It may even ensnare the current head of the State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism, Hank Crumpton, who was working in the Counter Terrorism Center at CIA when these "prison" were set up.

What's with the scare quotes around prison[s]?  If the WaPo article is correct, then I don't see how you can argue that they are anything but prisons, unless you don't think prison is a strong enough word (dungeon?, hellhole?).  If you don't believe the story, you should be scare quoting "set up".

Obviously, I have no idea, but the notion that it was sparked by some agent on the ground, who possibly fears real ramifications of international law that could debiliate many of our international espionage operations makes some sense.  An Italian court did, after all, recently authorize arrest warrants against US agents on kidnapping charges (I think that was the charge...)  Perhaps that was just a show.  It probably was.  But, what a show!

Pinochet got arrested.  There are places Kissinger won't go.  In essence, laws are supposed to work this way -- people don't want to violate them because they don't want to be punished.

So, I don't know who.  But if it were somebody who might well suffer if the CIA were branded, by an influential enough country, as a human rights criminal, then that makes some sense to me. 

I read some misgivings about these prisons from CIA types that indicate keeping these secret is/was a very difficult task. In that light was the WaPo a recipient of a tip or did their own investigations uncover their possible existence and thus caused them to raise questions to the CIA of that existence? As has been reported, similar prisons in some locations had been previously revealed, and subsequently closed, so it stands to reason that they were replaced by others in different locales.

I am inclined to associate this coming out now because of the focus on questionable WH operations re: VPlame outing etc. I think this is a reflection of some people in the MSM finally calling into question things that should have been looked at critically long before now. With Congress totally lacking any nerve for tackling the Bush WH that leaves investigative journalists with a big responsibility. In essence, what we have is a need to reconstitute the checks and balances that have been undone because of the political power structure within the Republican party. While difficult and seemingly the long way around, investigative journalism can fulfill that function even if operating under some limitations. When you have an administration that is this secretive and this corrupt it raises the bar for the MSM to step up to the plate and perform their natural function within a democratic state.

thepeoplechoose

I'll suggest a couple of other possibilities.

Scenario Three: Priest or one of her colleagues has been poring over the records of flights of those mysterious planes that pick up detainees for undisclosed destinations. They saw a pattern and asked some of their sources, who may have come up with some of the types listed in Scenarios One and Two.

Or

Scenario Four: Someone from one of the countries in which the prisons are located came to Priest with the information. I suggest that the Eastern European locations are the most likely sources for two reasons: one, that people there are particularly sensitive to the presence of secret prisons for historical reasons, and two, that accession to the European Union (past or impending) has made them more conscious of the need to adhere to international standards.

That said, I tend to agree that Scenario One is the most likely. But if I were Priest, I would have checked as far as I could with the sources in Scenarios Three and Four.

One of the things that has occurred since Plamegate/Treasongate, whatever you want to call it, is that progressives find themselves allied with the CIA. This is a very unusual occurence. I think it is very good for the progressive movement to really get a feel for the importance of the work the CIA does.

If your scenario two is correct, a nice side benefit for Republicans and neocons would be to drive a new human rights wedge between the CIA and progressives.

My first, flippant reaction, is this is Rove "Swift Boating" the CIA 'cause they've caused him such headaches.  I do feel like a helpless observer in a gigantic chess match of global proportions.  

Sidebarring to forged documents for a moment, I think the answer to all this is in the script of a recent L&O: CI...the asperger syndrome episode.  It's all in the patterns, the rule of five or whatever:  planted information, forgeries and falsehoods, and it all leads back to Rove.

What can I say, it's Friday...  As for me, I'm going to go send a bar of soap to the White House with a simple message:  Come clean, Mr. President.

It would seem that the important question is who authorized these prisons to be set up?

This doesn't sound like something the CIA could just do on its own. There would need to be cooperation with the host countries at a minimum. This implies that at least the State Department was involved.

Funding for this operation would also need to be approved, so that implies some participation by legislative oversight committees as well.

Finally this would be a change in policy and it seems impossible this would happen with out explicit presidential approval.

Wondering about how the information came out is fine for political junkies, but what about the policy issues? 

The Financial Times and the Financial Times Deutschland both lean on Human Rights Watch for their sourcing. One of the persons quoted from HRW says they have the means to track CIA flights. So this is a Washington-sourced story, which rules out Scenario Three.

But now with the European angle, many other reporters are keen to get onto the story. One of the sites mentioned is in northeast Poland. It's the sort of area where small jets flying in and out would likely be noticed. The other is an existing base in Romania, so activity would be less obvious.

If there are five other countries involved, don't expect this story to die down any time soon. There are simply too many interests in having it out there.

The CIA may be against it, but Bush's croney, Goss, is running the CIA now.  Both Cheney and Goss tried to strongarm McCain.

Agreed.  That's why I think Larry's #1 take still make sense (i.e. veteran Agency guys, not the "Gosslings," leaked the info).  But I think the McCain bill was the direct motivation for veteran officers to leak the story...more than a general concern for the Agency.  I think they leaked the story with a specific purpose in mind - to influence the vote.  

If your scenario two is correct, a nice side benefit for Republicans and neocons would be to drive a new human rights wedge between the CIA and progressives.

Progressives aren't on the side of the "CIA", they are on the side of the truth.  The support for the CIA is not across-the-board; its for the elements within the CIA that tired to get the truth out about Bush's WMD claims.  (its not like we don't know that Bolton's Chief of Staff, Fred Fleitz, was CIA....and trust me, we don't "support" Fleitz).

Its like the "alliance" between progressives and certain people and groups (like INR) in the Pentagon.   We haven't become a bunch of gung-ho militarists -- we just support those who want the truth out.

Larry Johnson's mention of the Church Committee is very telling.  One of the outgrowths of Vietman was a demoralized military and CIA.  Both institutions worked very hard to rebuild themselves.  

The actions of the Bush Administration has threatened both instutions recoveries.  Further, as things have gone wrong in Iraq Bush , or his people have hinted that the fault lies with the CIA and to a lesser extent the military.

Is it surprising that the both the CIA and the military are using retired members to get information out which tells, if not the truth, a more rounded story?

If your scenario two is correct, a nice side benefit for Republicans and neocons would be to drive a new human rights wedge between the CIA and progressives.

Progressives aren't on the side of the "CIA", they are on the side of the truth.  The support for the CIA is not across-the-board; its for the elements within the CIA that tired to get the truth out about Bush's WMD claims.  (its not like we don't know that Bolton's Chief of Staff, Fred Fleitz, was CIA....and trust me, we don't "support" Fleitz).

First of all, it's not a new wedge. Progressives have been up in arms for decades, all the way back to the installation of the Pahlavis in Iran and secret war in Indochina. The general point you make is indeed valid. The CIA has a mission that progressives can back: intelligence gathering is a vital interest in a world of multiple threats and international political intrigue.

Spying is a most important, if not literally legitimate, function of government. Abusing human rights, whether through incarceration, torture, incapacitation, or assassination, to further our nominal national interests, however, is an altogether different matter. It would seem that progressives realize the damage done to diplomacy through such behavior cannot be supported under any circumstance. If we want to support a message of democracy, freedom, and human rights, then it naturally follows that the creation of CIA gulags is a wholy unacceptable practice. (But, we all do know that, no?)

The entire piece sounds as if the CIA is suffering from a lack of leadership and direction. Since it's clear that their leadership resides in the White House the CIA ought to be worried about more than just their reputation being destroyed. The entire agency could be as broken as the military once Rumsfeld and Cheney are done with them. Let's not forget that this administration has the ability to mold the CIA in to whatever they want it to be thanks to the intelligence and security agencies being combined under one Homeland Security umbrella. They could disband the CIA altogether like they did to the INS after 9/11. Or they could put them in charge of all the torture/gulag duties this or any other Presidential directives will continue to ensure and give the spying and security duties over to military intelligence, the FBI, or some brand new agency they dream up. They aren't worried about salvaging the CIA's reputation or credibility or else they wouldn't be outing spies and blaming them for bad pre-war intelligence.

With three years left in office who knows what kind of damage they can dream up but whatever happens it's not likely the CIA is going to look anything like it did before Bushco. got their hands on it. So, maybe it's sheer desperation that's led the CIA to such uncharacterstic leaking. Once Cheney provided the opportunity by asking they be exempted from laws banning torture they saw this as an opportunity. They could get everything out there on the table and have their long awaited debate. Better to have it in public than not at all; and no better time than right now since things would only go downhill if Cheney's request were to be granted.