 |
We all remember the succesfull Bourne series in film which features such clandestine operations as treadstone and blackbrier, it appears that a real life operation of similar proportions may have existed
Source: CIA hired Blackwater to help hunt al Qaeda leaders - CNN.com
This makes me wonder where do authors get their ideas and where does the cia get its inspiration
I believe a lot of the movies are based on things the government covers up. I know quit a few movies have been banned before anybody ever heard of them because they had high tech or some sort of other secrets the government didn't want to get out. Mostly coincidence but still depicted something the government was working on. Things like high tech military planes, telepathy, remote viewing, UFO's and many other things.
Yes, the devices depicted in the Terminator series have a family resemblance to the predator drone and other devices and I sincerely hope they are not working on skynet. Are we to expect that the current crop of high tech movies are really propaganda preparing us for the worst or are they just the result of an overworked imagination?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I think in a way because they want us to believe it is all entertainment and make things appear to be too unrealistic in one sense while making them look realistic in another so we get complacent with it all in the long run.
Remember Will Smith in "Enemy of the State?"
G&P
Yes perhaps one of his better rolesQuote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Remember that big stink when it was revealed by Leon Penyata that Cheney had requested the CIA not tell Congress about plans in their preliminary stages that were not being implemented ? Well this apparently was the plan .
Now why would the CIA need to outsource activities they should be able to do themselves ? How about the fact that Congress through the last 25 years and even longer has done all they can to gut the CIA HUMINT capability . Clintoon administration policies in particular forbade the CIA from recruiting people who were not squeeky clean . That left the CIA bereft of all capability on the ground for gathering intelligence about terrorist groups.
Congressman and later Senator Torch Torricelli from NJ;acting on behalf of his "girl friend " Bianca Jagger , went so far as to disclose secrets he obtained while a member of the Intelligence Committee related to the CIA recruiting people who had been involved in killing and other unsavory activities (as if that is news ).
His allegatgations specifically involved the killing of an American hotel owner named Michael DeVine and a Guatemalan guerilla named Efrain Bamaca Velazquez.
CIA sources decided to stop giving information for fear they would be outed.
A 1997 report by the House Intelligence Committee later concluded :
"None of the allegations raised by Rep. Torricelli in the March 22, 1995 letter to the president [Clinton] or subsequent public statements concerning the involvement of the CIA in the DeVine and Bamaca deaths in Guatemala have proved true.”
But still the Clintoids made moves to gut the CIA's ability to recruit "bad guys " into their service. The net effect was that just when we needed those bad guys ,with an understanding of what AQ and jihadistan were up to on the ground ,all we had was spy in the sky intel and a bunch of boy scout desk jockies and careerists bureaucrats in the CIA.
The CIA was left with relying on the word and capability of foreign intel services like the Paki ISI ,or outsourcing ,at a time when we had zippo knowledge of the enemy that had just performed an attempted coup de gras on the US government and economy ,killing 3,000 civilians and military personel in the attempt .
Somehow under those circumstances I can't get too worked up about the fact that the CIA was considering hiring people with the ability to blow the scum away.
I have always said they will lie to get away with murder. I believe a lot of the stories of how over 50 people and a cat were killed involving Clinton cover ups. I can't say Clintons were directly involved but I do believe it was government cover up.
Marilyn Monroe's aunt says she was killed too because they knew she knew all the secrets President Kennedy told her. The aunt said that she was on the phone with her and heard a knock on the door. Then the phone call was cut off. She said that Marilyn was excited because her and Joe DiMaggio were getting remarried and going to go on a Honeymoon in Mexico.
The Kennedys and the death of a lover ? Who'da thunk it ?
Here is an example of how the American left undermines our security and made it difficult for the CIA to do their job.
From the Washington Compost :
washingtonpost.comQuote:
The Justice Department recently questioned military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay about whether photographs of CIA personnel, including covert officers, were unlawfully provided to detainees charged with organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to sources familiar with the investigation.
Investigators are looking into allegations that laws protecting classified information were breached when three lawyers showed their clients the photographs, the sources said. The lawyers were apparently attempting to identify CIA officers and contractors involved in the agency's interrogation of al-Qaeda suspects in facilities outside the United States, where the agency employed harsh techniques.
If detainees at the U.S. military prison in Cuba are tried, either in federal court or by a military commission, defense lawyers are expected to attempt to call CIA personnel to testify.
The photos were taken by researchers hired by the John Adams Project, a joint effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers...
When Tom Clancy wrote The Hunt for Red October, he was called in to a Congressional intelligence committee for questioning. Apparently many of the details in his story actually happened or were similar to stuff that had happened. The USA really did get their hands on a Russian Akula-class sub, and really did hide it in some lake somewhere to study it. And Congress was afraid that someone had given Clancy the information, because his story was so similar to reality.
As it turned out, Clancy, who happens to be an expert on military history, military hardware and military operations (and has written non-fiction books on these subjects) just took his knowledge and built a plausible fictional story that just so happened to match something that really happened.
So yes, sometimes reality really does mirror art. And sometimes it's the other way around.
Elliot
Great, so if I want to know what's going on in the US, I will just read the latest fiction it won't be as outlandish as what is actually happeningQuote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Even strange than that ; in his book Debt of Honor ,a Japanese pilot flys his jet into the Capitol Building during a Joint Session of Congress that the President ,his cabinet ,the Joint Chiefs of Staff ,and most of SCOTUS was attending .This was written in 1994.
Yep. Sometimes this stuff is just to crazy to make up.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Seriously, though, if you are methodical about your research for a story and have a good understanding of the FACTS that you have researched, the story you come up with can be very realistic... so much so that SOME of it could happen. And very well might happen (or did happen).
Elliot
True. The similarities to 9/11 are scary.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
On the other hand, just months before 9/11 took place, best-seeling science fiction author David Weber wrote a story called "Flag in Exile" in which a terrorist acct takes place as well... the destruction of a sky-scraper that was just opening to the public. While it wasn't airplanes that did it (it was religious terrorists hidden in the construction crews) the similarities to 9/11 were pretty stark. Weber said that when he was writing the book he was trying to think of the worst thing that he could imagine happening as a terrorist attack against civillians and then wrote it down. Then 9/11 happened, and he realized that his imagination was no real match for the reality of what sick people could actually come up with. He delayed the book's release by a few months, and also put a statement in the book honoring the 9/11 victims, the heroism of the first responders (cops, firefighters, EMTs, etc.) and decrying the terrorists.
In any case, my point is how life does sometimes imitate art, and vice versa. It did in this case.
Elliot
Hello:
I heard the CIA wrote a memo telling GW Bush that Bin Laden was going to attack the US... He used the memo for toilet paper...
Yup. Truth IS stranger than fiction.
excon
Speaking of the CIA. It looks like Leon Penyata threatened to quit over the debate in the Administration over prosecuting CIA interrogators who apparently went beyond Bush administration guidelines . AG Holder has appointed special prosecutor John Durham to go after them
In this case it may be justified... although I question the timing of this announcement... seems the Dems start yelling "torture " and "Bush" every time things get a little tough for them . However ;in the same report that Holder cites as evidence is the proof that the interogations produced "intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world."
It appears that the President ;like he is won't to do... is going to set up a parallel czar and unit under his direct control to handle future Q and A of terror suspects (fully Mirandized no doubt) .It will be called the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or HIG. This unit will be located at the FBI ;so it's Penyata out and Robert Mueller in.The Czar most likely will come from the FBI ranks .
Clearly the President has completely bought into this notion that the war against jihadistan can be fought in the court room.
Now ; it also appears that General Petraeus at Centcom is unhappy with the intel that the CIA provides and is setting up his own parallel intel service for the Afghan/Paki Theater .
Petraeus to open intel training center - Washington Times
One has to wonder what relevance the CIA has left ?
I for one was a frequent critic of the CIA in the last decade over it's many failures ,and it's culture of bureaucratic shadow warriors who seemingly did their job or not based on their own self interests and political biases.
On the other hand ;it is Congress who has turned this agency into a shadow of what it is capable of .
Hello tom:'Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Don't let the Wolverine hear you saying that... So, do YOU want to start the torture redux #9 thread, or should I?
excon
I hear that the CIA gave Clinton a target for OBL. Clinton decided not to take the shot. He figured OBL wouldn't be a problem for the USA anyway... and 3000 people died because of it. Now Clinton is lauded as an international relations guru, just for doing the two things he does best... picking up women and paying off Asians for favors.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Meanwhile, Bush, who managed to stop terrorist attacks on the USA for 2,905 days so far, is looked at as a dufus.
Yeah, life is sometimes stranger than fiction.
Elliot
Ex I said may be justified because in the cases cited if true ;the interrogators exceeded guidelines. A soldier got disciplined for using similar techniques in Iraq as has been described in the report.
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Here's the part your righty's miss. The ONE attack that counted, he MISSED. Who cares about the ones he didn't miss? I only care about the one he DID miss.
Of course, he's a dufus... Then he attacked a country that had NOTHING to do with OUR being attacked, and got another 4,000 of our people killed...
Yup - he's a DUFUS all right...
excon
Jonah Goldberg asks the question I've asked for years, if this torture is so bad why do all the Hollywood heroes use it? I mean gee, aren't they setting the example?
Hello again, Steve:
Is that where Jonah Goldberg thinks we learn it?? He's even dufusor than the dufus...
excon
First of all, let's make sure that we understand that what Holder is looking at is based on stuff that took place BEFORE Bush was in office. We are talking about the possible torture of one of the terrorists involved in the bombing of the USS Cole, which was a Clinton-era FUBAR. We are NOT talking about actions taken against Gitmo detainees.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Based on what I have heard, there were 3 methods of "torture" used in the specific case being "looked into" by Holder.
1) They turned on a drill and pointed it at the head of the detainee and threatened to drill holes in his head.
2) They played "Russian Roulette" with the detainee with an empty gun that was no threat to anyone.
3) They simulated (faked) an execution of another detainee to scare the detainee into talking.
Which of these DEADLY TORTURES do you object to?
Me? I actually object to all of them. First of all, they were stupid techniques to use.
Number 1 is nothing more than a frat prank. If you fall for it and talk, you're an idiot. I don't particularly think of it as a particularly successful interrogation technique.
Number 2 I've seen in movies too. They used it in the really awful "Starsky & Hutch" movie with Ben Stiller. Again, if you are being fooled by that old trick, you're an idiot. It's a crappy interrogation technique too.
Number 3 has actually been used by the Israelis successfully. That one MAY have some merit. But the backlash afterwards, when the detainee finds out he was suckered, usually ends up being that he clams up WORSE than before. So if you haven't sucked him dry very quickly, his utility to you as an information source wears off very quickly. It's a technique that burns too many bridges of communication.
Dumb techniques used stupidly.
But the real reason that I object to the use of these techniques?
They are illegal.
Excon's jaw is probably down below his knees right now.
Let me explain.
You see, when the guys from the USS Cole bombing were captured, the USA had not declared war. Therefore, anyone captured in relation to the Cole bombing was captured as a Civilian CRIMINAL, not a POW. Thus the rules and laws of the civilian criminal system are the ones in play, not the laws of the Geneva Conventions and the Rules of War. Such interrogation techniques, which are LEGAL to be used on unlawful combatants during a declared war are NOT legal to be used on civilian criminals.
That's why the declaration of war by Congress is so central to the arguments of those in favor of the EITs for Gitmo detainees. They make the legal difference between ILLEGAL TORTURE OF A Civilian CRIMINAL and the legal interrogation of an unlawful combatant POW.
So to address excon's comment about me, I happen to be in favor of an investigation and if necessary a prosecution of those involved in the use of these techniques. Because at the time they used them, those techniques were NOT legal in this case. That they were legal later for other detainees is not a defense of their actions.
Equal application of the law, excon. THAT is the standard.
---------------------
Now... here's a question for you, excon. Or actually several questions.
Obama's staff just announced last night that they are going to be forming a special secret "intelligence interrogation unit" that will be housed in the basement of the White House and that will be answerable directly to the National Security Advisor. They will be in charge of interrogating captured terrorists (by whatever name the Obama Admin is calling them this week). While they will be based in the White House, they will actually be in charge of interrogations that take place OUTSIDE the USA. They have no intention of bringing the terrorists into the USA for questioning.
My questions:
1) Do you think that the NSA and the President should be creating secret military or paramilitary units that operate in the White House basement? The last time we had that was when a guy by the name of Col. Olliver North was in charge of negotiations with the Contras regarding weapons trading. Do you want to see more shadow military units in the White House?
2) If Obama is creating such a unit so that he can be more directly in charge of interrogations, doesn't that indicate that Bush and Cheney were NOT directly in charge of such interrogations prior to this? And if Bush and Cheney were NOT in charge of such interrogations prior to this move, on what basis do you suggest that they be prosecuted for "war crimes"?
3) If the purpose of forming this shadow interrogation team answerable to the NSA and the President is to make sure that such interrogations are done "legally", why are they refusing to bring the terrorists into the USA in order to interrogate them? Why have they announced that all interrogations will take place OUTSIDE the USA, where a) there is less observation of what they will be doing, and b) the laws regarding how interrogations are performed are more lenient? If this unit is supposed to be above board in their techniques, what are they setting up to hide?
Just a few questions to ask yourself .
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I don't support the continuation of ANY dufusorian policy by Obama! And, he's continued LOTS of 'em.
excon
And started quite a few of his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think Jonah is quite intelligent. How do these Hollywood leftists live with themselves when they protest Bush torture one day and then glorify it in their productions the next?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Cause what they do is make believe?? You DO point out a disconnect, though. You guys can't tell the difference.
excon
Stratfor's George Friedman in an excellent analysis thinks Obama has continued the Bush doctrineQuote:
don't support the continuation of ANY dufusorian policy by Obama!
I wouldn't go that far .But I did predict a continuity of the Bush doctrine as template for this war.
Obama's Foreign Policy: The End of the Beginning | STRATFOR
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You did. Ron Paul should have won.
excon
LOL, you're missing where the disconnect is, it's in a bunch of liberal activists parading their moral superiority around in real life while thinking it's OK to glorify the very evils they supposedly abhor. It doesn't matter if it's make believe or not, if they hate it in real life they should hate it in their movies, too, or do their morals just change with the circumstances?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Glorify - schmorify! They SELL movies. If a movie of a STICK would sell, they'd sell it, and you'd complain about how they glorify sticks.
What do you sell? Tires?? How can you glorify tires? Dude!
excon
No, we sell safety. If you don't want to protect your home from going up in flames it's no skin off my nose. But you're making my point anyway, they HAVE no morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
What happened to your right wing free market ideals?? If you want to be in the movie business and make MORAL movies, you'd go broke. If you want to make MONEY, you make what people BUY.
This is ANOTHER disconnect... You think Hollywood DIRECTS the morals of its customers... I say, that Hollywood REFLECTS the morals that are already there.
Why should the movie business have any more morals than the safety business? What? You say there's no morals involved in the safety business - just product. Film is different, how?
excon
Actually, movies that aren't about blood, guts, gore and sex have been making TONS of money the last few years. But, this has nothing to do with my free market ideals.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I'm assuming you mean "you" in the general sense again as I don't think Hollywood "DIRECTS the morals of its customers." If however, you think Hollywood doesn't INFLUENCE morals I've got some beach front property down the street I'd like to sell you. I do agree that it reflects morals already there but it also influences morals. In any case none of this negates my point about the hypocrisy of Hollywood crusaders.Quote:
This is ANOTHER disconnect... You think Hollywood DIRECTS the morals of its customers... I say, that Hollywood REFLECTS the morals that are already there.
You sure have taken to saying I'm saying a lot of things I'm not saying.Quote:
Why should the movie business have any more morals than the safety business? What? You say there's no morals involved in the safety business - just product. Film is different, how?
Excon,
Remember when Madonna was actually a good looking young lady wearing a wedding dress on stage during her "Like A Virgin" tour at the beginning of her career?
Remember all the little teeny-boppers and young adults who were buying up wedding dresses and gummi bracelets and white lace stockings from thrift shops in order to copy her look because it was trendy?
Yeah, I think that Hollywood (and by extension all of the entertainment industry) influences and shapes morality, values, and behaviors of the country.
At the same time, I do not place ALL the blame at the feet of Hollywood. WE have individual responsibility as well. And we OUGHT to have the brains to overcome that influence. I do... that's why I'm a Conservative and most of those who follow Hollywood are libs... I don't bow to that sort of influence. I can watch a movie, see a video or enjoy a concert without getting caught up in trying to be just like the folks who put on those shows.
But I think it is disingenuous to say that Hollywood simply reflects culture and has no effect on shaping it.
Elliot
Even now, the big stink in the entertainment industry is whether Miley Cyrus is corrupting her legions of young fans for allegedly pole dancing on top of an ice cream cart.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Steve,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If there was any member of Hollywood that DIDN'T deserve to be criticized for being a bad influence, it would have to be Miley Cyrus. She's probably the LEAST corruptive influence and the BEST role model young girls could have in Hollywood today. That's cause she ain't really a product of Hollywood. She's a just a country kid at heart. She keeps her nose clean, keeps away from the clubbing life, and keeps her clothing on for the cameras (with the exception of that one Annie Leibovitz photo shoot she did for Vanity Fair... and frankly I think that Leibovitz was the bad influence there, not Cyrus).
I'd give her a pass on the photo shoot... first of all nothing showed, and second of all it was the job of Vanity Fair's editorial staff to control the situation, not the job a 16-year-old kid.
I have NOT seen the Teen Choice Awards performance, so I can't really comment. However, I have read that the criticisms of the sexual content of the performance were overblown. Even if she did a full out pole-dance, however, she's still head and shoulders above the rest of the Hollywood crowd.
I'll take her as an influence over my kids any day of the week when compared to the likes of Britney Sleaze or Skank-tina Aguillera.
Elliot
Bingo! And yet she's a target while the real Hollywood sleaze gets a pass. I love Miley, she's a good kid and her dad's a stand-up guy, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Seams to me that instead of hunting Bin Laden you fellows would be better served by sidelining your prolific mystery writers, you would no longer be giving ideas to the enemy who must be totally devoid of imagination, but then I guess anyone who would pray the same prayer five times an day for the whole of his life is devoid of imagination:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:51 PM. |