The CIA has denied a claim made by General Petraeus’s mistress that the spy agency held militants as detainees in Libya before the September 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
In public comments last month at the University of Denver, Petraeus girlfriend and biographer Paula Broadwell said the CIA had detainees at a secret facility in Benghazi and that the attack on the US Consulate was an effort to free those prisoners.
Under the Bush administration, the CIA maintained secret prisons, or black sites, where they held captive alleged militants. Upon coming into office in 2009, President Obama issued an executive order stripping the CIA of its authority to take and hold prisoners.
CIA spokesman Preston Golson said “any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”
There has been no comment from the Obama administration on Broadwell’s claim, and a CIA statement is about as credible as a rogue, and apparently jealous, mistress of CIA chief Petraeus.
The Fox News report (EXCLUSIVE: Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack) says, "According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors". Note the word "contractors".
The agency might not be in the detention business. They can contract it out.
I have read a couple of different places, that indeed Libya (under Ghaddafi) kept and tortured some prisoners for Americans. One of them became a rebel leader of some fraction of muslim activism against same.
The routine and organised rendition practice of America – the great swindler of human rights and disrespect for persons – have indeed been documented. Also that some went to Libya.
America does not torture. They just study it – since around 1950, Develop new techniques, pay for scientific studies in the effectiveness (through e.g. an organization called "Institute for Human Ecology") for a combination of breaking the mental balance and cause prisoners to inflict pain on themselves – so they partly blame themselves for their sufferings,
Especially the innocent prisoners are easy to force to confess, whatever is wanted from them. Unluckily for those people, they cannot be put on a trial in the US for punishment, on the basis of tortured confessions, so therefore they are often dumped dead, or given to some of the many rogue countries, the US enjoys to support and be friendly with from some imagined self-interest.
Don't you see: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating". That this is in the same meaning as "The proof of our policy is in the ever widening dominance of the world". Self-interest is the mark of the undeveloped psycopaths or sociopaths. And prominent, as well as judged of mandatory importance for the degenerate culture of the USA.
For documentation, there is the book by Alfred W. Mccoy, professor of History,: A Question of Torture.
Then, for the next World War: OECD just published an estimate of economic growth in the world till 2060. But withIn the next twelve years USA would fall behind below China. So what happens to the dominant sadist terrified by that prospect?
And as needed your Americans movet US prisoners to other countries, reaches rthem how to do it and uses it abroad so that technically the USA in some linguistic perverse use of human minds, the Americans have tuned to perfection, do not torture.
Broadwell might have had just the details wrong. Not the CIA but more likely Special Forces (Navy SEALs were present after all) under another sort of command structure or even more likely (less oversight) some private contract put out by State Dep. It's a maze these days of who does what with which authorization. Not for those at the top though.
Is it me …. or does anyone else think this whole episode smells ….. Anyone else remember his testimony about Israel being a liability to US ?
RT has the video (http://rt.com/usa/news/petraeus-benghazi-attack-cia-535/), which was supposedly taken down on youtube. I think her statement is very credible, because she was essentially bragging, and as a "declaration against interest" exemption to hearsay evidence. Not that she'll ever be tried – why drag this thing out. I'd also like to know what happened to Kaddafy's heavy weapons, and what Stephens had to do with them, but I guess we'll never know, since all these people are liars. Sometimes they lie for various reasons, sometimes just for practice. The truth only comes out through individual ass-coverings. Rats, sinking ship…
If the CIA says it, then it's a lie.