Bricker, are you arguing that al-Masri may be lying, and was never detained, or are you arguing that some other organization (governmental or nongovernmental, US or foreign) may have detained him, flew him around the world, and dumped him in Albania?
Sua
You guys are missing a key point. Here’s the line in the story that makes it clear it was about al-Masri:
Now, this is hearsay, but unless friend Bricker wants to groundlessly accuse Merkel of lying, we have the fact that the US apologized for detaining Mr. Masri. Not people in general, Mr. Masri. Why would Condi apoligize on behalf of the US if the US weren’t behind it?
Really, you’ve chosen a very weak position to defend here, Bricker. Generally, you’re smarter than this.
Tell you what, read this.
Now what are you saying? There is no proof of torture I’ll give you but are you really saying that the US didn’t detain this man, find later that he was innocent as then release him?
Yo, Bricker:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7591918/
Not smoking guns, but they’ve at least got “intelligence sources” confirming that it was, indeed, the CIA, eg:
To be fair on the Mrs Merkel point I’ve just noticed in another story on this I read
Of course if you believe THAT US offical why don’t you believe all the other officals in the other news stories that say this shit happened 
The two are not mutually exclusive. I’m arguing that one or other may be true, and asking to see evidence which refutes either possibility.
That didn’t happen:
More anonymous sources again, but since this is the CIA we’re talking about here, do you really expect them to issue a press release?
That’s a bizarre standard. The document is, by its nature, his own account and does not provide evidence. Do you fault all statements of claim because they don’t contain a full description of the actual evidence to appear in the case itself?
Do you contend that he is lying? If so, what is your explanation for his disapparence for many months? If not, are you arguing that they were a paramilitary / intelligence group composed primarily of American nationals with the means and willingness to transport a man to Afghanistan, torture and interrogate him, yet that they were not CIA?
The allegations in al-Masri’s statement of claim fit the general alleged modus operandi of the CIA eg use of black-dressed paramilitary members, cutting off clothes and reclothing the detainee, transport on an American civilian aeroplane, detainment in an American base in a foreign country, torture, interrogation.
The complaint was filed 2 days ago. Do such responses generally occur within such a time frame?
I’m really fed-up with these semantic games. So, people are arguing here that maybe the torture wasn’t that hard, or that though the USA admited that it happened to other people, maybe it didn’t happen to this guy specifically.
What’s the fucking point??? Is this supposed to be some sort of defence for the current US admnistration???
Could you maybe debate of the actual issue?
We’re seeing people, when told “see this poor blonde-haired girl? She’s been raped and murdered by this bastard” arguing about whether or not she’s actually blonde and whether or not anal penetration should count as rape.
These silly, disingeneous and stupid games don’t deserve a response. They are just pit-worthy.
Well, here’s my take after reading that story.
No specific sources are identified. It’s still impossible for me to evaluate the evidence.
However, there’s a definite difference between some guy’s lawsuit and the Washington Post. The Post demands confirmation from multiple reliable sources, as a general rule, before running with a story. Although they’ve made mistakes before, it’s very rare; they tend to be pretty scrupulous about their facts. I’d like it better if there were actual people to quote, because I think we should all know by now that it’s possible for people to leak stories and use a willing press to further their own agendas… (paging Judith Miller).
But on balance, I think that while the allegations are still unproven, if there’s enough there for the Post to say it as clearly as they did, then I withdraw my objection to the claim.
Awww Christ. I thought I was being clever, but I see that yojimbo beat me to it.
Sheesh.
:cough:
I assume you are referring to this, Bricker:
So you are letting unnamed “US officials” call Merkel a liar on your behalf? My goodness, your standards certainly differ when it’s YOU wishing to press a claim.
Fair point, except that I never saw any quote from Ms. Rice in which she specifically acknowledged this case. Her quotes were all general, which is why Ms. Merkel’s conclusion surprised me, and why I was willing to accept an unnamed official’s denial.
False dichotomy-- it needn’t be a lie. It could be a simply misunderstanding. Happens all the time. I don’t think that the US would apologize for this action considering there is a pending civil suit.
So we’ve got a quote positively attributed to Andrea Merkel, and denials of that quote from unnamed US officials. I think that constitutes total victory for my side of the argument, barring any other considerations. Your rationale for believing the officials is not strong at all … it’s also a rationale for why they might lie.
No. But since I was asking for evidence, and this was offered to me, it seems fair to point out that it doesn’t meet the mark. Doesn’t mean it’s insufficient as a pleading; just means it didn’t work as convincing evidence. It’s a statement by a guy who is asking for money.
I have no idea. It’s no up to me to provide an explanation for his disappearance. Maybe he was living with a transsexual prostitute in Hamburg, maybe he was studying for the German version of Jeopardy, maybe he was a drug runner and abudcted by his partners after skimming profits. It’s not up to me - it’s up to the proponent of a claim to provide evidence.
Yes, they do.
Nope.
How about this then: Andrea Merkel told the truth. The unnamed US officials cast doubt on her statement. It’s feeble either way.