Redstate

This was a sting operation.  McCarthy and others were fed false information in order to catch the sieve at CIA.

...win this year's Walter Duranty award?

DOH!

"prisons" or the Priest story, I've added that these prisons have been proven neither to exist nor not to exist.  They're the hypothetical prisons.

Another positive thing to come out of the apprehension of the traitor is that we now know that Dana did not simply invent the story herself.

been awarded, one for prison story, and the other for the NSA tape recorder under your bed story.  Both farces, the latter of which has already sunk beneath the waves.

     Sooooo, should a psychiatric team be sent to the Pulitzer committee?  

for being duped or reporting something that never existed.  Now thats investigative journalism at its finest.  

What goes for professional journalism in this country should frighten people.  Perhaps a poll on THEM instead of Pres Bush would be very enlightening.

Has some related aspects that go back a long way.  Remember that almost a year before the story about the Prisons, Priest had written the expose on the CIA's Gulfstream Jet, tail number N379P. That story was duly noted by many in Europe, right down to photographs of the plane!  And of course that story was folded into the voluminous Rendition Uproar at the BBC and elsewhere.  Check that list of links in the right hand column!  Boy did Dana make the news in Europe, or what?

And FreeRepublic has known about the Gulfstream since 2001.  Priest references FreeRepublic in her original piece on the Gulfstream!:

The News article ricocheted among spy-hunters and Web bloggers as a curiosity for those interested in divining the mechanics of the new U.S.-declared war on terrorism.

At 7:54:04 p.m. Oct. 26, the News article was posted on FreeRepublic.com, which bills itself as "a conservative news forum."

Thirteen minutes later, a chat-room participant posted the plane's registered owners: Premier Executive Transport Services Inc., of 339 Washington St., Dedham, Mass.

"Sounds like a nice generic name," one blogger wrote in response. "Kind of like Air America" -- a reference to the CIA's secret civilian airlines that flew supplies, food and personnel into Southeast Asia, including Laos, during the Vietnam War.

Tomorrow the NYT will be carrying this quote from Larry Johnson:

Larry Johnson, a former C.I.A. officer who worked for Ms. McCarthy in the agency's Latin America section, said, "It looks to me like Mary is being used as a sacrificial lamb."

An awful lot of Mr. Johnson's female friends at the CIA are being set up by this administration.

...where exactly is N379P flying to? All of the plane spotters have reported it flying to destinations in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. For some reason I get the feeling it's not transporting CEOs to 5 star hotels in Poland.

what difference does it make?

If it's a fake, so what.

If it's not a fake, so what.

The point here is that C.L.A.S.S.I.F.I.E.D. information was apparently passed from a high level CIA employee to a WaPo reporter.  Said reporter, knowing full well the information was classified, published it.

Personally, I think the death penalty for treason is appropriate for both the CIA employee and the reporter.  I would entertain same for the reporter's editor and publisher.

The idea that they would be executed based on classified information that was false and was planted to catch them simply makes the idea of going over to Safeway and purchasing that 50 year old bottle of Glenfiddich in the locked case all that more appealing.  One year for trial, 7 years for Federal appeals, 2014 is a good year for traitors to hang.  

I would gladly give up 37 years of sobriety for that.

We know that members of the Trilateral Commission, Illuminati, and Houston Clubs are using it as a decoy for their movements.

Hilarious that the best you can do is a conspiracy rumor that made Wikipedia.

How does the leaking of C.L.A.S.S.I.F.I.E.D. information pertain to what I posted? The topic of this post was No Proof of Secret CIA Prisons. Flight N379P, IMHO, appears to possibly contradict the "no proof" aspect of this article.

And, I might add, for a site that seems to have such a great disdain for most European countries, it's seems a bit odd to see everyone take what the European Union's antiterrorism coordinator says at absolute face value.

Last time I checked, flight N379P wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination. Am I incorrect?

that testimony from "human rights organizations" and and supposed former inmates is not likely to prove or disprove much of anything.

There is no proof that it:

a) is owned or used by the CIA

b) is used to transport prisoners

c) is going to/from prisons in Eastern Europe

The fact of a specific G-5 landing or taking off at airports in Europe is absolute evidence one thing and one thing only; that a specific G-5 landed and took off in Europe.

How can anyone extrapolate from that to the possible existence of secret prisons? Because the NYT says so?

is a US registration mark. You can look it up at the FAA and find out the type, builder's serial number, owner, last maintenance, all sorts of useless information. But it won't tell you what it was being used for. The only obvious fact is that a Gulfstream 5 has the range to make it from the US to Europe nonstop. Other than that we know exactly nothing.

I'd say there's fairly strong evidence that it's in the service of the US Govt. through a cutout. The idea that it gets used as a prisoner transport is not proven, but plausible. The fact that it overnighted in Poland on the way from Kabul to Morocco strikes me as a somewhat thin reed to prove the existence of Polish prisons. (What did Mark Twain say about returns of conjecture?)

First, see mbecker's comment above.  And even if the plane is real, and even if it is owned by the CIA, and even if it is flying around bad guys on super-secret missions, who gave Dana Priest the security clearance to divulge that information?  Who gave her the security clearance to even know about it?  

And secondly, even if all the above are true, do you think that's wrong?

For what? The leaking of classified information had nothing to do with what I posted.

...how does the leaking of classified information have anything to do with what I posted?

so far, Gashira has (AFAICT) only questioned the meme that the prisons are completely figmentous. I don't agree with that meme either (although I don't think the Gulfstream has much bearing on it). Regardless, it sure as ** wasn't something to be leaked to a newspaper reporter.

Which was one of the stories Dana did to build her reputation as an intrepid reporter ferreting out the truth about the War on Terror.  And her reporting touched off a firestorm among intelligence agencies who are cooperating with the United States.  And now, a person inside the CIA has been dismissed for apparently leaking information to her, and the Justice Department is investigating.  So I think there's a lot to do with what you asked, unless you're being deliberately obtuse.  Either you want to discuss the implications of Dana Priest's reporting honestly or you don't.  You can sit around here and toss out smart-aleky questions all you want, but I asked you a direct question:  even if all of the above were true, do you think it was wrong?

that it was transporting me and my family on our vacation that year.

The pseudo-fact that it may have been in the service of the US government means jack. People can wish it to be so but there is no evidence of anything.

And even if it was, so what? There are a thousand reasons why the feds were using it, all legitimate, all valid and all legal. And none of them having anything to do with the CIA, prisoner rendition or secret prisons.

If, in fact, the mission of the aircraft in question was classified, then it is exactly none of anyone's business.  Unless of course you have the appropriate security clearance and a need to know.  In which case we wouldn't be responding to your stupid question.

If the aircraft in question was NOT on a classified mission then go pull it's FAA flight plan and see if you can get the passenger/cargo manifest.  Of course, since the aircraft - in this scenario - wasn't on a classified mission, nobody would care.  In which case we wouldn't be responding to your stupid question.

Maybe you should send an email to Dana Priest and see if SHE knows the answer.  You might want to do it quickly though, she may be tied up for a while.  Like 20 to life.

We can only hope.

All that from questioning the validity of a statement as absolute proof. Next time I'll put on my cheerleading outfit prior to posting.

Just take off your tinfoil hat.

we now know Dana did not simply make up the story herself.  

If there were no illegal rendition flights through western Europe because there are no secret U.S. prisons in eastern Europe, then why would a CIA officer say that to the national media?  

If these flights and/or prisons don't exist, then why was the information about thier existence classified?  Does the CIA normally classify the fact that something doesn't exist (when no one had even thought about it in the first place)?  

And why hasn't the administration denied any of this?  It seems to me that the best way to repair the "significant damage to relationships between the U.S. and allied intelligence agencies" is to say it's all nonsense.  Yet:

The US has never confirmed or denied the renditions.

(from the AP article cited above)

If the New York Times cited a CIA agent saying we were summarilly executing people at GITMO, I tend to think Bush would go on TV to say that's a lie.  I don't think this prisons story can be put to rest until some of this behavior is explained.  

I have enough to deal in the impending doom of Earth Mother Gaia.  So tell us, why exactly did you use the "CEO's" thing.  Why exactly cast doubt on the uses of the plane?  Guarded CYA posts are safe but but being mysterious has it's limits.

     In passing would you mind telling us on what other occasions you don your cheerleaders outfit. Also, could you post some photos of you in same?

They believe a lot of dumb stuff in the CIA. Like that it contributes to national Security to leak things to the Washington Post. They clearly aren't the smartest people in the world.

I run an organization that frequently leaks information to the press.  I want to find that leak.  So I plant a number of stories with different twists with different people.  A story gets printed in the newspaper.  I know it's false.  I find the specific twist I passed on to an individual.  I've found my leak.

I can back-channel the story to the Europeans, they can take care of deniability through their own channels & I don't have to address it at all.

but I'm sure will be is how the administration is lying to senior intelligence officials.  That just bolsters the idea that the administration would twist intel to suit it's purposes.

They planted lies about WMD and then got the same lies fed back to them as credible intel.

Is it possible that no such prisons ever existed, and that her leaking of it not only exposed herself but scared the hell out of the enemy ?   Would the Democrats, journalists and A.C.L.U. characterize such a disinformation tactic as a "War Crime" or "entrapment"  ?

Would the Democrats, journalists and A.C.L.U. characterize such a disinformation tactic as a "War Crime" or "entrapment"  ?

Does it make a difference? Rummy has to go.

My reading of the report (not the reporting on the report) does not support the contentions made here that there were no illegal CIA activities in the EU. It, in fact, states otherwise:

"90.        At this stage of the investigations, there is no formal, irrefutable evidence of the existence of secret CIA detention centres in Romania, Poland or any other country. Nevertheless, there are many indications from various sources which must be considered reliable, justifying the continuation of the analytical and investigative work. The information requested from the European Union Satellite Centre and from Eurocontrol should be supplied and evaluated in the very near future. The Egyptian message intercepted by the Swiss services, the authenticity of which is no longer in doubt, contains nothing very new, but it does nonetheless point to a different source regarding the existence of these centres. The Egyptian services have a reputation for efficiency, and there is a great deal of evidence to the effect that they have engaged in very active co-operation in carrying out these renditions."

"99.        As we have said, no cogent evidence has yet emerged on the existence in Europe of detention camps like the one at Guantanamo Bay. On the other hand, it has been proved (and in fact never denied), that individuals have been abducted, deprived of their liberty and all rights, and transported to different destinations in Europe, to be handed over to countries in which they have suffered degrading treatment and torture. This is serious enough to justify the continuation of the Council of Europe's inquiries and strenuous efforts from all member States to ascertain the truth."

"102.        In fact, we must go beyond ascertaining the existence or non-existence of secret detention centres in Europe. The issue at stake is even more important than that. The current US Administration obviously considers that the traditional instruments of the democratic State governed by the rule of law - justice, constitutional guarantees of a fair trial, respect for human dignity - are inappropriate for facing up to the terrorist threat. Persons assumed to be terrorists are therefore arrested, interrogated, deported and detained without any rights or safeguards, thus accepting the concrete and inevitable risk of subjecting completely innocent people to such treatment (inside the CIA an internal inquiry is reportedly under way into several cases of individuals who were abducted, imprisoned and tortured, before it emerged that the wrong people had been targeted). Is Europe prepared to accept such an approach? Can we really say that human rights are an obstacle to national security? Can there be any real security without respect for human dignity?"

Point 99 clearly states that illegal activities have occurred (abduction, denial of due process, rendition, torture) and point 102 points to a perception of the writer (and the E.U.?) that we (the U.S.) are willing to break our laws and ideals to combat terrorism. Point 90 indicates there are multiple indications that detention centers are at least still a possibility to exist as of the writing of the report.

The firing of McCarthy is another data point to bolster the argument for the existance of the facilities and that she released 'real' classified information.

An amusing consequence of that explanation is that the blame for the damage done to our image is laid soley at the feet of a mole-hunter.  I remember not too long ago, many people here were calling for charges of treason to be levelled against the leaker and/or the newspaper.  Now, if the damage done to our image (and/or WOT) warranted that kind of treatment, would you charge the mole-hunter with treason?

"De plane, De plane!"

Tatoo

There are so many detailed responses in this post, I can not do them any justice by further explanation. However, if the factual basis upon which this entire story rests is the "plane" then surely you have to admit the claims are specious. Also, the EU, UN, MSM, et al are no great fans of George W. Bush when it comes to these matters, therefore if there were something to find, it would be disclosed.

What part of "classified information is not to be given to people without a security clearance and an need to know" isn't getting through.

I don't care if they planted information that said the Queen of England is a lesbian.  What is said here (anywhere classified info is disseminated) stays here.

If it is proved that Mary McCarty (and anyone else leaking classified information) is guilty, I will be tickled silly if they are sentenced to at least 20 to life.  If they can be executed, I'll be happy to buy the rope.  That goes for Dana Priest and the NYT half dozen as well.

Actually, in the case of the NYT, it might be a favor to the Times to get Punch tossed in jail where he can't do anymore damage to their stock price or earnings.

to one of these:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/30/104637.shtml

For the record, the source on this, Michael Scheuer, has a dubious record at best.  But it's still interesting.

I buy that the CIA does that;  anyone who's seen that film about Aimes will believe it.  But it doesn't make sense in this case.  What's the motive (of the Agency)?  To rid the CIA of agents whose moral intuation says the public should know that the government is doing things that are wildly illegal (if they happened)?  What possible purpose would that serve?