We've hit the jackpot. Story bogus, Pulitzer bogus, CIA leaker fired.

Antique media yawns.

Like they revoked Arafat's Peace Prize......

they GIVE these prizes specifically to reward anti-Western behavior. The more Stalinesque, the better.

'Course not silly!, THE WAR IS THE TRUE LIE!

/Devil's advocating off

Red

Priest's Pulitzer was actually in the Fiction category. They just haven't bothered telling anyone.

Honest journalists are hard to find

A Prize for Lies.

Fake but accurate?

Seems to be their mantra...

Now that an EU investigation has found no evidence of illegal CIA action, will her Pulitzer be revoked—since the story for which it was awarded was false?

No, quite the opposite: they'll award her the Double-Plus-Unbad-Pulitzer.

Does this story seem strangly similar to the false documents CBS was trying to use? Why didn't Mary Mapes win a Pulitzer?

Now that an EU investigation has found no evidence of illegal CIA action, will her Pulitzer be revoked—since the story for which it was awarded was false?

Don’t hold your breath.

Have they revoked Walter Duranty's?

I saw at LGF dead thread that something as simple as a Severe Thunderstorm Watch and the threat of rain kept Reaganite off the links.

NC radar loop.

'Caddyshack' has been on TV a lot lately. Golf, and thunderstorms, always make me think of perhaps one of the five best movies ever made.

'Twister' not one of them- cheesy special effects, and CGI tornadoes from stratus cloud decks, no sir.

Now, 1937's "The Hurricane", with Dorothy Lamour, a noble Polynesian, a cruel French governor, and really awesome special effects for a 70 year old movie, well.

'The Great Escape' is up there. My wife thought it was depressing, since the Nazi's pretty much magine gun all the British escapees, but Steve McQueen on a motorcycle? Classic.

Now that an EU investigation has found no evidence of illegal CIA action, will her Pulitzer be revoked—since the story for which it was awarded was false?

Of course not. They refused to revoke Walter Duranty's Pulitzer Prize.

But, but, it had to be true!

Sure they didn't find any secret gulags. Because they're secret. So how do we really know they don't exist?

The fever swamps must be furiously spinning this morning.

Yesterday I was reading about a novel that won a Pulitzer this year -- March, by Gwendolyn Brooks. Basically it's the story of the father character from Alcott's Little Women, working as a chaplain in the Union Army during the Civil War. And basically it's a bit of revisionist history, as the "happily married" Mr. March falls in love with an escaped slave whom he worships and adores. Oh yeah, and all this is set amid scenery meant to underscore the horror of war ... any war ... anytime ... ever. Because war is bad.

Prizes, please.

Ach. Ok. I'll post it here.

I'm not sure the story is false. Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Remember this?

The European Union secretly allowed the United States to use transit facilities on European soil to transport "criminals" in 2003, according to a previously unpublished document. The revelation contradicts repeated EU denials that it knew of "rendition" flights by the CIA.

EU concealed deal with US to allow 'rendition' flights

The reason the EU investigation can't get anywhere is because the governments won't cooperate.

Were/are there prisons? Maybe. This came out yesterday or the day before.

West used information secured under torture, ex-diplomat says

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A British former envoy to Uzbekistan has revealed that western secret services obtained intelligence secured under torture from foreign detainees, with MEPs criticising the EU anti-terror coordinator for spinelessness.

Speaking before the European Parliament's temporary committee on CIA activities in Europe on Thursday (20 April), Craig Murray said that UK intelligence had obtained information from detainees tortured by Uzbek security forces.

He alerted British foreign minister, Jack Straw, of the methods used by Uzbek intelligence as far back as 2003.

"There is a plenty of evidence about torture carried out in Uzbekistan and I know that foreign minister Jack Straw officially approved using the information obtained through torture," Mr Murray said, citing a secret report from a meeting held on 3 March 2003.

The German secret service was also cooperating very closely with its Uzbek counterpart, he added, while Britain and the US had taken a policy decision to obtain intelligence under torture in other countries as well.

#9 Leper

Why didn't Mary Mapes win a Pulitzer?

Don't think they didn't want to.

Now that an EU investigation has found no evidence of illegal CIA action

All that shows is that the EU is nothing more than the running dog of the US.

The story still stands. The more it is denied, the truer it must be.

And in other news:

The grain harvest in the Ukraine is abundant this year, comrades!

Ed,

Armageddon is very watchable once past the Idiot Boy.

I've always likes Bruce Willis.

Great asteroid hit on Paris...

Just a quick refresher on McCarthy's background and who appointed her.

TEXT: BERGER APPOINTS MCCARTHY SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR INTELLIGENCE
(And senior director on NSC Staff for intelligence programs) (370)

Washington — National Security Advisor Samuel R. Berger announced
June 16 the appointment of Mary O’Neil McCarthy as Special Assistant
to the President and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs.

She succeeds Rand Beers in that post, an announcement by the office of
the White House Press Secretary said.

Mary McCarthy had been Director of Intelligence Programs on the
National Security Council Staff since July 1996. Previously, said the
White House, Mrs. McCarthy served as the National Intelligence Officer
for Warning from 1994-1996 and as the Deputy National Intelligence
Officer for Warning from 1991-1994. She began government service in
1984 as an analyst in the Directorate of Intelligence of the Central
Intelligence Agency.

McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State University
and an M.A and Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.

19 Jammie

OH THAT IS RIPE! She's associated with Sandy-Berger's-Pants-Are-FULL? Oh, it all makes sense now!

It's fitting.

Pulitzer was a yellow journalist and the award was created to rehab his soiled name.

#20 mun (what the hell is that nic anyway?)

She's associated with Sandy-Berger's-Pants-Are-FULL?

AND Richard Clarke. AND Wesley Clark.

Thanks for the hat tip, Charles.

Here's another instance of Priest accepting someone else's use of the term "gulag" in an online qustion and answer with readers of the WaPo.

Emeryville, Calif.: Nice lead yesterday, Ms. Priest. I was curious about one thread you didn't pull at in the article. You implied that at least one of the nations involved in the CIA's neo-Gulag was acting in violation of its own laws regarding treatment of prisoners, if not other laws and treaties. Surely this entails risk -- risk that public disclosure of these violations would publicly embarrass that nation's government.

So, do you have any idea what the CIA had to part with in exchange for use of these prisons? I'm sure the terms of these agreements would be interesting.

Dana Priest: Only generally. The agency paid for the facilities and helped better equip and train the intelligence services in these countries after Sept. 11. But, more broadly speaking, I believe each of the countries made the decision they did based on their reading of their own national security interests. Perhaps, as I would imagine, it's not just US money and equipment they want, but the expectation of American protection against their own enemies.

From the 9/11 Commission report

Senior State Department officials believed that they had received a similar verdict independently, though they and Clarke's staff were probably relying on the same report. Mary McCarthy, the NSC senior director responsible for intelligence programs, initially cautioned Berger that the "bottom line" was that "we will need much better intelligence on this facility before we seriously consider any options." She added that the link between Bin Ladin and al Shifa was "rather uncertain at this point." Berger has told us that he thought about what might happen if the decision went against hitting al Shifa, and nerve gas was used in a New York subway two weeks later.

Clinton was busy lying his ass off about Monica and McCarthy was helping prevent us from getting bin Laden.

She should get a Pudlicker Prize for that move.

#15 grayp

But if yoy read your first linked article carefully, grayp, it rests entirely on this passage:

According to the full version, "Both sides agreed on areas where co-operation could be improved [inter alia] the exchange of data between border management services, increased use of European transit facilities to support the return of criminal/ inadmissible aliens, co-ordination with regard to false documents training and improving the co-operation in removals."

But this section, and others referring to US policy, were deleted - as a "courtesy" to Washington, according to a spokesman for the EU Council of Ministers

Again, shady sources. What spokesman? Who? Is he anonymous? Does he have an agenda? Where is this supposed "full version"? Let us see it -- a scan of the actual document.

In the current climate, actual documentary evidence is all that counts. Having some unnamed EU diplomat, who may very well have an anti-US agenda, simply stating without evidence that there is a mysterious "full version" of some meeting notes does not "prove" that the Pulitzer-article was true.

grayp,

And Gen. Zinni and Zbiggy Brzezinski too.

What an all-star cast.

#22 Grayp
(mungagungadin= "munga", what everyone called me because it was what I called myself from about age two to age five, it's a contraction of my real first name, Marni, and -girl.... or "marnigirl", as best as I could pronounce it. Then, add Gungadin- a kipling creation and I'll let you look it up)

AND Richard Clarke. AND Wesley Clark.

With all these *cough* bona fides, I have to wonder why anyone ever thought this story would have substance?

One of the commenters in a thread last night suggested that the whole thing might have been a sting operation by Goss to flush the leaker(s).

I can't imagine them agreeing to take that kind of hit, since the MSM makes sure the myth becomes fact, but if so, it has a certain level of brilliance.

(Note: if they did so, it would be a nice inversion of the sting that the CIA sort of perpetrated on Bush, with Amb. Joe Wilson printing his lies in the NY Times. Both sides are finally engaged in The War on the War on Terror.)

Sad but true Zombie (Comrade)

Red

A long time ago (I can't remember when) someone posted (I think it was Zombie) a comment about faux tanks created by the English to deceive the Germans in WWII. He (and I only think it was Zombie) related it as an example of propaganda in war, that one can try to use all resources to scare people away from attacking you. But he went on to say that the liberals in our country very often believe the faux tanks and posturing, or go about creating faux things themselves. It's hard for liberals to have any idea of what reality might look like because unlike the English faux-tank-builders, the liberals of the world don't ever believe the President at War (who is most often a republican).

Well, I made hash of that, but it was a very interesting thought.

and, when I thought of it, it really was germane.

#15 grayp - Morning to ya! Your post confused me a lot. In particular, this line: "Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Abscence of evidence is just that. There is no evidence. It's sort of like the "fake but accurate" meme. The LLL's have been batting us around for I don't know how long about all of this shit and they don't have any evidence to back it up.
Sorry to have to disagree with you, maybe it's my lawyer's mentallity, but no evidence means no case.
Period.

#15 grayp

West used information secured under torture, ex-diplomat says

Grain of salt, please. Large.

Ex-diplomat, eh? Joe Wilson-esque, if you ask me.

There is a possiblity that these "secret CIA prisons" exist. Or at least secure holding facilities. But the fact that it's the most lurid accusations of Torture! that get the most press coverage is what tends to strain credibility.

Oceania is at war with Eurasia.

Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia.

Bush lied, people died.
The CIA has secret gulags.

These statements have been made, therefore they are true for all time. Evidence is not required.

zombie, when WaPo first published this story, all hell broke loose.

Remember that then Condi went over to Europe to smooth some ruffled feathers and all of a sudden everybody shut up? The reason is because most of them were unaware of the original docs.

The organization that got the documents is
Statewatch. (via FOI). Statewatch leaked them.

And it's a long read, but here is a preliminary report to the European Parliamentary Assembly on the investigation dated Jan 22 this year.

Alleged secret detentions in Council of Europe member states

The publication that follows all things EU reported on this 3 days later.

US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack dismissed the report as the "same old reports wrapped up in some new rhetoric. There's nothing new here". British members of the Council of Europe assembly reportedly called the interim report "clouded in myth and motivated by a desire to kick America".

Report finds scarce evidence on CIA prison claims

As you read all this (IF you read all this!), keep in mind there are two threads to the investigation. renditions AND prisons.

#0 mun

about faux tanks created by the English to deceive the Germans in WWII

The was Operation Fortitude.

It was a combined Brit/American decoy operation.

#32 Spiny

Grain of salt, please. Large.

No doubt, no doubt. But I've been tracking this for awhile and I have to read the European outlets for work anyway. I would be remiss as a minion if I did not share with you guys all the information I have.

When Priest came out with her "artcle," it was titled:
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11

In the online QnA she did at WaPo, though, she states that they ARE legal:

They are not illegal under U.S. law, which allows for the CIA to undertake covert actions abroad. Executive Order 12333. Maybe I can get it posted here.

# 30 munga

D-Day was made successful by one of the greatest deception/diversion operations of all time.

The allies made cardboard planes and tanks by the thousands and put them all over Southern England for the benefit of German spy planes. By all accounts, Hitler was convinced that the landing would be at Pais de Calais, at the narrowest point of the English Channel between the Isles and France.

The actual landing sites came as a shock and in the confusion, the Panzers were not mobilized until it was too late.

An amphibious landing and the establishment of a beachhead is one of the most difficult achievements of war. D-Day could not have been accomplished without pulling the wool over the Nazis' eyes on a massive scale.

Will the Pulitzer be revoked? Sure, just after the New York Times gives up its Walter Durranty Pulitzer for covering up the crimes of Stalin. In other words, not bloody likely.

Oh c'mon! Everyone knows that the EU is a CIA puppet organization. Do you really expect an investigation into themselves to tell the truth about Gulaggate?

You people need to wake up! After all, the EU's lead investigator was Inspector Cluseau (sp?) and everyone knows how fascist France is.

/moonbat

#36 Doss

So according to the LLL, we can't kill enemy prisoners, we can't sent them to Abu Ghraib, can't ask them any questions and can't talk to them with giving them a lawyer.

Hell, I'd take them to Uzbek, too.

What's wrong with these people?

But sending them to Yale is okay.

tigger2005

By all accounts, Hitler was convinced that the landing would be at Pais de Calais, at the narrowest point of the English Channel between the Isles and France.

There was another aspect to operation Fortitude that was not just fake decoy armament that my dad was part of. Pas de Calais was bombed and bombed and bombed for the sole purpose of make the Germans think we were softening the place up. You should see my dad's mission book. 75% leading up to D-Day were bombing runs over Pas de Calais.

These reporters really do live in fantasy land dont they?

Anything to take down Bush. ANYTHING. And for that pretty prize!

Captain Ed thinks this is all a sting. See his latest post for details...

Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest will be online Thursday, April 27, at 12:30 p.m. ET to discuss the latest developments in national security and intelligence.

[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

Waves to ~~~~Ann~~~~

I thought you were going to go stand out in a lightening storm with a metal stick?

Pulitzers' an old hand with fraudulent stories about Gulags

per the UKRAINIAN WORLD CONGRESS' resolution on the 75th Anniversary of the Great Hunger

a rough translation

#
4 One of the most well-known malefactors in complicity with the Soviet was a journalist, Walter Duranty of the New York Times, not only amplifying the Soviet propaganda of colectivización and denying the reports of the Hunger, but conspiring to defraud to its readers as well as to the society everything that awarded with the Pulitzer Prize in Journalism by its efforts;

Pulitzer, shameless after all these years

#30 mungagungadin

Yes, it was me who posted about the faux tanks! Good recollection!

The point I was making was this:

In WWII, the Brits made tanks and other military installations out of cardboard, and placed them all over the countryside, to confuse the German pilots. The intent was that the Germans would either waste bombs and overflights bombing empty fields with cardboard boxed in them, or (alternately) report back to HQ that the Allies had much more military hardware than originally thought -- and hence the Germans would pull back in their military plans.

Simple, cheap, but effective deception.

But now (and here comes the point I was making), the media has gone so insane, that it believes its own deceptions. And the equivalent would be this: the Brits have, say, 10,000 real tanks. But then they create 20,000 cardboard tanks to deceive the Germans. Later, during top-level strategy meetings, Allied generals are pushing representations of units around on a map, and one of them says, "And we can break through the German lines here with a charge using 15,000 tanks!" The other general looks at him quizzically: "But we only have 10,000 tanks total!" The first crazy general says, "No, we have 30,000 tanks. I saw them myself!" General #2: "But 20,000 of those are made of cardboard! You gave the order yourself to make the faux tanks!" Crazy General" "Ah, yes, but if the Germans think they're real, then they very likely are real, right? Personally, I'm convinced that we really do have 30,000 tanks."

This whole scenario is a metaphor for how the media works these days. At some level, way at the top of the media decision-making structure, they are consciously promoting distortions and falsehoods and propaganda in order to promote a political agenda (bringing down Bush), but somewhere along the line -- far too high up the chain of command -- the little detail that the news is false is forgotten or dismissed, and the lies are accepted as true.

The best example of this was the polls done during the 2004 campaign. In reality, Bush had a 4%-5% lead for most of the entire campaign, right up til election day, when he won by a predictable 4%. It should have been no surprise. But the MSM, attempting to boost the chances of the Kerry campaign, kept spewing out ludicrous biased polls showing that Kerry was in the lead, or was close. The intent was to brainwash the public into thinking of Kerry as a "winner," so people would change their votes to Kerry because "no one wants to be on the losing team." Of course it didn't work, but the crazy part is, the Democrats starting actually believing that the doctored polls were true! They thought they were going to win! And on election night, they were gobsmacked when Bush won! They were so shocked, that many of them simply refused to believe it (and many around where I live still think Bush "stole" the election.) Even Kerry himself was said to have been dumbfounded.

How could they believe their own lies and propaganda?

This is why the Left is doomed, in the long run. They believe their own lies.

#30 Munga:

In addition to the comment made by #37 Tigger, the Allied deception also included using George Patton as the fictitious head of this army group. The Germans had tremendous respect for Patton and this gave credibility to the operation.

Michael Moore got a trophy for convincing people his documentary was true.

Why can't a writer get a trophy for writing words that fit the same script

Some things to note in the question and answer Priest gave online that I linked to:
(1)Wapo had no problem exposing the US for running "secret prisons," but did have a problem naming the E. European countries where they were located. They wanted to make sure to only discredit the US and no other countries.

Washington, D.C.: Dana-Congratulations on the amazing article. However, as a reader, one paragraph really jumped out at me:

"The Washington Post is not publishing the names of the Eastern European countries involved in the covert program, at the request of senior U.S. officials. They argued that the disclosure might disrupt counterterrorism efforts in those countries and elsewhere and could make them targets of possible terrorist retaliation."

Could you elaborate on your decision not to publish the names of the countries? Frankly, I find it amazing that The Post would withhold such information from the public. Don't you have a duty to the public -- both American and foreign -- to report the news?

Dana Priest: The decision was made by our executive editor, Len Downie, after many hours, over many days, of conversation and debate with a small number of people, myself include. So I can't speak for Len on whether it was an easy decision, but it certainly didn't feel like it. To me, it was a question of weighing the relative benefit to the story of naming the countries (exposing an illegal act in that country, authenticating a program that's been denied by the administration and that rests of unnamed sources) versus the potential risks of naming the countries; most notably that they might decide to curtail valuable counterterrorism cooperation with the US and that they might be subject to terrorist retaliation. Using the formulation "several Eastern European countries" seemed to address the authenticity and impact question.

(2)Check out this now-discredited assertion.

Washington, D.C.: Cliff Kincaid writing in "Accuracy in Media" says that your story on secret prisons yesterday "reflects the view of a faction in the agency (CIA) that opposes this policy and wants to use The Post to convey its view publicly. Once again, the secret war against the Bush administration is on display for all to see."

While I don't expect you to reveal your sources to us -- although go ahead if you want to do so -- you should at least be able to tell us if there is any truth to the notion that currently serving CIA officers are trying to undermine the Bushies. Are they?

Dana Priest: I've always found this view amusing, and rather convenient for the White House, which likes to point to someone else when it's own policy decisions don't work out right or fail to achieve the stated goals (like other administrations, I would add) Most CIA people I've met probably voted for George Bush. And the CIA is responsible for executing the war on terror and capturing the vast majority of the terrorist suspects around the world. No one from the CIA and no one who used to be in the CIA proposed that I write the article I did. On the contrary.

# 41 grayp

Yep, I forgot that aspect of the decoy operation.

I hope we are using deception tactics like this in Iraq and elsewhere. The idiots we are fighting would be suckers for it.

Too bad so many of US so eagerly buy into the lies propogated by our enemies.

#44 grayp

~ ~ waves back! I'm keeping an obsessed eye on the radar, and holding out hope for this afternoon.

ED?

You know, I hope the Military has these jihadis squirreled away all over the globe.

The MSM has lost their privilege to have any information in these matters. They can't help but undermine our efforts whenever they can.

I honestly don't care what happens to the little bastards that we catch on the battlefield.

#49 Doss

No one from the CIA and no one who used to be in the CIA proposed that I write the article I did. On the contrary.

Well, she may be telling the truth here. There were some minions (crosspatch?) speculating last nite that there is more than 1 source (Berger/Clarke?) and that McCarthy was a secondary source used to confirm details Priest already had.

#46 zombie

And an Operation Fortitude would be called "unfair and immoral... and well just down right mean" by the MSM today.

Oh, there's one niggling detail about this story that bothers me.

Why did McCarthy take that polygraph? Because she knew she was guilty and thought she could finesse it? Or because she didn't realize she'd done anything wrong?

#46 zombie

They thought they were going to win! And on election night, they were gobsmacked when Bush won!

"gobsmacked" Bwahahahaha!

#52 grayp Hi again - when you get a chance, please check your e-mail!

#54 grayp

Or because she didn't realize she'd done anything wrong?

That's my guess. The true Evil is the Bush Administration's effort to kill or capture our Nations enemy.

Remember, we really are not at war. It can't be happening.

realwest - nothing yet - I'm halfway thru Shadow Prey.

#40 Ann

But sending them to Yale is okay.

I don’t know how Mr. Taliban feels about it, but if I were sent to Yale and had to deal with all of the moonbat professors, I would consider that cruel and inhuman punishment.

grayp,

I've got to go so I can't research at this time, but I could swear I read she was polygraphed recently; possibly Thursday.

One of the Drudge links may have it.

Yeah!

What Zombie Said!

#59 The Real Richard

if I were sent to Yale and had to deal with all of the moonbat professors, I would consider that cruel and inhuman punishment.

I don't know... he is probably a celebrity and getting laid all over the place. All he needs to be asked is "Why do you and your friends hate us?"

#54 grayp - I asked a similar question sometime yesterday - why was she given a polygraph in the first place? The only conclussion I could reach was she had been directly asked the appropriate question(s) and had lied and said no, not me. Thereby necessitating the polygraph test.
IIRC, if she refused to take a polygraph test (remember she was very high up the CIA food chain and in the IG office at that) that she'd be summarily dismissed and, possibly charged with treason.

Addendum to my #63 - SOME people in the CIA take their oaths of office seriously. And in the case of the CIA's Inspector General, they're supposed to ferret out people like her.
What we don't know is how much damage she's really done to our country and probably won't know that for quite some time (if we ever learn it at all).

#63 realwest

I asked a similar question sometime yesterday - why was she given a polygraph in the first place?

I'll bet everybody in that building was given a polygraph. Including Porter Goss.

Bill Bennett has been mad about these Pulitzers all week. One of his gripes is that if Judith Miller sat in jail 80-odd days for a nonreason--Plamegate, these reporters (Priest, Risen and Lichtbalu) outhta be jailed for the difficulties they've caused in national security and endangering Americans.

#53 Ann

#46 zombie

And an Operation Fortitude would be called "unfair and immoral... and well just down right mean" by the MSM today.

And publicized as widely as possible.

PIMF Risen and Lichtblau--the NYT guys who decided that the Commander-in-Chief was not qualified to de-classify information.

#40 Ann

So according to the LLL, we can't kill enemy prisoners, we can't sent them to Abu Ghraib, can't ask them any questions and can't talk to them with giving them a lawyer.

It is scary to imagine how they would wage the WoT. They'd have an Oprah-ized sytem for dealing with head-choppers. I mean giving terrorists Korans, prayer mats, and halal meals isn't being nearly gentle enough for 'em. They'd probably give terrorist detainees Internet access and back rubs. (Saying thanks again that Kerry wasn't elected.)

#67 Spiny Norman
And an Operation Fortitude would be called "unfair and immoral... and well just down right mean" by the MSM today.

And publicized as widely as possible.

I can just imagine the headlines in the MSM if its current incarnation existed in 1944:

Roosevelt Denies Cardboard Tanks Violate Geneva Convention

Cardboard-gate Affects Churchill Popularity Polls
Labor ministers heckle from backbenches

German Human Rights Organizations Threaten to Sue Over "Immoral" Operation Fortitude Scheme
Pilots "felt distressed" upon seeing faux tanks; needed therapy.

Dana Priest is an Anti Journalist!

#52 grayp

Well, she may be telling the truth here. There were some minions (crosspatch?) speculating last nite that there is more than 1 source (Berger/Clarke?) and that McCarthy was a secondary source used to confirm details Priest already had.

I wouldn't doubt it. They (Berger and Clarke) would probably fashion it something like: Berger gives the "scoop" to McCarthy one day, then, the next day, Clarke calls McCarthy about some other issue, knowing that McCarthy will ask him about what his pal has revealed to her the previous day. He stammers a bit, says "you didn't get this from me," and then confirms the "scoop."

Who knows the machnations these traitors are using to try to undermine the established processes this country runs by, but it is made all the more easy by having people in the Intel community and in the press both working to circumvent US law to push their agenda.

There's no reason to trust the EU report on this one. If they did admit that there were secret prisons, they'd have to take some of the blame for letting the CIA have prisons on their soil, so claiming they don't exist solves the whole problem. Also, it's not like we've should trust every document to come out of the government. And lastly, I wouldn't care if there were secret prisons. The person who divulges their location and existence deserves to be punished, not rewarded. So all in all, this person doesn't deserve the reward no matter what, and everyone should stay as clueless about the prisons as they were before.

...public doesn't really give a shit about pulitzers...it's a con...a flashy trophy they try to use blind and daze people with...people that don't know any better...kinda reminds me of a Nobel Prize. What good are these institutions in the west that really *do* speak to a kind of moral depravity?

What good are these institutions that write the first drafts of history when they keep writing in a direction most don't want to go...a direction that helps perpetuate hate and violence.

oh the glory

oh the glory

puhlease

Not the first time big time prize committes have taken the fabrication hook line and sinker:

Rigoberta Menchú (1999)

In 1983, Guatemalan activist Rigoberta Menchú published an account of her country's bloody civil war called I, Rigoberta Menchú. In 1992 she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Several years later anthropologist David Stoll conducted a series of interviews with Menchú's former acquaintances for a follow-up book. During this time he discovered that much of her account was fabricated. Specifically, Menchú was not self-taught (she received a middle-school education) and the land dispute in which her father was killed was with family members, not the government.

[Link: www.answers.com...]
1/3 of the way down.

Lost in the mix is what a tempest in a teacup her whole Pulitzer-winning story was: we're holding top Al Qaeda guys in secret prisons. Like, uh, so f'ing what? Turns out that it isn't true, but if it were, why would that be any big deal? Are we to bring every terrorist ever caught to the US?

Another interesting thing to note is the opening to Priest's article:

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.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

Is she making up these foreign sources, or was there collusion between US Intel traitor and "foreign officials"?

OK. Let me get my ducks in a row here.

1. A government employee leaked information (said leaking is in federal offense territory) to Dana Priest.

2. Said information caused increased divisiveness in the world, much nashing of teeth.

3. There was absolutely no proof.

4. Pulitzer was awarded for story, even though there was no proof.

5. We now know the story was false.

6. The leaker could be outed and charged with treason.

Question - does Pulitzer award prizes based on stories without provenance? Is provenance something that only the art world cares about?

If provenance was received, then the Pulitzer committee, the author, and the paper are all culpable.

If provenance was not received, then the Pulitzer committee, the author, and the paper are all dupes.

#77 Cattt

5. We now know the story was false.

No we do NOT know the story is false.

See my #34.

#77 Catttt - We don't know the story is false, there's just no evidence that it's true. (sorry grayp but this is a very sore point with me; MSM runs with a story without any evidence at all (See Rathergate, although they at least had the "decency" to try to fabricate some evidence!)
I'm sick and tired of us always being on the defensive when the Ancient Media and LLL have nothing, NOTHING on which to base their accusations and when pressed for evidence of their accusations cannot produce anything except "annonymous sources".

This seems relevant -- the traitor at the CIA who leaked classified National Security secrets to the media donated $7,000 to Democrats, including John Kerry:

Total for this search: $7,000

Contributor Date Amount Recipient
MCCARTHY, MARY O 10/5/2004 $5,000 Democratic Party of Ohio
MCCARTHY, MARY O 3/14/2004 $2,000 Kerry, John

[Link: opensecrets.org...]

#78 grayp

I know this is lazy of me, but can you boil that down for me? I'd really appreciate it, because I can't follow it.

Question - why was her story not false?

*because there are prisons, or
*because she did not actually say there are prisons but instead said a leaker told her there are prisons?

Thanks for any clarification.

/perhaps another cup of coffee will help. I really do want to get these ducks in a row, but these are pesky, uncooperative fowl.

79 realwest

Thanks, hon. That is what I'm thinking too, but I'm trying to get the damn thing clear in my head. This is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall.

Jeez, between this thread and trying to help St.Pancake get her kitty out of a tree (did you know Walker, Texas Ranger was fiction?! LOL!) I'm plumb wore out.
Nap time - see youse'all later.

#76 Doss

Are we to bring every terrorist ever caught to the US?

That's the subversives' PLAN B for the invasion of America.
1,000,000,000 muslims in jail here, 1,000,000,000 trials, 150,000 prisons to build...

That will happen immediately before a new Amendment that will state that the ants of Borneo are protected by the American Constitution and that marrying a snake is legal.

/Sorry, I can't speak seriously when we give Pulitzer prizes to traitors.
Hang her. She's a traitor and we are at war !

The problem is definitely one of bias, yet it is almost structural.

Pulitzer Prizes seem to be awarded, like Nobels, based in "Impact". Simply selecting the best-written, or best-researched, or superlative of some other hard qualification would ignore the current trump in the journalist's deck: "making a difference".
I want to spit every time I see or hear some media type going on about how the job is about "making a difference" or "bridging cultural gaps" or "helping you to understand the world". What they should be douing is REPORTING. If they would just bring facts to light and stop there, that would be great.
Instead, the diease which has overtaken the industry is that each journalist must now try to out-difference" the next, and which of these terms sounds like making something different: progressive or conservative?
The whole word "Journalist" should have tipped us off a long time ago: I don't want to read your journal--I want to read your report.

Oh, and I have a couple of freebies here:
Bullitzer Prize.
Bullshitzer Prize.

Take 'em, I'll make more.

D-Day was made successful by one of the greatest deception/diversion operations of all time.

The allies made cardboard planes and tanks by the thousands and put them all over Southern England for the benefit of German spy planes. By all accounts, Hitler was convinced that the landing would be at Pais de Calais, at the narrowest point of the English Channel between the Isles and France.

Lucky the media didn't leak this, the germans were helped to be fooled by the fact that the fake tanks were under Patton's command.

[Link: www.globalsecurity.org...]

It was publicly leaked that General Geroge S. Patton Jr., a U.S. Army commander whom the Germans had come to respect, would be head of FUSAG and thus the invasion force being sent to Calais. Special Allied signal units were used to simulate division, corps, and army-level communications. Dummy tanks, landing craft, and airplanes were set up where German aerial reconnaissance was bound to see them. Vacant camps were also where the Germans might pick them up.

Oh, and can we call this McCarthyism? Mary Mapes and Dan Rather--McCarthyite flaks for the Communists. Shit, this is going to be a great week! Finally, the MSM can say McCarthy and have it actually mean something bad.

A Tale of two McCarthys. One was a vicious and deeply flawed person with a hateful agenda in a position of too much power to resist corruption. The other served during World War II in the most hazardous position on B-17s, and later chased traitors out of the State Department.

For posterity's sake, here is Mary O. McCarthy's Center for Strategic & International Studies "Expert Profile." Dr. McCarthy, and her profile, have been expunged, but it is still in Google's cache.

Mary O. McCarthy
Visiting Fellow, International Security Program

Expertise: Intelligence, National/International Security, Preventive diplomacy/Conflict resolution Terrorism

Prior to joining CSIS in August 2001, Mary O. McCarthy was a senior policy adviser to the CIA's deputy director for science and technology. Until July 2001, she served as special assistant to the president and senior director for intelligence programs on the National Security Council (NSC) Staff, under both Presidents Clinton and Bush. From 1991 until her appointment to the NSC, McCarthy served on the National Intelligence Council. She began her government service as an analyst, then manager, in CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, holding positions in both African and Latin American analysis. From 1979 to 1984 she was employed by BERI, S.A., conducting financial, operational, and political risk assessments for multinational companies and banks. Previously she had taught at the University of Minnesota and was director of the Social Science Data Archive at Yale University. McCarthy has a B.A. and M.A. in history from Michigan State University, an M.A. in library science from the University of Minnesota, and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Minnesota. She is the author of Social Change and the Growth of British Power in the Gold Coast (University Press of America, 1983).

And here is her GlobalSecurity.org profile:

Dr. Mary O. McCarthy, a CIA officer, is currently a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, researching and writing on intelligence matters. Previously (from 1996-2001) she had served) as a Special Assistant to the President (Clinton and Bush) and Senior Director for Intelligence Programs on the National Security Council Staff. Prior to moving to the White House, Dr. McCarthy served on the National Intelligence Council as National Intelligence Officer for Warning, and Deputy NIO for Warning. She began her career at CIA in the Directorate of Intelligence in analytic and managerial positions in the areas of Africa and Latin America.

Prior to beginning her government service, Dr. McCarthy spent time in the private sector as a Director, then Vice President of BERI, S.A., a Swiss-based company conducting risk assessments for international businesses and banks; and in academics, teaching at the University of Minnesota and serving as Director, Social Science Data Archive, at Yale University.

Dr. McCarthy has lectured and written on the relationship between policy and intelligence, on the problem of intelligence warning, and on numerous topics involving the risks associated with international business. She has also published a book on the social history of Ghana. Her Ph.D. in history is from the University of Minnesota.

#84 Poitiers-Lepanto

That will happen immediately before a new Amendment that will state that the ants of Borneo are protected by the American Constitution and that marrying a snake is legal.

Hehe. I'm picturing the wedding as a Far Side cartoon with an interior view of the church from the rear with the humans filling pews on one side, snakes filling the pews on the other.

#88 Catttt

Disheartening.
Not only this gal is a subversive traitor, but we come to know that for the CIA the position of "analyst" means something like "bookworm"...This person has never been in the field, has never met and known directly and personally any terrorist...

Unbelievable.

How can they frigging understand anything if they live in their silly offices ?

The Pulitzer Prise is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper.... ie Pres. Peanut..Ara-fish....the others mentioned in the above posts.
If the Pulitzer committee would only print them in a continuous roll, perforated every 5 inches, I could put them to better use in my bathroom.
There is so much "political garbage" behind everyone of these winners that the award, in my humble opinion, is bubkus!

A couple observations. First, if Priest's story weren't true, it seems unlikely that GWB would have tried to talk the Post out of publishing it, which he did. I believe this was reported in the original article, but, even if it wasn't, Priest has acknowledged it on numerous occasions. Second, Porter Goss did not deny the existence of the prisons when he testified about this subject before Congress. Both he and GWB have criticized the Post for publishing this information (and may, in fact, try to prosecute Priest), but they did not deny the truth of it.

Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm with grayp on this. Consider the presence of cancer in the body. Anyone of us might, at this moment, have a tumor growing within us. The fact that we don't know it's there doesn't mean it isn't there. That's "absence of evidence" about something that may be true. The fact that the EU reported has denied knowledge of the prisons doesn't mean they don't exist. The WaPo would have required multiple sources on a story of this type before publishing it, which the quotes presented above acknowledge (i.e., sources here and in Europe). Given multiple sources and the absence of a denial from the White House or the CIA, I think it's pretty likely they ARE there, or, at least, WERE there.

Finally, Priest is not a moonbat. She knows a great deal about what goes on in the CIA and the Pentagon. If you read her reporting and her chats, you will see that she wants both the intelligence community and the military community to do things right---both for the sake of our security and for the sake of American ideals.

For instance, in her chat this past week, she did not support the generals who have openly criticized Rumsfeld. She argued, instead, that civilian control of the Pentagon is a key aspect of the American system and that the generals' statements threaten that control.

She also spoke about the importance of continuing to try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Repeat: She is not a moonbat.

# 53 Ann

"And an Operation Fortitude would be called "unfair and immoral... and well just down right mean" by the MSM today."

Part of the British "double-cross" system leading up to D-Day was to turn every German agent in the UK into a double-agent. When domestic intelligence operations caught any they were given a choice of working for the Britsih or being shot. Not all of them decided to work for the British.

First, if Priest's story weren't true, it seems unlikely that GWB would have tried to talk the Post out of publishing it, which he did.

George bush, the Briar rabbit of politics.

Not so smart, but a lot smarter than his foes think. :-)

Fetchez la vache?

There were some minions (crosspatch?) speculating last nite that there is more than 1 source (Berger/Clarke?) and that McCarthy was a secondary source used to confirm details Priest already had.

Yeah, that was me. Because in reading other Priest articles, it became clear to me that there was obviously one source in the CIA office of the IG and yet additional sources providing information on what was happening with prisoners. Either that, or Priest is completely stupid, or both.

Priest explicitly mentions having sources within the office of the Inspector General in a story about the "Salt Pit" detention facility in Afghanistan but she mentions the office in the context of some background information about investigations being conducted into Salt Pit in particular and handling of prisoners in general. Priest lays out in detail some goings on in Afghanistan and then cuts to the IG office to confirm that an investigation was done.

My gut instinct is that her source is either the person that brought the investigation to the IG, someone working closely with that person, or someone in the IG itself. I don't think the details were leaked by the McCarthy because if they were, I don't believe Priest would have specifically mentioned that office. She is very careful not to expose sources but wasn't careful in McCarthy's case. I think this is because of the general nature of the information and lack of any speecifics, neither nor McCarthy thought at the time that McCarthy would get into any trouble over it.

All that is said is yes there was an investigation, yes it was referred to the DoJ, the DoJ passed on it saying it was outside their jurisdiction, the IG issued recommendations to the field and 4 of the recommendations had so far been acted on. Pretty harmless info by itself, but placed into context with the detailed information (which I think came from at least one and probably multiple other sources) it made the administration look like they were covering it up.

The CIA has said that this investigation is just getting started and that there are "dozens" in investigations ongoing including at least one criminal investigation that is not focused on McCarthy.

It looks like the CIA was pretty much the DNC-IA and work is underway to root out partisan moles.

91 Poitiers-Lepanto

Hmmmm. You have something there. Analyst professionals come from whence? Academe, it would seem. Hard to do a survey on CIA analysts to see, since they generally dummy up when you ask them questions.

Years ago, I took a long, involved test that tells you what sort of profession would suit you. Everyone else in my group had a list of professions - things like teacher, mathematician, and electrician.

I had just one, due to my unusual set of attributes, it would seem - strategic military analyst.

I also don't believe that the stories concerning the prisons were false unless it was a VERY large sting. Nice to think about but after looking at several different articles I come to the conclusion that the stories represent multiple significant leaks of information for political purposes.

One is left with three real conclusions they could possibly reach:

A: All the information was fabricated and circulated to see who leaked it.

B: The information is correct and multiple sources leaked it.

C: The information is correct and one source leaked it.

I come to the conclusion that the answer is probably B. That no proof was found doesn't mean it never happened. It just means nobody is willing to publically state for the record that they took part in it but seem to be willing to hide behind a reporter and blab about it. In this case, I believe the political motivations of the leakers and the reports were the same and this helps to foster a certain trust between them. They are partisans fighting for their party. We have no room for that kind of behavior in our intelligence community. They need to be Americans first and members of their political party somewhere lower in the order of personal identification.

"Dana Priest covers the intelligence community and national security issues"

So essentially her career success depends on leakers revealing secret intelligence which could very likely harm the country and those who serve it.

Her parents must be so proud.

UnREAL.

We have a violent, fanatical enemy abroad who wants to kill as many of us as he can.

And an equally fanatical enemy at HOME

Hmmmm. You have something there. Analyst professionals come from whence? Academe, it would seem. Hard to do a survey on CIA analysts to see, since they generally dummy up when you ask them questions.

You can see from the careers section of their web site that they hire people from a wide range of backgrounds: engineering, IT, psychology, languages, political scientists, economists, international affairs, national security studies---really, everything. They come from academia in the sense that they'd have gone to college, but I don't think it's likely that many have been professional academics (i.e., professors) or have PhDs. Many of the job ads, though, call for master's degrees.

I had just one, due to my unusual set of attributes, it would seem - strategic military analyst.

So is that what you do now? If so, are you at liberty to say a little bit about what you do? Sounds interesting.

So essentially her career success depends on leakers revealing secret intelligence which could very likely harm the country and those who serve it.

No, but apparently that's what she turned the position into. There is quite a lot of legitimate reporting that can be done concerning the intelligence community and national security issues. The trouble is, she has now pretty much screwed herself. She is going to have a hard time building relationships with people on the up-and-up and will be limited to dealing with a shrinking pool of leakers.

She won't be long at WaPo in that position because she is going to find it more and more difficult to function in it. Nobody is going to want to talk to her and those that do are going to need to look over their shoulder because simply talking to her might raise suspicion. She will likely move to a different beat. She has damaged the "legitimate community" so I wouldn't be surprised if they shun her.

You can see from the careers section of their web site that they hire people from a wide range of backgrounds: engineering, IT, psychology, languages, political scientists, economists, international affairs, national security studies---really, everything.

The intelligence community is huge and covers a lot more than just the CIA. There are many groups and agencies. Many civillian contractors, even entire companies, work exclusively in that space and take no other kind of work.

How long before the glowing, tragic 60 minutes expose on this deeply patriotic, horribly wronged whistleblower?

How long before the NY Times headlines touting "Bush retaliates against Secret CIA Torture Prison Whistleblower"?

How long before Chris Matthews mentions the "pattern" of Bush firings of people with "dissenting" viewpoints?

The leftwingpress:

More predictable than my morning post coffee dump.

#111

Not just you.

Faux "moderate" trying to "reason" with the wingnuts

97 Rayra

But Miller's was a 'process' crime (same as Libby) - contempt of court for refusing the court's request / order to divulge her source. She wasn't in jail for her direct and willing role in this entire Intel scam.

Yep. So ask Priest, Risen, et al for their sources, and if/when they refuse, jail them for contempt.

109 JustMyView

I was nonplussed at that recommendation, as I'd have had to retrofit my education to that point, though in retrospect, I'd have been interested. I took this test after my education (extensive), and none of my degrees were in that line. When I was in high school, girls were generally not pointed at such a line, and I was not a cutting-edge self pointer then.

I'm a capitalist pig (e.g., finance, Wall Street, all that stuff). :)

I don't know any CIA people. Used to work for the FBI, but that's totally different. I know a number of NSA people, all of whom have doctorates in math (met through Mensa). Obviously, there are people in NSA who don't have doctorates in math - I just happen to know a lot of the math guys. Needless to say, they are all smart. Also, they are all totally silent on what they actually do at the NSA, nor would I ever ask. I've seen other people ask them - they just smile.

The intelligence community is huge and covers a lot more than just the CIA. There are many groups and agencies. Many civillian contractors, even entire companies, work exclusively in that space and take no other kind of work.

Right. Cattt's question seemed to be about the CIA, but I didn't mean to imply that all intelligence work was done by the CIA. As you say, there are other agencies, as well as private contractors. My response was just meant to indicate that people who do intelligence-related work come from a lot of different disciplinary backgrounds. Your observation about them being in lots of different kinds of organizations is consistent w/ the idea that they come at intelligence issues from a variety of perspectives and bring with them many different kinds of skills.

As a follow up to Zombies request for contributions to his list of MSM invented "scandals":

Who wants to predict the "scandals" that will be unleashed in and around Sept/Oct 2006?

-"new" pics of Bush and Abramoff doing lines at a GOP fundraiser?

-"new" Abu Ghraib shots?

-"new" TANG memos?

I cant wait!

Yep. So ask Priest, Risen, et al for their sources, and if/when they refuse, jail them for contempt.

That might come to pass but the courts have ruled that the government must exhaust all other courses of action first before they can do that. There is probably considerable "low hanging fruit" they can gather through their conventional internal methods of investigation before they finally go to that well.

#116 Cattt

Thanks for the reply. Being a capitalist pig pays well, I hear, so good for you!

111 rayra

Yes, it would seem so. However, he/she is reasonable, and he/she does make some valid arguments, and he/she is polite.

119 crosspatch

I sure don't get why they don't seem to want to pick it.

/naive and angry

120 JustMyView

Yes, and I like helping people help themselves. People spend too much and save to little. Don't get me started - I'll bore your socks off.

#103 Rayra

Very well-put summary of just how upside-down our world has become. It's totally maddening.

What we have going on is a Cold Civil War where a cooperative cabal of members of our government along with major media, with the assistance of Hollywood and academia, have been working relentlessly to bring down or at least paralyze the administration during a time of war.

Haven't read the thread, but if they don't revoke it, it just shows the prize as meaningless. Who cares?

#123 Cattt

Yes, and I like helping people help themselves. People spend too much and save to little. Don't get me started - I'll bore your socks off.

So, are you in NYC now?

#125 W-lover

Haven't read the thread, but if they don't revoke it, it just shows the prize as meaningless. Who cares?

Good to see that you're taking in all the available info before reaching a judgment.

I sure don't get why they don't seem to want to pick it.

They are but those things aren't like sitcoms that get neatly wrapped up in half an hour. The McCarthy investigation started in January and they have said there are dozens more in progress. There will be more fruit falling off the tree as they shake it some more.

I am interested to see who the criminal investigation is aimed at.

124 neocon hippie

What we have going on is a Cold Civil War where a cooperative cabal of members of our government along with major media, with the assistance of Hollywood and academia, have been working relentlessly to bring down or at least paralyze the administration during a time of war.

I think you are right. To me, it boils down to a repudiation of the very foundation of our country. These people have no honor. Long ago, an individual, in pledging himself, would give his parole - e.g., would be trusted to be telling the truth. This was when honor meant something.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Declaration of Independence

Nowadays, honor means nothing to these people. The fact that these so-called Americans have pledged their alliegiance, as follows, means nothing:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation, under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

Why do I think they have lost their parole? Simple. People who pledge allegiance to their country, pledge themselves to uphold the law, pledge themselves to secrecy in their jobs, then work to help the enemies of our country, break the law, and spill the beans, have broken their word.

"'Sacred honor' isn't a phrase we use much these days, but every America Life is touched by the bounty of this, the Founders' legacy. It is freedom, tested by blood, and watered with tears." Rush Limbaugh

130 rayra

I know, hon. We have different styles. I respect you for your forthrightness. I do think, though, that some LLLs make an honest effort to post forthrightly on their own positions. While I disagree with them, I will listen, they have a right to post here, and I will be polite.

126 JustMyView

No. Check my profile. Capitalist pigs are everywhere. :)

And instead of the battles of a "hot" war we have had successive information/propaganda battles. Just to name a few, they bring out Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke to peddle their books, then we get Rathergate, Plamegate, The Downing Street Memo, etc ad nauseam. None of these in themselves have been the lethal blow the leftos wants, but the relentless wear and tear have taken a toll on the administration's ability to function, and to our national security.

133 Cattt

No. Check my profile. Capitalist pigs are everywhere. :)

Indeed, we are almost neighhbors. I'm in NoVa.

Good to see that you're taking in all the available info before reaching a judgment.

LOL! What other "info" do I need to form an opinion of a fraudulantly won "award". The Pulitzer people either yank it, or the Prize loses credibility. In the future who will care who won a Pulitzer? It will be right up there with a Teen Nick Award.

You can email them you know. Talk to them about the demise of the Pulitzer's prestige, the demise of maimstream media, how all good things must come to an end:

(From Hugh Hewitt's site)

1. New York Times won for betraying national security secrets.

2. New Orleans Times-Picayune won for creating frozen bodies in freezers that weren't there.

3. Michael Hiltzik, past winner, is revealed to be a serial creator of his own identities to praise himself on blogs.

pulitzer@www.pulitzer.org

#137 W-lover

LOL! What other "info" do I need to form an opinion of a fraudulantly won "award". The Pulitzer people either yank it, or the Prize loses credibility. In the future who will care who won a Pulitzer? It will be right up there with a Teen Nick Award.

Priest won the story for writing a story, not for writing a story you like. Obviously, many posters above doubt that the story is true, but several others believe that it is. You can doubt it all you like, but you can't prove that the story is false, the headline for this thread notwithstanding.

but you can't prove that the story is false

It is impossible to prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. It is impossible to prove something didn't happen.

but you can't prove that the story is false

Like Dan Ra^ther?

#140 crosspatch

It is impossible to prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. It is impossible to prove something didn't happen.

That was my point. Many people have argued above that the story is false, but they can't demonstrate that it is. In terms of proving that the prisons don't exist, the EU report that Charles and others have relied on is of no logical value. The report can say where they looked, but that doesn't mean they looked in all the right places. The prisons may be somewhere else.

And, even if they looked in the right places, the fact that they didn't find the prisons, doesn't mean they weren't there when Priest wrote the article.

The question of whether this story should have been published is entirely separate from whether it is true. In discussing it on TV last night, Krauthammer accepted its validity, but said that he wouldn't have published it. That's a fair point of view.

Maybe she can redeem herself by writing a fictional story about a drug addicted child in Washington D.C.. Oh, um... may not be a good idea. Maybe she can become Hamas press secretary then?

The question of whether this story should have been published is entirely separate from whether it is true.

Are you Mary Mapes' sock puppet?

139 JustMyView

Obviously, many posters above doubt that the story is true, but several others believe that it is. You can doubt it all you like, but you can't prove that the story is false, the headline for this thread notwithstanding.

That's so totally not the point. The point is that this story was run AS IF IT WERE PROVABLY TRUE, when it was in fact speculation, based on hearsay.

The original story was headlined as follows:

CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11

The story included these provisos:

...according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

and

according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

Once those two provisos were out of the way, the balance of the article treats the story as straight news. For example:

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites.

The story is detailed and full of NOT accusations but factual reports of various types, with provisos only on obviously unproven accusations. For example, torture is mentioned as if it is a given, with the only proviso being that the tortures might not be CIA operatives.

Bottom line, the story IS false, because it treats speculation as straight news.

How long before the Espionage Act is enforced, and the traitors in the CIA, and the traitors in the "mainstream" media, are locked up for leaking and publishing classified National Security secrets?
 

#139 JustMyView,

you can't prove that the story is false,

The burden of proof isn't on the people reading the story. It is on the people writing the story. For example, we have Sandy Berger who stole and destroyed classified documents for reasons unknown. One could speculate that these documents showed that the Clinton Administration had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attack, but chose not to call it to the incoming Administration's attention out of spite over the bitter election.

I could further state that I received this information from an unnamed source that was in the Oval Office when the decision was maade.

Prove it didn't happen that way. That little piece of fiction is every bit as convincing as Dana Priest's. That she had one unconfirmed source who turns out to be a partisan hack doesn't really make her fiction any more believable.

The question of whether this story should have been published is entirely separate from whether it is true.

See- you have this all wrong. The question of the story being true should come first. Then you can decide on broadcasting publishing it.

Bottom line, the story IS false, because it treats speculation as straight news.

Sorry, I disagree. Priest specifies, without naming them, who her sources were. Then she reports what they told her. She is saying, "Here is what they said."

For instance, when Priest says,

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

. . . she is quoting her sources. Of course, it's possible that her sources lied to her, but she would tell you that everything in her reports was based on more than one source. The Post informed the White House that they were going to publish this report before they did so, and GWB asked Len Downie, the editor of the Post (might not be the right title, but Priest's boss), to come to the White House. In his meeting w/ Downie, GWB tried to convince him not to publish the article, and the Post did withhold some portion of the information they had. In particular, they didn't name the Eastern European countries where the prisons were located because GWB and the CIA convinced the Post that naming the countries might provoke terrorist attacks on those countries.

Consider, for instance, the difference between official reactions to the secret prisons story and the Hersh story re the development of plans to attack Iran. When Hirsh wanted to put the kibosh on the Hersh story, he said, "What you are reading in the news is wild speculation."

They didn't say that about Priest's story. They said, "We are mad that you published this story, because it undermines our antiterrorist activities." That's a claim about the desirability of publishing the info, not about whether the info published was true.

The Pulitzer Prize's esteem and credibility is at/about the level of the UN's.

Uhmmmm....flushed down the toilet?

From an online forum Nov 3, 2005,the day after her story was published...

Seattle, Wash.: Thank you for your important article. I'm curious if there was much knowledge of these secret facilities on the Intelligence committees in Congress and, if there was, why members of Congress didn't speak out about them?

Dana Priest: A few of the members know the basics. Most do not. It would be a crime for them to speak out of these matters because the program is a covert one. Quite a bind, no?

AAAAGH

Forgot the link.

I still think anyone giving out info that is considered confidential should recieve jail time, anyone publishing such info should also be punished, reporter and publication and the the theme "right to know" needs to be reigned in especially when others are being put in danger .... our country's safety should be ahead of one's politics

#149 IronFist

The burden of proof isn't on the people reading the story.

I'm not talking about proving the existence of the prisons. I'm talking about the people questioning the truth of the story.

Priest wrote her story and presented, within the story, the evidence supporting it. You and others want to say it's not true, and you are perfectly welcome to try to demonstrate that it's not true--or, since, as crosspatch points out, to try to discredit her. But, so far, no one has done that. That's all. I'm not saying the story should have been published. Truth is, I'm mixed on that, but I do believe it's true.

I mean, why wouldn't it be? The administration wants to keep certain categories of detainees outside of the United States to make it easier to deal with them in ways that are not legal within the United States---for example, holding them without charges. They've been perfectly clear about that. The administration has publicly fought efforts to have detainees tried in U.S. courts under U.S. laws. Not saying they shouldn't do that. Just saying that these "black site" prisons are perfectly consistent with their public positions on the treatment of detainees.

#151

PIMF

When Hirsh wanted to put the kibosh on the Hersh story, he said, "What you are reading in the news is wild speculation."

Meant to say, "When Bush wanted to put the kibosh on the Hersh story, . . ."

#156

Sheesh! PIMF

Priest wrote her story and presented, within the story, the evidence supporting it. You and others want to say it's not true, and you are perfectly welcome to try to demonstrate that it's not true--or, since, as crosspatch points out, to try to discredit her. But, so far, no one has done that. That's all. I'm not saying the story should have been published. Truth is, I'm mixed on that, but I do believe it's true.

Should say:
Priest wrote her story and presented, within the story, the evidence supporting it. You and others want to say it's not true, and you are perfectly welcome to try to demonstrate that it's not true--or, since, as crosspatch points out, it's logically impossible to prove her wrong--to try to discredit her. But, so far, no one has done that. That's all. I'm not saying the story should have been published. Truth is, I'm mixed on that, but I do believe it's true.

"What you are reading in the news is wild speculation."

Prove Bush wrong!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought journalists were suppose to report facts. So if you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of these prisons what FACT are you reporting?

Late to the thread, but Instapundit linked to this.

Heh!™

#156 JustMyView,

I'm not saying that it couldn't be true. Frankly, I think it is how we should be fighting the war. Jihadis aren't soldiers, nor are they civillians, so the Geneva Conventions simply don't apply.

What is really puzzling though is why the real story is being ignored. Whether true or not, a partisan hack with ties to the Clinton Administration and Kerry campaign leaked classified information with the intent of either damaging the President politically, or impeding the war effort.

With the knowing collusion of a Washington Post reporter? What did Ms.Priest know about her source? If she didn't know her source's connections to the Clinton Administration and Kerry, then she deserves to lose her prize for sloppy sourcing. Once the woman's name was out it didn't take long for LGFers to dig up all kinds of questions about her motivations.

Surely her motivations matter?

Also, there's this bit of interesting speculation. If true, then the Post just got screwed big time. I hope they hold a press conference and say that is the case.

Would that be the truth? Can't prove otherwise.

Carping about JustMyView's posting doesn't change that he/she brought up a good point - all the Priest critics are hanging their hats on the EU report. And the EU report could be wrong, or obfuscated for political reasons.

Personally, I hope these "mini-Gulags" exist. This is total war for the survival of our civilization. Putting the fear of God into the Islamofascists by isolating them and subjecting them to abuse of whatever kind to get information out of them is, for me, a legit tactic in this twilight war.

But facts are facts. Do these facilities exist? If not, what the heck info was McCarthy (and it looks like one other) feeding Priest? Rumors? Addresses/states where the detention centers existed, but Priest hasn't published them for some reason? Rumors from "someone who knows told me they exist.." or "someone signed off on a transit of terrorists to Eastern Europe"? And what was Bush trying to get WaPo to not print - a lie that reflected badly on Bush, important but true information we didn't want the bad guys to get, or disinformation that we could use to rattle captured terrorists ("if you don't spill to me now, we're gonna send you to the secret Willy Wonka Torture Factory where we'll drop you into a vat of chocolate and you'll never see daylight again")? Yeah, yeah, I know about the interrogations of terrorists where the interrogator said "Okay, we can't get any info from this creep. Bring in the Mossad agent and let's turn him over to the Israelis". At that point, the terrorist starts singing like a canary. That's fine by me, but it's irrelevant.

As for the possibility of a sting, I'd love it if it were true. But somehow it seems a stretch given the talent requirements needed from our Omniscient CIA to pull it off. And if these places do exist, the sting scenario becomes moot.

Bottom line - Priest broke the law, and this situation can set precedent for other MSM schmucks who want to sell out the President-du-jours based on politics. We can't have a Fifth Column within our own intelligence agencies in league with an adversarial Fourth Estate. The intellectual corruption permutations of such a situation are mind-boggling: are we getting the truth; is someone doing a CIA/CYA dance in case the s**t hits the fan later based on flawed CIA assessments; and when our men and women charge into a battlefield, will bureaucratic CIA/Opposition Party mindsets have put them at risk by revealing our secrets to the enemy?

This situation is a heck of a lot more important the Dan's "Fake-but-Accurate" sleaze reporting. In that fracas, Dan was just trying to trash the early character development of a future POTUS. Priest is trying to influence a real-time war effort where people can die as a result her reporting. As a traitor, she deserves a Bull-itzer, and real jail time.

But first, let's get all the facts straight. Then we can deal with the LLL moonbats.

Hey, Duranty's piece about Stalin's rule in 1932 was a complete farce too, and no one has disqualified it in the least.

With the Pulitizer, it seems to come down to the intention behind the reporting that counts; whether you're apologizing for tyrants or undermining American war efforts. Whether it's factual or accurate? Not so important.

Anonymous sources have told me "JustMyView" engages in coital activity with farm animals.  As there's no evidence to the contrary, this must certainly be true.
 

#159 W-lover

"What you are reading in the news is wild speculation."

Prove Bush wrong!

I'm not saying he's wrong on that. I brought up that example to show that he used a different approach in trying to discredit Hersh than he did in trying to discredit Priest. I'll say it again. With regard to Hersh, he said, in essence, what Hersh is saying isn't true. With regard to Priest, he said, it was wrong to publish this information. He DID NOT SAY that the story was false.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought journalists were suppose to report facts. So if you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of these prisons what FACT are you reporting?

Priest and her editors presented the proof of the existence of the prisons, i.e., the facts, in her article. You may not find that proof compelling, but others have. I didn't say you can't prove the existence of the prisons. That's what Priest tried to do, and I, Charles Krauthammer, George Bush, and Porter Goss all seem to believe that what she said is true.

I did say, along with grayp and crosspatch, that you "can't prove the negative." This is an issue of formal logic. For instance, consider this conversation:

Me: There is tea in China.

You: No, there isn't. I looked, and I didn't find any.

Me: It was there when I said it was. It may have moved.

I could come up with an infinite number of reasons for your failure to find the tea, and you'd eventually have to admit that, because you didn't have a complete inventory of everything in China at the time I said the tea was there, you couldn't prove it wasn't there.

This is, I believe, an exact analogy to the situation re the prisons.

Of course, even if it is logically impossible to prove that something is false, we may come to feel reasonably certain that it is and act on that belief. For instance, we can't prove that there aren't pots of gold at the ends of rainbows, but the sight of a rainbow doesn't lead us to dust off our metal detectors.

Similarly, if, after a thorough search, we were unable to find any evidence of the existence of the secret prisons, we would probably give up on the idea, but, again, that takes us back to the reactions of GWB and Goss. If the prisons didn't exist, they'd have said, "You are reading wild speculation," as they did in response to Hersh.

151 JustMyView

I still totally disagree with you. It is specious to put a minor "according to sources" in a piece and then have page after page of factual statements, written as though the sources' hearsay is fact. My view is, I believe, proven out by the reaction to her story, which did treat the story as factual. There was an ensuing hullaballo to find the prisons, get the CIA on the carpet, in committee, etc., lots of teeth-nashing about how horrible the CIA was, etc., etc. The MSM treated the story as factual in its multitudinous follow-up.

Right now, a base card has been pulled from the house. Sure, there are lots of cards on the table. The point is not that some of the cards might be good cards - its that they are part of a hourse of cards that is built on shaky ground.

I am curious as to how you would react if there was a similar set of circumstances with the LLL/wingnut tables turned about. Would you still set out your carefully constructed house of cards, or would you fold 'em?

#165 JustMyView

In my opinion, both sides of arguments sometimes engage in logical fallacies. However, this is not about logic.

What I am talking about is not the validity of Ms. Priest's piece. You can lay out validity, because she qualifies her piece at the beginning. I can set out a valid premise that black is white, because I took logic 101 and 102 in college. Big whoop.

The point is clearly about presenting a set of possibilities, based on hearsay, as if they are proven, when they are not. Such stories get a big play. Months later, some of the possibilities fall to the wayside. Some of the possibilities may be proven to be true. This IN NO WAY changes the fact that the original story was specious.

Also, the original story, imho, not to mention the way it was leaked and the identify of at least one leaker, all show liberal bias.

#161 Iron Fist

What is really puzzling though is why the real story is being ignored. Whether true or not, a partisan hack with ties to the Clinton Administration and Kerry campaign leaked classified information with the intent of either damaging the President politically, or impeding the war effort.

With the knowing collusion of a Washington Post reporter? What did Ms.Priest know about her source? If she didn't know her source's connections to the Clinton Administration and Kerry, then she deserves to lose her prize for sloppy sourcing. Once the woman's name was out it didn't take long for LGFers to dig up all kinds of questions about her motivations.

Surely her motivations matter?

I'm sure Priest knew the background of her source, and reporters state that they assess the motivation of potential sources when they determine whether to use the information the source is providing. But it is possible that a person could be both a Democrat and right about the question of whether there are secret prisons run by the CIA in Eastern Europe. If McCarthy objected to the way GWB is running the WoT, she may have been motivated to reveal this information, but that doesn't mean she made it up.

Also, there's this bit of interesting speculation. If true, then the Post just got screwed big time. I hope they hold a press conference and say that is the case.

Would that be the truth? Can't prove otherwise.

It's not very likely that this was a CIA sting. As someone above said, organizing such an operation would be quite an undertaking. Moreover, it would put officials in governments that are cooperating w/ the U.S. in the WoT at risk. That doesn't seem like something the CIA or GWB would want to do.

#139 Justmyview

You are a pedophile.

many posters above doubt that the story is true, but several others believe that it is. You can doubt it all you like, but you can't prove that the story is false

I expect my prize now.

Signed,
T.S. Do
Sr. Investigative Reptilian Journalist Extradorinaire

There is an old saying - "Consider the source." My daddy used to say this when I worried about some jerk, when I was a kid. I'd get upset with some dufus - he'd remind me that the jerk was not worth worrying about.

Why don't we do this with MSM stories? The Wizard of Oz said it best:

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Just because it wasn't illegal doesn't mean
the secret prisons don't exist.

We've got to keep those terrorists locked up
somewhere. Of course, we have prisons.
Leave it to a Kerry-lover/traitor at the CIA to
help the terrorists find their brothers-in-arms.
That's why the countries mentioned were upset.
There was never anything illegal; they were
worried about becoming terrorist targets thanks
to their U.S. "friend" at the CIA.

Way to go, Mary O. McCarthy! You're a
first-rate traitor. And a liar, too (as
evidenced by failing the polygraph test).

Cattt #166 writes:

The MSM treated the story as factual in its multitudinous follow-up.

Indeed, here's a perfect example from today:

The New York Times
April 22, 2006

C.I.A. Fires Senior Officer Over Leaks

By David Johnston and Scott Shane

The Central Intelligence Agency has dismissed a senior career officer for disclosing classified information to reporters, including material for Pulitzer Prize-winning articles in The Washington Post about the agency's secret overseas prisons for terror suspects, intelligence officials said Friday.

Public records show that Ms. McCarthy contributed $2,000 in 2004 to the presidential campaign of John Kerry, the Democratic nominee.

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Er, shouldn't that be "alleged secret prisons"?
 

#168 JustMyView,

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. There are many permutations about this one. For example, we may have had detention facilities is Uzbekistan in late 2001-2002, and said prisoners were transfered to Gitmo when it became available. Is it still true in 2005 when the story broke?

Anyway, this is a small treason compared to whomever leaked the eavesdropping story to the NYT. That revealed highly-classified operational information that was of clear material benefit to the enemy in a time of war, and with the intention of that information being become known to the enemy. I don't care who did that, or what their party wis or their motivations were. That person needs to go to jail.

I still totally disagree with you. It is specious to put a minor "according to sources" in a piece and then have page after page of factual statements, written as though the sources' hearsay is fact. My view is, I believe, proven out by the reaction to her story, which did treat the story as factual. There was an ensuing hullaballo to find the prisons, get the CIA on the carpet, in committee, etc., lots of teeth-nashing about how horrible the CIA was, etc., etc. The MSM treated the story as factual in its multitudinous follow-up. . . .

I'm not sure what point you're making here. Yes, Priest's story presented facts as reported by her sources. She said, "They told me X." She was able to present their statements in a way that many other people found compelling. She could, I suppose, say, "According to X" at the beginning of every statement, but that would get a little tedious. I don't think we disagree here. Priest meant her readers to believe that what she was saying was true, i.e., that it was factual. But her sources weren't reporting hearsay. They were reporting their direct experience.

I am curious as to how you would react if there was a similar set of circumstances with the LLL/wingnut tables turned about. Would you still set out your carefully constructed house of cards, or would you fold 'em?

Of course. I don't see what I was saying as a house of cards. I like to think of it as a sound structure. :-) But, regardless of what we call it, I would use the same logic and standards of evidence to evaluate anyone presenting an argument on an important topic such as this . . . or on any topic.

For me, one of the most entertaining parts of life is reading what people are saying about the press here and on dailyKos, because it is THE SAME THING, but from the opposite direction! They are as convinced that the WaPo and the NYTimes are shilling for the Bush administration as some LGFers are that the MSM is trying to take down the government. In the past couple of weeks, there have been numerous snarky posts about the WaPo editorial policies. Me, I'm perfect. :-)

JustMyView,

It seems to me that without proof all you have is hearsay in this (or any) article. Provide proof and it becomes fact. Based on fact the story has value to society, right or wrong. Don't provide proof and it has all the value of an urban legend, and can be detrimental to society as well.

I think most folks here are of the 'show me the proof' variety, instead of the 'prove the story is false' variety. This incidentally is a defining difference between conservatives and liberals.

That your argument is based on the 'prove the story false' premise, you are unlikely to find many allies around here as it is seen as the downfall of your argument.

At this point I think the prize ought to be renamed the 'Puey Prize' for the great number of stinkers it has 'honored' over the years.

JFM

Is it still true in 2005 when the story broke?

Yes, I believe it was still true then. I don't actually recall what she wrote about timing, but I believe she said those events were occurring then. That would be easy to check out, but, like you, I'm running out of steam on this topic.

Catch you later.

Come to think of it there have been rumors of the CIA having agreements with various countries to 'extract' the information we need from terrorists to perform counter-terrorism for years now. Plus 'holding facilities' and special aircraft to move these people around have been rumored as well.

To hear of a story about it getting released now seems to be a bit late to me, and it doesn't surprise me that the 'Attaboy' network would give it a Puey Prize.

Since the people we are talking about are terrorists, I fail to see the point of a story about 'secret prisons' anyway.

JFM

#175 JFM

I think most folks here are of the 'show me the proof' variety, instead of the 'prove the story is false' variety. This incidentally is a defining difference between conservatives and liberals.

Whether something is falsifiable or not is not a question of politics. It's a question of logic. This is the approach to truth-finding that is used in all scientific research. That's where crosspatch's "you can't prove the negative" phrase comes from. I am pretty sure that both liberal and conservative scientists rely on this approach.

In fact, Dana Priest did "show you the proof." Whether you accept it as proof is up to you. But if she presents evidence saying that there are secret prisons in Eastern Europe and the President of the United States and the Director of the CIA are mad enough about that information being released to launch investigations about who released it, I'm willing to believe it's true.

It's find to say you don't believe it. But that's not the same as saying it's not true.

Like I said, I'm running out of steam, but I have, genuinely, enjoyed the conversation.

173 Iron Fist

Anyway, this is a small treason compared to whomever leaked the eavesdropping story to the NYT. That revealed highly-classified operational information that was of clear material benefit to the enemy in a time of war, and with the intention of that information being become known to the enemy. I don't care who did that, or what their party wis or their motivations were. That person needs to go to jail.

Absitively posolutely.

What I wanna know is why isn't Dana Priest in jail?

She and McCarthy would make lovely cellmates.

They both need to be FROG MARCHED in front of the fawning media and taken straight to prison.

Maybe even GITMO . . . or one of Priest's "alleged" GULAGS!

Just my view:

Would this same argument hold water for you if it were the Administration using it re: WMD's in Iraq? I

#175

JollyFatMan 4/22/2006 04:37PM PDT
JustMyView,

It seems to me that without proof all you have is hearsay in this (or any) article. Provide proof and it becomes fact. Based on fact the story has value to society, right or wrong. Don't provide proof and it has all the value of an urban legend, and can be detrimental to society as well.

I think most folks here are of the 'show me the proof' variety, instead of the 'prove the story is false' variety. This incidentally is a defining difference between conservatives and liberals.

That your argument is based on the 'prove the story false' premise, you are unlikely to find many allies around here as it is seen as the downfall of your argument.

Thank you. Good post.

It seems that the LLL's take the position that there were no WMD's in Iraq even though they can't prove they were not there.

There is a problem with JustMyView's pretzel logic.

#181 beej

Would this same argument hold water for you if it were the Administration using it re: WMD's in Iraq?

Interesting question. The answer is yes. In fact, it's an exact analogy. The administration has failed to provide proof that there were WMDs in Iraq, but neither I nor anyone else can prove that they aren't there somewhere or that they never were there.

So, as with the secret prisons story, we must rely on the strength of the evidence---rather than its ability to provide absolute proof. As I understand it, the search for WMDs has been exhaustive, and the President has acknowledged that they didn't find what they expected to find. I take him at his word.

Real-world decisions are almost never based on proof. There are always judgments about the weight of the evidence. When the stakes are high, we should, of course, work as hard as we can to rule out uncertainty, but we can never get rid of it altogether.

Someday, when the archives are declassified, I predict that this "secret prisons" story will be shown to have been a counterintelligence operation to ferret out the leakers that turned over the NSA wiretaps program to the New York Times. Published reports indicate that the Times had known and asked about the NSA program for as much as a year before they published the story in December 2005. That gives plenty of lead time for the FBI to develop such an operation.

Did the Post sit on the prisons story for any length of time? I don't know.

The story itself might have had just enough truth in it to make it irresistable...

Interesting question. The answer is yes. In fact, it's an exact analogy. The administration has failed to provide proof that there were WMDs in Iraq, but neither I nor anyone else can prove that they aren't there somewhere or that they never were there.

So, as with the secret prisons story, we must rely on the strength of the evidence---rather than its ability to provide absolute proof. As I understand it, the search for WMDs has been exhaustive, and the President has acknowledged that they didn't find what they expected to find. I take him at his word.

Except the U.N. had extensive catalogging of Saddam's chemical and biological WMD's.

It was up to Saddam to prove the destruction of the catalogged WMD's, the burden was not on the U.S. to prove otherwise.

#185 Ghost707

Except the U.N. had extensive catalogging of Saddam's chemical and biological WMD's.

It was up to Saddam to prove the destruction of the catalogged WMD's, the burden was not on the U.S. to prove otherwise.

Right, I was really talking about what Bush et al. said to the American people, not about what Saddam was saying or doing.

183 JustMyView

Real-world decisions are almost never based on proof. There are always judgments about the weight of the evidence. When the stakes are high, we should, of course, work as hard as we can to rule out uncertainty, but we can never get rid of it altogether.

While this statement is, for practical purposes true, I think it is erroneous to only examine "the weight of the evidence." One must first look to the nature of what one wishes to prove or disprove. As a general proposition, one cannot prove a negative, but this is not absolutely true. There is a theoretical condition where the proposition is false.

Consider the assertion "JustMyView's house did not blow up last night." Do you you think you can make a persuasive argument that establishes this negative? Of course you can, because the nature of the event sought to be disproved is such that it would reliably produce evidence that it occurred. The general statement that "you cannot prove a negative" must be reconciled with situations where "if it had happened, we would know about it."

Consider the following two propositions:

1.) North Korea has no nuclear weapons;
2.) North Korea has not detonated a nuclear weapon.

The former is much more controversial than the latter, for the simple fact that a nuclear detonation is very like to leave evidence that it occurred. The absence of such evidence is generally regarded as presuasive. I know of no one who asserts that the North Koreans have detonated an A-bomb. If an event always produced evidence that could always be discovered, absence of such evidence would be proof that the event did not occur. The sun, I am informed, did not go supernova in the last 100 years.

Absence of evidence is persuasive (if not conclusive) when applied to events that reliably leave evidence that they occurred. This is an important point because much current controversy relies on misuse of the principle that negatives are unprovable; Holocaust denial for example.

I agree with you that real world decisions aren't made with regard to the generalization about proving negatives. Doctors do this all the time. They used to "rule out" heart attacks using EKGs and creatine kinase enzymes, but these were not 100 sensitive. When troponin enzymes were isolated, their sensitivity for detecting heart attacks was higher that the CK enzymes, but still not 100%. Nevertheless, doctors routinely use negative troponin tests to conclude that someone din't have a heart attack. THe principle at work here though, is the same one referenced above, namely that absence of evidence of an event (hart attack) can be concluded with some confidence, if evidence of that event (elevated troponins) occurs with sufficient reliability.

This Mary McCarthy issue also touches on burdens of proof, the role of presumptions and fabrication of evidence, all of which should be deferred to another post.

AGGHH! Sorry everyone, Cattt, for being gone so long. I'm a bit under the weather and curled up in bed with some good books.

Cattt in my #34, check out the first link. This is a news story about how the EU gov'ts had signed an agreement with Washington to participate/allow renditions. Statewatch is the organization the got the original docs and leaked them to the Telegraph.

The 3rd link is long - this is Mr. Marty's interim investigation report for the EU and this one is quite long. However, the forth link quoting U.S. State Dept as saying Marty's report is a rehash of press reports is accurate.

Keep in mind - two threads; renditions and prisons. Personally, I'm fairly convinced there were renditions - I sure as hell HOPE there were/are. Prisons I'm not so sure about. Define prison. An institution where a lot of people are held against their will.

Doubt it. Low-profile 'safe house' type locations?

Once again, I sure as hell hope so.

The bottom line on this is:

The Europeans have been cooperating in some segments of their gov'ts, unbeknownst to other segments. I would absolutely believe this of the French intelligence services, who I suspect, would not in the least mind seeing the Champs Elysee blown sky high.

I never miss a chance to diss the French, but their anti-terror guys have been really good to us and they've been doing it a lot longer than we have.

I can't get through but I'm adding to a roundup here:

But this time the McCarthy is waving a list of known... patriots.

189 - DANEgerus

It's a roundup of those folks who can't see the bear . . .

JollyFatMan, writes in #175:

I think most folks here are of the 'show me the proof' variety, instead of the 'prove the story is false' variety.  This incidentally is a defining difference between conservatives and liberals.

Of course, the latter ('prove the story is false') is a logical fallacy, which speaks volumes about those who embrace such ignorance.