Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by Blueharvester
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_174035.html
Original story from the event: http://www.minnpost.com/ericblackblo...ssination_ring Amazing. Please can the war crimes tribunals start now? |
|
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
Interesting, but be sure to take anything Hersh says with a big grain of salt.
|
| “Yuh. After 9/11, I haven’t written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven’t been called on it yet. That does happen." |
|
Originally Posted by Blueharvester
If it would/could ever be proven that highest ranking members of the executive had someone inside the US/a US citizen murdered to cover up their election fraud/contractor fraud/false Iraq war evidence/torture practices/whatever that could be the biggest thing since the JFK assassination.
It could be the end of the CIA at least. I wonder if the intelligence community would ever let something like that come out? |
| "Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us." |
|
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
There should be rules and accountability and all, but I think it would be a far better thing if conflicts could help be resolved by assassinating a few key people rather than mass bombings. Hell, even a cruise missile attack that kills its target with a dozen collateral deaths is preferable to blowing an entire neighborhood to rubble. So, I guess the only thing I really object to is the lack of official accountability; I really don't see anything very wrong with the elimination of politicians, generals, and other leaders.
|
|
Originally Posted by nekkerbee
There should be rules and accountability and all, but I think it would be a far better thing if conflicts could help be resolved by assassinating a few key people rather than mass bombings. Hell, even a cruise missile attack that kills its target with a dozen collateral deaths is preferable to blowing an entire neighborhood to rubble. So, I guess the only thing I really object to is the lack of official accountability; I really don't see anything very wrong with the elimination of politicians, generals, and other leaders.
|
|
Originally Posted by yt
Hate to be a cynic, but judging by how much "justice" was served for the murder of JFK, it seems that the more depraved, egregious the crimes, the least likely it is that an adequate investigation will ever be undertaken.
|
|
Originally Posted by Khaunshar
The problem isnt finding evidence for a trial. The problem is finding prosecutors, investigators and a court suicidal enough to actually make it happen.
|
|
Originally Posted by Seabass Inna Bun
Cheney can be tried by the ICC if Obama says so, regardless of whether or not the US is a member. I wonder if the I applies to Cheney's crimes.
|
|
Originally Posted by yt
Hate to be a cynic, but judging by how much "justice" was served for the murder of JFK, it seems that the more depraved, egregious the crimes, the least likely it is that an adequate investigation will ever be undertaken. It would be great though.
And by the way, here's some food for thought... Paul Wellstone, Bruce Ivins, Dr. David Kelly, Mike Connell... ? |
|
Originally Posted by dudalb
Into Conspiracy Theories Much?
|
|
Originally Posted by dudalb
Wow, the first dodge of the Conspiracy Theorist: I am just "asking questions"/
And the 9/11 Truth movement thing, how is that working out for you? |
|
Originally Posted by dudalb
Nice, intelligent reply.
You know you are living proof for the stereotype that most of those who buy into Conspiracy Theories are a bunch of Angry Young Men still living in their parent's basement? |
|
Originally Posted by Blueharvester
I'd rather have a congressionally approved cruise missile strike go ackward than a covertly working assassination program hit it's target.
Secrecy is the worst enemy of a democracy, it's like cancer. Once such an assassination program is installed, it will be permanently without any oversight whatsoever. Let the first two administrations use it for pure good, the next one for some shady stuff and the next after that uses it to get rid of political enemies. I bet my ass that David Kelly fell victim to such a program. Either by the US or UK. Too bad Obama won't abolish the giant cancer in the US's heart, the CIA and all this secret, overblown, facist shadow structure. |
| VO: Team B began examining all the CIA data on the Soviet Union. But however closely they looked, there was little evidence of the dangerous weapons or defense systems they claimed the Soviets were developing. Rather than accept that this meant that the systems didn’t exist, Team B made an assumption that the Soviets had developed systems that were so sophisticated, they were undetectible. For example, they could find no evidence that the Soviet submarine fleet had an acoustic defense system. What this meant, Team B said, was that the Soviets had actually invented a new non-acoustic system, which was impossible to detect. And this meant that the whole of the American submarine fleet was at risk from an invisible threat that was there, even though there was no evidence for it. Dr ANNE CAHN, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-80: They couldn’t say that the Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines, because they couldn’t find it. So they said, well maybe they have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-acoustic system. They’re saying, “we can’t find evidence that they’re doing it the way that everyone thinks they’re doing it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don’t know what that different way is, but they must be doing it.” INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no evidence. CAHN: Even though there was no evidence. INTERVIEWER: So they’re saying there, that the fact that the weapon doesn’t exist… CAHN: Doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. It just means that we haven’t found it. PIPES: Now, that’s important, yes. If something is not there, that’s significant. INTERVIEWER: By its absence. PIPES: By its absence. If you believe that they share your view of strategic weapons, and they don’t talk about it, then there’s something missing. Something is wrong. And the CIA wasn’t aware of that. VO: What Team B accused the CIA of missing was a hidden and sinister reality in the Soviet Union. Not only were there many secret weapons the CIA hadn’t found, but they were wrong about many of those they could observe, such as the Soviet air defenses. The CIA were convinced that these were in a state of collapse, reflecting the growing economic chaos in the Soviet Union. Team B said that this was actually a cunning deception by the Soviet régime. The air-defense system worked perfectly. But the only evidence they produced to prove this was the official Soviet training manual, which proudly asserted that their air-defense system was fully integrated and functioned flawlessly. The CIA accused Team B of moving into a fantasy world. PIPES: The CIA was very loath to deal with issues which could not be demonstrated in a kind of mathematical form. I said they could consider the soft evidence. They deal with realities, whereas this was a fantasy. That’s how it was perceived. And there were battles all the time on this subject. INTERVIEWER: Did you think it was a fantasy? PIPES: No! I thought it was absolute reality. CAHN: I would say that all of it was fantasy. I mean, they looked at radars out in Krasnoyarsk and said, “This is a laser beam weapon,” when in fact it was nothing of the sort. They even took a Russian military manual, which the correct translation of it is “The Art of Winning.” And when they translated it and put it into Team B, they called it “The Art of Conquest.” Well, there’s a difference between “conquest” and “winning.” And if you go through most of Team B’s specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong. INTERVIEWER: All of them? CAHN: All of them. INTERVIEWER: Nothing true? CAHN: I don’t believe anything in Team B was really true. |
| I don't care if the "CIA" is the sole voice of reason in an ocean of madness and power hunger. If they are, they are doing a shitty job of reigning in the other parts of the intelligence apparatus. |
| If information isn't judged on the merit that it is true or not, but on the basis of "Does it help our course of action?" then you have to rethink the whole intelligence community. |
| Something is terribly rotten inside there and the crusty old - and to me semi-shadow government - structures inside the CIA would be a good place to start using that hammer on. |
| Secrecy is the worst enemy of a democracy, it's like cancer. |
|
Originally Posted by yt
There was no reason the public needed to know that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent working on nuclear proliferation, but that did not stop Cheney from seeing that her identity was leaked for political reasons. Ideologically, the argument could be who do you trust to execute these powers as you describe them?
But the real argument, beyond legitimate or illegitimate scenarios and justifications, is: is it legal? Is Cheney above the law? Yes or no. |
