More on Secret Prison Location

The Times of London reports today with even more specificity about the location of the secret CIA prison for terror suspects.

Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch told the British that he is "90 percent certain" that the secret CIA detention facility for terror suspects that The Post reported on yesterday is located in Poland. Malinowski told The Times that his investigators had tracked CIA aircraft transferring detainees from Afghanistan to the Szymany airport in Poland.

"This is an obscure, rural airport which is very close to a Polish intelligence facility," Malinowski said.

A second major eastern European site used by CIA planes carrying detainees, he said, is the Mihail-Kogalniceanu military airbase in Romania.

By Jefferson Morley |  November 3, 2005; 1:37 PM ET  | Category:  Europe
Previous: Overseas Media Ask: Where Is the Secret CIA Prison? | Next: Bush vs. Chavez, Round One


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Mr. Morley,

This morning the BBC ran with the Red Cross demand for access as their top story but it does not seem to getting picked up by any mainstream sources in this country. Is it your sense this is a much bigger story worldwide? I mean, this is the Red Cross we are talking about and not some partisan group that can be easily written off.

Posted by: Dave Bob | November 3, 2005 01:55 PM

US Reporters are scary scary scary

Lets someone else exposed the story then we'll do a follow-up!

Phew! Thank the Lord for computers and internet, I'm going to switch from getting my news from American Report especially when it comes to this big blow-up

My God what could be more important!

Newsweek - doing an Anthax story
MSNBC - doing lords who know what, matter of fact we know that they do put the headline story up at 8pm then take it down 3-4 hour later(especially if it has anything to do with the credibility of Bush Administration)

Bush was giving freebies to all Big Corps (including owners-publishers of newspaper)

Now, they are trapped in his deadly game of "you owe me"

Posted by: Is this really America! | November 3, 2005 02:09 PM

IN = Dana Priest

OUT = Judith Miller

Posted by: Update | November 3, 2005 02:15 PM

The time for nuances is over. The Bush Administration has made a mockery and a total hypocrite of the United States. Illegal invasions, lying, awarding a few large corporations (ie Haliburton) as a prize for their corrupt foreign policies. Awarding people who have tortured, killed, and murdered innocent people who didn't ask for your bogus democracy via "shock and awe" This whole ridiculous charade of these horrid war criminals, should have been over a long time ago. Why are the American people allowing this administration to crap all over the Global Community, and break every international law going. It disgusts me. They are all guilty.

Posted by: sherry | November 3, 2005 02:45 PM

It's a shame that the American press still cowers and relies on international outlets.

Posted by: Craig | November 3, 2005 03:15 PM

I think Dana Priest ought to get a Nobel Prize. (screw the Pulitzer...what a joke) She made a great point (many, in fact) in her discussion today. It was this:
There are two kinds of people in the world:
1.) Those who believe winning is all that matters, no matter how dirty you play, or "let only the strongest survive," or "the end always justifies the means." Republicans, in a word.
2.) Those who believe our creator endowed us with enough intelligence to rise above "the law of the jungle." Or maybe that we are ALL, in the end, responsible for our thoughts and actions and may even be held to account for them.

Posted by: DaveE | November 3, 2005 08:18 PM

How noble DaveE, if you ever have to face these terrorists you can tell them that you have risen above the law of the jungle . . . just before they behead you.

We have always been a nation that has done whatever it takes to win and we always will be. Yes, Lincoln was a Republican and he defied an order from the Supreme Court in 1861 because he felt that it was not in the nation's interests. In other words, he violated the rule of law because the ends justified the means for him. Yet you seldom hear him criticized for it. Wonder why . . .

Posted by: KB | November 3, 2005 08:43 PM

Disgusting. All of us among your former allies -- Germany, France, Spain, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, Argentina (and, soon, Italy) -- must now uite to stop all military cooperation with your outlaw regime until it ceases torturing prisoners and holding them in secret and learns to behave within the bounds of international law. The Bush/Cheney regime's brazen disrespect for the rule of law and for sacrosanct principles of basic human rights is an outrage. These men should be put on trial.

Posted by: Jurgen | November 3, 2005 09:26 PM

So Dana Priest and the Post won't name the country? They prefer to side with Bush administration censors than give their readers the full goods?
My conclusion:
Dana Priest = Judith Miller
Washington Post = Judith Miller
More of the same.

Posted by: Sam Lopez | November 3, 2005 09:29 PM

So the US has "secret" prisons, so what, as far as I am concerned there are no "secrets" in the USA as long as so called government/public servants and newspaper journalists continue to open their mouths when they should KEEP THEM SHUT

Posted by: SoWhat | November 3, 2005 10:43 PM

To K.B. I think we all know about Abraham Lincoln. And George W. Bush is no Abraham Lincoln. Do you honestly believe Lincoln would be for rendition and secret prisons in Eastern Europe?

Posted by: WhoWouldJesusTorture | November 4, 2005 01:24 AM

To WhoWouldJesusTorture, absolutely!Lincoln would have done what was necessary to preserve the Union and if it meant things such as rendition or secret prisons, I have no doubt that he would have done the same.

I agree that Bush is no Lincoln, but the principle is the same--you do what is necessary to preserve the Union or, in this case, prevent further attack on your country. Say what you want about Bush, but there have been no further attacks on his watch, something that can't be said about European countries like the UK or Spain.

Posted by: KB | November 4, 2005 02:02 AM

Does "the end justify the means" only count for the US? The extremists that blow up innocent people seem to agree with your "do whatever it takes" approach. Many in this country seem to think that only the US has the "divine right" to bend the rules...The only thing that may differentiate kidnapping of innocents in Bagdad and "renditions" by the agency is the beheading part..Yet we cannot be 100% sure because we do not know what happens in the "secret facilities."

Posted by: FromMacondo | November 4, 2005 10:45 AM

KB, as far as we know the British have the same access to the information gotten through torture as the Americans do. And yet the 7th July happened.

It suggests that America not being hit again - so far - has more to do with luck. We've sacrificed all the morals our two countries are based on and we're less safe now than we were after the successful invasion of Afghanistan.

Posted by: David Patrick, UK | November 4, 2005 11:13 AM

We have undermined ourselves through our hypocrisy. Lincoln saved our country, Bush is wrecking everything we stand for, or at least what I thought what we stood for - the rule of law and justice no matter what our enemies do. Lincoln had a good heart and brain, Bush has neither.

We would be up in arms if any of our citizens were being held in secret in some unspecified location and country without due process. It's so ironic and reckless that we are using former Soviet bloc countries to carry this evil out. Romania has a chance to be part of the EU but if they are found to have supported these prisons they may lose their chance at membership. What a bargain! We undermine ourselves and others simultaneously while violating the laws that make us who we are. Brilliant! Thanks Bush, I'm sure all of you that voted for this moron are feeling pretty good right now!

Posted by: Bobby | November 4, 2005 11:38 AM

Who really cares if some terrorists get roughed up in a Polish, Romanian, Thai, or whatever prison. I certainly lose no sleep over it. Those vermin deserve every bit it of it. Last time I checked people under American command were not flying planes into buildings and bombing buses and subways full of innocent people

Posted by: American Nationalist | November 4, 2005 01:09 PM

I wonder how many of the prisoners or detainees are actually guilty of any crime. Take them , fly'm away to a secret location and wait.Kick'm a bit and they will sign anything. The end justify the means. Right?? What if it was americans being taken??

Posted by: wonder | November 4, 2005 01:32 PM

"We have always been a nation that has done whatever it takes to win and we always will be." KB, that's not true. I don't know where you got that, but it's part of the problem that the uneducated have been running with the political football lately with remarks like that which sound knowledgable but have nothing behind them. "Who really cares if some terrorists get roughed up in a Polish, Romanian, Thai, or whatever prison. "
Honey, I do. The problem here is the assumption of guilt without trial, and the torture of prisoners. These are things our forefathers took strong stances against in history. These are basic principles of our democracy and freedom. You call yourself a "nationalist". Oh yeah? What nation would that be?

Posted by: American Patriot | November 4, 2005 02:22 PM

"Last time I checked people under American command were not flying planes into buildings and bombing buses and subways full of innocent people"...
American "Nationist", just when was the last time you checked? Americans are flying planes dropping bombs on houses, cars, buildings, and innocent people. What, it doesn't count if they don't fly the plane INTO the building? It doesn't count if they are not Muslims doing the killing?

Posted by: American Patriot | November 4, 2005 02:27 PM

When or Who are going to start the next Conspiracy Theory Novel. Each time that some idiot said something about secret many people make comments but where is the real fact, proof, whatever...
May be the next chapter can be the terrorists are good friends of GOP.

Posted by: JV | November 4, 2005 02:54 PM

I only believe in one fact, real fact proof by history. NO MUSLIMS = NO TERRORIST. May be if we start to read more about their history which is always surrounded by war. In Iraq doesn't matter we help them to develop their "democracy", any way they are going to move forward a civil war. They don't like each other.

Posted by: JV | November 4, 2005 03:00 PM

Torture does not provide good intelligence, if it did, we would know a lot by now, wouldn't we?

We have no proof that the people we are torturing are guilty of anything.

But even if they were, we can't fight
a war on values where we throw those
values out of the window!!
Spain, Germany are putting terrorist in jail through lawful trials and investigations. How many have we successfully tried here in the US?

Blind support of horrific policies at the hands of a governmend supported by our tax dollars is not patriotism, it is comformism, and it greatly weakens our democracy.

Posted by: La | November 4, 2005 03:25 PM


You write, "I only believe in one fact, real fact proof by history. NO MUSLIMS = NO TERRORIST."

If you're going to pick just one fact to believe in, it would be better to pick one that was true. I know you can't possibly think that the IRA were secretly Muslims. Or, on the other side, the UDL. Yet would you write, "NO CATHOLICS = NO TERRORIST"? Or "NO PROTESTANTS"?

You also write, "May be if we start to read more about their history which is always surrounded by war." I'm all for reading history. But do you think you could make the case that the last 1,300 years (Islam's lifespan, roughly) saw more violence in the Muslim world than, say, Europe? I'm not a modernist historian, so I won't say I know for sure. _Maybe_ a case could be made. But it would need to begin by finding counterparts in the Muslim world that were as bloody as everything from the WW's 1 and 2, the Thirty Years War, and the Napoleonic conflicts, to the extinction of the Avars, the recurrent low-grade warfare amongst late medieval Italian cities, the Magyar invasions, the Viking raids, the treatment of the colonized Americas, and so on. Maybe you could try to make the case - I can think of parallels for some - but I think it would be hard. How would you do it?

Posted by: Beren | November 4, 2005 04:47 PM

Could someone please explain to me why we non-Americans should view your country with any respect whatsoever when it is governed by an administration that locks people up in secret prisons and openly advocates torture?
Whatever credibility the U.S. might once have had as an advocate for democracy and human rights is gone. As long as these leaders, Bush and Cheney, remain in office unrepudiated, unprosecuted, your nation stands exposed for its deceit and its hypocrisy.
No wonder your government wanted to exempt U.S. officials from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court: your government is run by criminals -- people who openly advocate and commit crimes against humanity, like torture and secret prisons. In that light, it only makes sense that the likes of Bush and Cheney should wish to shield themselves from the law.
By doing this, though, they have undermined everyone else's respect for international law as well. So now, rather than abide by established rules, every incentive is in place for the rest of us to do as your nation does: ignore the law and solve disputes with the use of violence.
What a fabulous strategy for a "war on terrorism."

Posted by: Sanjay Gupta | November 4, 2005 10:32 PM

I would like to see the real evidence that CIA's secret prisons exists in Eastern Europe. Romanian, Polish, Czech etc. landing logs don't say anything about the goal of american planes that visited the mentioned countries. Oterwise one could think that HRW has a secret plans to discredit some countries in the eyes of international public.

Posted by: Dominik | November 5, 2005 04:22 AM

So, is anyone investigating this CIA leak?

Posted by: Linda | November 5, 2005 11:55 AM

europeans rednecks = terrorists.
can all the rednecks go back to europe?
when would the europeans get what they deserve after colonisation and slavery?
europeans are rich because of colonization and slavery. it looks like they might get away with it. what are the africans countries to do to get their revenge?
europeans stole everything from africa and left them "dry". should africa get their revenge by using terrorism against the europeans hatemongers? what about: liberty, egality and fraternity while the french were torturing blacks all over africa? the europeans are rich because of one thing: slavery.
somebody tell me, please?
i think the africans will get their revenge, i'll be dancing in my grave.

Posted by: bebero | November 5, 2005 07:04 PM

Bottom line: Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and yes, Powell should be tried in front of a world court for crimes against humanity. Why are the American People allowing all of this to continue? In my opinion because the majority would rather be watching Sunday afternoon and Monday Night Football than paying attention to the high crimes and misdemeanors be perpetuated by the criminals in office.

Regime change in the USA in 2008!

Posted by: Ernesto/Houston, Texas | November 7, 2005 12:28 PM

American Patriot--go back and look at U.S. history. How did we win the West? By virtually annihilating the Native Americans. What did we do in World War II? We firebombed Dresden and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities. Please, get off your high horse. The history of the U.S. is replete with examples where the nation set aside its ideals to pursue what, at the time, was deemed to be in the best interests of the country. I refer you to Lincoln again as an example. He violated our constitutional principles by defying the Supreme Court, because he felt it was in the best interests of the country.

The U.S. has remained the most powerful nation in the world because we have a history of pragmatic idealism. That means we try to do what is in our self-interest first, while returning to our ideals whenever possible. Does that make us unprincipled? Perhaps, but I am hard pressed to think of another great power that would consider anything but their self interest.

Posted by: KB | November 8, 2005 03:38 AM

The world will never embrace freedom and democracy unless the U.S. is overwhelmingly victorious in crushing its terrorist opposition. We cannot be perceived as soft on terrorism. If this means some restrictions on human rights, or "lowering our ethics" somewhat, then so be it. We'll do whatever it takes. Our objective is total and complete victory in this war. Sadly, this means there will occasionally be innocent victims of war, a few broken legs, perhaps even a couple of inexplicable deaths or acts of "torture", but these unfortunately-necessary responses on our part are ultimately the inevitable reaction we must make against terrorist aggression toward our beloved nation.

I too would be "hard pressed to think of another great power that would consider anything but their self interest." Oh, wait. There is a Great Power that forbids this whole "me-first" line of reasoning, that promotes love over hate, life over death, goodwill over torture. I just plumb forgot as I wrote that whole first paragraph that my whole line of reasoning was hideously demonic! Sorry 'bout that.

Posted by: Aurora | December 5, 2005 11:48 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2006 The Washington Post Company