New report cites proof of CIA Black Sites

New report cites proof of CIA Black Sites

www.spiegel.de

'Massive and Systematic Violations' of Human Rights'

By Marcel Rosenbach and John Goetz

In his second report for the Council of Europe, special investigator Dick Marty will say that he has "enough evidence to state" that the CIA operated secret prisons in Poland and Romania. SPIEGEL ONLINE has obtained a copy of the report, which is due for release this afternoon. It documents a "series of illegal acts" on the part of the CIA.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
www.voltairenet.org
www.eupolitix.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret "Black Site" Prisons


[edit on 8-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]

When i looked up on this story I realized that this thing is going on since months. Probably takes so long because everyone is covering things up. Really nauseating if you ask me.

At least there's some news about this swiss lawyer investigating the cases of CIA Black Ops and interrogations.

www.spiegel.de
(visit the link for the full news article)

the USA has no constitution any more, no more due process, no habius corpus.
it operates as a terrorist dictatorship that can wisk you away and torture you with no reprecussions.
ask some canadians citizens

New report cites proof of CIA Black Cites.

While the reading is interesting, his proof is as follows:

In his report, Marty cites anonymous ~ sources as the basis for his claims.

How can anyone reasonably consider this proof? They can't, because it isn't proof at all. Thats why, in his previous report:

he was sharply criticized for his early conclusions due to the weakness of the evidence at the time.

While I don't doubt that there were secret prisons, until hard evidence and non-anonymous sources come forward, this report and its contents is just speculation, not proof.

I seems unfathomable to me that the full weight of the EU council can only come up with unverifiable information, if these renditions and secret prisons were as common place and horrible as claimed.

To Spiegel, I say, let me know when the real proof comes out, so that we can review verifiable facts.

Originally posted by makeitso

New report cites proof of CIA Black Cites.

While the reading is interesting, his proof is as follows:

In his report, Marty cites anonymous ~ sources as the basis for his claims.

How can anyone reasonably consider this proof? They can't, because it isn't proof at all. Thats why, in his previous report:

he was sharply criticized for his early conclusions due to the weakness of the evidence at the time.

While I don't doubt that there were secret prisons, until hard evidence and non-anonymous sources come forward, this report and its contents is just speculation, not proof.

I seems unfathomable to me that the full weight of the EU council can only come up with unverifiable information, if these renditions and secret prisons were as common place and horrible as claimed.

To Spiegel, I say, let me know when the real proof comes out, so that we can review verifiable facts.

Both prisons were "run directly and exclusively by the CIA," according to Marty. In Romania, the president knew of the existence of the black site, but not even the prime minister had similar knowledge. The CIA deliberately cooperated with military rather than civilian intelligence agencies because the military agencies are not under the supervision and control of parliaments, Marty states.

The "series of illegal acts" carried out by the CIA was either tolerated or supported by the member countries of the Council of Europe, according to Marty. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provided the necessary international backing through resolutions passed on Oct. 4, 2001 -- which allowed what Marty describes as "blank check" overflight permits, for example. Marty suggests that secret protocols, to which he does not have access, record additional concessions the Europeans made to the United States. During the negotiations over the secret prison in Romania, for example, the US promised Bucharest its support for the Eastern European's country application for full NATO membership, the report alleges.

Earlier this week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against aviation service Jeppesen Dataplan before a county court in San Diego, California. Jeppesen Dataplan is a subsidiary of US airplane manufacturer Boeing. The ACLU has accused the company of having rented out at least 15 airplanes for a total of 70 prisoner transfers -- transfers that violated US law and fundamental American values.

Maybe you don't want to verify any facts at all. That's just my personal guess. Just because many of the high-ranking sources remain anonymous to the public, doesn't mean that their statements are not valuable.

After all they have to expect severe consequences for speaking about what they know. Anonymosity is only for their Safety.

Just because you manage to show us two minimal oddities from this news report, like Marty's report being called inevident at an EARLIER point in time. Doesn't mean that we can ignore all the other facts, which certainly are prooved, to the highest possible extent.

The problem is; You don't want to see any proof. Even if it lies there in front of you, with numerous critical facts. You prefer to deny reality.

The only question which remains for me is, why do people like you prefer to blindly trust the governments and or secret service?
Would this shatter your endless trust in a world.. which is probably a lie?

Or why else can't you accept the high probability of governments ignoring the most basic human rights?

Is it so unbelievable for you that the world leaders meet at the G8 conference, talk about helping africa... while in reality it is their actions which absolutely prevent africa from becoming partially independent? What's so hard to understand about that kind of truth?

People like Dick Marty, or all others taking the challenge to fight against the dominating perpetrators, are true heroes.
Being a liar and perpetrator, from the winning side, is no big deal. It's peanuts. Treasonous and cowardly behavior. Easy lifestyle.

Maybe you should start disprooving the other, and more obvious facts presented in this article, before describing this article as pure speculations.

If I may point something out to you from your own quotes:

Both prisons were "run directly and exclusively by the CIA," according to Marty. In Romania, the president knew of the existence of the black site, but not even the prime minister had similar knowledge. The CIA deliberately cooperated with military rather than civilian intelligence agencies because the military agencies are not under the supervision and control of parliaments, Marty states.

The "series of illegal acts" carried out by the CIA was either tolerated or supported by the member countries of the Council of Europe, according to Marty. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) provided the necessary international backing through resolutions passed on Oct. 4, 2001 -- which allowed what Marty describes as "blank check" overflight permits, for example. Marty suggests that secret protocols, to which he does not have access, record additional concessions the Europeans made to the United States. During the negotiations over the secret prison in Romania, for example, the US promised Bucharest its support for the Eastern European's country application for full NATO membership, the report alleges.

My point is that it's all; "Marty says". This is not proof of anything but Marty's opinion. That is my beef with an article titled; "Proof of CIA Black Sites". It has nothing to do with my belief or disbelief that such sites exist or not. It has everything to do with providing the said proof. Otherwise, its just propaganda for an agenda. Right? I found that very sad, considering the full weight of the EU council was brought to bare to get to the bottom of the matter, and this is all they came up with.

Maybe you don't want to verify any facts at all. That's just my personal guess. Just because many of the high-ranking sources remain anonymous to the public, doesn't mean that their statements are not valuable.

Wow, attacks and acusations just because I clearly spoke my mind? Don't want to verify facts? You must hold a low opinion of me. I ask to be shown the facts, when they appear. So far that I can tell in the article, there is only hearsay, and anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are not credible, hold no legal standing, cannot be considered facts or proof, and cannot be verified. You yourself did not highlight, or quote any verifiable facts from the article either. Why is that?

May I give you an example why anonymous quotes are not valid? Here is an example: A high ranking anonymous source told me that pink was actually blue. There you go. Proof and fact? I think not.

Just because you manage to show us two minimal oddities from this news report, like Marty's report being called inevident at an EARLIER point in time. Doesn't mean that we can ignore all the other facts, which certainly are prooved, to the highest possible extent.

I wasn't ignoring the facts, I just don't see any. I especially don't see any that are proved. Unless you believe pink is blue.

The problem is; You don't want to see any proof. Even if it lies there in front of you, with numerous critical facts. You prefer to deny reality.

There you go again. Attacks and accusations instead of providing verifiable facts. Again, please point to any facts that you quoted. Show me the reality you think I deny, but do it using sources that can be verified.

The only question which remains for me is, why do people like you prefer to blindly trust the governments and or secret service?
Would this shatter your endless trust in a world.. which is probably a lie?

Wow, a third attack. People like me eh? Blindly trust? Shatter my endless trust? You do realize of course, that sort of thing does nothing to help your credibility? Neither does it provide any verifiable facts.

Or why else can't you accept the high probability of governments ignoring the most basic human rights?

Ah, a question without an attack. Good. Happy to address it. First, I never said anything about not accepting high probability. In fact I conceded that there probably was secret prisons. I just don't see any verifiable proof that the article claimed the report has. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the title of the thread isn't "High probability of CIA black sites". Its "New Report cites proof of CIA Black sites". But the article contained no proof, and thats my beef with it.

Maybe you should start disprooving the other, and more obvious facts presented in this article, before describing this article as pure speculations.

Well, if there were any verifiable facts in the aricle, I did not see them. Please feel free to point them out for me. The parts that you already quoted above only have "Marty says so" to back it up, as I have already pointed out.

As far as I can tell so far, the actual report, has no new verifiable facts, other than old news reports, hearsay, unverifiable anonymous sources, and the typical; "Marty says so, therefore it is fact".

I'm still in the process of reading the 72 page report, so I could be wrong, but I see no evidence of verifiable "proof" of CIA Black sites so far. Please feel free to correct me if you find some verifiable proof of CIA Black sites, and post it here for all of us to review. Thanks.

May I please ask how much of the actual report you have read?

This is really deplorable because we all know that this has been going on for years yet the politicians still try to deny it

At least someone highranking has now managed to speakout and tell it like it is.

Speculation and lies.
If you want to produce an accurate document, sources must bedeclared not anonymized.
This piece of paper is no more than 1 mans paranoid opinion, and jumping on the lunatic fringe band wagon, trying to undermine a struggling and weak US Government. All i ask is how many reasonable people would accept a document , just on a persons say so.., no evidence and wild theories..
This guy is as Cooked as the No Planers...
Too much Anti-depressant in the Chem Trails.

Originally posted by junglelord
the USA has no constitution any more, no more due process, no habius corpus.
it operates as a terrorist dictatorship that can wisk you away and torture you with no reprecussions.
ask some canadians citizens

compliments of the military commisions act of 2006

Here is a report found; CIA Secret Detention Facilities

It covers quite a bit of info on this subject. Listing many pages worth of material. It's not a long read, and loads in no time.



[edit on 12-6-2007 by ADVISOR]

Thanks Advisor.

I already linked the same document in one of my above posts.