Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, November 04, 2005

CSI Europe: How to find the secret CIA torture bases in Europe

We outline below a speculative framework to identify the specific location where the detainees are allegedly being held in violation of the laws of war.

* * *
This information is provided without any assurances that the results will be timely. We provide this information with the hopes that it may serve as a catalyst for others to step forward within the CIA, NSA, DoD, and DoJ to help expedite this process.

This information is related to allegations of war crimes. If you are in the military, under the UCMJ you have the obligation to forward this information to your commanders. Failure to act on information related to war crimes could result in serious criminal sanctions under the UCMJ and US code.

* * *

Update: 5 Dec 2005

Without realizing it, the Americans have now given us a new set of data that will help us narrow-in on the most likely locations in Eastern Europe and Africa.

People who are in trouble make mistakes. The bigger the crime, the faster they scurry. The faster they move, the less time they spend thinking.

We now have the fruit of that haphazard planning -- better information to narrow in on what is going on, who is involved, and whether there are Americans being detained.

End update

* * *

Have you ever wanted to know how easily something can be done? Rest assured, the methodology proposed below is the most difficult way to find out where the CIA is conducting illegal torture in Europe.

After you review these comments, you’ll realize that regardless how difficult the process might appear to be, there is a way to find the answer.

We'll also find out if the entire WaPo was a deliberate deception to overstate a less severe problem. Maybe someone wants to suggest, by way of contrast, "what is really doing on, isn't as bad as the Washington Post originally reported."

* * *

For those of you who like to unlawfully leave flyers in commercial facilities where you are a visitor, and your pamphlets are not related to the commercial activity nor related to the contents of that newspaper; or you have included information unlawfully as flyers within newspapers and/or books without paying for that service: Congratulations, we know where you are making those copies.

Forty-two Americans by name have been linked to the Spanish Island of Mallorca, with recently issued Social Security Numbers and PO Boxes in Virginia, near Langley.

You have a problem.

Because you've hit this site, your identifying information is now captured -- you are fully aware of what is being discussed -- allegations of criminal activity, war crimes, and human rights violations.

The question will be: Did you properly act in a manner consistent with your lawful duty and oath of office to timely forward this information to the appropriate authorities?

Others have already moved first and are already cooperating.

It will be a matter for the court to decide whether you failed to timely forward information related to the allegations in re human rights violations and war crimes.

It's always a good idea to get your story straight: Were you the one who was given the information; or did you get the information because you first made contact with others?

Either way, your story doesn't add up. Inconsistent out of court statements can be introduced for purposes of impeachment before a Grand Jury and War Crimes Trial for both military and civilians.

Beware confirming the wrong information, especially when there are other ways to confirm what is actually going on. You made a poor choice.

* * *

Note: This site is not affiliated with the US Attorney's office in Maryland.

* * *

In practice, the actual way to find the CIA bases in Europe will be far easier.

The purpose of this memo is to outline clearly and in great detail that the answer can be determined; and it is only a matter of time when the specific individuals engaged in these alleged war crimes are brought to justice.

Translation: The NSA contractors that have access to the satellite imagery of Europe need to make a decision – are you going to continue to support what is arguably an unlawful criminal enterprise, or are you going to turn over your information to the US Attorney.

The truth will surface very quickly. Let’s hope you choose to cooperate with the war crimes investigation rather than impede, or do what many American contractors do and pretend to be stupid. Then again, most contractors don’t have to pretend.

* * *

Let’s consider some alternate theories from the outset, and acknowledge that there could be something quite unusual going on.

First, there is the possibility that the entire focus on Europe is by design; and that the real action is in another location.

Second, there is the possibility that each of the countries in Eastern Europe who have denied involvement are telling the truth: There is nothing occurring on their territory. Rather, the prisoners are being detained on ships in waters off the coast of Poland or Romania.

Third, there have been some alleged investigations by the Polish media into these allegations, and they found nothing. It would be useful if the public were afforded the details of their investigation so that we can determine whether the reporters were bonafide reporters; or whether they are part of a larger plan to discredit credible information. Recall, the MI6 did have an operation mass appeal.

If there are substantive allegations that have been investigated, but these allegations have been rejected, then it would be appropriate if the Polish reporters who arrived at this conclusions [“that there was no merit to the allegations that the Poles were or were not involved”] would provide the details of their assessments, and publicly report and comment on public questions related to their inquiry. One cannot credibly discredit a theory, only to then say they cannot disclose their findings. Either the reporters have credible arguments to undermine the claims; or the claims have been discredited without looking at the full body of evidence. At this juncture, we do not know.

Fourth, there is the possibility of something else: That the United States has a far larger number of detention centers, and they are much larger than imagined, but they are in plain site.

Fifth, let us presume for the sake of argument and in a manner before the courts, that the allegations are true. This means that for the purposes of surviving a request by any country or the United States to have these allegations dismissed, it would appear that a reasonable court would reject any motion to have the allegations against the CIA rejected.

We find that the allegations would likely survive a motion to dismiss; and that the CIA and DoD would likely be found to have evidence that would be useful to the to-be-named-defendants. Moreover, given the pattern of conduct in similar situations, we believe the courts would tend to tilt in the favor of permitting discovery.

The purpose of this note is to acknowledge that some have made allegations about the CIA based on information and belief; and that the Washington Post alleges it has received information, but will not identify the specific countries; and that the Human Rights Watch has detected a possible pattern suggesting the CIA may have transported prisoners out of Kabul, and done something in Europe prior to arriving in Guantanamo.

We make no claim that the allegations are true or false. Rather, we claim that the allegations appear consistent with the White House plans as previously reported in the Guardian; and that if there were eight [8] bases other than what we already know, then we have to consider the likely size of the facility.

Let us review a couple of items in the Washington Post article. Note that there are allegations about the size of the proposed facility. It is alleged that the CIA lowered the threshold on who they detained after individuals were allegedly suffocated in box cars in Afghanistan. This is important. For it tells us that the number of alleged detainees at these black site would fall within a numerical range exceeding what we might expect to be handled at the existing facilities.

This is another way of saying that if the allegations are true, and that the CIA had lowered the threshold on who was or was not detained, then the lower limit of the number of detainees in the system would be in the order of magnitude of hundreds, not a handful.

Further, let us consider that there are alleged to be eight [8] sites. From a purely organization and security standpoint, it is not efficient to house small numbers in isolated regions. Rather, as we have seen in Guantanamo, the most effective way to handle prisoners is to group them into a central region where a force of military and security personnel can be concentrated. To suggest that there are only a handful of prisoners spread around in at least eight [8] sites would has that we believe that the detention system would build up a complex network at each of the sites, but only do so for a very limited number of personnel. This is unlikely.

Also, consider that the US is alleged to have violated the laws of war and has failed to provide the Red Cross with access to these detainees. This would mean that despite the laws, the US knew it was wrong, and therefore moved the prisoners out of Guantanamo [or never took them in the first place].

This is to say, that when making a decision about where to house the detainees, the first option of Guantanamo was allegedly rejected because the US “knew” the courts would have jurisdiction. However, this asks us to embrace to views on how the White House and others regarded their relationship with the law: On one hand they wanted to stay out of the courts, so they moved the prisoners [or never took them to] Guantanamo; while at the same time they knew enough that the conduct was not appropriate that the sites had to be kept secret.

This disconnect is simple: They want the world to believe they want to take action to “remain within the law” and “keep the prisoners out of the justice system” so they moved them from Guantanamo; at the same time, despite them “doing the right thing,” they still want us to believe that DoJ has approved the program; but this “approved” program is to be kept secret.

In a around about way, what the CIA is asking us to believe is that despite the ability to violate the laws and house prisoners in Europe, the CIA was “worried” so as to not keep the number of detainees in Guantanamo.

In other words: If the number of detainees was small, and the CIA was going to violate the laws of war by holding them somewhere in the world [that nobody can talk about], why didn’t the CIA simply create a fiction about what was or was not going on at Guantanamo, and house the “small number” of detainees in an isolated region?

The answer is that the numbers are too large. The issue isn’t the illegality [as evidenced by the CIA willing to violate the laws of war, and the laws of the EU], but where to physically put the prisoners.

Thus, we conclude based on information and believe that the eight sites that are said to exist are somewhat on the order of magnitude of Guantanamo in size, structure, security, and their overall support network.

To have a smaller facility would ask that the CIA would make a choice about “keeping the numbers small” while at the same time, despite the many deaths in the boxcars in Afghanistan, that the personnel have been released.

Which leads us to the central question of: Who are these people in detention; how was it determined that they would or would not be held; and are they being detained because they are a special security risk.

We believe that the basis for holding them is less connected with their status, and more connected with their numbers. In other words, it appears as though the Guantanamo facility has gotten quite a bit of attention, but the CIA was continuing to round up people.

The issue becomes: What is a likely number of detainees we’re looking for; how do these numbers compare with the initial numbers in the box car deaths in Afghanistan; and if the standards have been lowered, how would the initial round-up rates reasonably be expected to increase; and how can we chart the number of assumed detainees over time to estimate the likely number of detainees put into this secret system, and is there the possibility that more camps, other than the already identified eight [8] are being fabricated in preparation for more arrivals.

Recall, Rumsfeld, Bush, and Rice have all pointed to orders of magnitudes of decades for this war on terror to continue. But where are the expected number of “secretly held detainees” going to be put?

Thus, above and beyond the original eight [8] already identified, we have to assume, based on the estimated personnel-inflow-rates-into-this-system, that there are ongoing plans to identify more locations.

The issue becomes how large is the system, not just the existing sites, but the planned future sites, and are they located underground, or are they on ships.

Either way, there is a physical infrastructure, above and beyond boxcars, that are required to maintain a number of personnel now and the future arrivals going forward.

This means that there is a planning section or cell within the DoD that the Joint Staff knows about and is connected to the General Counsel’s office and the CIA. Recall, as we go forward in time, the number of personnel within the US government that know about this grows. This means that we have a conspiracy.

At this juncture, it is important to take a deep breath and pause to reflect on what we appear to have: A systematic way to move personnel out of one location, detain them without charges on apparently vague standards of detention, and then secretly hold them.

We have to ask whether there is a logistics problem in that it is far more difficult to detain these people that it is to simply make them disappear. Again, if the detainees have already been suffocated in Afghanistan in box cars, what’s to say that a system that is building with more prisoners in 2005 doesn’t similarly have problems with security, safety, health, and other issues.

At this point, we can only speculate. But what is clear is that we do know there is a plan in place to move something from Asia to somewhere else. Whether that pipeline is large or small remains to be understood.

What we can say that, if the Washington Post is to be believed, is that the number of personnel being detained is not simply a handful, but something that would require some physical space both in the construction and security.

There are three possibilities: Either the detainees are above ground, they are underground, or they are near the water.

Also, we know that in order to pinpoint their location, the numbers are not important; what is important is that we focus on the idea that there is a physical location, at least eight, with an unknown number of people, that are being detained without being charged; and are kept in detention allegedly in violation of their human rights.

It is time to look at the larger physical infrastructure required to support this system. Rather than wait for the reporters to ‘get an approval” to talk about alleged war crimes, what is needed is an independent effort to pinpoint the exact locations where these personnel are detained; then establish a method to independently evaluate whether the identified location does or does not contain detainees; and then establish who did this, who knew about it, and what their knowledge was of the specifics.

More broadly, it is of concern when the world talks bout Human Rights and we have the UN which is the fruit of the WWII atrocities, but then the major players in the Security Counsel are allegedly involved in misconduct, all the while they choose to demand that Syria cooperate with investigations.

Bluntly, it’s time to make the US appear before the US and make a fully showing, as a witness of what is or is not going on. We already know that the Americans will lie as we saw in re WMD and Iraq.

Thus, it appears as though given the alleged US involvement in this and their ability to veto any substantive investigation, that the US and the UN are both part of the alleged conspiracy. Bluntly, it’s time for the UN General Assembly to take this issue and discuss what is or is not going to happen to the US if they fail to fully cooperate. The UN General Assembly does have a role in war crimes, especially when it is clear that there are allegations that a member country has violated the laws of war and is engaged in a war of aggression.

Thus, if the US has created these camps in Europe, we need to look at the larger set of likely arrangements, threats, and deals that we saw prior to the Iraq invasion, and ask to what extent future promise have been made to Easter Europe to secure their cooperation.

Again, the evidence remains to be gathered. But the key issue is to keep in mind the scope of the alleged conspiracy is not simply moving personnel; but a number of secret financial arrangements and benefits promised, conferred, or bargained for in exchange for cooperation, silence, or not doing what one is reasonably expected to do when they are aware of allegations of human rights violations and war crimes.

Thus, we get to where we find ourselves: We have an alleged conspiracy; and that specific numbers of people are being held in violation of the laws of war; and that the facilities are known, but not being disclosed; and that the Americans have shown a pattern of conduct that will both justify these violations, but also engage in a larger pattern of conduct to encourage other states and individuals to cooperate.

The purpose of this note is to find the obvious: Where are these facilities, how can we gather evidence, and even if those in the know refuse to cooperate with a lawful inquire, what information can be publicly gleaned to most quickly resolve this matter in a manner that is transparent, lawful, and consistent with the rule of law.

For the remainder of this note, we outline a number of steps that could be taken to find these locations; and determine which evidence could be developed to understand what appears to be a conspiracy to violate the laws of war and violate human rights.

We trust that this information, despite its public presence, will be accepted and acted upon in a lawful manner and that those who are aware of the facts related to the specific facilities realize that it is only a matter of time before the exact locations are known and the truth is known.’

There is an easy way: For those involved in this alleged conspiracy to speak out.

And there is a hard way: Using some fairly crude technology to pinpoint the exact locations and find out who in the United States knows about these alleged war crimes and human rights violations.

Let us be clear: The truth will be known. Whether it is through a convoluted route as proposed below, or something more efficient remains up to those who are involved.

But make no mistake: The locations of these facilities can be easily be determined; whether you as an alleged conspirator choose to cooperate or obstruct will be something for the court to adjudicate.

Your days are numbered. It is time to choose: Whether you are for the rule of law and accountability; or whether you are going to choose to obstruct and arguably support an alleged criminal conspiracy to engage in war crimes.

There is one right answer. In the end, if you are involved, you will be held to account.

* * *

Suffice it to say the Washington Post as dropped a rather lovely present on the international community. In short, the CIA is alleged to have eight bases around the globe, and some of them are in the former Soviet Republics in Eastern Europe.

Rather than having some 200-countries to dig through, we now have less than 20. But what makes this exercise somewhat easier is the contention that the CIA is engaging in this alleged torture in former Soviet army bases. This narrows the geographic region.

* * *

As you can imagine, we’ve outlined a number of assumptions that you and your colleagues may not agree with. Suffice it to say that after reading the entire contents of this note you’ll walk away with an appreciation that there’s possibly more than meets the eye.

First, let’s consider the nature of the facility and what is going on. This will lead to an assumption about what kind of activity is actually going on there.

In general terms we know that DoD and the White House have had a public relations problem over GTMO, or GITMO/Guantanamo. In short, the White House has asserted that the problem with the torture and mistreatment in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan was isolated. Putting aside the arguments of Ian Fishback that the abuse was systematic and well known to Rumsfeld, let’s consider the narrow issue of the White House public relations problem.

Bluntly, in light of the Washington Post revelations about the eight [8] CIA facilities, we have to consider this in the context of the White House objectives.

Surely, if the White House’s contention that the activity at Guantanamo was isolated, then would it not be reasonable to assume that if there were other areas or facilities that were exceeding the standards, that the White House would have showcased these facilities?

Think of it this way: If you’re in the White House, and you know that the President has signed an executive order granting the CIA to run overseas detention facilities, but your man in the hot seat [aka George Bush] needed something to lean on, would it not be reasonable to presume that the people working for Libby and Rove would have figured out a way to get the press and international community before these fine alternatives.

Surely, around the globe, there should have been someone in the State Department or other locations that, in light of these either [8] CIA facilities, would have thought to say, we can afford to showcase one of them, and that will take the heat off the White House.

Indeed, given the continued accusations that there has been torture in Abu Ghraib, would it not seem reasonable to assume that the White House would rely on a public show case to prove otherwise?

But, alas – we have no showcase. Yet, the Washington Post says there are eight [8] CIA detention centers somewhere other than what we know to exist in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

That is the core problem for the CIA and the White House: Because if we are to presume, for the sake of argument, that the conduct at the known facilities was isolated, then the fact that we have not been showcased with the alternatives that were supposedly exceeding this standard, would make the reasonable person conclude: The White House talks about the situation being isolated, but they have at least eight [8] CIA bases that supposedly aren’t doing anything wrong, but they won’t let us see them; and didn’t bother to mention them as a means of getting out of the hot seat in Guantanamo.

Moreover, at the time that the Guantanamo pictures were under court review to be released, we never heard the argument of, “This conduct is isolated, we have photos from these other eight [8] CIA facilities to show that this is just a minor problem.”

Rather, the White House took the opposite approach: It never mentioned the “fine, stellar conditions that would have overshadowed the bad apples at the isolated Guantanamo,” in fact, the White House failed to mention that there were eight [8] CIA detention facilities that would pass the white glove test by the CIA Inspector General.

But we see no claims of white gloves; nor did the White House, when given the chance, offer to show the court that there were eight [8] facilities that were passing the highest standards of cleanliness that would make Paris Hilton’s Tinkerbell skip with glee.

Rather, we have the opposite. At the very time that the White House needed help, the fine arguments by the White House counsel and US Solicitor General failed to have a meeting of the minds to jointly agree to release the “best information about the super clean CIA detention facilities” which would calm the fears of Senator McCain.

Rather, the White House and DoD took the opposite approach: Rather than acknowledge a problem with following rules, they chose to smear Ian Fishback and LtCol Shaeffer as being rogue people and malcontents.

Small problem. Fishback and Schaeffer’s allegations about torture and illegal programs have been corroborated.

Thus, based on information and belief, it is reasonable to conclude that the abuse photos we have seen form Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and the allegations of mistreatment that have been reported in open court in the UK, and the still pending-waiting-to-be-released photos of the really nasty stuff from Guantanamo are the best we’re going to find in the CIA detention facilities.

Moreover, we already know about the CIA express which uses VC-9 Gulfstreams; and about the other rendition programs in which the CIA and US military interrogators use sledge hammers to knock people out, and pour water in their mouths using towels.

The key point is that we must assume, given the CIA’s decision to engage in rendition and transfer these personnel overseas, that they are treated no better than how the US treated them in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and Afghanistan.

In other words, Abu Ghraib is the best case ;and the fact that the White House was pushing for the CIA to be exempt from the torture statutes, suggests that the White House knew about the eight [8] CIA detention facilities, and that they wanted to have some sort of immunity for conditions that were not simply forecasted, but were already occurring.

Thus, it is reasonable to assign the name “CIA Torture Chamber” to the eight [8] facilities, some of which appear to be part of the former Soviet Block.

Additionally, because of the failure of the US to release detailed information about these CIA torture chambers to Congress, we have to ask ourselves some fundamental questions about what’s been going on, how long it has been going on, and what wasn’t done.

Supposedly, in the wake of 9-11 the Senate Intelligence Committee promised to look into phase II of the intelligence community breakdowns. However, we know that in November 2002 that Senate Staffers from Rhode Island Visited Guantanamo; and at the same time members of the Army’s 170th Military Company, under 6th Group, was involved in interrogations and investigations in Guantanamo. These reports are at the Joint Staff.

The problem we find ourselves in the wake of the Washington Post revelations of the eight [8] CIA torture chambers, is that the Congress, as was after the abuses in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, was not informed of the alleged criminal conduct. By design, Congress was kept out of the loop.

However, the statues specifically state that once a commander receives a report of war crimes they are to report that information; additionally, the CIA personnel are under the US statutes.

There is a fiction running around that CIA personnel, when they are overseas, are not subject to US laws. Indeed, they would like to think that they are not subject to any laws, but we’ll put their memory problems aside for the moment.

Under the laws of war, which all US personnel fall, enemy fighters cannot be tortured. That is US law, which all US personnel, through their oath of office, have sworn to uphold; and the US has signed treaties consistent what that promise: We shall not torture.

However, the legal fiction is that if the personnel are outside the US boundaries, then they are not in the US judicial system. This is absurd. The US law is not confined to the US boundaries; but it falls wherever the US power and authority falls. The basis for asserting US jurisdiction in Guantanamo had nothing to do with whether the US did or did not like that Cuba was only 90 miles from the United States. Rather, the basis for US jurisdiction primarily hinged on the fact that US military forces and US personnel were in control of the physical location, and substantially responsible for the activates occurring at Guantanamo.

Which brings us back to the eight [8] CIA torture chambers in Europe: Nobody can argue that US law doesn’t apply there. The only reason those personnel are being detained in the CIA torture chambers is because the President signed an executive order, and created a legal fiction granting immunity. But the laws of war apply, even to civilian contractors, as evidenced by the Nuremburg trials.

* * *

Bluntly, the United States is now the target of a war crimes investigation. No longer can NSA contractors say that they are or are not in cooperation with national security.

Self-evidently, CIA contractors and those working for the NSA have continued to provide material support to the White House in covering up war crimes. The issue the CIA and NSA contractors are going to have to soon wrestle with is: What are they going to do when the US attorney subpoenas them for photographic evidence of the crime scenes in Europe?

* * *

Each of the eight locations are in a known physical location to someone. At this point, we can only guess where they might be.

However, there are several things we do know:

  • A. Some of the group of CIA torture chambers are located in Eastern Europe

  • B. It appears that the CIA torture chambers are located at former Soviet bases

  • C. The time that the facilities were upgraded was after November 2001

  • D. We have over flight information of these Soviet Bases prior to 9-11

  • E. Baseline satellite imagery can be compared with subsequent photographs taken in 2004

    * * *

    Because we are talking about matters related to an ongoing criminal investigation related to war crimes, it would seem prudent to acknowledge that the normal classification standards go out the window.

    Bluntly, nobody can claim that the information related to war crimes is classified. Rather, all the information related to the photo imagery is now admissible evidence.

    * * *

    There are several assumptions about the CIA torture chambers that one would have to make when identifying them.

    First, let’s presume that sometime after October 2001, the US worked with various EU allies in Eastern Europe, and in exchange for US assistance in Bosnia, these countries offered up facilities where this activity could occur.

    Thus, we could conclude based solely on this speculation that we could identify a specific time period, and a set number of soviet bases to target with satellite imagery. This information is already housed in the NSA; and public source versions of this date is also available through commercial sites. You’ll recall prior to the invasion of Iraq, commercial sites did document the US air field construction outside and to the south of Kuwait.

    With respect to the specific CIA torture chambers in Europe, there is a very convoluted process which can identify this process.

    Bluntly, the CIA and NSA personnel have to make a decision: Are they let this going to drag out, and require exhaustive time and discovery by the US attorney, or are they going to come forward as have others in the CIA.

    Either way, you will find that within a short time, despite the Washington Post saying, “We cannot reveal the countries location” that it can be pinpointed with reasonable certainty where this activity is occurring, which contractors are involved, who was assigned, and what is going on.

    The issue for the CIA and NSA contractors to decide is whether they want to bet that someone hasn’t already provided this information to the US attorney, or whether nobody is going to think to ask for it.

    Small problem. You’re about to read about how to identify the CIA torture chambers. The problems the CIA and NSA program managers have in Langley and Fort Meade have is that they have to decide whether they’re going to continue with their material support for these war crimes; or are going to see the light of day and run, not walk, to the US Attorney’s office.

    * * *

    Let’s talk about the satellite imagery of the former Soviet Bases in Eastern Europe. One of the problems the US had during the build-up of the Soviet Empire was in predicting what were the key factors that would swing the German support for the buildup of US forces. Specifically, there were Ground Launched Cruise Missiles [GLCM]. These are fairly benign missiles that were stationed, self-evidently, on the ground and were a real eyesore for the Russians.

    The problem the Americans had was that there was considerable resistance not only to the missiles in Germany, but also in the UK. The objective of the CIA at the time was to formulate a plan to sway public opinion.

    Did they go after the protestors? No.

    The key factor that the CIA found to be crucial in the support of opposition to US presence in Germany was one simple factor: The German employment rate.

    As you can see, that has nothing to do with the Russians, the military, or satellites.

    Which leads us back to why the GLCM were there: They were there to destroy the Russian bases and other things.

    Once the CIA and DoD knew that the German employment rate was stable, they knew that they could count on including the GLCM missiles in the force planning. In turn, this meant that Soviet bases could be reliably targeted with GLCM, and that the GLCM targeting could be linked with U2 and satellite images.

    In general, at this juncture, there is a command and control system that oversees the process of identifying targets in the former East Block; then taking the images from the U2 and satellites, and then forwarding them for analysis, and then incorporation into the intelligence briefings for the missile crews located on the ground.

    Regardless what happened between GLCM deactivation, and 2001, there was a body of knowledge and a contracting system in place which still had the capability to do this work: Support the US forces in the field, provide upgrades to the U2, and ensure there was linking between the SR-71 and the ground stations.

    This targeting and command and control capability fell on one contractor called L3. The open source on this is that L3 specifically had the job to ensure that there was a command and control system in place that would take the U2 images from anywhere in the world, process them, and then send them where they needed to go.

    The neat trick was that the L3 command and control system would integrate the U2 with satellites, and ensure that there were real time updates to the targeting, reconnaissance, and photography on a real time basis; and at the same time, war fighters and the Joint Staff could have access to this information real time.

    Today, in 2005, L3 continues to work with the NSA. There’s your answer.

    * * *

    L3 has acted as a prime and integrating contractor for the NSA in various programs.

    The key when requesting the specific satellite data is to know what you want to look for and how you’re going to use it.

    First, let’s go through what you want. Then I’ll explain how you can use it in combination with other data the CIA has access to.

    * * *

    Once you get someone inside L3 to provide you with the photographic imagery you’re going to want to know what to do with it.

    Each of the CIA torture chambers at the eight [8] locations around the globe are in a specific location in fixed space.

    Satellites, U2 and at one time the SR-71 was involved. You’ll have to ask about something called Aurora and the reasons that images of that aircraft have been removed during the Bosnia over flights. The NYT can provide insight into who from the NSA asked them to remove the photos form their website.

    * * *

    Each of the facilities at the eight locations is linked with a support base, an aircraft, and roads. Self-evidently, the facility has operated since late 2001 early 2002 timeframe without much attention.

    But there are people in the CIA who know the locations.

    What you’re going to want to look for is the following:

  • A. On the photo imagery from 2001, you’re going to want to look for your baseline images of the Soviet Bases. This will give you an idea of what was or was not operating at the time. Recall, that this would be before 9-11, and that the images would give you a sense of the day to day activity in the former Eastern European countries around the Russian bases.

  • B. On the next set of images, you’re going to look for activity around the Soviet bases. Again, some of this may be related to other options like missile deactivation, nuclear missile monitoring, or general actions related the facility turn over or deactivation. Also, there could have been conversation programs to non-military programs. This can be baselined as what was expected; further, you can then corroborate the information from the contractors within the country. Keep in mind, the host country is not going to be cooperative; so you’ll have to look for the shipping information at the receiving end, outside that country, preferably in Western Europe.

    Those documents will give you a sense of the economic activity that is going on at that facility.

    Also, you’ll get a sense whether the data you’re getting is matching real economic activity.

    And you’ll also get an idea whether the facility, that has activity around it, is actually related to real activity, or is simply a ruse operation.

    Most likely, the CIA has subcontracted with local vendors in the Eastern European areas to create the illusion that they have a bonafide operation going on; and that they have dutifully filed all the necessary paper work.

    However, there’s a problem.

    What the CIA has forgotten is that while the L3 was collecting this baseline data, the L3 also has the thermal imaging of the Soviet Bases.

    Each of these images shows the baseline activity of that location; and at the same time, the thermal imagery shows what is occurring on the ground.

    Within standard photographic analysis doctrine, you’ll find plenty of people who will be able to show you the tables that link economic activity, business activity, and energy output.

    Each specific type of industry has a known level of energy conversion. This means that in order to make a specific product, the facility has to use a specific amount of energy; and that energy is converted with an efficiency factor to some sort of output.

    * * *

    Let’s pretend the CIA has created a bogus shoe plant at the CIA torture facility. Using the L3 over flight data that gets captured by the U2, we can take a thermal image of a generic shoe factory and know what is going on.

    We can tell whether the plant is warming up; whether it is in a steady state condition; whether the plant is shutting down for maintenance; or whether there is some sort of production problem.

    We can also take various readings from the various energy production facilities, and tap into the energy consumption rate of that specific shoe factory.

    Let’s suppose the CIA has a real shoe factory at the former Soviet base. When we make shoes, we have a start time, things warm up, people arrive, and then over time, the facility starts to consume energy, and then it makes shoes.

    As the temperature of the facility changes, so will the colors in the imagery. Each level of economic activity, or output, will register as a specific image color on the U2 images.

    But let’s suppose we’re looking at a facility that we’ve identified in the U2 images from L3, and according to the locals in the host country, someone wanted to make a shoe factory, and that just happened to be at a former Soviet Base.

    We can do a number of things. We can compare that specific felicity on a square foot basis to comparative shoe factories around the globe and come up with an assessment: Is that shoe factory actually something that makes shoes.

    Suppose we were to fly over the US and take images of known locations that make shoes; we would come back with a profile of that type of industry.

    IN turn, we can then compare that data with the target country; and at the same time, adjust the data given the weather, local production factors, and local processing procedures to come up with a profile of what a shoe factory in that region of the world would most likely look like.

    Then, we can take a step back and ask: Is the thermal image of this facility matching what we’ve been told the contractors are doing?

    IN all likelihood, most of the images around the Soviet plants in Eastern Europe are doing what they say they’re doing.

    However, the key will be to look for the disconnects. This will be where you want to focus your attention in search of the CIA torture chambers.

    The key will be to realize that the CIA has most likely set up a dummy operation in a former Soviet Base, but that operation in no way matches the energy output of comparative industries in the host country; nor would the scaling factors used to adjust the host country’s data back to the US baseline match or be consistent with other activity.

    In all likelihood, what’s happened is that the CIA has created a dummy organization or manufacturing activity, and used this as a cover for a prison.

    They have to do this because in order to not attract attention of the locals, they have to justify why there are trucks coming in and out of the facility.

    The easy answer is to look for the facilities that are known to be prisons. The harder task, and what we presume, is to look for those Soviet Bases that were inactive prior to 2001, then were suddenly reactivated, and then had a level of economic activity between 2002 and 2004 that is not consistent with the thermal imaging of what the owners say is going on.

    * * *

    Let’s go into the specific points of contact, imaging, and the details on what you’re going to want to specifically ask for when talking to L3 and the NSA.

    First, know that these guys have their head spinning. Never did they imagine that they’d be the target of a war crimes investigation, or that the data that they have in their archives could be something that might impeach the President.

    Second, as you ask for this data, be sensitive to the fact that they know that within their ranks there are people who are already cooperating with the DoJ in an undercover capacity. When you arrive, the last thing you want to do is make any signal or inclination that you know someone. This will be a tip off that they’ve been in contact. So pretend that you know nobody.

    Third, the specific information you want to ask for are the NSA thermal images of the Soviet Block bases in Eastern Europe. You’ll have to ask your imaging analysts that are working with the US attorney whether they need the 1990 Data as baseline; or can work with just one set in early 2001 before 9-11. I recommend using the last set that is just prior to the expected ramp-up; but you’ll have to ask them what degree of confidence they need.

    Fourth, you’ll want to ask for the a list of the Soviet Bases that were deactivated or in a cold status. This will be a fairly benign list that the State Department can give you. They have former military personnel who familiar with the various DoD criminal investigators, and they should be a good liaison for you when pinpointing which Soviet Bases had which activity.

    Fifth, you’ll want to ask for the post 2001 data and a second set just prior to 2005, late 2004. This will get you two sets of post-9-11 data that you can compare to. Your goal in this second series will be to compare the photographic images around the times that the State Department confirms that there was activity at the local base. What you’re going to want to look for are reactivation efforts at the Soviet Bases in the post 2001 era. This is a finite list.

    Sixth, NSA has the ability to convert this generic information into images in the form of maps, and colored charges. They key will be for you to take the baseline data from 2001, establish a set-snapshot of the Soviet bases; and then overlay on top of that the economic activity in the post 2001 era.

    Seventh, on top of that image, you’ll want to place a third set of data imaging. This will be the thermal imaging related to the economic activity, but one that shows the comparison, by industry, of what the expected economic activity of that stated-activity is; and then show the differences between what is actually going on.

    IN short, what you’re going to get is a time sequence:

  • A. pre-2001-baseline Soviet Base activity

  • B. post 2001 baseline activity just prior to the CIA activation

  • C. an industry-specific expected image of that economic activity

  • D. an image of the actual economic activity

  • E. The differences between [C-D] where the reported business activity does not match the thermal activity

  • F. The image that lists with high to low confidences which of the thermal imaging is most likely related to an illusory activity.

    This is your first line of evidence.

    * * *

    The next step is to then take these image of Eastern Europe around the Soviet Bases, and then compare that to the shipping records into Western Europe.

    Again, this may seem repetitive, but what you’re looking for are the actual physical evidence of what was actually going on; and then have a train back to the point of original shipping point.

    Thus will do two things: First, you will see which product or economic activity was linked with a bonafide output; and with sampling you can estimate whether the actual shipping compares with the reported data.

    Second, you’ll also find the opposite: Which of the asserted shipments, which the CIA says must have been related to that shoe factory, really had no shoes; or there were no shoes to be shipped.

    This is your second line of evidence.

    * * *

    Next, you’re going to want to zero-in on the facilities that show the disconnects on the imagery, and look for the energy consumption records of that facility.

    Again, where the CIA says that they have a shoe factory, but no activity in the imagery, you’ll get physical evidence by the inadequate energy consumption rates, that there was something else going on.

    This is your third line of evidence.

    * * *

    Now, you’re going to start to see some patterns. The worst problem you’ll have is that the host country has other dummy operations unrelated to the CIA torture, and these will be red herrings. You’ll have to figure out whether you want to use this information to encourage others to cooperate. I suggest you keep this in your hip pocket.

    This will be the evidence you want to keep in reserve and provided to Interpol last.

    * * *

    Next, you’ll want to focus on the high probability location and start to look for the following types of locations, and encourage others with information related to this activity to come forward.

    Let’s presume the CIA knows that it needs to have a back-up operation to cover itself in case it gets caught.

    However, before that happens, it has to work out a deal with the locals. But before they do that, they have to find some place with a low probability of getting detected in the first place.

    This is where the terrain considerations come in. Ideally, the “best” CIA torture chamber is one that is located in a remote Soviet Base, near hills where the construction and equipment movement will get muffled, and where the construction activity and truck noise will not attract attention.

    You’re going to want to look for Soviet Bases that have some wide open spaces in regions that are at the opposite end of the towns; or just adjacent to a set of hills than turn around a corner.

    If you combine your thermal imaging disconnects from above, and do an overlay of the geography, you’ll see which bases are most likely related to this description.

    * * *

    Next will be the number of personnel who are actually engaged in this activity. First, let’s remember this is being run by the CIA. They have two major sources of their interrogators.

    First, it’s the existing GITMO-Abu Ghraib-contracting machine that creates and supports the existing torture.

    Second, there’s Ft. Huachuca in Arizona.

    Notice there is a common element: Dry sand, and cold. Europe has a slightly different climate, is muggy, and despite the cold winters in the Himalayas, there’s always a slightly different quirk with the local climate.

    Europe is a cold place. At some time between November 2001 and November 2005, someone form a warm place like Arizona, Iraq, or Guantanamo showed up and was complaining about the cold.

    But they weren’t your normal whiny tourist. They were fluent in Arabic. And they seemed to have this unusual ability to talk at length about shoe production.

    * * *

    Your fifth line of data will be the EU records. Keep in mind in post 2001, the Eastern European countries were clamoring to get access to the EU.

    This mean that there were people running around, getting excited, talking about subsidies, collecting data.

    What you’re going to want to do is look for the Soviet bases which had an unusual interest in Subsidies, and filing forms. All the things you’d need to make sure your ace CIA cover story really worked.

    But there’s one problem. What do you do when the inspectors show up, find that there are no shoes, but you’re collecting a subsidy? Someone would have to get paid off.

    Conversely, suppose you’re in an industry with no subsidies, but you have no shoes. How do you pay your taxes? That’s another hint: All this activity, but no shipping forms of actual shoes, yet the company continues to come up with the needed money for tax payments.

    Isn’t it curious how a company that says it makes shoes would have so much data on EU standards, but then when you look at the shipping documents, the shoes seem to go missing?

    And then there’s that small problem with the imaging: Even though they say they make shoes, when you compare the production plant effort with what you know is going on in China, somehow you’re not quite convinced that they’re making shoes.

    But all those trucks going in an out. And those strange VC-9 landings at the old Soviet Runway. And those busses that the neighbors talk about, but can’t look through. All that traffic, but you find no shoes.

    Maybe that is your CIA torture base.

    * * *

    Keep in mind, what I’ve outlined above is the most convoluted and absurd way to get this answer.

    However, know that the answer is knowable. Which means that the Washington Post has made a mistake: They naively believe that nobody will ever figure this out.

    The Washington Post is going to have to decide at what point they’re willing to turn over evidence related to war crimes; or get scooped by a competitor with the answer.

    At the same time, the Washington Post has to wonder whether someone else inside the CIA isn’t going to simply spill the beans directly.

    Oh, but then there’s that curious problem with photographs, CDs, and the tricky part about those silly little iPods. Did you know that some equipment has a hidden recording device? Yes, next time you go to an interview and someone is talking on the phone, you might want to ask them whether they were talking to a real person, and whether they also had the recording on.

    That’s what’s going on. NSA, despite what they might want you to believe, has a problem in that there are 4 other Echelon allies. Canada, NZ, Australia, and the UK.

    What’s going to happen when transcripts of those phone calls from the CIA at the Soviet Block show up on someone’s desk? Remember, Bolton had a nice list of American citizens he wanted to look into. Wouldn’t it be funny if someone who knew about the Downing Street Memo, just happened to get a transcript of the F-16 shoot down of the plane over Pennsylvania, and confirmed that Rumsfeld knew all along what really happened?

    Strange things happen with transcripts. Especially when you’re dealing with people in the CIA who think they’re above the law.

    Remember that small problem they had with the one that suffocated in Iraq. The one whose ribs were broken, there was a bag on his head, and because his lungs had punctured, he suffocated.

    Small problem: The CIA interrogator was keeling on his back. And there’s two stories floating around about what they did: One of them says they called for a medic. Oh, isn’t that lovely and considerate.

    But strange, the other one swears that the first people they called for were the guards.

    Which one is it?

    Well, in the world of a grand jury, when you have two stories, it means you’ve got a happy Grand Jury: They now have a probable cause to go on a fishing trip. Yes, that’s what caught Libby up: His stories didn’t match.

    And guess what happened with the CIA interrogator? Well, he was stupid enough, in his moment of fear upon realizing that he had a dead suspect on his hands, that he . . . [wait for it ] . . .got on his CELL PHONE and called someone.

    Click, click: Thank you for the intercept, John Bolton, recorded in L3, and we have a snapshot thanks to the U2 flyover.

    Wow, wasn’t that fun. But it gets better: There are copies of that cell phone outside the American’s control in . . . [wait for it ] Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

    Wow, isn’t that lovely. Small problem: Canada isn’t all that happy that the US invaded. And last time we looked at the newspaper, someone from GCHQ had leaked a small number of DOCUMENTS called the Downing Street Memo, which showed that the President was LYING about the run-up to the war.

    For those of you who enjoy a summary, we’re right back to where we were in 2002-3, when the Americans and British were figuring out how they were going to sell this war. There was one small problem: Despite the “super secret” nature of the meetings, someone had it in their own little mind that maybe this wasn’t lawful.

    They resigned. And subsequently confirmed what we long suspected: That there were others involved, where to find the documents, and which PPT slides to ask for form the staffers that were at the meeting which everyone promised to say nothing about.

    Alas, someone spilled the beans.

    And then someone else put the pieces together, and figured out there was a probable cause for an indictment of Libby.

    Let me say this another way: If you are a contractor, and you have some images of those Soviet Bases, are you going to bet that your competitor hasn’t already provided them to the US Attorney; or are you going to call up your friends who may know something about Dr. David Kelly’s death and ask that they destroy those files.

    Well, let’s hope the contractors learned the lesson: Even though something is classified, you can’t keep the world from talking about what it illegal.

    More bluntly, the moment that you chose to have a secret project with the government, that was the moment you agreed to support the American way of life. And to defend the Constitution.

    But you run into a problem when you support war criminals.

    It’s time to choose: Are you going to support the rule of law; or are you going to engage in a continued cover-up.

    Libby found out the hard way that Fitzgerald knows what he’s doing.

    * * *

    Let’s go over whets going to happen next. Right now, the US attorney needs a little letter from L3 talking about these over flight images you know about in the NSA.

    It would be really nice if you discuss the software simulation efforts your command and control contractor worked on. And you would be best to provide the US attorney with details on the over flight times of the U2 and the thermal imaging you have access to or know about related to the Soviet Bases.

    At the same time, you need to get with the CIA and sit down and really have a heart to heart talk about these American values were’ supposedly fighting for. Isn’t it a little odd that they justify this torture to fight for America, but then when you look at them in the eye, they don’t trust Congress or “the process” to deal with them?

    It seems a little odd for anyone in the CIA to talk about “fighting to protect a way of life” when they aren’t willing to rely on that system to impose justice.

    Is the CIA saying that it only talks about American values, but doesn’t think enough of the US Justice System that it would want to turn someone over to them for prosecution; and that they’d rather hide them in Eastern Europe?

    Oh, it’s all so confusing isn’t it: On one hand we have the CIA agents who want a green light to commit torture; then they say that they want to fight for American values; and then they turn around and thumb their noses at Congress and say the current system isn’t good enough to deal with what America is facing.

    That’s curious. Last time I checked, the CIA would have us believe that this war on terror is a lovely war to assert American values. Isn’t it somewhat mysterious how the CIA doesn’t think enough of the American judicial system that they, and apparently the President, would say to keep them out of the very system they were supposedly fighting for.

    Why can anyone in the CIA, or DoD for that matter, say that their torture in these CIA torture chambers in Easter Europe has anything to do with American values or asserting the American way of life, when they are not willing to expose the fruits of that war to the judicial system they are supposedly fighting for abroad.

    Either the CIA is fighting to assert American values and will rely on the judicial system; or the CIA is fighting to assert American tyranny, and doesn’t trust the judicial system to continue with that tyranny.

    * * *

    Summary list of what you want to look at

  • A. Pre 2000 baseline data of the Soviet Bases

  • B. Post 9-11 Soviet Base thermal imagery

  • C. Map which overlays with this thermal imagery showing construction or warming activities

  • D. A thermal imaging map showing the disconnects between where the reported economic output/activity is not matching baseline data

  • E. A consistent trace between the reported output/activity and the receiving warehouses in Eastern Europe

  • F. Cell phone intercepts from the Soviet Base between the 2001 and 2005 region that center on those areas and times related to the disconnects between the reported economic activity and the actual thermal imagery

  • G. Reports of heavy traffic at odd hours, and explainable as normal activity; but the actual imagery doesn’t match the reported sounds and anecdotal reports.

  • H. Reports of people complaining about the cold European winters, who say they prefer the dry heat of Arizona, or Iraq; and speak with an Americanized Arabic accent.

  • I. L3 contract numbers in the R2/R3 descriptive summary for the NSA’s US satellite integration program.

  • J. The name of all L3 program management personnel by name who interface with the NSA and CIA program mangers who manage the satellite programs on issues related to satellite U2 integration.

  • K. Program funding profiles for all L3 contract efforts with the federal government between 2001 and 2005 for purposes of identifying the times when funding was not expended, but remained below OSD execution goals; yet was not taken and siphoned off for various interesting satellite studies. This is where NSA and the L3 have most likely hidden the black program funding. Don’t be afraid to look into the DoD agencies that may have indirect contact with the satellite business, whether it be in NAVSEA or the Army.

  • L. A list form the Statement Department of all archived pre 2001 photos used in briefings that are available for upload and viewable by a grand jury and can be provided to the US Attorney’s office.

  • M. A matrix from DoD which shows which bases were closed, but intelligence reported an increase in economic activity. [Keep in mind DoD will most likely delay, or say that they don’t have the information. This is why you want to have the L3 data already secured through GCHQ in the UK].

  • N. Economic analysis comparing the output and reported activity at the various Soviet Bases which compares these with the EU standards.

  • O. A list of all contractors and economic entities related to former soviet bases which claim requests with the EU for subsidies, but have inadequate electricity/coal/fuel consumption relative to that reported output.

  • P. Disconnects between the reported output and the actual shipping invoices/goods received at the reported point of destination [which is illusory].

  • Q. [ Other items to be added]

    * * *

    Let’s take a step back and look at where we are. Libby has been indicted. GCHQ has given the US investigators copies of the meeting minutes detailing what was stated in 2002 before the war.

    The Senate Intelligence Committee has been shown to be full of ineffectual people who allegedly have struck a deal to cooperate with the White House efforts to obstruct a lawful inquiry into the Iraq war.

    The problem that the Congressional Staffers have is that, if the CIA IG was actually working, there should have been reports of what’s been going on in these CIA torture chambers in eastern Europe.

    Let me say that another way: The Washington Post has received confirmation, in their own mind, that the CIA torture chambers are real. This means there must have been a document, or something in writing that substantially proved or gave weight to their assertions: Either a travel order, or something physically existing in real space.

    This also means that someone within the NSA and CIA has gone outside the existing system, and is talking to the press. And we know that there are multiple people that are doing this.

    Thus, we can conclude that the NSA and CIA personnel have physical evidence, which the CIA IG either does or does not know about; and the issue for Congress to answer [as it has failed to do with 9-11 and the WMD issue with Iraq] is why does the CIA and NSA IG not have the same information that the Washington Post has?

    In other words, if we are to believe that the IG system is working, if there is a physical piece of evidence which persuades the Washington Post that these claims are real, then that evidence, should already be in the hands of Congress.

    But Congress is surprised. Thus, there is a reasonable basis to believe that the CIA and NSA IG systems either have failed; or they knew something, but have failed to report that information to Congress; or Congress knows something, and is pretending not to know.

    Regardless the answer: We have the same problem we had with the Iraq WMD issue: Bad things happen, evidence shows up, but the investigators’ report somehow doesn’t trigger as US Joint Staff investigation into the matter.

    Some would like us to believe the fiction that because this is going on in Eastern Europe, that US laws don’t apply. Small problem: The US has signed a treaty with NATO allies to ensure that the laws of war are at the heart of their status of forces agreements. That treaty hinges on the assumption that US forces, so long as they are under the UCMJ and US Law, are subject to US discipline.

    If we are saying, because these personnel are in the CIA, that US law and US treaties and Status of Forces agreements with NATO go out the window, where does that leave us with the Brussels agreements: How are we to go to NATO to demand or not demand certain provisions be enforced, while others are ignored.

    The key is that someone in Brussels knows about these disconnects between what is going on; and there are legal documents which the White House counsel should have, or must have coordinated with DoD and Brussels on how to get around these treaty problems with NATO, and the rest of the EU. There had to have been at least one meeting after 9-11 where the arrangements were discussed; and the details coordinated. Brussels needs to be subpoenaed for the documents; and than have their submission compared to the data which Echelon keeps. There will be disconnects because Brussels does not expect to be a target; and they are going to be surprised by the questions. Their delays are a sing of their problems and lack of coordination on this issue with both NATO and the EU.

    Also, keep in mind the Italians are not all that happy when the CIA shows up, unannounced, and takes their citizens away. Surely, someone else within Italy would tend to have some friends across the Adriatic, who might give some insight into whether there have been various arrangements with the countries surrounding Yugoslavia: Bulgaria and Hungary. I would venture to say that there are enough annoyed Italians on your hands that you could find fairly quickly what’s been occurring on the northern border of Yugoslavia around the former Soviet Bases. Then cross check this against what the thermal imaging reports.

    * * *

    The same game that went on with Iraq [deal between the White House, Senate Intelligence over illusory WMD non-sense] is what is going on with the eight [8] CIA torture chambers.

    There’s a deal that’s been struck. Your job is to find that deal and bring it to light.

    The CIA also knows that the White House will betray them: As evidenced by the Valarie Plame outing. The White House is losing friends, which probably explains why the Washington Post is publishing the material.

    Just as Nixon was fairly certain who in the FBI was leaking, rest assured the White House is keenly interested in smearing people in the CIA and the NSA over these revelations.

    NSA and CIA officers need to know that Valerie was fortunate in that she has, despite all the problems, had the support of the nation.

    Know that we cannot promise you anything, but that you have to make a decision.

    Your job is to continue to work and protect the nation; while at the same time keeping in mind what is really going on: You are seeing the preliminary fact finding related to a Nuremburg Indictment which will be brought against the President, Vice President, and Senior Military and Civilian officials related to allegations of war crimes.

    You must make a choice whether you want to come forward now and work with the rule of law; or whether you are going to continue to support something which is on the wrong side of history.

    Know that there are people who are in the US attorney’s office who will be glad to take your information. We make no claim that you will get anything in response or not face retaliation.

    Your job is to consider the momentum that has come undone. Look around you as you notice how quickly the facts are surfacing. Know that your peers may have already struck deals with the US Attorney and FBI agents. Although they may appear to be violating the law, they may have been given a green light to do so, and are already cooperating.

    You must decide whether now is the time to stand up, or let history take you where you find yourself.

    These are difficult days. Indeed, most never imagined that the United States would swing this far this quickly. Yes, it is unusual to find that a nation that supposedly assert the rule of law would so defiantly oppose that rule of law when it comes to issues of war crimes, torture, or abuse of human rights.

    You have every right to feel confused. Your leadership has let you down. They have failed to refuse to go along with what is unlawful. Indeed, you may have already decided to go along with them.

    But know that your peers in DoD, DoJ, NSA, and the CIA are already speaking out. Some of them you know by name: Ian Fishback, Valerie Plame, LtCol Schaeffer, Sibel Edmonds.

    Others, you will never know. But they are out there. They see what is going on. And they share your concern.

    Remember, you must do what you have to do to protect yourself and stay safe. If there is something that the US attorney’s office can do, they may or may not be able to give you anything. But know, that in the end, the Constitution will prevail and that the rule of law, however upside down it appears right now, will resurface as the shining standard to which you will once again service.

    Those days are near. But there will be much work. Your job is to continue to focus on your job, and be mindful that there are things that are going on that are not really related to protect the American way of life; they are related to hiding evidence, and avoiding accountability.

    Know, that even though you may notice something, there may be times when you have to play dumb. But know that if you go to the FBI and US Attorney you may be able to provide them with something valuable. The smallest bit of information can make the difference.

    There are others who are working alongside of you, who you will never know, but they are there adding pieces and filling in gaps where you may or may not know the whole story.

    Recall what US Attorney Fitzgerald said: There are things that he and the Grand Jury and others are doing that we will never know about. You’ll have to trust the system to move along, even though it is very confusing and uncertain.

    Yes, America has seen some dark days. And yes, things are going to get worse: There will be more lying.

    But know, that the tunnel is no forever dark. Although you may be threatened if you dare stand up for what is right; know that you may be able to find some source of assistance with the FBI and Department of Justice.

    Your job is to know that deep within this country, there are many others who are with you. You are not alone. There are 280 million of us; and there are a substantially smaller number of people trying to hide.

    Remember what you learned about Libby and how his simple mistake tripped him up. Know that there are others on the outside who are carefully observing what is or isn’t being said, and whether things are going as they should.

    Yes, you may get smeared; and you may be publicly ridiculed and think that you may be all alone at that time of ridicule and shame. But know that those who are doing that are doing so out of fear and that they, in their heart, are very afraid of accountability.

    You may choose silence; but know that you must not forget what has happened; and do what you can to make sure this does not happen again.

    The public wants to know what’s been going on; and what we can do to fix this; and put these people where they belong: In jail, out of harms way, and beyond DC where they will be weaned of Potomac Fever.

    * * *

    To find a sense of structure, look to the Nuremburg War crimes trials. We are at the initial stages.

    We now know there are at least eight [8] locations where the alleged war crimes are occurring. It remains to be understood whether these eight are just the tip of the iceberg and there are others; or whether the number has been overstated for purposes of making a bad situation look far worse, and then we’ll be happy that it wasn’t that bad; or whether the entire thing has been understated deliberately because there’s far more horror to reveal.

    We do not know how many people have been killed in these CIA torture chambers.

    But what is clear is that there are four factors, which are common to the Nuremburg Trial:

  • 1. There was a plan

  • 2. There were close confidants of the leadership who provided legal advice

  • 3. There were clear laws and standards of conduct that applied not just to the people but the nation

  • 4. And then there were the alleged conduct and acts of the Nazi conspiracy.

    As you move forward in time, and you seek some guidance as to where things are, look to the Nuremburg trials: Know that there are Americans who are in denial; and that despite these denials the facts will surface.

    America must be a nation that is willing to know the truth; for truth is at the heart of prudent policy. Without truth, we will be doomed to make the same errors, but then engage in more non-sense to pretend it is something else.

    This is why people in the CIA and NSA are coming forward: They know that the mountain of lies is unsustainable; and that the rule of law will prevail; and that what is happening is not acceptable.

    Tragically, despite the Americans leading the victory with the UK, French, and Russians in Europe during WWII, the Americans are now the target of a war crimes investigation in the land that they once liberated.

    * * *

    With time, we will find out the specific locations, what happened, and what was going on. Know that as Congress battles itself over Iraq and the WMD intelligence, that the same flawed system continues.

    Make no mistake, just as there have been problems with the Iraq war, so too is there a far larger problem at the heart of this matter: The failure of checks and balances; the belief that some are above the law; and that in order to assert a principle, one must ignore the system that supposedly preserves that system.

    This is the sign of a problem.

    If nothing else, as you take a look at this situation, simply look at the failure of logic, reason, and prudence to prevail.

    This happened for one reason: Fear, and the desire to assent to what is easy, rather than what is right.

    Yes, there are some who may lose their lives in the fight for the Constitution; but they are not just on the battlefield, they are also on the streets. They are your American peers.

    They did not ask to fight, nor have they sought any attention. But they know that it is far better to exercise a right, than to live like a coward unwilling to be free.

    This will have to be something individuals will have to face and make on their own. But know, that in the end, not everyone you see around you will be with you. This in not needed, but it may happen.

    This government, although it asserts the principles of democracy and freedom, will and does go out of its way to avoid accountability for those times when it violates those principles.

    But think of this: Why is anyone daring to assert that they are fighting for anyone’s values, but then they refuse to ensure that their conduct falls under the system that is just that – what we value – justice.

    They have no answer because their reasoning is flawed. That should be the greatest message you take away, if nothing at all – that a free people, when forced to choose, have embraced madness, non-sense, and violations of the law; then removed themselves from that system because they do not trust that system to work; and then at the same time out of the other side of their mouth, they would have you think that they are for the rule of law.

    They are not. They are for the rule of tyrants, who parade as your friend; but they are actually turning the entire relationship between the individual and government upside down. Not only are they taking themselves out of the umbrella of accountability, but they are demanding that individual citizens, not the leaders who created this disaster, be held to account.

    That is wrong.

    * * *

    We are not sure whether there are more than eight [8] camps, and how many of the eight [8] are in Eastern Europe, or whether they are located in which former Soviet Bases.

    We can only speculated which of the former East Block the CIA has these torture chambers.

    Some have argued that there may be instability if the truth is known. Well, the truth is going to surface, and despite the truth, I don’t see the sun changing its path.

    Nor did the world come unglued when Libby’s indictment was announced.

    Rather, the truth will shed new light to new questions.

    Be calm. Things are moving along. With time we will find out which countries are involved. Recall, when the truth in Thailand surfaced, they simply moved to new locations. This shell game needs to end, and needs to be stopped with a war crimes trial.

    I suspect, and this is only speculation, that the countries that are involved are related to Yugoslavia: Bulgaria and Hungary. But do not act on this, simply know that other than 200 some odd countries in the globe, the Washington Post has narrowed the list down to a dozen or so.

    There are not many countries in Eastern Europe, so let’s list them: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and if you want to really reach far near Afghanistan, we could include Uzbekistan, but that is really not in Europe.

    The issue is going to be: Who can most quickly identify the most probable location of the CIA torture chamber. I have outlined one very convoluted approach. I would work. Rest assured, there are others who have much speedier solutions and have already spoken with the US attorney and media.

    Either way, the truth will surface. We are not in a vacuum of knowledge, and we do not find ourselves on the “other side of the wall of the universe” where there is no time or space. The truth is there and can be understood.

    There is either an easy way or a hard way.

    Whether you choose to cooperate or obstruct, the truth will be known.

    We will find out more.

    * * *

    The CIA agents involved may or may not be formerly associated with the US military and may or may not be familiar with Soviet basing. But what we do know is that for them to be in Eastern Europe, they have to be linked with the Eastern European sections in the old structure of the KGB: Either as an opponent, or as an ally after the Soviet Union fell apart.

    The KGB is a curious creature. It may be in their interests to discuss what they know.

    Also, there are VIP Gulfstream spotters in Germany. They can be of assistance for tracking the aircraft in and out of the bases. It remains to be understood whether the personnel who are being held at these locations were forcibly removed from Iraq or non-European theaters and brought in by Gulfstream; or whether they are European citizens who have been detained.

    Does anyone have the right to violate human rights and keep people forever locked up? Some think so. But ask yourself this: If our system of values is really “the best,” why isn’t the system that they are supposedly fighting for “good enough” both be used to ensure that the appropriate sanctions are imposed?

    Why isn’t the CIA trusting the Congress to pass the right laws to impose consequences?

    Why aren’t there special courts to deal with this so that we resolve these matters in a manner that is consistent with the values they supposedly take action to assert and preserve?

    The KGB may be in a position to shed some light in areas in former Soviet Block where the locals appear to have been persuaded to go along with the lawlessness.

    Look for imprecise answers; pockets of rising wealth despite a slump in the local economy; and the unexpected security questions and attention while walking in remote areas. These are signs of tyranny, excessive security, and appear to be at odds with the Soviet Bases that are supposedly shut down.

    Obviously, peaks in convoy traffic after 9-11 would be interesting to know about. Also, movement of people in and out of locations, then disappearing down isolated and remote roads. Take a note of this, and see how these types of observations compare with what you are seeing in the images of the Soviet Bases. Patterns will emerge in the coming months.

    There is an isolated area behind a hill, where the traffic is isolated, and around a bend in the road. Try that.

    * * *

    The goal at this juncture is to collect evidence of US war crimes in Eastern Europe. America liberated the Bosnian and Nazi camps.

    Why are we not doing the same for Eastern Europe?

    We need the following:

  • A. Satellite images of the location as was done before the Iraq invasion
  • ID’s of units, personnel, and vehicles
  • Supply contracts and business associations
  • Evidence of locations and what is going on
  • And finally, indictments against those who are involved.

    * * *

    The time for debate and Congressional debate is over.

    We need to have a US war crimes trial.

    People need to be encouraged to preserve evidence.

    DoD needs to be reminded that the Able Danger non-sense needs to end, and they need t come clean with what’s going on.

    Remember Anderson’s shredding in re Enron. That’s also going on. There need to be some meaningful sanctions on DoD and the CIA for engaging in covering up war crimes.

    * * *

    It is irrelevant whether DoD, the RNC, or CIA agrees or disagrees: They need to be put on trial for war crimes, as we did after WWII, for

  • Torture

  • Ordering torture

  • Knowing the standards and violating them

  • Being involved in ruses

  • Failing to disclose violations of the law as required

    The media spin that this is politics is irrelevant, as Libby well knows.

    * * *

    Eight [8] sites is a lot. Many people would have to be around these locations. People come and go.

    There are likely many layers to this story. But there are inconsistencies that will fall apart under close scrutiny, just as they were in the Iran-Contra affair.

    Some may claim that nobody knows.

    The White House and CIA need to be hauled before court for some adult supervision. To suggest that revealing details about this might compromise operations is just a nifty tagline which the Washington Post is gagging on to justify not doing its job.

    If this truly compromised anything, nobody would be talking about it. There are no laws broken when someone is reporting violations of the laws of war.

    Nobody can keep that secret buried. And there is no basis to assert that operations may be compromised: They should be stopped, as they are unlawful.

    What will happen if the Eastern Europeans find out the US is behind this? Maybe the US will find out that the real issue will be whether they are employed, and whether they have confidence the rule of law will handle the problem.

    They may look to Iraq and ask whether the US “rule of law” works. We shall see. But this needs to be brought before Brussels and the EU for a full explanation.

    The time for demanding Syria “fully cooperate” needs to be shined brightly in the White House eyes of George Bush and Condoleezza Rice. Neither can claim ‘they didn’t know” as they were both in the White House when these operations were started. As was Gonzalez in DoJ.

    * * *

    This non-sense needs to end. Let’s have a public trial over the torture. The President signed an executive orders. This is about war crimes.

    Are we to expect that the CIA public relations contractors are going to get spun up again, as they were prior to the war in Iraq, or work with MI6 as they did with operation mass appeal.

    That’s absurd: Get the free citizenry, who are now beaten into submission, to celebrate that people are being tortured in secret locations. If it was lawful, why not do it publicly as they did in Iraq on the football fields?

    That which is hidden does not gets solved on its own.

    Wouldn’t it be easier if we had the facts immediately, not more of the Senate intelligence Committee’s “when we get around to it.”

    More of the “we’ll think about the rule of law if the weather cooperates.”

    It remains to be seen how the spinners will spin this. But nothing they say makes sense. There would not be whispers if it were lawful.

    These are war crimes. You’d think the public relations firms would grow tired realizing the RNC has created another mess. What a fine use of their RNC donations: To make more ads to convince others than the road to tyranny is the road to paradise.

    Did you know you can donate up to 26K to the RNC so they can create an add that will justify torture and make you believe you’re living in a free country? Wow, that’s a nice use of your money. Be proud of your donation to the RNC propaganda machine, and the harmonics it has with the PNAC.

    * * *

    What’s amazing is that this information continues to dribble out. How long would we expect the dribbling to continue?

    Eight [8] camps: How much is going on?

    Some are worried, making cell phone calls. But did they remember to disconnect their battery? Oops, got you.

    Remember the American Psychiatric Association? They wanted to have ethical torture. Maybe they were present when the CIA was doing their handy work. Might be interesting to see what the British Medical Association can tell you about some APA trips to Eastern Europe, Langley, or Ft. Meade. I hear they have some interesting career days for people in the Marines if you want a nice job lookup NCIS data in the State Department. But you didn’t hear that form me.

    * * *

    Will DoD mobilize to take over the CIA camps and liberate the detainees just s they did during WWII?

    We saw the pictures from Bosnia. What else?

    How many have been killed in the CIA’s torture chambers in Eastern Europe without a trial?

    The bad news dribbled out in the 1930s. Despite the bad news, boats were turned back. We have the same dribbling of information. Is the internet really working as we had hoped, or is it just more quickly disseminating information that is a distraction?

    * * *

    Use this situation as a measure of whether people are thinking.

    How healthy are their thoughts?

    Is their thinking logical?

    Are their arguments persuasive?

    How consistent are their arguments in terms of the laws of law?

    Are they asserting standards they do not practice?

    Who is being silenced for speaking out about what is going on?

    * * *

    “Torture light” is still torture.

    It is reasonable to presume egregious acts. DoD and the White House have a PR problem. Why didn’t they open any of the eight [8] camps to show the world that the problems in GTMO were, in fact, isolated?

    But they didn’t do that. What are they hiding?

    * * *

    US law enforcement is a function of who has control. The laws against torture apply based on the control of the operations, not on whether the issue is inside or outside the border. Geography and location are irrelevant. The rule of law applies, or it does not.

    To argue that location X is not subject to the US laws in an illusion.

    NATO and the EU are bound by the treaties and human rights.

    More broadly, nobody is permitted to abuse others unless it is under the law: This is from the Magna Carta.

    We learned from Guantanamo that US law does apply because US forces were in control. The issue will be whether US forces are in control of these CIA torture chambers. Self-evidently, because they are associated with the CIA and American assets, the US government and legal system has an interest and a role.

    Secrecy is not a shield to the American judicial system, but a first class ticket to the doorway to the courtroom.

    One cannot assert they are for the rule of law and American values, but then ignore the judicial system. Either you are for American values and the justice system, or you are not. You can’t have it both ways: To be outside the rule of law; but then claim to be within the rule of law. To do so, asks that we be in two positions at once; that is more than an impossibility, it is a flawed legal argument that does little to inspire the souls of anyone. That is, unless you are inspired by absurdity and lawlessness. Self-evidently, this is the very lawlessness to which the Americans created a Constitution to contain; not a wall of secrecy to allow to permeate a flimsy legal foundation.

    * * *

    It appears the President knew what was going on in these eight [8] detention centers. There is an executive order.

    We need not be afraid of reigning this in. It is time to impeach the President. Torture is illegal, and the President knew.

    There are eight [8] camps that we know of; but how many more are there; what else is going on; what more are we going to find out?

    Who is the enemy again? What are we fighting for? What values are we hoping to advance with this treatment?

    Someone mentioned 18 USC 371 and there was a wider conspiracy. How will the problems with Iraq fit in with this pattern of conduct with the CIA torture in Europe?

    * * *

    The CIA needs to face some pointed questions.

  • Does the CIA’s arguments about GITMO really have merit as precedents for these second locations?

  • How many other laws are they violation?

  • Why should we trust you with the appropriations – CIA is always whining about oversight, and clearly they show they need to be put on a leash.

    * * *

    Ask them again, “What are you fighting for” in this war on terror?

    Why not move to Easter Europe and set up a system of gulags.

    “Oh, we don’t do that,” they claimed after Durbin spoke out.

    But now, we find out they do.

    Not only does the CIA run gulags, but it does so in the former Soviet bases.

    * * *

    I recall the words of warning at the national Cathedral after 9-11: “Let us not become the enemy we fight.”

    Too late.

    But what happened, and what will be done to remedy this failure?

    We hear no leaders, only excuses, and “no comment.”

    It is time to demand comments, under penalty of perjury.

    * * *

    “What is the CIA fighting for?”

    They don’t have confidence in the system. They’re not willing to expose the detainees to that existing system.

    The CIA and this White House, has no confidence it can bully Congress to pass more draconian laws to permit torture.

    The American Psychiatric Association wasn’t successful in their PR campaign.

    But will Congress pass laws to sanction? Maybe if the weather cooperates, they might think about it. It’s difficult being in a position of leadership when those you work with every day make excuses to ignore the rule of law, and there are meaningless sanctions for misconduct and violations of the very laws at the heart of our humanity.

    But why expect miracles. It’s not lunchtime yet. Have a snack, maybe the temperature will change, and someone inside will figure out something. Don’t hold your breath.

    * * *

    It’s not clear that America knows that it’s fighting for: It talks about values, but they’re not practiced.

    If America really knew what is was fighting for, and this goal was clear, America could mobilize on that clear goal, and win.

    Yet, it’s been four years since 9-11, and our actions say that we’re not clear what we’re fighting for. The CIA doesn’t trust the system. Why should the rest of the world, who know less than that the mighty CIA?

    * * *

    In this vacuum of clarity, and this uncertainty of values: Why doesn’t America just go home.

    Why not let the uncivilized barbarians take center stage

    Who decides when the US-sponsored barbarianism is “good”?

    What are Americans preserving with this illusion of democracy? It is not civility.

    * * *

    There is no distinction between what the US says “the enemy might do” and what the US is doing.

    * * *

    Look at this circular logic:

    100 Why don’t we put those who have been responsible for this action into that system and let them suffer the consequences of the same treatment?

    200 On torture: Some defendants’ counsel in the court of law will say, “We can’t subject the US citizens to do that.”

    300 But why should anyone be subject to that?

    400 Go to 100.

    Where’s the rule of law? The reality is that they’ve been lying about this war on terror.

    Who in the US knows the full scope of this action, but continues to prattle before Congress, “Flag, country, honor.” Get real.

    Rumsfeld knows when he’s spoken about Valerie Plame or not. He doesn’t have that bad of a memory; or should he face a fitness for duty determination?

    “Oh, we can’t ask that.”

    Why not?

    Hitler was insane, wasn’t he?

    Are we saying that only sane people do what Rummy or war criminals are doing?

    That sounds like he’s competent to stand trial.

    * * *

    We need accountability. That means credible consequences for violations; but not simply on paper. But the real potential that there could be serious jail time, to paraphrase Fitzgerald.

    When someone fears disclosure, is that a sign of a problem? Well, it is if they know that they revelations of the facts might result in a negative consequences.

    That’s enough to show intent.

    TO argue that we must keep quiet because others might get upset misses the point: Sometimes the reason others get upset is that the conduct violations the laws. Thus, it is inherently wrong to keep quiet, for silence will only send a green light to more abuse and lawlessness.

    Those who want silence are not using the law as their guide. They fear a backlash of accountability. Yet, they’ve already decided, with silence and suppression, not to respond to this catalyst.

    This is more evidence of intent, and their knowledge that the conduct is wrong.

    One cannot use “violations and retributions” as an excuse to take it out of the judicial system. The purpose of the judicial system is to impose order and maintain civility; not to permit the threat of that imposition of that order as the excuse to allow lawlessness. To suggest otherwise is to ask we engage in circular logic, as Chief Justice Roberts discussed at his nomination hearing. This does not stand the smell test. Nor does the fowl whiff of ocean air mean we are in Denmark, Hamlet; rather we are adrift at sea in search of a beacon. That beacon is the light of justice.

    * * *

    There is some curious double talk going on.

    Some suggest to discuss the details of these crimes will expose operations.

    Why is the revelation of lawlessness a bad thing?

    People know they are violating the laws, principles, and the principles of the system. To suggest there may be a backlash misses the point: Without a domestic backlash by Congress those abroad will either assent to the conduct, or they too will stand up.

    Yet, regardless what does or doesn’t happen, the original conduct remains unchanged. The only illusion is that everyone is talking, not about the original misconduct, but the hypothetical risk that the response to that original event may be untidy.

    Yet, to argue that would have that the forces of lawlessness that perpetuate lawlessness are fearful of an unpredictable reaction. How can they demand predictable results when they engage in conduct that violates the law, arguably the source of predictability?

    One cannot operate in an unpredictable way; but then use the theoretical, speculative risk of unpredictability as a justification to remain silent about the original wrong.

    Nor can one command that others respond in a predictable way; or not knowing how they might react to remain silent; while at the same time asking others to remain silent about what is not predictable.

    the rule of law is order and predictability. To act in a manner that is outside the law is imprudent, unpredictable, and against civilized society.

    One cannot assert hey are for American principles, but act in a manner that is unpredictably outside the bounds of the laws. Without a predictable assent to the judicial system, no one may make a claim they are for any principle but barbarism.

    To ask that other options outside the rule of law continue asks that we permit the state to give a green light to state lawlessness. That is the same as valuing state terrorism.

    Yet, isn’t terrorism what we are supposedly fighting, not practicing?

    How can a government move outside the law, arbitrarily impose violence outside the law, but then at the same time ask anyone to believe that they are for the rule of law or asserting a noble principle?

    The only noble principle they value is the principle of tyranny.

    That is not a principle. It is lawless use of power, to which we supposedly chose to create a constitution to prevent, not endorse with this shell game of accountability.

    * * *

    Some have suggested that the public cannot know the truth. Just as there were arguments for not releasing the photos of Abu Ghraib.

    DoD creates the illusion of some backlash. But that is nothing to fear. For civilized people will respond prudently.

    DoD asks that, because DoD and the CIA act imprudently, that the public would imprudently respond. Thus, DoD and the CIA have shown that they are not advancing American principles, nor is their conduct with what Americans are most likely to do, but what Americans are capable of doing when there is no oversight. Just as the looters in the wake of Katrina were given a green light to lawlessness.

    But notice what is going on. Rather than focusing on the original DoD and CIA abuses, we are distracted over an irrelevant issues of whether the public may or may not do anything.

    This is a red herring, and as Fitzgerald said, irrelevant.

    These distractions are a hope to make the issue something else, and to avoid accountability.

    But remember, if there is sensitive information, that information can be protected. But the public has the right to know what is being done, especially by the CIA in the name of a tyrant who puts himself above the law and commands all grovel to his arbitrary imposition of abusive authority.

    * * *

    We see nothing before us but stupid arguments why the CIA should not be held to account, or why there should not be a war crimes trial.

    These arguments fail, but they inspire those with solid arguments to continue.

    Indeed, with lawlessness, all an opponent need to do is simply stand still and do nothing: For the light of accountability will shine on the lawless who dare to point their finger at those who remind them of what is lawless.

    There is no merit to the argument that America is fighting for a way of life. Rather, America is fighting for a lie.

    America is afraid of letting Congress pass laws to sanction those who engage in violence.

    To suggest that the CIA has “the right” to do this asks us to dismiss the alternatives: That there is no possibility special courts could be created.

    Bluntly, the CIA is saying it doesn’t trust the system it supposedly waves before the world as the reason for its action. The CIA and White House arguments are flawed, circular, and evidence of war crimes.

    * * *

    After Pearl Harbor, four years later in 1945, the war ended.

    After 9-11, four years later in 2005, we have a mess.

    What is the plan?

    What values is America fighting for?

    What will prevail? We’re not talking about the prevailing strategy, but the prevailing values.

    What will we ask the world to embrace when we are done with this fight?

    * * *

    Some say this is a new kind of war.

    Why are we afraid to invade and topple leaders who support those who are threats? One cannot hope to prevail when the source of the enemy’s power is off limits to being defeated.

    Indeed, some are afraid of upsetting the oil interests.

    We use oil to fight; and then cry when the sponsors of this evil threaten to cut off the oil.

    Why not stay home, not use the oil, and do nothing about the problem?

    Why is American afraid to pass lass to sentence people and hold them to account?

    Why is American treating the enemy like they’re a shadowy creature, but the Americans are moving as if they are shadowy enemies of the rule of law?

    * * *

    Why should others care about the American principles, laws, and values when American doesn’t practice it?

    If this is a new kind of warfare, wouldn’t the Enemy be emboldened to attack American civilian without guilt – for the civilian population, in their mind, wouldn’t it be endorsing lawlessness?

    Why should anyone care if civilians are subjected to this treatment by others?

    Supposedly, it was unacceptable what happened on 9-11; but why is it “OK” for the US to do lawless acts on others?

    * * *

    Remember NATO, the EU, and the human rights. One cannot demand others be an ally for the common defense, when their actions are not worth defending.

    * * *

    Supposedly the US fought the USSR and secret police in East Germany. We heard in the Cold War, “We can’t tell you that.”

    How reliable is the information we’re getting. Look at the bogus terror alerts. This bogus information was then leaked. It caused a panic.

    But isn’t the ‘evil of terrorism” panic? So what are we fighting: Terrorism, or the right to create panic in the name of something else?

    The White House waves its hands and says, “We have no idea.”

    Curiously, Rumsfeld also says, “He can’t remember” if he spoke to Cheney about Plame.

    I don’t recall this much memory problem since Reagan’s testimony at the Iran-Contra affair.

    At least the Nazis were proud enough to say that what they did they though was right. Not America, they feign ignorance like the Germans. They were occupied for 50 years to clean out the stench. America wants to focus attention on Syria.

    * * *

    It’s curious the US was proud that it defeated the Nazis and the Soviet Union.

    But the US learned well the art of war: Acquire the enemy’s resources and use them.

    How fitting the US acquires Soviet Bases, uses Nazi techniques to torture.

    Sun Tzu would be proud of the American President: Acquiring bases and resources to ignore the principles used to excite the warriors.

    Foolish army. They can be easily moved with the flurry of trumpets, but when the cold truth sinks in, they complain bitterly that their coffee is not warm.

    * * *

    We do not have a civilized society. It is guided by propaganda and the mob, not the law.

    It is an imbalanced argument to say, “Don’t trust the system, ignore the law” but then to say, “We do trust the feedback of the people as a check on what is going on.”

    This asks that the rule of the mob, not the law, is the guiding action for the White House.

    Indeed, to prevail, one need only wave the wand of mob violence, provoke the mob, then discredit the love of the law.

    This is where we are.

    But then Fitzgerald showed up.

    And Libby knows the rest.

    * * *

    America is picking and choosing.

    One on hand ignoring the existing laws on torture, moving the detainees overseas.

    Thus, we conclude that the laws do have an impact: The law is the catalyst for the CIA and White House to hide.

    Laws do affect behavior. The trick is to know that the behavior will eventually fall under the rule of the law, not tyrants.

    It is curious that the CIA and White House which flaunt the law as if it were irrelevant, actually fear the law so much that they would hide in Eastern Europe.

    Illusory immunity the law is the trap for contractors. That agreement is not lawful, not enforceable. And no court will recognize that illusory shield to the rule of law.

    * * *

    The Washington Post has a problem: Their reporters have information about treaty violations, torture and war crimes.

    There is an element floating around in America that claims they can do anything. The zombies are in control.

    Petit crimes are given great attention; but torture and war crimes ignored, hidden away. Quote a curious contrast when the minor can launch a fleet of inquiry; yet the major dare not move a feather on Justice’s scale.

    * * *

    History will show that America wanted the world to believe that the conduct in Abu Ghraib was isolated; Fishback shows us otherwise.

    It would be reasonable to require the US to fix its PR problem with something more than a cover up, but with actions and results.

    When given the chance to show the conduct was isolated, we see no other sites. We can only conclude, given no access, that the failure to disclose is evidence of worse conduct.

    Good things should be shown, not hidden. Bad things should be eliminated, not allowed to hide and continue.

    * * *

    We heard the reframe, “We’re not like the Nazis.”

    How many camps do we need to see that the Nazis never left?

    First, it was Guantanamo.

    Then, it was Abu Ghraib.

    After than, Afghanistan.

    Then it was floating ships.

    Now, we have eight [8] sites.

    What will we be asked to notice next: How many other sites are there?

    * * *

    The reason to maintain the illusion that this was isolated was to get commitments to contain the investigation and oversight to something that was artificially small.

    The real reason is that the White House wanted to tie Congress’ hands, and get them to a new line in the sand, without knowing the facts. This is the same as the issues with the WMD and Iraq: Get the Congress to commit to something that is incorrect; then make their agreement with that false statement the focus of the debate, not the original misconduct, deception, and lawlessness.

    All they’re doing is what the Hutton Inquiry did: change the subject form misconduct to those who accuse.

    Hutton used irrelevancies to discredit a valid concern, all the while failing to cast the light on where it was most needed.

    Durbin also raised valid points. The reason for going after Durbin, and demanding Durbin apologize, was: The abuses Durbin was talking about was going on; and now that there’s been an apology it undermines the momentum against DoD and the CIA.

    * * *

    We don’t know a lot about the eight [8] sites:

    How have these people been treated

    How bad has the information been

    What else isn’t the CIA not telling the Congress and public as required?

    What values do the American hope to assert with this

    How can anyone justify this conduct to newly indoctrinated military personnel?

    * * *

    They’re going to use the violations of the law as the “open secret” to justify no action until after 2008.

    Think of the timeline with the 2002 abuses. The Teguba report surfaced many months later.

    By 2005, we’ve had no action by the Senate on the intelligence problems.

    Realistically, they’re asking the world to accept a three [3] year delay from 2005, until after the 2008 election, to get to the bottom of this mess in Eastern Europe.

    But the laws were already in place. How quickly they were ignored; how slowly it is to clean up the mess. Never enough time to do it right, but always enough time and money to stonewall an investigation.

    * * *

    Every principle that they say they’re fighting for has been violated.

    Who are they to go beyond the law and then have us believe that they are asserting our way of life?

    They’re doing exactly what this nation had imposed on it, and was the catalyst for the Declaration of Independence, Revolutionary War, and Constitution.

    America was founded on the idea that the law would be a check on power. Now the power ignores the law, and uses barbarity and secrecy as a check to accountability.

    They’re using non-sense reasons to abuse power.

    There is no credible basis or a legal foundation for the US or the Security Counsel to plea for assistance or a resolution by pointing fingers at others, yet the US engages in the same conduct in concert with the allies of Eastern Europe.