CIA's private jet an open secret in terror war (Another MSM Critique of CIA Prisoner Treatment)

Washington Post ^ | 12/27/2004 | Dana Priest

[drt1]

The airplane is a Gulfstream V turbojet, the sort favored by CEOs and celebrities. But since 2001 it has been seen at military airports from Pakistan to Indonesia to Jordan, sometimes being boarded by hooded and handcuffed passengers....In this case, the agency is flying captured terrorist suspects from one country to another for detention and interrogation....

[Miss Marple]

I am so sick of this stuff. I think the President should conduct an elaborate sting on these senators, and then have them arrested.

[gogogodzilla]

Where did you find a copy of the "Cup of Shut the F@CK up" poster?

I've been looking for a copy of that for the past year.

:-)

[Miss Marple]

Also...WAS that information posted on FR? Seems to me like we are being drawn into some sort of a plot...otherwise, why would the WP publish our web site address? Something is very fishy about this.

[piasa]

Maybe the WashPo is trying to get a lot of hits for the week's news cycle, knowing that any time they mention FR a bunch of Freepers get all googly-eyed and ping the crap out of the thread- like I just did, I guess. The more pings the more interest newsies will take in the story- which is less about the CIA plane than it is about the prison abuse thing.

They want to create another Iran Contra silver bullet, like they had in the Boland Ammendment, and get someone to break ranks and screw up if they can't find anything real to use against Bush. In fact, one recently "resigned" whiny official claimed he would create an "Iran Contra II" [his words] just recently. He's under a cloud though since he was playing favorites in contracting. I think his name was John Shaw?

And, since this is the holiday - the story's backers could be reasoning that Rush and Hannity, Boortz and so on are going to be playing reruns on their radio networks - which means that if they can get their story onto the news cycle, they can do so without getting torn to shreds by rightwing talk radio hosts and callers.

It could of course not be so tinfoil as that but just be the reporter stumbled across this ready-made, already researched story on FR and thought it would be easy to use with a little fine tuning- but the timing is interesting and fits so well with what Levin and Byrd are trying to do.

[Yak]

. . . Priest and the WP have probably cut themselves off from some reliable sources in DOD and the Intel community. Hopefully, anyway.

Yeah, right. I have no doubt that much of this background info was provided by some people INSIDE the CIA, leaking it for whatever dumb reason.

Unfortuantely, I expect to see more articles like this, not less.

[piasa]

Link to that alZidi / alzeedi article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/542246/posts

[piasa]

YEP... it's all apparently preplanned media collusion: See what's in the NY Times:

The Total Disgrace of the NY Times [or, they really do hate this country]

[JimRed]

Too bad they can't accidentally leave the door ajar, and have one (or all) of those nasty-arses fall out...

That used to be called giving them "flying lessons". If they learn to fly on the way down, they'll land safely.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[July 4th]

Seems to me like we are being drawn into some sort of a plot...otherwise, why would the WP publish our web site address?

It's as though the Washington Post crack investigative staff was unable to find the aircraft registration without the help of Free Republic.

Was it a good idea to post the info? Probably not. But anyone with a brain could find the info themselves in about 10 seconds. WaPo is probably trying to get a hit on the "new media" and the solid conservative credentials of FR.

[JETDRVR]

"Human rights groups are working on legal challenges to renditions, said Morton Sklar, executive director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA, because one of their purposes is to transfer captives to countries that use harsh interrogation methods outlawed in the United States."


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

Now if the "company" used a Bombardier or Dassault product that could constitute abuse :-0)

Nothing to see here folks lets move along...........

Yo LP dont spill anymore trade secrets ;)

[piasa]

Well, I'm giving this prisoner/abuse effort the media is harping on the keyword "bleedingheartattack" - if you run across more of these articles drop that into the keyword list so we can follow the various players' moves. Their last big leftwing push for this was in June.

[Miss Marple]

Will do. I have been gone for a while and am getting ready to leave again. I will check things out when I get back.

[Mo1]

And Dana's point of printing all this information is ????

[Mo1]

Something is very fishy about this

Yep .. it smells to the high heavens

I also got the impression Dana was trying to point the blame at us for this information getting out

[prairiebreeze]

Good question. Probably to damage CIA credibility. What's left of course.

[Peach]

It's been interesting to see Free Republic mentioned in more and more mainstream articles. We are doing their work for them and then if our investigations turn bad, they can blame us.

[DK Zimmerman]

Did anyone else note the discrepancies? Don't pretend to understand them, but...

I believe I recollect that the FR server changed its time-posted process(es) awhile back. The WP piece refers to an article posted "At 7:54:04 p.m. Oct. 26..." I followed the link supplied in this discussion (comment 9) and find it links to a piece "10/25/2001 10:54:04 PM EDT." So the author refers to a different date and a PDT time no longer supplied?!

Does this suggest they were looking at a hard copy version no longer available "on line?" I believe the IDL does make it possible for a Pakistani filed story dated 26 OCT to be posted on 25 OCT and FR is noted for its timeliness, but still, would a professional simply report it wrongly with no explanation? Or is there another FR piece of the same content posted exactly 54 minutes and seven seconds after the hour the following day, too?

Then the author mentions an address being supplied "thirteen minutes later" - but the linked piece in fact says it was supplied at "11:12:33 PM EDT." Now my math is rusty (at least for Diff-Eq), but I think that's roughly 18 minutes.

My understanding is that important articles are always vetted, preferably with a minimum of two sources. This didn't rate such a process?! Are that many folks at the WP that incompetent? Or were they looking at something else?

Again, I don't understand them, does anyone else?

[Mr. Jeeves]

Yes, Dana, we read "The Sum of All Fears", too. ;)

[DK Zimmerman]

I 'spose I just proved how easy it is to make a mistake, but then I never claimed to be a pro - and I caught mine and hereby correct same...

"posted exactly 54 minutes and seven seconds" should have read "posted exactly 54 minutes and four seconds".