« We Must Be Driving the Loony Left Crazy... | Main | SPIEGEL's Big Blunder »

Comments

As the acqusation of "secret detentions" orignated from an article from a US newspaper based on a undisclosed CIA source, I am still waiting for those nasty tid-bits like who, when and where? Better yet, who is the source of the acqusation? Why couldn't they give any more detail than generalizations?

Regarding the recent (US) news commentaries about torture-- Did the supposed torturers use the evil "panties on the head" or go for the more inhumane "human nake pyramid"? Hope no one from the EU media visits a frat house during rush week. It might be to much to handle.

I had a hard time believing this as well. Joe Blow just cannot land a military aircraft or an airliner in a foreign country without some type of clearance.

All of these politicians were aware of this. I think they had a handshake deal along the lines of "We privately agree with this policy but if this ever gets out we can just blame it on the US."

Moral? Europe? Richard Pryor should have hung around. This is great material.

So if America is the evil Shadow Empire, does this make Germany it's "Mini-Me"

?

The EU "Was Only Following Orders".

Does anyone else see the irony in this bit from the article referenced above?

"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."

I also got a kick out of this:

"Asked in Parliament last week about reports of 400 suspect flights passing through British airports, Tony Blair said: "In respect of airports, I don't know what you are referring to.""

I'm with Lou. They all knew, they all approved. It is the height of dishonesty and hypocracy to play the game they're playing now. How they can look themselves in the mirror every day, I don't know.

@ j.pickens - The EU "Was Only Following Orders".

You nail it. When the U.S. were asking around the world for voluntary contributions to the Afghanistan coalition, and Schröder was asking the German parliament for a vote of confidence in his decision to click heels for the drill sergeant in the Pentagon, a German journalist in an American press conference asked the wrong question:

Q: Mr. Secretary --

Q: (Off mike) -- the military campaign, German forces into the military campaign, and you asked for 3,900 troops. So we would like to know when and where they will be deployed and needed, and why you need those special forces. Aren't there enough American Special Forces, or are we better? (Laughter.)

Rumsfeld: The last portion of that question I would never think of answering. (Laughter.) And I think that ours are all well trained and well equipped and effective.

Just to rephrase your question a little bit, we did not ask as such. We asked for broad support; we asked people to come forward with what they thought would be appropriate and what they felt was comfortable for them, as opposed to our asking for certain specific things, which we tend not to do. And my answer's the same from there on, that it's up to Germany to characterize what it is they're doing.

This answer made Schröder panic so much over the risk that his pacifism might appear as 'do as I say not as I do' fraud that he asked the Pentagon for a special written "Request for German troops" signed by Donald Rumsfeld which he would later refer to in his keynote speech to the parliament:

The U.S. asked for assistance from Germany. They responded positively. Discussions were held at Central Command as to what might be appropriate. The U.S. then requested of Germany some of the capabilities that had been discussed, but we did not request a specific number (3900) of Special Forces, which was the question I was asked. The U.S. is pleased that Germany responded positively. Both Chancellor Schröder and my statements are consistent.

Did the U.S. solicit Germany's offer of military assistance to participate in Operation Enduring Freedom?

We welcome Germany's offer to provide a variety of military capabilities to support the global campaign against terrorism in accordance with its commitments as a NATO ally under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

The U.S. has made specific requests of Germany in the fight against terrorism during extensive and on-going consultations that help shape our approach to Operation Enduring Freedom.

We reach decisions jointly during these discussions, as is the norm among NATO allies.

These are confidential discussions; we leave it to our coalition partners, of which Germany is one of the strongest, to decide how to announce specific forms of cooperation.

The United States Central Command is working with German military authorities to integrate German forces into our anti-terrorist efforts.

In this case, obviously somebody thought such unannounced confidential agreements could be hidden forever, and did not consider the possibility that after the emergence of a new German government that sides with the White House the CIA might spill its guts like the drunken fool that gets kicked out of the bar.

An interesting AP article caught my eye this morning:

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051214/D8EFPIS07.html

Some selected quotes:

"A European investigator said Tuesday he has found mounting indications the United States illegally held detainees in Europe but then hurriedly shipped out the last ones to North Africa a month ago when word leaked out."

"Indications?" What is that? Evidence? OK, how about some specifics? After a month of looking, and apparently lots of help from those who should have been in the know, this is the best he can offer?

"Dick Marty, a Swiss senator looking into claims the CIA operated secret prisons in Europe, said an ongoing, monthlong investigation unearthed "clues" that Poland and Romania were implicated - perhaps unwittingly."

Oh, "clues." Such as? Anything more substantial than what has already been "leaked" in WaPo?

(Also, note how he is setting up an "out" for EU member nations -- this may have happened "perhaps unwittingly" -- in other words, as usual, it's all America's fault.)

"The investigator told reporters he could not offer proof that secret detention centers existed. "

What is this? Could not offer proof? Is it because he has no proof, or does he have it but just doesn't want to show his hand, yet?

"We have clues that show that (Poland and Romania) - and perhaps others - were implicated, insofar as people were temporarily held there. Not in camps or classic prisons, but temporary stays," Marty said."

Oh, temporary stays. Like at a Red Roof Inn, or something? You mean all this talk of torture in secret prisons was just, well, talk?

(Btw, what the heck is a "classic" prison? If the hell hole they call a prison which international "observers" discovered several months ago in Paris, France, and described as a "dungeon," classifies as a "classic" prison, then why are we even discussing "temporary stays" that were "not in camps or classic prisons?")

"The senator also was critical of the United States, saying he "deplores the fact that no information or explanations" were provided by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who faced repeated questions about the CIA prison allegations on her recent visit to Europe."

As if we owe anyone an explanation...

I do not understand why they make a fuzz about secret prison
when there is a prison that denies human rights on Cuba which
everyone knows about?
That is what upsets me most...if something happen in another part in
the world nobody cares, but if there might be the propability of
something going on in the own country all hell breaks loose.

Greetings the Deffel

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28