April 21, 2006
No Proof of CIA Renditions in Europe
I'm convinced this report will not get much exposure by the mainstream media.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
From SeattleTimes.com:
(Brussels, Belgium) Investigations into reports that U.S. agents shipped prisoners through European airports to secret detention centers have produced no evidence of illegal CIA activities, the European Union's anti-terror coordinator said Thursday.The left will likely experience chafing. Of course, the seriousness of the charges always trumps their veracity.The investigations also have not turned up any proof of secret renditions of terror suspects on EU territory, Gijs de Vries told a European Parliament committee investigating the allegations.
The European Parliament's inquiry and a similar one by the continent's leading human-rights watchdog are looking into whether U.S. intelligence agents interrogated al-Qaida suspects at secret prisons in Eastern Europe and transported some on secret flights through Europe.
From Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
04:59 PM
| Comments (30)
| Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.
1
>>>No Proof of CIA Renditions in Europe
They don't need no stinkin proof for what they already know to be true.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 21, 2006 05:52 PM (8e/V4)
2
Gee, didn't hear about this on the evening news... I guess they don't want to mess with their coverage not too long ago about these non-existent prisons.
Posted by: Ariya at April 22, 2006 01:59 AM (yHb0A)
3
I never understood how they thought they could get people in an uproar over this. Honestly, who besides the global leftard community cares if terrorists are getting flown from place to place? Liberals are too stupid to be allowed to live.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:04 AM (0yYS2)
4
IM,
good point.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 22, 2006 07:34 AM (8e/V4)
5
>>> "There is so much circumstantial evidence, you can't close your eyes from the fact that this is probably happening," Dutch deputy Kathalijne Buitenweg said.
If she loses her job she could easily find new work as a paranormal investigator - it doesn't matter who the testimony comes from or the possible motives behind it, simply because there's alot of it means the events really happened.
Posted by: Graeme at April 22, 2006 07:37 AM (XOxqV)
6
It will probibly be big healdlines in all the liberal left-wing birdcage linners like the New York Times
Posted by: sandpiper at April 22, 2006 07:37 AM (uo3LX)
7
The liberal mantra for today: Please repeat after me one thousand times:
1. there are no weapons of mass destruction.......
2. The C.I.A. had illegal prisons all over Europe
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 22, 2006 09:03 AM (3+Jow)
8
Isn't this the information, secret prisons and extraordinary renditions, that was leaked by the person that was just fired by the CIA ? Did she leak something that wasn't true ?
Posted by: john Ryan at April 22, 2006 12:06 PM (TcoRJ)
9
The simple solution is that all of our arab prisoners should simply be executed. No more stories of torture or abuse, these filthy subhuman animals have all been sent to Allah courtesy of the USA.
Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at April 22, 2006 01:29 PM (y+196)
10
Unashamed Patriot, changing your handle can't hide who you are.
Posted by: Oyster at April 22, 2006 02:26 PM (YudAC)
11
who is hiding? my handle reflects my feeling at the time.
Posted by: Unashamed Patriot at April 22, 2006 03:06 PM (y+196)
12
N.A. Palm,
The US has been in Iraq for several years. Where are the weapons? If the proof is so solid, Where the hell are they?
You really think the CIA hasn't devised ways to torture its prisoners? Tweak the law? Wake up, the war is about money, not bombs. Prisoners are tortured. . . .look at what our friend Unashamed Patriot has to say.
Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 03:16 PM (x7v0S)
13
>>> the war is about money, not bombs.
There were terrorist attacks happening long before 9-11. Terrorists require weapons, food, clothing, training, lodging and transportation. These services are provided by people who make money. In Iraq and Afghanistan we've seen hostages being released after large ransoms were paid. Therefore I see no reason why Garner can't go over to the jihadi websites and complain about war profiteering.
Posted by: Graeme at April 22, 2006 03:54 PM (XOxqV)
14
Graeme Cracker misses the point,
Our Texan president is a doink. He manages the war like the businesses he squandered.
The republican View= Get behind the President because he must be right and someone else is wrong.
The Democrats= Question authority because those in authority likely got there simply by knowing someone.
If you don't ask questions, you end up with a Vietnam on your hands.
War profiteering? Is it any coincidence that Bush, an oil man, sits on the greatest oil concerns ever? He doesn't care about the environment, so why no oil wells in Alaska to loosen the burden on us?
His buddies over in the Saudi Arabia must love America right now. Bush the oil man preserved their interests. Bush the president "seeks" stability in rival oil market Iraq.
Gee, what a pal. Last I heard, Osama was in Pakistan or Afghanistan, and Bush himself said the evidence for weapons in Iraq was weak.
Why aren't you asking questions?
Posted by: Graeme at April 22, 2006 04:51 PM (x7v0S)
15
Garner:
You can't be serious....... Your mind must be blind. I don't think there is anything as bad as a fool who is willfully foolish. But you have lots of company.
I just pray America can survive this attack from within of the wilfull fools. You can't all hate America this much can you?
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 22, 2006 04:58 PM (3+Jow)
16
Who said I hated America?
All terrorists should die.
I favor lower gas prices.
I happen to appeciate a president who is capable of forming a complete, rational thought.
Oh by the way, I was in Iraq working for the State Department.
What have you done for the war effort?
Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 05:11 PM (x7v0S)
17
Anyone else here go over to Iraq for the military? the government?
Seems like the crazy liberal is only one who had the balls to put his ass on the line for his country.
C'mon righties. I know someone in here can back up this crap with some action. . .
Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 05:20 PM (x7v0S)
18
Maybe Garner is right; aluminum stocks have really gone up under Bush's presidency...
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 05:37 PM (0yYS2)
19
Once again, no solutions. How about bringing something useful to the table.
Were you smart enough to buy those stocks? Or were you too busy watching CNN?
Posted by: Garner at April 22, 2006 05:47 PM (x7v0S)
20
Garner,
The State Department is populated by Libs, and you got SENT to Iraq, that's all. That's nothing to go around boasting about. I'm going to Iraq for KBR in August-- by choice.
And most troops serving in Iraq ARE righties, so there's plenty of us backing our shit up. Not that any of this is relevant. This isn't Starship Troopers where only the military gets a say so.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 22, 2006 06:53 PM (8e/V4)
21
Working for State, eh Garner? Wow, I bet that was hellish, what with all those air conditioned hotel rooms, luxury SUV's etc.. It's a good thing our troops had you there to protect them.
I went to Iraq the first time around, but to actually do something, not ride around in SUV's, and if we'd been allowed to finish the job the first time, we wouldn't be there now, but then as now, all the leftards were crying and screaming to get out as soon as possible. I'd go back in a hearbeat if the Army would take me, but I got too banged up serving my country, so now I must content myself with irritating nutcases like you, and dream of the day your precious revolution finally gets started.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 22, 2006 06:58 PM (0yYS2)
22
A striped pants liberal from foggy bottom? And you've to Iraq?
Every redblooded American knows that the US State Dept is full of lying liberal cowards like Joseph Wilson. You guys don't give a rat's ass about America and our countrie's secure future. All you care about is stopping W anyway you can, even if it means bad things happen to America.
I wouldn't brag about your service if I were you. It defines you precisely.
Posted by: n.a. palm at April 22, 2006 07:10 PM (3+Jow)
23
Last I heard, ANWR was torpedoed by Congress. Unless somehow Bush = Hitler = Congress. But anyhow, sticking for the moment on the subject of oil and the evil oil men who love the Saudis, on March 16 this year, the Senate voted on the 2007 Senate Budget Resolution including a provision for revenue from lease sales from the 10-02 Area of ANWR, which is regarded as the first of 4 steps to open up ANWR for drilling. It barely passed, 51 - 49. Looking at the 'nay' votes, the composition is overwelmingly Democratic. I guess we can blame Bush for that too.
You say: "how about bringing something useful to the table". Since the start of the Iraq war, conservatives have been bringing useful stuff to the table, like:
-regardless of the wisdom of starting the war in Iraq, pulling out the military now would be catastrophic.
-putting pressure on neighbouring countries to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq.
-support the new Iraqi government and gain the trust of the Iraqi people by helping to rebuild the country and improve social and economic conditions.
-put pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program
To date, here's what the liberals have suggested:
- Bring the troops home now
- Give special care to battlefield detainees
- Let the UN decided US foreign policy
- Let Iran have their nuclear program because they ain't so bad.
So how about YOU GUYS bringing something useful to the table for once.
Posted by: Graeme at April 22, 2006 07:11 PM (XOxqV)
24
According to our president, the State department is vital to success in Iraq. (of course, he often lies, so who knows?) Garner should be applauded for serving. Most State Dept. employees have the option of getting out of an Iraq posting. So unlike many in our military, we can assume that he chose to go. And those of you who think that State service in Iraq is all limos and caviar are revealing your utter ignorance. In fact, state is trying hard to open up centers outside the green zone to aid civilian reconstruction. DOD has been putting up roadblocks to providing security.
Another thing--if you hate the State department, explain why INR's analysis of WMD and of Iraq reconstruction was so much more accurate than any other member of the intel community. If you read the prewar NIE (unclassified), it is the INR's caveats and questions and claims that come out looking MOST accurate. guess those chardonnay sipping liberals are simply smarter than the beer chuggers at DIA, NSA, NGA, CIA, etc etc.
Facts really are troublesome things...
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 09:38 AM (uT71O)
25
So unlike many in our military, we can assume that he chose to go.
Except that every single person serving in the military is a volunteer, and most have joined since 9/11. Yes, facts are indeed troubling, but only if one is a leftard.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 03:05 PM (0yYS2)
26
Right, IM. My point was that many in the military (not a majority, perhaps, but a bunch of people, some known to me personally) did not want to go to IRAQ, and don't want to go back. Also, thousands of people in the ready reserve were activated, long after they had LEFT the service, and didn't want to go back. The difference is, you volunteer for both state and military, but once you are in the military, they send you where they need you. State has a little more choice, at least about war zones. So, duh, I was aware that it is a volunteer service. Did you know about activating people against their will? Your answer suggests not. But then, your answers often suggest merely the tip of the iceberg of your ignorance.
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 03:53 PM (uT71O)
27
Dude, it's called the IRR, and it's part of the contract that every service member signs. We all know about it, so STFU idiot.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 23, 2006 05:37 PM (0yYS2)
28
So, my point was that you could be in the IRR, and in the midst of civilian life, and not want to go to war. several dozens have filed appeals, and others have gone to court. So your initial posting, that everyone in the military in Iraq volunteered to go there, looks pretty stupid now, doesn't it? Volunteering for the military does not equal being happy about being sent to Iraq. I know nuance and complexity is hard for you, but put your thinking cap on, and give it a try.
Posted by: jd at April 23, 2006 08:28 PM (uT71O)
29
Don't be too hard on Garner,
He could have been attached to the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, with the State Department and that is a very dangerous job in it's own right.
They're unsung hero's for sure.
http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/53693.htm
http://www.state.gov/m/ds/rls/37422.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/53878.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/39974.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/37131.htm
Posted by: davec at April 23, 2006 11:20 PM (CcXvt)
30
I doubt it Dave, because they only let real men in the BDS.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at April 26, 2006 03:18 PM (0yYS2)
32kb generated in CPU 0.0619, elapsed 0.1684 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1567 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1567 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
