Haven't read this yet, but here's a detailed account of current CIA operations...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable=true

Another example of a headline that amounts to false advertising, describing the actual content of the article in a misleading way. You offerend nothing of your own opinion to redeem it, and didn't even bother reading this garbage before foisting it on the rest of us. Please post something more worthwhile next time. You have littered, leaving unsightly clutter in our otherwise pristine forum.

Another example of a headline that amounts to false advertising, describing the actual content of the article in a misleading way. You offerend nothing of your own opinion to redeem it, and didn't even bother reading this garbage before foisting it on the rest of us. Please post something more worthwhile next time. You have littered, leaving unsightly clutter in our otherwise pristine forum.


Speaking of which I offer the above post.

Another example of a headline that amounts to false advertising, describing the actual content of the article in a misleading way. You offerend nothing of your own opinion to redeem it, and didn't even bother reading this garbage before foisting it on the rest of us. Please post something more worthwhile next time. You have littered, leaving unsightly clutter in our otherwise pristine forum.

Excuse me?

The title of the thread is Black Operations. The article I posted discusses "Black" Operations conducted by the CIA. The title of the article is "The Black Sites," so there is no "false advertising" going on here, as you claim.

I don't think the story, which I have now read, is garbage, either. The New Yorker has often led the way with its reporting on CIA operations in the War on Terror, and this story, while not really containing all that much new information, is a good read about many of the techniques people think are being used at the so-called "Black sites." If you think it's garbage, you'll need to explain why in a little more detail. Right now, your objections are either misguided or nonsensical.

"here's a detailed account of current CIA operations..."

"this story, while not really containing all that much new information, is a good read about many of the techniques people think are being used at the so-called "Black sites.""

That article tells us nothing reliable, nothing corroborated about the techniques actually being applied in our name in secret, far removed from any accountability whatsoever. You apparently wouldn't know what real journalism is if it hit you on the head until you nearly die.

It's a fluff piece, that's what bothers me. The last paragraph is also the last nail.

Haven't read this yet, but here's a detailed account of current CIA operations...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable=true
With reference to your comments in another thread, I am moved to say that posting an article without reading it is a bizarre combination of rude, ignorant, arrogant, and just plain foolish.

It's a fluff piece, that's what bothers me. The last paragraph is also the last nail.

How is it a "fluff piece?" It describes and questions various methods being used by the CIA.

With reference to your comments in another thread, I am moved to say that posting an article without reading it is a bizarre combination of rude, ignorant, arrogant, and just plain foolish.

You're entitled to your opinion. I posted it for information purposes (the discussion of intelligence operations and torture has been all the rage on this site lately) and to generate discussion. I find none of those reasons to "rude, ignorant, arrogant, and just plain foolish," though one could argue that you seeking out a thread just to hurl such accusations (presumably because you're miffed about a debate in another thread) is.

That article tells us nothing reliable, nothing corroborated about the techniques actually being applied in our name in secret, far removed from any accountability whatsoever.

The article quotes people who are familiar with and have been subjected to the treatment that is discussed. I find that reliable. Other sources, such as the Times or seperate New Yorker stories written by Seymour Hersh, bear out and echo a lot of what is reported here.

You apparently wouldn't know what real journalism is if it hit you on the head until you nearly die.

But you would? Please, tell us what real journalism is then? And while you're at it, please explain how you are more qualified to make that judgment than the editors of a serious news and culture magazine with a circulation approaching one million copies?

You apparently wouldn't know what real journalism is if it hit you on the head until you nearly die.
”
countezero: "But you would? Please, tell us what real journalism is then?"

Very simple: It's honest.


"And while you're at it, please explain how you are more qualified to make that judgment than the editors of a serious news and culture magazine with a circulation approaching one million copies?"

Just because the East Germans built 50,000 Trabants doesn't mean that they were just like Jaguars. American Idol is not equivalent to Shakespeare. What is our claim to fame? Bush is making it war, paranoia, economic and physical insecurity, poverty, and violence.

Oh, and did I mention it doesn't have to be this way? That is what American Patriotism was originally supposed to be about. If you can't understand this, then you have never paid attention. Ten Hut, Motherfuckers.

There is nothing new about that article, Counte. I mean, sure, it provides all sorts of fuel for political indictments about the U.S. government, but there's nothing new about any of it.

And like I said, that last paragraph is the last nail, invoking the name of Daniel Pearl to put a warm shine on the whole thing.

It may be an ice-cream sundae, and that doesn't mean it's not food. There's just no real nutrition about it.

Haven't read this yet, but here's a detailed account of current CIA operations...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer?printable=true
a detailed account of the most secretive organization outside the KGB? :confused:

all i can do is sit here shaking my head thinking where is P.T. barnum when you need him?

There is nothing new about that article, Counte.
why doesn't that surprise me?

why doesn't that surprise me?

To be honest, I wouldn't know where to start. The only thing that's surprising about it to me is the question of whether it's the New Yorker in general, or only Seymour Hersh that's been such a thorn in Bush's side. I had presumed the New Yorker in general; there was an excellent Hersh article about retired General Taguba a couple issues back, and he confirmed something new for me, that yes, there was in the old Abu Ghraib scandal evidence of outright rape and other such acts; while the administration tried to take a line of, "Okay, this is bad, but it could be worse," and while we all knew intuitively that it was worse, and while we all knew that the administration knew ....

I learned from Taguba that the first wave of materials included descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have not. (Taguba's report noted that photographs and videos were being held by the CID because of ongoing criminal investigations and their "extremely sensitive nature.") Taguba said that he saw "a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee." The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib. "It's bad enough that there were photographs of Arab men wearing women's panties," Taguba said. (Hersh)

Maybe the article was a bone thrown to the administration as a gesture of compromise for publishing Hersh's work. Maybe it was a reporter and editors thinking they could pull off something equally powerful as Hersh. Who knows? It really is a bizarrely useless piece, in my opinion, and capped off by the paragraph about "Danny", it becomes cotton candy at best: "Here's some information that isn't exactly original with a couple of anti-administration suggestions, and a heartstring-tugger at the end."
___________________

Notes:

Hersh, Seymour. "The General's Report". The New Yorker, June 25, 2007; p. 60. See http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/25/070625fa_fact_hersh

Cotton candy spun from Jewish-American sinew. An appeal to reason couched in potatoes. See what we have become? Daniel's Body, broken unheeded for nothing. Masticated for public consumption by the New Yorker

Tasty?

No? Then spit it out. One man's mushy rehash is another's feast of Breaking News.

Maybe the article was a bone thrown to the administration as a gesture of compromise for publishing Hersh's work.

Personally, I thought the piece was fair. But I also think it makes the administration look bad, which is why I am curious about your reaction to it...

There is nothing new about that article, Counte. I mean, sure, it provides all sorts of fuel for political indictments about the U.S. government, but there's nothing new about any of it.

I said that. But I think it's an interesting collection of lots of varied reporting spun into one, concise piece.

And like I said, that last paragraph is the last nail, invoking the name of Daniel Pearl to put a warm shine on the whole thing.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Invoking his name, which I admit was a little heavy-handed, is meant to be critical of the administration and the black operations. It's not to excuse them.

You apparently wouldn't know what real journalism is if it hit you on the head until you nearly die.

You've said that already. But you've yet to make an argument that supports it, or explain to us dunderheads what "real journalism" is in the world you occupy.

Very simple: It's honest.

So the story is a lie? I've stated it's fairly well-sourced and corroborated by a few other news organizations. If you have any real facts to present as to why it's not true (beyond your gut inclinations and rants), I'd be happy to hear and consider them.

"So the story is a lie?"

Because it is not "A rare look inside the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program", it is dishonest. Jane Meyer whipped up a batch of re-hashed quotes and re-writes, and the result has been sold as ground-breaking reporting.

"If you have any real facts to present as to why it's not true (beyond your gut inclinations and rants), I'd be happy to hear and consider them."

These facts can be confirmed by reviewing the article: It was pitched with a tacit claim that Jane Meyer has been "at large" in the gulag, or at least interviewing prisoners and guards, gleaning new "inside" information. If the article had instead been billed as a second-hand review of the subject, and if the article had included footnotes listing the sources, it would have been honest. I have no problem with the content of this article, it is the way that it is presented that is a corruption of journalism. Although you can learn these basic points of ethics in freshman Journalism classes, it shouldn't require any special education beyond a common understanding of what is honest and what is not.

As I have noted with previous [New Yorker] corruptions of honesty, this could be the meddling of a hack editor who is damaging the credibility of his paper. Even so, if this is the case, Jane Meyer cannot be honest and sincere with her readers while allowing her work to be misrepresented in this way.

A little more on the confessions of Khalid Sheik Mohammed:

He has now added to this a list of 30 other crimes and atrocities that he planned or put into action. It was published by the American government last week. There is nothing quite like this list outside the Moscow show trials that Stalin mounted; and if we accept Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession, we owe Stalin's ghost a handsome apology.

The evidence that he did in fact plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and President Musharraf has exactly the same value as the confessions of Yagoda, Yezhov and Beria, successive heads of the NKVD and KGB, that they had plotted to assassinate Comrade Stalin on the orders of British intelligence.

The evidence that Mohammed tried to blow up the Empire State Building, Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf, Big Ben and the Panama Canal, is exactly as good as the evidence that Trotskyist saboteurs and wreckers were responsible for the failings of the Soviet economy in the 1930s. In all these cases, we have the confessions of the men responsible. We have no other evidence ....

.... I don't doubt that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a very evil man. Come to that, many of victims of the Moscow show trials were themselves evil men, whose only objection to the Great Terror was that they were not directing it themselves. But to publish his confessions, obtained by those means, puts the American government on a level with Stalin's; to believe them or applaud them, puts us on the level of the most despicable fellow travellers. (Brown (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/03/truth_and_torture.html))

Now, wait a minute. I thought Saddam Hussein was the Stalinist.

Oh, right. I forgot. Hussein was Hitler. I guess that still leaves Stalin open for Dick, Bush & Co.
____________________

Notes:

Brown, Andrew. "Truth and Torture". GuardianUnlimited, March 19, 2007. See http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2007/03/truth_and_torture.html

Because it is not "A rare look inside the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program", it is dishonest. Jane Meyer whipped up a batch of re-hashed quotes and re-writes, and the result has been sold as ground-breaking reporting.

So because you don't think the look inside the CIA is "rare" the piece is dishonest? I'm not sure I follow that leap. Regardless, I think the look itself is rare, as the detail and collection of the facts in the story have rarely been assembled and presented in such a comprehensive format (newspapers don't have the space, TV the time). I also don't think the piece makes the claims anywhere that it is "ground-breaking." That's something you've just pulled out of the air...

These facts can be confirmed by reviewing the article: It was pitched with a tacit claim that Jane Meyer has been "at large" in the gulag, or at least interviewing prisoners and guards, gleaning new "inside" information.

The "at large" moniker you take issue with is just the section of the magazine the story contained. The New Yorker generally puts pieces there that don't fit under any other of its monikers. The interviews are first-hand. There's no way she could publish remarks in the New Yorker within quotes if they weren't. The magazine's fact-checking is notorious.

If the article had instead been billed as a second-hand review of the subject, and if the article had included footnotes listing the sources, it would have been honest.

Again, it's not second hand. And news magazines don't footnote and list sources because they aren't academic publications. The Seymour Hersh piece Tiassa mentioned isn't footnoted, either. Nor are the Abu-Ghraib stories he broke last year. The issue is whether you trust the magazine and the editors. In the case of the New Yorker, I do.

I have no problem with the content of this article, it is the way that it is presented that is a corruption of journalism. Although you can learn these basic points of ethics in freshman Journalism classes, it shouldn't require any special education beyond a common understanding of what is honest and what is not.

I think your posts show you know very little about the New Yorker or journalism as a whole...

I don't doubt that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is a very evil man. Come to that, many of victims of the Moscow show trials were themselves evil men, whose only objection to the Great Terror was that they were not directing it themselves.

But to publish his confessions, obtained by those means, puts the American government on a level with Stalin's; to believe them or applaud them, puts us on the level of the most despicable fellow travellers.

I agree. It's pretty bad to trumpet these claims. The odds of all of them being true are very small...

I'll relent on this one, countezero. There is high praise for this Meyer article, and the author, all around the media and blogosphere. With a subject still this secret, I'm afraid this is the closest we have gotten to a look inside, and we're starved for information that goes to the heart of who we really are in the USA.

Like I already said before, my disgust is not with the article, but with how it was hyped. It puts me off when a story is billed as "A rare look inside", yet doesn't tell me anything I haven't already been reading elsewhere for some time. I can agree that this was a useful review, but not a rare look inside. We have yet to get what I would call a look inside the War on Terror gulag, which must by definition include interviews with eyewitnesses to abductee treatment, who are willing to reveal what they personally saw.

I would need to read it again to be sure, but I thought this article included testimony from officials who were present during interrogations as well as people who have been interrogated?

Oh no, not reading! Not review! We don't need to be that sure, do we?

Even worse, just when I was ready to give up and say alright countezero, give the nice lady a Pulitzer for her honesty and groundbreaking originality- Right then, you go and rub it in like this. Then you force me to READ. AGAIN! Maybe you could find work in the gulag, inventing new ways to break terrorists: "Make hime review an article!".

Steeling myself, I moved my eyes left and right across the screen, allowing the words to register in my brain, and I did review the "testimony" of officials and abductees in Jane Mayer's breakthrough milestone once more. I looked carefully for a "scoop" in there. I looked attentively for something, anything that I have not already learned from the work of other journalists. Here is what Jane brought us in this article, in the order of appearance, except in the cases when she went in circles.

1. Daniel Pearl was Murdered. -OMG did you know that?

2. Khalid Sheik Mohammed's testimony is questionable because of suspicion of torture. -I did know that. How about you?

3. There is much secrecy surrounding the abduction and treatment of known and unknown people as part of the War on Terrorism. -Knew it.

4. There are allegations of illegalities including torture occuring in the course of special renditions and confinements. -Old news.

5. Khaled Mohammed is a Muslim, a terrorist, and has had a somewhat adventurous life. KSM attempted suicide in confinement. -Yep.

6. KSM's revealed treatment in prison has included sleep and sensory deprivation, hyperthermia, hypothermia, nakedness, hunger, offensive loud noise, humiliation by female interrogators, dog leashes, stress positions, and partial crucifixion. Other detainees have claimed enduring the same, also beatings with electrical cables, cuts, waterboarding, etc. -Old, sorry news.

7. Khaled al-Masri is a man innocent of terrorism who was abused, separated from detainees who may have endured greater suffering, and released. -Well known.

8. Poland participates in special renditions, and has concealed flight records and provided secret detention facilities. -Widely publicized, highly controversial subject in Poland.

9. Torturers are known to suffer PTSD. -Psych 101

10. Torture compromises detainee testimony. -Law 101

11. The US Government has ongoing problems deciding the legal status and terms of prosecution or release of unknown but significant numbers of detainees. Torture compromises legal matters. -Understood.

12. Daniel Pearl wouldn't have liked this. -That's a reasonable assumption.

I never knew Daniel Pearl, but I know he demonstrated getting out there in the big bad world and personally uncovering new information. Jane Mayer has done nothing of the kind in this article.

Is there value in Jane's work? Of course there is: A lot of Americans have not been paying attention, and maybe some journalistic hype is necessary for their learning. But is it honest to bill this as incisive reporting? Editors bark, you decide.

I'm sorry you think I was "rubbing" something in. I wasn't. All I was suggesting is that she interviewed the sort of primary sources you said she ought to. That those interviews offered nothing new is something I admitted a few pages back. Again, I like the story for its comprehensiveness and its detail, the latter of which there is a lot of given the freedom of the magazine format.

You still seem critical of the editors and the "billing" you think the piece was given because they put the word "rare" in the subhead. I think the work qualifies as "rare," regardless of the lack of newness of much of the information, as such reports are not written everyday. Is this Pulitzer material, etc? No, it's not. But it's a good story about a controversial subject that a lot of people will read. That's enough for me. Reporting doesn't always have to be incisive to be effective. In fact, some of the best reporting, in my opinion, are the secondary pieces that can congeal a lot of information, update things and confirm or deny initial suggestions.

countezero: "All I was suggesting is that she interviewed the sort of primary sources you said she ought to."

Although there's no evidence of that in the article, for the purpose of not picking over this forever, I'll swallow it.

"In fact, some of the best reporting, in my opinion, are the secondary pieces that can congeal a lot of information"

So let's just assume Mayer talked to insiders and victims while warming up these leftovers. It wasn't her fault that nobody had anything fresh to improve her casserole. :burp: :retch: I'm sorry. May I please be excused from the table? Thank you.

I'm all out of criticism for Jane Mayer and her revealing article. I have nothing derisive to sy anymore. So I have decided to throw in someone else's critique of something completely different, because I just ran across it, which made me recall tis thread, and I just can't help myself.

people
who can't write

interviewing people
who can't talk

for people
who can't read.
- Frank Zappa

You're entitled to your opinion. I posted it for information purposes .Without knowing what it contained in detail. Without knowing if it was reliable. Without knowing if it was a good basis for discussion.
I take it back. It was simply dumb.
I find none of those reasons to "rude, ignorant, arrogant, and just plain foolish," though one could argue that you seeking out a thread just to hurl such accusations (presumably because you're miffed about a debate in another thread) is.
I tracked down your opening post because I suspected that you could not be as noxious as you came across in that other thread. I hoped a scan of some of your other posts would reveal a thoughtful, erudite, informed poster. Ah well.:shrug:

Without knowing what it contained in detail. Without knowing if it was reliable. Without knowing if it was a good basis for discussion.
I take it back. It was simply dumb.

I knew what it contained, I'd read it about the story in blogs. I believed it was reliable. It was in the New Yorker, an extremely reputable magazine. I figured it would make for good discussion, as the torture subject has been discussed at length on this web site. In other words, I had plenty of reasons for posting that story and didn't do it on a whim...

I tracked down your opening post because I suspected that you could not be as noxious as you came across in that other thread. I hoped a scan of some of your other posts would reveal a thoughtful, erudite, informed poster. Ah well.:shrug:

Who's being noxious? Your only two contributions to this thread have been to slam me because you're mad about something I said in a totally unrelated thread. You've contributed nothing of substance...

Who's being noxious?
I don't think I've refuted, implicitly or explicitly, the notion that I am inherently noxious. I was addressing another point:
You've contributed nothing of substance...This is what I was saying about you. Feel free, as a pot, to call the kettle black. I can understand you feel defensive about being called on it. you can avoid this by being more thoughful in future.
Your only two contributions to this thread have been to slam me because you're mad about something I said in a totally unrelated thread. ..I am not mad about anything you have or have not said, here or anywhere else. I just take mild pleasure in attacking the kind of smugness you seem to specialise in.

This is what I was saying about you. Feel free, as a pot, to call the kettle black. I can understand you feel defensive about being called on it. you can avoid this by being more thoughful in future.


I've posted several things in this thread that are on-topic and deal with the substance of the issues being addressed here. You haven't.

I am not mad about anything you have or have not said, here or anywhere else. I just take mild pleasure in attacking the kind of smugness you seem to specialise in.

And in the process of amusing yourself, you've derailed a thread by making it about who's posting instead of what they're posting.