we invade Iraq or is that a cover story to find all the traitor liberals in American?

Posted by: tomeck on April 24, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

You only report a small part of the story. The Belgian inspector for the EU was unable to find any evidence for the prisons, and he wrote that in his report, which was made public the day she was fired.

You ought to wait for the whole story to come out before you make up your mind.

It's one thing to be sceptical about Bush/Republican claims, but you are credulous toward every criticism. Tell us, do you still believe that guy Burkett was telling you the truth? After all, if it were true that his brain suffered damage from the tropical disease he claimed he had, as he claimed it did, then everything he "remembers" is perverted by the brain damage that he said that he suffered.

Next you'll be telling us that Seymour Hersh "broke" the Abu Ghraib story, which was mentioned by SecDef Rumsfeld in his Jan 2004 testimony beforoe the Senate.

I don't deny the existence of right-wing lunacy. This is where I come for my reminders that left-wing lunacy is as severe.

Posted by: republicrat on April 24, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Where are the secret prisons, Kevin?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

The DECIDER has spoken, that is all.

Posted by: ckelly on April 24, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

theorajones and freder frederson:

oh please. which treaty that the U.S. is a signatory to was violated. cite me the provision please.

as for violating foreign laws...um, duh. that's what the CIA does...if it's kosher to reveal CIA operations that violate foreign law, um, then..well think about it.

Posted by: Nathan on April 24, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

It's the extremes that the White House defenders have to go to that makes them so ridiculous. I suppose you could come up with some narrow defense that makes Scooter Libby's leaks A-OK, and McCarthy's bad. But that's not good enough -- they have to paint Libby as a heroic whistleblower, and McCarthy as a treasonous Kerry dupe.

Let me ask our friends on the right wing this: Is it ever correct to leak news of a crime commmitted by someone in the Bush Administration? If you saw Dick Cheney strangle Condoleezza Rice with his bare hands, would it be treasonous to mention that to a reporter?

Posted by: Boots Day on April 24, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

If this Bozo Mary McCarthy ruined her career by leaking info about secret CIA prisons that never existed, it will be sweet!

By the way, Mary MacCarthy gave thousands of dollars to Democrats in 2004.

She was also a friend and co-worker of Joe "Liar" Wilson.

Posted by: Frequency Kenenth on April 24, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, Mary MacCarthy gave thousands of dollars to Democrats in 2004.

If she had given thousands of dollars to Republicans, would that make her more credible?

Posted by: Boots Day on April 24, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Really, you can't make this stuff up.

But that's just what the wingers did!

Posted by: frankly0 on April 24, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

If you saw Dick Cheney strangle Condoleezza Rice with his bare hands, would it be treasonous to mention that to a reporter?

you'd have to wait to get permission from Cheney's office first. they'll need time to work up a story that makes it all Rice's fault... "he was trying to open a jar of pickles and Condi stuck her head in front of his vice-like-hands at just the right time! she surprised him!"

Posted by: cleek on April 24, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, Mary MacCarthy gave thousands of dollars to Democrats in 2004.

by the way, George Bush insists he is above the laws that Congress writes.

Posted by: cleek on April 24, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Frequency nailed it.

Posted by: lib on April 24, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

oh please. which treaty that the U.S. is a signatory to was violated. cite me the provision please.

The U.S. Constitution for one (evey heard of habeas corpus, due process, and all the other constitutional protections). The Supreme Court has clearly stated that detainees, no matter where they are captured or held have some due process rights, albeit not the full protection of the Constitution. These detainees have absolutely none. Then there are the Geneva Conventions and the International Conventions Against Torture and Other Cruel, Degrading, and Inhuman Treatment or Punishment to which we are a signatory and is binding under U.S. law. Imprisoning someone with absolutely no rights indefinitely and interrogating and possibly torturing falls squarely within behavior prohibited by that treaty and accompanying statute.

Posted by: Freder Frederson on April 24, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Frequency Kenneth

I can see your examination of Ms McCarthy now.

"Are you know or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?"

When are you clowns going to realize that BushCo does not equal the United States of America. Like every true American McCarthy has a right to her political opinions. She also has a right to and apparently does understand the difference between right and wrong. She was caught leaking. She was fired. Let it go. Too bad Bush has such a double standard when it comes to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 24, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

Pukes are scum. That's all that needs to be said.

Bye.

Posted by: Pukes Are Scum on April 24, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

So why doesn't the White House pass Osama some 'phony' intel so they can catch HIM !?!??

That or put Patrick Fitzgerald in charge of catching Osama!

Jeepers, how lame can the Rightwinglemmingdompubbiehood possibly get . . . .

Posted by: GK on April 24, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

One rightwing "defense" of Libby&Co. goes like this - since Plame was not a covert agent (OK, she was) then no crime could have been committed. So if this (bogus) claim that there were no secret torture camps is to be believed, then how could we prosecute Ms. McCarthy as no crime was committed. OK - back to the REAL WORLD.

Posted by: pgl on April 24, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Mary McCarthy was fired from the CIA for leaking secrets.

So, how long til she gets her own show on Air America?

Posted by: BigRiver on April 24, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Occam's pretzel? Wonderful!

Great work, Cognitive Dissonance.

Posted by: David in NY on April 24, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Freder:

Imprisoning someone with absolutely no rights indefinitely and interrogating and possibly torturing falls squarely within behavior prohibited by that treaty and accompanying statute.

Other than torture, there's nothing in the Geneva Conventions prohibiting indefinite imprisonment during time of war, or normal interrogation.

Normal POWs don't get sentenced to "terms," or get trials to see if they should be released.

Given the articles describing who should fall under the convention, terrorists are lucky they're getting any protection at all. An awful lot of this argument has been depending on Article 5, while completely ignoring Articles 3 and 4.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 24, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel on April 24, 2006 at 12:14 PM:

..that the leaking [of] classified information for political purposes was wrong.

It still is.

Isn't this exactly what Ms. McCarthy is accused of doing?

Um, no. She was fired for leaking classified information, and, possibly, for being a Democrat.

Why was she was fired instead of being prosecuted?...Seems like there is a high level of tolerance for information leakers in this administration, isn't there?...At least if the leaker is supremely connected (Libby) or has the potential to be supremely embarassing, like Mary McCarthy.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 24, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know BigRiver. How long before an ass-kissing Bush sycophant like you acknowledges that you can't be prosecuted for leaking lies.

And that if Bush has time to set up a "sting" like this, then maybe he's not using all resources necessary to catch those who truly pose a national security risk. You know, guys like Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Al-Zarqawi.

It's amazing to watch you political bungholes operate. It's like watching a bunch of monkeys try to fuck a football.

Posted by: Helmet on April 24, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Freder Frederson:

tsbroz pretty much covered it.

you seem to have missed the fact that we're talking about the temporary detention of non-citizens who were never on U.S. soil.
you're also making assumptions about torture.

I'd point out that neither Dana Priest or McCarthy alleged torture...

Posted by: Nathan on April 24, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

you seem to have missed the fact that we're talking about the temporary detention of non-citizens who were never on U.S. soil.
you're also making assumptions about torture.

They are under U.S. control and are thus entitled to some due process, so says the Supreme Court, not just me. Some of them have been held over 4 years now--how long is "temporary". If any other country in the world was doing what we are doing they would be on the State Department's list of human rights violators.

As for whether they are being tortured or not. Despite Bush's protestations to the contrary, we have tortured people to death in prisons we know about, are we really supposed to believe that no torture is occurring in those prisons that are completely secret? Besides, we keep forgetting, just not torturing is simply not good enough. The law requires that we do not treat detainees in a cruel, inhuman or degrading manner. I am sure that standard has been violated.

Posted by: Freder Frederson on April 24, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

terrorists are lucky they're getting any protection at all

Please cite your evidence that the lucky persons being held in secret prisons are terrorists.

Thank you.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 24, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira are competing for the Amy Sullivan award for being the most ridiculous advisors to the Democratic Party.

If GOP was not the impeccably honest political party that we know it to be, it would be easy to conclude that Halpin and Teiceira are Republican moles doing their best to ensure that Democrats continue to be members of the minority party in the congress.

Posted by: lib on April 24, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Please cite your evidence that the lucky persons being held in secret prisons are terrorists.

Because the president says so. But of course the prisons don't exist, so we aren't actually holding anyone. But if they did exist and we were holding people there, they are terrorists, take my word for it. And we are treating them really well.

Excuse me while my head explodes.

Posted by: Freder Frederson on April 24, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

sorry wrong thread.

Posted by: lib on April 24, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I think we need to coin a new term here. The opposite of Occam's razor. Occam's pretzel perhaps?

Posted by: Cognitive Dissonance

Occam's pretzel might be defined as "An explanation that results in a preferred conclusion is correct, no matter how convoluted."

Posted by: anandine on April 24, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

you're also making assumptions about torture

The largest CIA prison in Afghanistan was code-named the Salt Pit. It was also the CIA's substation and was first housed in an old brick factory outside Kabul. In November 2002, an inexperienced CIA case officer allegedly ordered guards to strip naked an uncooperative young detainee, chain him to the concrete floor and leave him there overnight without blankets. He froze to death, according to four U.S. government officials. The CIA officer has not been charged in the death.

Yeah, except for that, the findings of the Council of Europe's investigaton, and the statements of former prisoners apparently tortured until they were "found" innocent (kinda like a truth pool)- all we have are assumptions that torture is taking place.

Posted by: Windhorse on April 24, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

I guess the natural extension of this would be: there's really no war or Americans dying in Iraq. It's all a brilliant hoax to get the American public believing that Bush is a colossally incompetent liar so that he can surprise them later, some time much later...no, later than that even.

Posted by: John on April 24, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

We have treaty obligations (Geneva Convention, etc.) that function when we capture enemy soldiers in a War. The War is declared by Congress, and we can hold the prisoners, treating them decently and fairly according to their rights, until the war is over and the armistice is signed. Part of the armistice negotiation is the exchange of prisoners.

The prisoners are entitled to basic human rights. Also, the enemy is entitled to know where they are held and who they are, and the Red Cross (or another humanitarian organization) is allowed to inspect to make sure the prisoners are treated humanely.

We do this because we've decided to be a civilized country; we are not savages who beat up on people for no reason. We're better than that. People who are held prisoner by the US should go back to their own country wondering why that country doesn't live up to the high ideals of the United States.

That's what I've always believed, anyway.

The Executive Branch cannot just change what "War" means, or what our treaty obligations are, or what our Constitution says, or what laws Congress has passed, on it's own say-so.

I believe the term 'war' is being misused. It is being used in the legal sense when it is convenient, and jettisoned (but this is different! The Geneva Convention is quaint!) when it's not.

People ridiculed Kerry when he talked about "police methods" -- but that's what has been called for. Getting civilized governments from all over to hunt down these international criminals -- for that's what they are -- and prosecute them in every country where they've broken laws.

Posted by: zmulls on April 24, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Occam's pretzel might be defined as "An explanation that results in a preferred conclusion is correct, no matter how convoluted."

I think we should call it "Bush's Pretzel," and add the caveat that it can cause choking to occur.

Posted by: nolo on April 24, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Dana Priest's article on prisons is the tip of the iceberg.

She also disclosed key facts about illegal CIA torture-kidnappings (renditions) and illegal CIA torture planes.

As a result, I and others have splattered details of the CIA's illegal renditions all over the Internet.
There is a spate of investigations going on in Europe right now.

Has all of this curtailed CIA crimes. I have to think that it has.

Will Mary McCarthy be able to do more in the future to curtail CIA crimes? Yes, and I think she well.

To Mary McCarthy, God speed. They ought to give her the Freedom Medal, once Bush is gone.

Posted by: Clayton Hallmark on April 24, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

If the info Mary O. McCarthy supplied was false, then there was no basis for her firing. If she wants to sue to get her job back, she should call all the wingnut bloggers making this charge as witnesses on her behalf.

Posted by: kth on April 24, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Wonderful strategy it is to infuriate opinion in those lands we seek to "win hearts and minds", while selling out European allies supporting our policy down the river.

Wonderful, and, of course, not true.

Posted by: Jimm on April 24, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Wait. I thought it was an article of faith among you guys that the leaking classified information for political purposes was wrong. (Is it Fitzmas yet?) Isn't this exactly what Ms. McCarthy is accused of doing?

Wait. I thought it was an article of faith among you guys that leaking classified information for political purposes was acceptable. (Has Joe Wilson been indicted yet?) Isn't this exactly what Ms. McCarthy is accused of doing?

Posted by: Alek Hidell on April 24, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

The EU report does not say that secret prisons didn't exist; it said that there was not enough evidence to prove it.

Perhaps MacCarthy leaked the information because she has something the Bush administration and its supporters lack--a conscience.

Posted by: Wombat on April 24, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Why was she was fired instead of being prosecuted?...grape_crush

Who's to say that she won't be? After all, getting fired from a high-ranking position because of leaking is a somewhat rare occurrence in Washington. If the Bushies want to send a clearer message to the "career staff" at CIA, State, et al., that leaking classified info will not be tolerated, what better way than to throw the book at this heroic "whistleblower."

Posted by: Chicounsel on April 24, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

The EU report does not say that secret prisons didn't exist; it said that there was not enough evidence to prove it.

and here's a thing, they wouldn't be very secret if you could, y'kno just find'em real easy; or if jus any ole body would admit that they had anything to do with them or knew about them or knew any of the prisoners who'd been sent there. i'm guessing it's kinda hard to prove the existence of something no one's willing to go on the record as knowing anything about.

or is that thought a little too obivious for everyone 'cep the trolls?

Posted by: e1 on April 24, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

If secret prisons don't exist, then there can't have been any classified information about them to leak to the press. If there was no classified information to leak, then Mary Murphy couldn't have been fired for leaking it. Therefore, by investigating it, the CIA confirmed that Dana Priests' story is based classified information and that the CIA is in fact running a network of secret prisons.

A little too direct for the conspiratorial minds of the red staters, but

Posted by: Chesire11 on April 24, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

We know that all of the detainees locked up in Guantanamo Bay, Baghram and the secret prisons are terrorists because if tehy weren't terrorists, they wouldn't be in prison.

Sinilarly, because Cotton Mather made a point of only hanging witches, we know that anyone he had executed must have been a witch.

Really people, it's so much easier once you drink the Kool Aid!

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia...

Posted by: Chesire11 on April 24, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's much easier to assume the very worst about anything Bush does, Chesire11.

Works for me.

Posted by: Birkel on April 25, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks!
-招聘

Posted by: jobs on April 25, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Sometimes truth is stranger then fiction.

Posted by: Bobby on April 26, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly