Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

First "Concrete Evidence" of CIA Secret Prisons (report available)

by Magnifico Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 06:06:26 AM EST

The CIA secret prisons existed in Europe and those imprisoned there were likely tortured. The existence of the prisons was confirmed by Polish and Romanian security officials. From The Guardian:

Despite denials by their governments, senior Polish and Romanian security officials have confirmed to the Council of Europe that their countries were used to hold some of America's most important prisoners captured after 9/11 in secret.

None of the prisoners had access to the Red Cross and many were subject to what George Bush has called the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation, which critics have condemned as torture. Although suspicions about the secret CIA prisons have existed for more than a year, the council's report, seen by the Guardian, appears to offer the first concrete evidence. It also details the prisons' operations and the identities of some of the prisoners.

Promoted by Colman


The report compiled after a 19-month-long investigation by Rapporteur Dick Marty, a Swiss senator and former state prosecutor, will be presented this (Friday) afternoon in Europe to the Assembly's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights in Paris and will be posted in full at the Council of Europe website if approved by the committee.

The report presents evidence that NATO and leaders of NATO nations were complicit in allowing civilian aircraft to transport prisoners that were part of "extraordinary rendition" through NATO member airspace. The report states: "We have sufficient grounds to declare that the highest state authorities were aware of the CIA's illegal activities on their territories." Marty said:

What was previously just a set of allegations is now proven: large numbers of people have been abducted from various locations across the world and transferred to countries where they have been persecuted and where it is known that torture is common practice.

The Washington Post story, European Report Addresses CIA Sites, states:

The report -- part of a larger investigation into partnerships among the CIA, NATO and European nations in the capture, transfer and detention of suspected terrorists -- reflects European outrage over the secret operations.

"Large numbers of people have been abducted from various locations across the world and transferred to countries where they have been persecuted and where it is known that torture is a common practice," Marty wrote, adding, "The fight against terrorism must not serve as an excuse for systematic recourse to illegal acts, massive violation of fundamental human rights and contempt for the rule of law."

Marty wrote that he was "not ruling out the possibility that secret CIA detentions may also have occurred" in other European countries, adding that his investigation was hampered by the failure of the United States, NATO and many European countries to cooperate with the probe.

It appears from the report that there is an orchestrated effort on the part of the governments involved to cover-up any evidence of the CIA operations and secret prison program. This suggests to me that there is more dark secrets that are likely hidden. Marty concludes that these abuses are a result of the West refusing to develop a legal system to deal with terrorism crimes:

In his explanatory note, Marty concluded, "There is no real international strategy against terrorism. . . . The refusal to establish and recognize a functioning international judicial and prosecution system is also a major weakness in our efforts to combat international terrorism."

Personally, I'm unconvinced the "rule of law" would stop people like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. These are not men who view the existence of laws as confines to work within.

The UK's Channel 4 News has more details of the actual Polish detention facility used by the CIA:

The report says that using fictitious flight plans that gave no indication of what the destination would be, the CIA's highest value detainees were flown to Szymany airport in north-eastern Poland.

The jail itself is a nearby former Soviet-era military compound. The Marty report providing the first concrete evidence of the secret prison's existence.

Dick Marty said: "The Polish prison was focused on those considered the most important terrorists, the ring leaders of the movement. We think there were about a dozen people."

There existed a jail of the former-Soviet Union used to torture terrorist-suspects. Less than twenty years ago there would have been an outcry by the American president and the presidential candidates over the existence of such a torture prison. Today, the Republicans see torture as a good thing.TM

The AP via the International Herald Tribune also has a story about the report.

Adapted from a diary at the Daily Kos.

[UPDATE: June 8, 2007, 14:50 GMT]

Here is the report, etc:

The video will not link.

Display:
How likely is it the report will be approved and released today?
by Magnifico on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 01:54:12 AM EST
I'd say rather likely.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 02:07:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So this is why nobody complained of violations of the Chicago Convention on Aviation
The report presents evidence that NATO and leaders of NATO nations were complicit in allowing civilian aircraft to transport prisoners that were part of "extraordinary rendition" through NATO member airspace. The report states: "We have sufficient grounds to declare that the highest state authorities were aware of the CIA's illegal activities on their territories."
Get.The.Fuck.Out.Of.NATO

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 02:09:56 AM EST
Get Out Of Nato = GOON.

Nice codeword.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 02:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
See also my diary CIA flight/prison linkfest of September 13th, 2006

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 02:11:28 AM EST
The CIA secret prisons exist in Europe and those imprisoned there were likely tortured.

You should say existed. The prisons were closed and moved to Africa as soon as the story broke in the press nearly 2 years ago.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 02:14:56 AM EST
Thanks.
by Magnifico on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 02:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I found a source.

Jurist: Terror suspects moved from CIA prisons in Europe to North Africa: report (December 06, 2005)

The US held eleven captured al Qaeda suspects at two secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe until media reports exposing the existence of the prisons shut down the facilities last month, ABC News reported Monday. The prisoners were then hastily relocated to a CIA facility in North Africa prior to the arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Europe.
Lots of links to primary media sources in there.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 02:51:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
North Africa means Egypt, I'd guess?
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 05:13:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Could be Tunisia.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 05:35:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody knows for sure, and North Africa is not exactly Transparency City, so it's been a lot harder for investigators to track them down.  Planespotting gets you thrown in jail as a spy around here.  The possibilities are Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, and to a lesser extent Algeria, but I tend to think that one's unlikely for a variety of reasons.

There has also been speculation about Jordan, but there's a little less real estate to work with there, so it'd be harder to hide.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 05:58:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Morocco is also a possibility. It is more "democratic" so it has "preferred non-NATO ally" status with the US, and is more likely to cooperate with the US.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 07:13:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Morocco also has a history of building secret prisons of its own, and a lot of remote territory (like Egypt) where a black site could be hidden away from prying eyes.

Egypt, however, is also flat enough in most places that they could have an airstrip in the remote location.  The Egyptian interrogation sites normally mentioned in news articles are known Egyptian intelligence facilities right in Cairo, but in those places the detainees would be in the custody of Egyptian authorities, not the CIA.  There are rumors and speculations about where a black prison might be located here, but no hard evidence that I'm aware of.

A few articles have metioned Libya as a possibility as well, but I also find that unlikely, although not for the reasons you'd probably expect.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 07:26:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
According to Mail and Guardian. The paper version also had reports on refugees from Somalia gone missing when crossing the border to Kenya and held by other people than the Ethiopian occupational force. It hinted at American agents.
by Nomad on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 08:12:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, that's a very good point.  What's happening in Ethiopia (and Somalia) is very troubling.

And the US public seems to be largely unaware of it, which is even more troubling.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 01:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, and here's one for the conspiracy theorists:  The author of that story is the AP reporter who was kicked out of Ethiopia last year, and then killed in a plane crash in Cameroon last month.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 01:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's terrible.

:<

This dismays and upsets me, I don't know what else to say.

by Nomad on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 12:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah.  I know.  I don't mean to make light of it, either.  It's terribly sad.

He had a wife and two small kids.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 12:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The authors of "Off the Record" acknowledge that all 39 detainees may not still be in U.S. custody, and some may have been transferred to the control of other countries. One such country is Libya, which now plays a bigger role in U.S. counterterrorism operations than was previously known.



 - from Human rights groups say there are over 39 'ghost detainees', McClatchy Newspapers, June 7, 2007.
by corncam on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 12:10:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the US has also used Syria for extraordinary renditions, while at the same time making the usual noises about democracy and Lebanon and sponsorship of terrorism.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 12:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just want to make sure everyone's aware that extraordinary renditions and CIA black sites are two different things...?  I don't doubt that prisoners have been rendered to Libya, but I do doubt that the CIA is running its own prison facility there.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 01:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I heard on NPR yesterday that there were 14 prisoners held by the CIA and they were all moved to Guantanamo and they remain there.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 03:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What were they citing as their source on that claim?
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 04:08:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Honestly, I can't answer that question.  I got in during the middle of the interview.  I'll try to do some research and let you know.   It was a discussion of the extraordinary rendition program.  

Interestingly, the interview just before that one was of Tony L. The former military interrogator that you wrote about day before yesterday, I believe.  He sounded very self-righteous to me in discussing his coauthored book on torture in Iraq.  He claimed to have reported his involvement in torturing prisoners several times to military authorities (CID twice) and they took no action.  I suppose I believe him on that one.  He finally got the US Navy to begin an investigation but only 2 years after his first report.  An Iraq veteran called in and asked if he had seen any cases of torture attributed to the insurgency as he (the caller) had seen during rescues of Iraqi civilians from insurgents.  Tony replied that he had seen cases where persons had obviously been tortued, but rather than say they could have been victims of the insurgency, he instead said they were just as likely victims of torture by the US Marines. He didn't explain his reason for making that statement and there was no followup.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 04:39:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Stormy, I've scoured the NPR web site for this story but haven't been able to locate it.  As I stated, I tuned in to the radio interview sort of in the middle but near the end and didn't hear the name of the interviewee.  It may be that the person I cite was referring to the 11 to 14 so called "high value" prisoners at Guantanamo and not to others that were captured as part of the extraordinary rendition program.  By the way, I highly recommend the NPR web site for good reporting on such subjects. if you are not already familiar with it the URL is www.npr.org  

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 05:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
along with the strong evidence revealed about the 9-11 "inside job," to at least slap sanctions or some other retaliatory measure against the United States after using false pretenses for 1) invasion of two sovereign nations and 2) violation of human rights treaties ?
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 07:18:35 AM EST
While I can agree on invasion and violation of human rights, I'll need to actually see convincing evidence re 9/11. So far I've seen none.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 06:26:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, no offense Jerome, but if you haven't seen evidence that points to a much wider conspiracy, then you're just not looking (or don't want to look).

I'm not going to go through a laundry list of details, but if you're intellectually honest you can look at the work of Paul Thomson, David Ray Griffin, Stephen Jones, Barrie Zwicker, Webster Tarpley, Michael Rupert, or any of the other credible researchers who have compiled evidence of the 9-11 attacks.

Or you can believe the 9-11 Commission. Either way.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 05:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
no offense Jerome, but if you haven't seen evidence ... then you're just not looking (or don't want to look)...  if you're intellectually honest...

No offence? That is in fact an offensive way of making whatever point it is you want to make (I suppose, that the evidence for a 9-11 conspiracy is overwheming). You presuppose intellectual dishonesty in someone who isn't of your opinion.

You know, if you're right, Prof, you don't need innuendo to back up your argument.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 07:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not about being "right" or "wrong," it's about having the intellectual honesty to consider all the evidence. Here we are five years later, there is a plethora of scholars, professionals, engineers and academics working on these issues, the ideas are freely circulated all over the Internet, and yet they are often dismissed with one-liners of "absurdity" or "incredulity." While I don't agree with wild conspiracy theories, it IS intellectually dishonest to say we were given the complete truth about 9-11.

This does nothing to refute the points, but simply dismisses them without addressing anything. I don't know why that seems to be so offensive.

This isn't meant to get off-topic, but it's part of a much larger prima facie case against the Bush administration.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:27:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aside from Afew's point, with which I concur, I do think the operative term was convincing evidence.

Never mind Popular Mechanics and all that.  I like comment #1158 re: Rosie O'Donnell.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:22:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, never mind the other 1500 comments.
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:30:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And never mind the article they're attached to.  And never mind common sense.

The comment is from Taibbi's original column here.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well if you're a fan of common sense that would mean we're on the same page ... unless common sense tells you the laws of physics didn't apply on 9-11.

Btw Popular Mechanics doesn't address the molten metal found in large quantity, or many other details, and the editor of PM is Ben Chertoff, cousin of Mike Chertoff, Director of Homeland Security. Guess that could be considered a conflict of interest. Also, they lost many of their contributors and editors when they started publishing this 9-11 "debunking," but I'm sure common sense tells you that's just all coincidence. And common sense also tells us to ignore all other sources of information.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 09:02:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From Benjamin Chertoff's website:

In case you're wondering, I AM NOT Michael Chertoff's cousin. IF we are related, it's so distant I can't figure out how. Nevertheless, I've never talked to him, never met him and nobody I know in my family has ever met him.

I assume that common sense tells you that he must be lying....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 09:44:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
These sources would say otherwise:

http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot.com/2006/05/ben-chertoff-michael-chertoff.html

Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

And so here we are talking about Chertoff, instead of the research done by Thomson, Griffin, Tarpley, Zwicker, Jones, et al., who don't have any connections to the Bush administration. Bravo, bon détournement.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 10:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, I'm sorry, but did you even read your own link?  It directly contradicts your argument.  It's badly formatted, so I can see why someone who didn't read it terribly carefully might take it as supporting your argument, but it doesn't.

Here's a tip:  Perhaps a little more rigourous examination of one's sources might be in order if you're going to convince anyone of this stuff.

Anyway, you're the one who started talking about Chertoff's family, not me.  If you're going to complain about veering off course, perhaps you should make more of an effort to stay on the course yourself.

Regardless, it's interesting how people who can't challenge the actual research done by Popular Mechanics try to impugn it by "attacking" one of the researchers.

But hey, if you'd rather believe hearsay via a third-hand source regarding what his mother may or may not have said than the guy himself, I think perhaps it may be useless to appeal to your common sense.

Regardless, as your link so rightly pointed out, "The piece needs to be judged on its contents, not the surname of one of those involved."

But, um, judging it on its merits doesn't work out so well for the conspiracists, so never mind.

Look, I have no interest in re-examining the so-called "research" of your stable of conspiracy theorists for the 857th time.  Consider it considered and soundly rejected; I have found none of it convincing in the slightest, and much of it so astonishingly ignorant and unsupported that it really ought to be embarrassing for its proponents.  But go ahead, call me a Bush apologist because I don't agree with you.  Very effective rhetorical tool, that.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 12:06:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look, you're obviously dealing with some cognitive dissonance issues ... and I can't help you with that.

There's so much information available at sites like 9-11 blogger have tons of information from a variety of academic and professional sources.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 06:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your troll rating of me in this thread just illustrates how weak your arguments are.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 07:24:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, physics, conservation of momentum, the theory of gravity ... those are all REAL weak arguments. Let's just continue to talk about Popular Mechanics (which does many military-linked stories and has ties to the DoD), instead of anything else.

I've listed multiple sources, including those "opposed," and scholars, and you've used one which has deep ties to the DoD, and you're calling my argument weak?

That to me is the epitomy of intellectual dishonesty.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 09:21:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here we go with the name-calling again.  Does that make you feel better about not actually making any serious points?

You. Have. Made. No. Arguments. Here.

Maybe you actually have an argument.  I have no way of knowing that.  You've simply linked to a handful of websites that can't even agree amongst themselves about What Really Happened and that spend more time debunking and deconstructing each other than they do trying to present a coherent narrative supported by solid evidence of whatever they feel might actually have happened on That Day.  Oh, and besides that, you've insulted me, Jerome and everyone else on the planet who might have the gall "intellectual dishonesty" to disagree with you.

Call me as many names as you want, but you're not strengthening your "case" one iota; in fact, thus far you haven't made a case for yourself at all, and calling me all the names in the world isn't going to add up to a coherent argument.

But sure, let's keep talking about me and all the things you think I am, rather than anything of substance.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 10:44:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then you're welcome to have an honest debate
here
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:42:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry to see you, beyond unpleasant comments about intellectual honesty and cognitive dissonance, abusing the ratings system by giving the stormy present a 1 for her previous comment.

You should take a look at the New User Guide on the subject of ratings, where it's clearly explained that troll ratings are not to be used to express disagreement with another's opinions.

The rating has been wiped. Please don't abuse ratings again.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 08:18:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Isn't trolling deliberately hijacking a conversation and sidebarring the issue? I brought up scholars and academics here advancing real arguments and theories, and I get called a "conspiracist" for simply suggesting that the American government lied about the 9-11 attacks?

I think that troll rating was deserved. Sorry you disagree.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 09:23:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe I shall just take it upon myself to write some diaries on this topic then, if evidence seems elusive, because it is there. Obviously these issues make some people uncomfortable, so unless the topic is simply "banned," it should be a fair discussion.
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 09:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you think you have decent evidence, and make an attempt at providing it, you'll be given a fair hearing. But be ready to be met with skepticism and critical counter-arguments.

As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 10:07:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have just done that
here
by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Mon Jun 11th, 2007 at 08:43:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My big question on this is why do you need to link the two? If you add 9/11 theories then you only generate vitriolic argument between on the one hand a group that thinks 9/11 conspiracists are halfwitted nutters, and on the other hand people who think people who don't follow the conspiracy are blind/tools of the establishment.

Surely combining the two is unnecessary and only serves as a distraction. in that it lets people descend into an irrelevent argument rather than discuss the illegal actions.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 01:10:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Only if you see the two as unrelated, and I think you do make a valid point. However, 9-11 was used as the justification for both the illegal invasions and the secret prisons.

Therefore saying it is not at the crux of the illegitimate actions of the American government seems to me rather perfunctory, regardless of your point of view on different hypotheses.

by Monsieur le Prof (top notch records [all one word] at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 09:26:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Times: Nato 'authorised secret CIA prisons in Europe' (June 8, 2007)
In his report today, Mr Marty claimed that after 9/11 the CIA set up a programme to "kill, capture and detain" so-called high value terror suspects. The collaboration of friendly foreign governments was critical to the secret detention programme.

The operation took place within the framework of Nato's security policy, after Nato and the United States reached a secret deal in 2001 allowing the CIA to run covert prisons in Europe, he claimed.

"The secret detention facilities in Europe were run directly and exclusively by the CIA," said the report.

I want heads to roll, I want the people at the NATO meeting that made this decision to be tried in The Hague, and I want some Atlanticist to write that log overdue diary about the benefits of NATO for Europe.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 08:30:18 AM EST
To steal a phrase from Atrios: Not going to happen.
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 08:42:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not even the diary?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 10:51:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not enough of an atlanticist to write it. Wchurchill might be? But he's American, it would be better to have a European perspective on the benefits for Europe. Maybe we could invite Jörg?
by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 10:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Hey, Joerg, we need you to defend NATO's secret decision to authorise the CIA Flight/Prison operation without informing the National Governments".

I'm sure he'd run back to ET.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 11:08:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, there are all kinds of ways in which you could formulate that statement :-)

The conclusion seems to be: Not going to happen

For my part, there may have been an opportunity for NATO to evolve into an institution that could further a principled, legal global order in the 90s. Now that opportunity is gone. As Kerry's "global test" was part of his downfall in the 2004 elections and the top runners in the Democratic primary remain committed to strong unilateral use of military force, I think that we won't see the chance again in the next 4-8 years.

(I won't even start on the current or possible future negative uses of NATO)

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 11:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For my part, there may have been an opportunity for NATO to evolve into an institution that could further a principled, legal global order in the 90s.

OK, let me play devil's advocate.

Wasn't it NATO that eventually stabilized the situation in Bosnia when the governments of Europe and the world couldn't quite bring themselves to act?

Maybe the world still needs a multilateral force, like NATO, unlike the toothless UN, to step up when the poor and oppressed are in need.  Look at Darfur today and Liberia, Ruwanda and Sierra Leone yesterday.  What NATO needs is additional members and a return to the principled leadership that you lament has departed.  Then it could again become useful.  Far easier to reform NATO than the UN. The problem with calling NATO actions unilateral is that it leaves us only one choice, the UN.  When was the last time the UN did anything to avert genocide?

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 03:46:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How about we decide to defang NATO and give the UN the teeth? It's a political choice we're constantly renewing, against our best interest.

Also, the breakup of the former Yugoslavia 15 years ago was the primary catalyst for the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Defence Agency, both of which are again undermined politically by the primary allegianc EU member states have to the US.

This results in subordinating EU security interests to US ones, and undermining the EU's support for the UN.

100% not in our interest.

I also note that Bosnia is de facto an EU protectorate, and that after the Serbia bombing campaign the US left the EU to deal with the political fallout in Kosovo, which still hasn't fully occurred.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 03:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Totally agree.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 04:03:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Agree partially.  The UN is a juggernaut that has existed for a long time without doing much of the work NATO has done.  NATO helped keep the peace during the cold war, with its military arm.  Arm the UN, to what purpose.  The only quasi effective military action it could agree on was the defense of S. Korea and then only because the USSR wasn't present for the vote.

True, the European Defense Agency should be able can look after Europe, but who helps the rest of the world?

Why does NATO have to subordinate Europe to US interests?  How does NATO undermine European support for a non-military UN?

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 04:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
if the EU (as such) had its own veto right within NATO, alongside the US.
Which is not going to happen, sadly.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 06:23:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Understand, but make that veto right happen and you could just wind up with an organization that is far more effective than the UN ever could be and for a lot less cost and effort.  Following the US's recent foreign policy and military disasters in the Middle East, a new American administration might be willing to work out a new agreement on NATO's organization.  Who knows, it would be worth a try.  Modern post-WWII Europe is coming of age economically and should be in a better position to press for more favorable  consideration.  In such a context Europe could play an important role in moderating the US's tendency towards rash and self-defeating foreign policies while cooperating on sound mutually agreeable activities.   Just a thought.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 11:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're reinventing the Blair solution. And we know how well that worked.

NATO is Washington's personal pocket flick-knife, and will do what Washington says. If there's a lunatic in Washington, as now, then NATO will be used to do stupid things for stupid reasons.

Washington has no interest in giving Europe a democratic voice in how NATO is run. The only thing that might catch Washington's attention is if individual countries start leaving.

A major block on the UN becoming toothier is US contempt for the UN. Washington considers the UN another useful and occasional aid to foreign policy, but doesn't pay any attention when its interests are challenged.

If the US rolled NATO into a joint international peacekeeping force at the UN, there would be much more chance of the UN becoming an effective force.

But this is the last thing Washington wants, so unless the strategic balance changes in a way that makes it obvious that Washington can't survive without the UN, this is never going to happen.

I agree with the suggestion of sanctions, but obviously that's not going to happen either - at least not unless enough people in the West decide to start treating the US as they treated South Africa before apartheid ended.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 05:33:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Guess you're stuck with both a useless UN and an overbearing NATO with the US being at fault for both. Keep trying to convince European countries to leave NATO. That would at least solve half of your problem. I can't think of a good approach to make the UN a useful military force, at least at the moment.  With China and the rest of the energy needy world making love to every oil rich despot you'll never get morally necessary action from the Security Council.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 10:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I just read a interview with UK-jounalist Stephen Grey.
He recently published "Ghost Plane" about the rendition programme.

On the site of his book, he publishes some details about 3.557 flights !

At the end of the interview he concludes that rendition flights still continue, but African countries like Ethiopië are the destinations now.

The picture below, is one of the involved planes: Hercules C-130 N2731G from Tepper Aviation, taken in Budapest - Ferihegy (BUD / LHBP)Hungary, May 18, 2007.



The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 08:43:28 AM EST
The report also says that Germany actively hindered the investigation. The Green Party already announced that this is going to be the subject of a parliamentary investigation.

"If you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles." Sun Tzu
by Turambar (sersguenda at hotmail com) on Fri Jun 8th, 2007 at 11:20:54 AM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries

Impeachment gets real

by ARGeezer - Jan 17
10 comments

A Final Warning

by Oui - Jan 10
101 comments

Environment Anarchists

by Oui - Jan 13
4 comments

More Spanish repression

by IdiotSavant - Jan 6
8 comments