Secret CIA prisons confirmed by Polish and Romanian officials

[Blue Velvet]

The CIA operated secret prisons in Europe where terrorism suspects could be interrogated and were allegedly tortured, an official inquiry will conclude tomorrow.

Despite denials by their governments, senior security officials in Poland and Romania have confirmed to investigators for the Council of Europe that their countries were used to hold some of America's most important prisoners captured after 9/11 in secret.

None of the prisoners had access to the Red Cross and many were subject to what George Bush has called the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation methods.

...


The full extent of British logistic support for the extraordinary rendition programme was first disclosed by the Guardian, which reported in September 2005 that aircraft operated by the CIA had flown in and out of UK civilian and military airports hundreds of times.

The 19-month inquiry by the council, which is responsible for promoting human rights across Europe, was headed by Dick Marty, a Swiss senator and former state prosecutor. He said: "What was previously just a set of allegations is now proven: large numbers of people have been abducted from various locations across the world and transferred to countries where they have been persecuted and where it is known that torture is common practice."

His report says that there is "now enough evidence to state that secret detention facilities run by the CIA did exist in Europe from 2003 to 2005, in particular in Poland and Romania".

Mr Marty has told Channel 4's Dispatches, in a report to be broadcast on Monday, that although the jails were run "directly and exclusively" by the CIA with local officials barred from access the prisons were only possible because of "collaboration at various institutional levels of America's many partner countries".

He succeeded in confirming details of the CIA's closely-guarded secret by using his own "intelligence methods", which included tracking and persuading to talk intelligence agents on both sides of the Atlantic, including serving members of the CIA's counter-terrorism centre.

"All the conclusions drawn in this report rely upon multiple sources," he said.

He concludes that in eastern Europe, the CIA had trusted "point-men" who alone knew about the prisons; their partners were Poland and Romania's military intelligence agencies who reported directly to then president Aleksander Kwasniewski in Poland, presidents Ion Iliescu and then Traian Basescu in Romania, and their nearest security advisers.

This meant that civilian intelligence agencies, parliamentary oversight committees, and even the countries' prime ministers could "credibly deny" knowledge of the CIA facilities.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2097935,00.html



So there we go. Denied access to the Red Cross or Red Crescent. Tucked away from legal sight by spooks and tortured... gulags.

[skunk]

And when do we hear what the official UK stance is on this? Either it happened with the full knowledge and illegal compliance of the PM, or somebody else was making illegal decisions on their own, and using the full facilities of the State to further them, in which case they should be tried for treason.

[Blue Velvet]

And when do we hear what the official UK stance is on this?

There was no immediate comment from Nato.


Most people will be more interested in Big Brother. ;)

[Thanatoast]

There are days it bugs me that Bush, Cheney, et al. will live out their days in luxury and ease.

[Blue Velvet]

Have shows like 24 inured people to this kind of behaviour?

[Thanatoast]

Have shows like 24 inured people to this kind of behaviour?
Worse, people wonder "Hey, if a fictional character can do it, why not our own government?! If the Democrats weren't such wimps we'd've saved the world by now." Just like on 24.

It doesn't inure people to torture, it disappoints them that Bush isn't allowed to be as cool and effective as Jack Bauer.

[SMM]

There are days it bugs me that Bush, Cheney, et al. will live out their days in luxury and ease.

Maybe it will be short-lived.

[skunk]

Have shows like 24 inured people to this kind of behaviour?The resurrection of Kiefer Sutherland's career has cost an awful lot of people their lives and liberty. Was it worth it, I ask myself?

[mactastic]

Have shows like 24 inured people to this kind of behaviour?
Hell, the name Jack Bauer has come up in Republican debates. They style themselves after him.

It's funny, the GOP professes to despise "Hollyweird" but the second an actor so much as flirts with them, they swoon like a schoolgirl at a boy-band concert.

[zimv20]

so, the romanians give a lesson in open gov't to the US. never thought i'd see the day.

[Dont Hurt Me]

The U.S. has sunken to new lows but look at the small group running the country with the republicans help. All should be held accountable, we are being sold out in so many ways by the current cheeses in charge it aint funny. This is just more of the same, stomping all over what we are suppose to represent to the world. Bush & Cheney, destroying this countrys reputation.

[FFTT]

I think we'll find out that "contractors" will be blamed for any improper
handling of detainees.

Their funding is classified of course and I sincerely doubt there will
be any evidence tying them directly to anyone critical to this administration.

[solvs]

There are days it bugs me that Bush, Cheney, et al. will live out their days in luxury and ease.

Universally hated. Their departure from office something even their former supporters can't wait for. History judging them as at best incompetent, at worse as bad as the evil they claim to be fighting. Even more so for Cheney, who's barely above 20% approval. Frankly, I'd rather die poor and loved.

If I were them, I'd even settle for less hated.

[it5five]

Have shows like 24 inured people to this kind of behaviour?

I think it has. Which is unfortunate, since this type of behavior is absolutely reprehensible and 24 is a god-awful show.

[Swarmlord]

I think it has. Which is unfortunate, since this type of behavior is absolutely reprehensible and 24 is a god-awful show.

Is it the whole good guys defeating the bad guys that bothers you? It's kind of been a recurring theme throughout the history of mankind.

[Blue Velvet]

Is it the whole good guys defeating the bad guys that bothers you? It's kind of been a recurring theme throughout the history of mankind.

If only life were so simple. No, to me, it's people being whisked away with no process of law, tortured and kept away from even the Red Cross. If you think you're the good guys, your understanding of the issues is facile.

[Swarmlord]

If only life were so simple. No, to me, it's people being whisked away with no process of law, tortured and kept away from even the Red Cross. If you think you're the good guys, your understanding of the issues is facile.

And if you think that the other side is, then your understanding is flawed.

[FFTT]

The idea is to lead by example.

Only this Neocon agenda is leading our country down the toilet.

I find it amazing that anyone is still gullible enough to support what these
criminals are doing.

[Blue Velvet]

And if you think that the other side is, then your understanding is flawed.

Did I say that? Everyone is complicit... there are no white hats anywhere.

And what's more, I don't even think there is 'the other side'... it's not as simple as that. Instead there's a loose coalition of interests that have their own separate agendas; some of them more justified than others.

This infantile and unsophisticated bipolar world view is just nonsense to keep you cosy and safe with your thoughts in your beds at night. The axis of evil is hogwash and the USA is not the rebels vs. the empire.

[adroit]

Is it the whole good guys defeating the bad guys that bothers you? It's kind of been a recurring theme throughout the history of mankind.

What side are you?

[Queso]

Is it the whole good guys defeating the bad guys that bothers you? It's kind of been a recurring theme throughout the history of mankind.

And if you think that the other side is, then your understanding is flawed.
I bet you'd have loved to live in Pinochet's Chile wouldn't you?

[Swarmlord]

Did I say that? Everyone is complicit... there are no white hats anywhere.

And what's more, I don't even think there is 'the other side'... it's not as simple as that. Instead there's a loose coalition of interests that have their own separate agendas; some of them more justified than others.

This infantile and unsophisticated bipolar world view is just nonsense to keep you cosy and safe with your thoughts in your beds at night. The axis of evil is hogwash and the USA is not the rebels vs. the empire.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. :cool:

[Swarmlord]

I bet you'd have loved to live in Pinochet's Chile wouldn't you?

If I was Pinochet, then sure.

[Queso]

If I was Pinochet, then sure.
So what you're saying is that you want to be a brutal evil dictator who tortures, kidnaps and murders his enemies or indeed any who think differently to how you see things?

Yep, I see how you voted Bush/Cheney now.

[Blue Velvet]

I find your lack of faith disturbing. :cool:


That's no response at all. I have no faith in your administration and your corruption-riddled body-politic for good reason i.e. the track record.

[skunk]

Is it the whole good guys defeating the bad guys that bothers you? It's kind of been a recurring theme throughout the history of mankind.Either you are just playing Devil's Advocate because you haven't got anything better to do, or you are seriously out of touch with reality.
1 We are not the good guys: good guys do not outsource the torture of innocent people, do not illegally invade and occupy other countries and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths
2 We have signally failed to defeat anybody
3 This imaginary theme has not recurred "throughout the history of mankind"

Just which part of this fantasy are you going to defend? Or do you simply not care what you are saying? Your style of argument is getting to be very similar to that of Matthew 24.

[Swarmlord]

Either you are just playing Devil's Advocate because you haven't got anything better to do, or you are seriously out of touch with reality.
1 We are not the good guys: good guys do not outsource the torture of innocent people, do not illegally invade and occupy other countries and cause hundreds of thousands of deaths
2 We have signally failed to defeat anybody
3 This imaginary theme has not recurred "throughout the history of mankind"

Just which part of this fantasy are you going to defend? Or do you simply not care what you are saying? Your style of argument is getting to be very similar to that of Matthew 24.

Exactly who is living the fantasy? America will continue to project its power all over the world as it sees fit now and decades after you and I aren't on this planet. Anyone that thinks this policy will cease even if the other party assumes control for a term or two is living a fantasy.

You should get off that illegal war business or it will eat you up. Either the controlling authority for whatever jurisdiction over this so called law we violated which made this illegal should press charges or this too is a fantasy you have a death grip on.

[skunk]

Exactly who is living the fantasy? America will continue to project its power all over the world as it sees fit now and decades after you and I aren't on this planet. Anyone that thinks this policy will cease even if the other party assumes control for a term or two is living a fantasy.The argument is not whether the US is going to throw its weight around for a few decades more (until the rest of the world gets fed up with subsidising their own oppression), but whether this makes the US the "good guys", as you so gormlessly put it. I submit that it takes more than brute force to achieve moral superiority. How about you?

You should get off that illegal war business or it will eat you up. Either the controlling authority for whatever jurisdiction over this so called law we violated which made this illegal should press charges or this too is a fantasy you have a death grip on.Again, just because there is at present no force able to coerce the US into obeying the laws governing international relations that the US itself helped to draft, does not mean that the US is not acting illegally. Isn't it utterly shameful that the US used Saddam Hussein's alleged non-compliance with UN Resolutions as a pretext for war while at the very same time the US fails to comply itself with the rules of the UN? Your arguments have no merit and no credibility. But then that's hardly news, is it?

[leekohler]

The argument is not whether the US is going to throw its weight around for a few decades more (until the rest of the world gets fed up with subsidising their own oppression), but whether this makes the US the "good guys", as you so gormlessly put it. I submit that it takes more than brute force to achieve moral superiority. How about you?

Again, just because there is at present no force able to coerce the US into obeying the laws governing international relations that the US itself helped to draft, does not mean that the US is not acting illegally. Isn't it utterly shameful that the US used Saddam Hussein's alleged non-compliance with UN Resolutions as a pretext for war while at the very same time the US fails to comply itself with the rules of the UN? Your arguments have no merit and no credibility. But then that's hardly news, is it?

Well no- and I'm beginning to think Swarmy might just barely be on this side of sanity. ;)

[leekohler]

Is it the whole good guys defeating the bad guys that bothers you? It's kind of been a recurring theme throughout the history of mankind.

What bad guys? Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? We seem to be encouraging more recruits for those guys every passing day! We're beating ourselves at the moment, due to short-sighted "leadership" that is more interested in serving their own interests, rather than our country's.

[Queso]

Exactly who is living the fantasy? America will continue to project its power all over the world as it sees fit now and decades after you and I aren't on this planet. Anyone that thinks this policy will cease even if the other party assumes control for a term or two is living a fantasy.
The dollar is fast falling into the toilet. Your country is spending hundreds of billions attempting to maintain its military presence, hundreds of billions it doesn't have. Both your government and your economy is bleeding money. Sooner or later this is all going to catch up with you big time.

You've had a nice go, just like we did before you and the Spanish before us. But already the signs are pointing to it coming to an end. The next hundred years belong elsewhere, probably the Far East.

[carbonmotion]

The dollar is fast falling into the toilet. Your country is spending hundreds of billions attempting to maintain its military presence, hundreds of billions it doesn't have. Both your government and your economy is bleeding money. Sooner or later this is all going to catch up with you big time.

You've had a nice go, just like we did before you and the Spanish before us. But already the signs are pointing to it coming to an end. The next hundred years belong elsewhere, probably the Far East.

I read the entire thread and feel like both side of the argument gives me a hug headache. You guys should log on to lexis nexus and do some research on your own and your opposition's perspectives, then preform a thought experiment in your head on why the U.S. is the way it is. At a minimum reading some articles in Foreign Affairs or the Economist should help. Ranting about how the US government is going to fall or the position opposite that without making credible points is a waste of time.

EDIT: I don't mean all of you guys. Some of you guys actually make pretty good arguments. To the ones that do not, I direct the above passage.

Just who do you guys think you're going to convince by arguing like little kids?

Please think a little before you guys type!

[Queso]

Ranting about how the US government is going to fall or the position opposite that without making credible points is a waste of time.
My point is that the current level of US military spend is completely unsustainable. The USA isn't going to fall, but it's either going to have to get used to dealing with other world powers on an equal footing rather than, as asserted above, "projecting its power over the world" or it can carry on as now and have a dramatic fall from its current dominance when the money runs out.

As for my sources, the US budget deficit is a good start, along with the 40% rise in national debt under Bush and a rising trade deficit with the rest of the world.

[Swarmlord]

<snip>Ranting about how the US government is going to fall or the position opposite that without making credible points is a waste of time.<snip>

I agree with you on that. It's going to be a long time before a solution to global terrorism is found and implemented, but I certainly don't subscribe to the we are the bad guys, we're losing, or this will result in the downfall of the United States belief.

Something that's festered for over 1,000 years isn't going to be solved with just a military campaign. I look forward to the time when the elected Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet with minimal assistance.

[carbonmotion]

As for my sources, the US budget deficit is a good start, along with the 40&#37; rise in national debt under Bush and a rising trade deficit with the rest of the world.

If the US experiences an economic depression do you think it will have a large, medium, or small impact on european and central/ east asian states' economy?

The only way that the US economy can become severely depressed is by being boycotted by our economic partners. If you believe the impact is large, then is it in the best interest of nations around the world to let the US economy become depressed?

[carbonmotion]

...I certainly don't subscribe to the we are the bad guys, we're losing, or this will result in the downfall of the United States belief."
Do you mean losing the war on terror or the war in iraq?

Something that's festered for over 1,000 years isn't going to be solved with just a military campaign.
What has been festering for over a 1000 years, please explain?

[Ugg]

I agree with you on that. It's going to be a long time before a solution to global terrorism is found and implemented, but I certainly don't subscribe to the we are the bad guys, we're losing, or this will result in the downfall of the United States belief.

Something that's festered for over 1,000 years isn't going to be solved with just a military campaign. I look forward to the time when the elected Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet with minimal assistance.

The only government in Iraq is a puppet government. It can't even maintain control in Baghdad, much less up north.

This illegal war is going to cost who knows how much money but it looks like it could be in the trillions. bushco's aggression will be the downfall of the US, history teaches us this only too well. As has been mentioned, the US dollar is becoming worthless due to continued US deficit spending and distrust in the US as a viable economic system.

You can bleat all you want but in the end it's your life and the life of your children that will be sacrificed.

[JurgenWigg]

I think he's talking about the christian/muslim and sunni/shiia conflicts where terrorism and total warfare in the region started.

Didn't Bush come out in a press conference admitting secret CIA prisons like 6 months ago?

[mactastic]

Something that's festered for over 1,000 years isn't going to be solved with just a military campaign.
Wait, first you say this has festered for over 1,000 years...I look forward to the time when the elected Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet with minimal assistance.
Then you suggest that this festering will go away within your lifetime.

Somewhat incongrous views, wouldn't you say?

Besides, what happened to the flowers and candy? We were promised by the Very Serious Beltway Bloviating Crowd that something that had festered for over 1,000 years would be solved quickly with just a military campaign...

[skunk]

I think he's talking about the christian/muslim and sunni/shiia conflicts where terrorism and total warfare in the region started.Until we stuck our oar in, the Christians, Jews, Sunnis and Shia all seemed to live together in relative harmony. What "terrorism and total warfare" would you be referring to?

[Queso]

If the US experiences an economic depression do you think it will have a large, medium, or small impact on european and central/ east asian states' economy?

The only way that the US economy can become severely depressed is by being boycotted by our economic partners. If you believe the impact is large, then is it in the best interest of nations around the world to let the US economy become depressed?
It's not a case of other nations' interests. Both the US Government and public are borrowing money at a ridiculous rate. The consumer-led bubble has kept the economy temporarily stable, but there's only so far that will stretch before either the spending reins must be pulled in or the tax burden raised. Either action could force US consumers tightening their belts and push the economy into recession.

With regards to the effect on the rest of the world, there will be a correction, but the EU looks well placed to weather any US turbulence, so along with EU trade the growing Chinese domestic demand plus increasing demand from Asian markets should provide China with sufficient customers to continue their own growth. I'd say out of the major economies the USA is the one looking most shaky (after Japan, but that's been the case for a while), which is one of the main reasons the dollar has been falling so sharply over the past year.

[carbonmotion]

It's not a case of other nations' interests. Both the US Government and public are borrowing money at a ridiculous rate. The consumer-led bubble has kept the economy temporarily stable, but there's only so far that will stretch before either the spending reins must be pulled in or the tax burden raised. Either action could force US consumers tightening their belts and push the economy into recession.

With regards to the effect on the rest of the world, there will be a correction, but the EU looks well placed to weather any US turbulence, so along with EU trade the growing Chinese domestic demand plus increasing demand from Asian markets should provide China with sufficient customers to continue their own growth. I'd say out of the major economies the USA is the one looking most shaky (after Japan, but that's been the case for a while), which is one of the main reasons the dollar has been falling so sharply over the past year.

So to sum up your argument; if the US economy falters, it will leave the rest of the developed and developing world with minimum damage... it this a correct summery of your position?

[Queso]

So to sum up your argument; if the US economy falters, it will leave the rest of the developed and developing world with minimum damage... it this a correct summery of your position?
Far from it, but the rest of the world will recover from the correction quicker than the USA itself will.

[skunk]

So to sum up your argument; if the US economy falters, it will leave the rest of the world virtually unscathed...Of course it won't: the repercussions would be enormous everywhere. But there isn't much anyone else can do about it. It would have been a lot better if Bushco hadn't been spending like there's no tomorrow - which he may well believe - or at least investing the money into something more productive than a misguided geopolitical adventure.

[carbonmotion]

Far from it, but the rest of the world will recover from the correction quicker than the USA itself will.

Could you define the term "correction"; are you trying to use the term as an economist would or does it have a more personalized definition?

[carbonmotion]

Of course it won't: the repercussions would be enormous everywhere. But there isn't much anyone else can do about it. It would have been a lot better if Bushco hadn't been spending like there's no tomorrow - which he may well believe - or at least investing the money into something more productive than a misguided geopolitical adventure.

Well yes... this much is obvious to everyone in the states by now, I sincerely believe

[leekohler]

Well yes... this much is obvious to everyone in the states by now, I sincerely believe

It doesn't seem obvious to Swarmlord. ;)

[Queso]

Could you define the term "correction"; are you trying to use the term as an economist would or does it have a more personalized definition?
I mean it in the same way as a stock market correction. The global economy is going to slow with some countries going into recession, but we're not going to see a global crash as in the early 90s.

[it5five]

Is it the whole good guys defeating the bad guys that bothers you? It's kind of been a recurring theme throughout the history of mankind.

Oh, if only the world were so simple. There isn't two clearly defined sides to everything Swarmlord. You may actually have to think sometimes. Yes, I know, it may have been a while since you've had to, along with the rest of the right-wing, but maybe you'll get it one day.

History is written by the victors, so of course the "good guys" always win. If you want to read history from a different point of view (which you really should), then I'd recommend going to your library and finding "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen.

[carbonmotion]

I mean it in the same way as a stock market correction. The global economy is going to slow with some countries going into recession, but we're not going to see a global crash as in the early 90s.

Can you give me the economic reasoning behind your statement? Specifically...

"The global economy is going to slow with some countries going into recession, but we're not going to see a global crash as in the early 90s."

1) You predict that "...The global economy is going to slow with some countries going into recession, but we're not going to see a global crash as in the early 90s...." May I ask where the academic evidence for this assertion?

2) In what ways are you applying the the term "correction"? How do you apply a term which describes a stock market drop of 10-20% drop to a decrease in performance in global economics? There are many standards to measure global economic health, which one are you using?

I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say, thanks in advance for clearing it up.

[carbonmotion]

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen.

I recommend...
A People's History of the United States by political scientist Howard Zinn

this book is a classic staple reader for first year college students in history 101 and ap history course all around the world.

[skunk]

ap history course all around the world.Is that like World Series Baseball?

[carbonmotion]

Is that like World Series Baseball?

it's my understanding that ap history is taught all around the world... because there are american high schools all around the world.

[Swarmlord]

Do you mean losing the war on terror or the war in iraq?


What has been festering for over a 1000 years, please explain?

I don't subscribe to the idea that we've lost the war. We're having difficulty in the rebuilding effort afterwards, but soon it will be the native's problem.

Sunni vs. Shia and Muslim vs. JudeoChristianity and the conflicts that have been initiated over regions because of it.

[Queso]

Can you give me the economic reasoning behind your statement? Specifically...

"The global economy is going to slow with some countries going into recession, but we're not going to see a global crash as in the early 90s."

1) You predict that "...The global economy is going to slow with some countries going into recession, but we're not going to see a global crash as in the early 90s...." May I ask where the academic evidence for this assertion?
Reports from Schroeders, Deloittes and Smith Barney over the past few months have all pointed to the global economy coming in for a soft landing. Commodity prices are rising, but for the majority of countries this is offset by the falling dollar as that is the currency most commodities are traded in. Of course there are opposing views, but the general consensus amongst analysts is that outside of the United States things are reasonably healthy, especially in Asia where they are still saving far more money than they are either spending or investing.

2) In what ways are you applying the the term "correction"? How do you apply a term which describes a stock market drop of 10-20% drop to a decrease in performance in global economics? There are many standards to measure global economic health, which one are you using?
I'm using that word to differentiate from a crash, that's all.

[skunk]

Sunni vs. Shia and Muslim vs. JudeoChristianity and the conflicts that have been initiated over regions because of it.Could you be more specific? Simply repeating this empty mantra does not illuminate. You said "1,000 years". Which conflicts are you talking about?

[carbonmotion]

Reports from Schroeders, Deloittes and Smith Barney over the past few months have all pointed to the global economy coming in for a soft landing. Commodity prices are rising, but for the majority of countries this is offset by the falling dollar as that is the currency most commodities are traded in. Of course there are opposing views, but the general consensus amongst analysts is that outside of the United States things are reasonably healthy, especially in Asia where they are still saving far more money than they are either spending or investing.

Can you show me some of these reports that says "...consensus amongst analysts is that outside of the United States things are reasonably healthy, especially in Asia where they are still saving far more money than they are either spending or investing?"

[Queso]

Can you show me some of these reports that says "...consensus amongst analysts is that outside of the United States things are reasonably healthy, especially in Asia where they are still saving far more money than they are either spending or investing?"
Look, I'm paraphrasing reports that sometimes run into 20-odd pages into a paragraph. I certainly don't have the time to go through these things, which are normally distributed either as graphical PDFs or as audio briefings, and type great sections in to give you a transcript. As with all of these type of reports, there's a lot of hedging of bets going on and a lot of it is open to interpretation, but putting the pieces together the conclusion I drew was that the effects of rising commodity prices will be most felt in countries trading in US Dollars, since they don't have the benefit of the dollar's weakness to offset the rise. The levels of debt in the US is also a major problem, along with the enormous budget deficit.

If you wish to check my source material, typing "Global Economic Outlook xxxxx" where xxxxx is any of the company names I previously mentioned into Google will find the reports in seconds, since they are freely available.

[Ugg]

Can you show me some of these reports that says "...consensus amongst analysts is that outside of the United States things are reasonably healthy, especially in Asia where they are still saving far more money than they are either spending or investing?"

For someone who seems to know what's best for the world, you seem to take a rather myopic view of what's happening around the world.

[carbonmotion]

For someone who seems to know what's best for the world, you seem to take a rather myopic view of what's happening around the world.

So it's myopic for me to understand their argument before I make my counter argument?

I never said I know what's best for the world, I am expressing my global economic and political outlook as is the people that I chat with on this forum. I have expressed it in a very casual and respectful manner on this thread. If anyone disagrees, feel free to point it out to me. Furthermore, I don't think you know what my world view is. You know that I'm America and that along with several other comments on this thread you've pieced together an assumption of my world view. I'd like to ask you to reserve your judgement and instead ask me questions about my views. Thank you.

[carbonmotion]

Look, I'm paraphrasing reports that sometimes run into 20-odd pages into a paragraph. I certainly don't have the time to go through these things, which are normally distributed either as graphical PDFs or as audio briefings, and type great sections in to give you a transcript. As with all of these type of reports, there's a lot of hedging of bets going on and a lot of it is open to interpretation, but putting the pieces together the conclusion I drew was that the effects of rising commodity prices will be most felt in countries trading in US Dollars, since they don't have the benefit of the dollar's weakness to offset the rise. The levels of debt in the US is also a major problem, along with the enormous budget deficit.

If you wish to check my source material, typing "Global Economic Outlook xxxxx" where xxxxx is any of the company names I previously mentioned into Google will find the reports in seconds, since they are freely available.

I finally found some time to read the Deloitte Global Outlook Report; it's pretty much the standard fair repeated by economics think tanks in washington and CNBC. Being an avid reader in international relations and having interned at the economics intelligence unit early in college, I agree that the U.S. economy is facing and will continue to will some challenges arising from mismanagement. Still, I don't see how you can draw your conclusions from the information given without increasing the importance of some data sets and flat out ignoring the relevance of other data sets. The data does not fit your predictions. I'll be out of town for the week, I probably will forget about this thread. However, feel free to private mail me if you want to continue this discussion.

[aquajet]

I recommend...
A People's History of the United States by political scientist Howard Zinn

It ought to be required reading for high school seniors, as long as the curriculum provides students with a basic knowledge of the events it discusses beforehand. But of course the jingoists will claim it's propaganda. We certainly wouldn't want state-sanctioned corruption of our children.

[BoyBach]

Back on topic.

It appears that the Police are reading from the same hymn sheet as the Blair government:

A statement released by Acpo following the inquiry said: "The issue of rendition has been aired extensively in the media and has featured prominently in official reports over a recent period of months.

"Mr Todd has now examined all of the information available relating to this issue and has concluded that there is indeed no evidence to substantiate Liberty's allegations.

"There was no evidence that UK airports were used to transport people by the CIA for torture in other countries."

- BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6736227.stm)

[skunk]

Back on topic.

It appears that the Police are reading from the same hymn sheet as the Blair government:



- BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6736227.stm)Implausible Deniability. Our police have been politicised.

[zimv20]

Back on topic.
"There was no evidence that UK airports were used to transport people by the CIA for torture in other countries."
SO many ways that can be parsed for obfuscation.

"was no evidence". maybe there still is.

"UK airports were used". maybe still are being used.

"transport people". people? they're subhuman terrorists!

"torture". nah, that's just extreme interrogation.

"by the CIA". actually, those were contractors doing the transporting.

[SMM]

I did not vote for these idiots. I take extreme exception to them stripping the American people of their dignity. We have lost it, friends. The world perceives us for what we are; an immoral, imperialistic bully.

[solvs]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.
You know that was Darth Vader's line right? The bad guy. He was the bad guy in that one.

You guys should log on to lexis nexus and do some research on your own and your opposition's perspectives
Care to be a little more specific? Not saying you're wrong, but a maybe you can say exactly what you're referring to. We appreciate that here, thanks. :)

Well yes... this much is obvious to everyone in the states by now, I sincerely believe
Not everybody, you'd be surprised.

I don't subscribe to the idea that we've lost the war.
Then you haven't been paying attention.

[takao]

Is that like World Series Baseball?

i just thought the same reading it ;)