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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
a detailed account of the most secretive organization outside the KGB? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! all i can do is sit here shaking my head thinking where is P.T. barnum when you need him? why doesn't that surprise me?
Apologia, maybe? Or a bad attempt to match Hersh? 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.
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...
I said that. But I think it's an interesting collection of lots of varied reporting spun into one, concise piece. 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'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. 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.
