Log In | Register
58 Comments
PrintImages 
(showing 1 of 4 photos)
(showing 1 of 4 photos)advertisement
WASHINGTON — Angry congressional Democrats demanded Friday that the Justice Department investigate why the CIA destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two terrorism suspects.
The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to find out "whether CIA officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their existence from official proceedings violated the law."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused the CIA of a cover-up. "We haven't seen anything like this since the 18 1/2-minute gap in the tapes of President Richard Nixon," he said in a Senate floor speech.
And Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters the CIA's explanation that the tapes were destroyed to protect agents' identities is "a pathetic excuse," adding: "You'd have to burn every document at the CIA that has the identity of an agent on it under that theory."
Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent letters to CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and Mukasey asking whether the Justice Department gave legal advice to the CIA on the destruction of the tapes, and whether it was planning an obstruction-of-justice investigation.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday that President Bush did not recall being told about the tapes or their destruction. But she could not rule out White House involvement in the decision to destroy the tapes, saying she had only asked the president about it, not others.
Perino refused to say whether the destruction could have been an obstruction of justice or a threat to cases against terrorism suspects. If the attorney general decides to investigate, "of course the White House would support that," she said.
In a daily press briefing dedicated almost solely to the topic of the CIA tapes, Perino responded 19 times that she didn't know or couldn't comment.
At least one White House official, then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers, knew about the CIA's planned destruction of videotapes in 2005 that documented the interrogation of two al-Qaida operatives, ABC news reported Friday. Three officials told ABC News that Miers urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes. White House officials declined to comment on the report.
The spy agency destroyed the tapes in November 2005, at a time when human rights groups and lawyers for detainees were clamoring for information about the agency's secret detention and interrogation program, and Congress and U.S. courts were debating where "enhanced interrogation" crossed the line into torture.
Also at that time, the Senate Intelligence Committee was asking whether the videotapes showed CIA interrogators were complying with interrogation guidelines. The CIA refused twice in 2005 to provide the committee with its general counsel's report on the tapes, according to Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
Hayden told agency employees Thursday that the recordings were destroyed out of fear the tapes would leak and reveal the identities of interrogators. He said the sessions were videotaped to provide an added layer of legal protection for interrogators using new, harsh methods. President Bush had just authorized those methods as a way to break down the defenses of recalcitrant prisoners.
Destruction of the tapes came in the midst of an intense national debate about how forcefully prisoners could be grilled to get them to talk. Not long after the tapes were destroyed, Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act, championed by Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who was tortured while a prisoner of war in Vietnam. The law prohibits not only torture, but cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of all U.S. detainees, including those in CIA custody.
Also in the fall of 2005, the Supreme Court heard a case involving the legal rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. It decided in June 2006 that al-Qaida prisoners are protected by the Geneva Conventions' prohibitions on torture and cruel treatment.
At the time, the CIA also was concerned that its operatives involved in prisoner interrogation might be subject to legal charges over the treatment of detainees. Some agency employees have bought liability insurance as a hedge against that possibility.
The decision to destroy the tapes was made by Jose Rodriguez, then the head of the CIA's clandestine directorate of operations under CIA Director Porter Goss.
Hayden said congressional intelligence committee members were made aware in February 2003 both of the tapes and the CIA's ultimate plan to destroy them. That claim was denied by several members of the panels, including Republican Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, who was then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
The Senate Intelligence Committee did not learn of the tapes' destruction until November 2006, and Rockefeller said he was not told in 2003 of the plan to destroy them. The House Intelligence Committee learned of the tapes' destruction in March 2007.
Republicans were mostly mum about the CIA disclosure. McCain, a presidential candidate, said while campaigning in New Hampshire on Friday that he would not side with Democrats' calls for an investigation because he believed the CIA's actions were legal.
"That doesn't mean I like it," McCain added.
"Of course I object to it," he said of the tapes being destroyed. "Right now, our intelligence agencies need credibility and this is not helpful to that."
At least one of the tapes showed the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, the first high-value detainee taken by the CIA in 2002. Zubaydah, under harsh questioning, told CIA interrogators about alleged 9/11 accomplice Ramzi Binalshibh, Bush said publicly in 2006. The two men's confessions also led to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the U.S. government said was the mastermind behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Hayden told agency employees the interrogations were legal, and said the tapes were not relevant to "any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."
Lawyers for U.S. detainees believe otherwise.
The Center for Constitutional Rights, which coordinates the work of all attorneys representing U.S. prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, says the CIA may have destroyed crucial evidence a court said it was entitled to in 2004.
The center said Friday it is now "deeply concerned" the CIA may have destroyed evidence relating to Majid Khan, a former CIA detainee now held at Guantanamo.
Revelations about the tapes also may affect ongoing terrorism trials.
Convicted terrorism conspirator Jose Padilla's lawyers claimed in a Florida federal court that Zubaydah was tortured into saying Padilla was an al-Qaida associate. The Justice Department dismissed Padilla's allegations as "meritless," saying Padilla's legal team could not prove that Zubaydah had been tortured.
Padilla and his two co-defendants will be sentenced next month. They face life in prison on three terror-related convictions.
Then-U.S. District Judge Mukasey, now attorney general, signed the warrant used by the FBI to arrest Padilla in May 2002. That warrant relied in part on information obtained from Zubaydah, court records show.
In a separate case, attorneys for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui in 2003 began seeking videotapes of interrogations they believed might help their client. In November 2005 a federal judge ordered the government to disclose whether it had video or audio tapes of specific interrogations. Eleven days later, the government denied it had them.
Gerald Zerkin, one of Moussaoui's lawyers in the penalty phase of his trial, recalled some of the defense efforts to obtain testimony from video or audio tapes of the interrogations of top al-Qaida detainees. "Obviously the important witnesses included Zubaydah, Binalshibh and KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed)... those are the guys at the head of the witness list," Zerkin said. He could not recall specifically which tapes he requested or the phrasing of his discovery requests, which he said were probably still classified.
The tapes also were not provided to the 9/11 Commission, which relied heavily on intelligence reports about Zubaydah and Binalshibh's 2002 interrogations. CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said the agency did not subvert the 9/11 commission's work.
"Because it was thought the commission could ask about tapes at some point," he said, "they were not destroyed while the commission was active."
___
Associated Press writers Curt Anderson in Miami and Jennifer Loven, Deb Riechmann and Matt Barakat in Washington contributed to this report.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
16 Votes- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
Published to:
- Pamela Hess's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: Political Analysis, Question Authority
- Regions: United States , Washington DC
 | Hayden Says CIA Videotapes Destroyed | Associated Press | Thu Dec 6 | 22 |
| CIA, Justice Dept. Open Videotape Probe | Associated Press | Sat Dec 8 | 4 |
 | CIA destroyed torture tapes | globalresearch.ca | Mon Dec 10 | 0 |
| Bush 'cannot recall' CIA videos - BBC | BBC News | Fri Dec 7 | 3 |
| Where the devils fear to tread | prees tv | Sat Dec 8 | 0 |
- Public Discussion (58)
- Public Discussion (0)
- Political Analysis
- Question Authority
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
35
8.0
{"commentId":1250264,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
Oh yeah, I'm sure A.G. Mukasey, who won't label waterboarding torture, is going to give a very thorough investigation to this. LOL
{"commentId":1250264,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 5 votes
#1 - Fri Dec 7, 2007 1:17 PM EST{"commentId":1250307,"authorDomain":"miasma"}
We were going to examine the evidence, but it was destroyed.
{"commentId":1250307,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"miasma"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1250544,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Dems Call for Inquiry in CIA Tapes Case
To me the headline is misleading, we don't have any "Democratic" effort to challenge the Administration policies, we have a handful who are Democrats asking questions. This gives the chicken hawk, Presidential supporters like Hillary the kind of credit they do not deserve.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday that President Bush did not have any recollection about the tapes or about their destruction.
How anyone can trust National Security to a group who have the collective memory of advanced Alzheimer's ward is beyond me. I don't recall is the motto, so why are we keeping so much secret if no one can remember what happened ever. Let's get it into the public domain where we can rely on something more than the amnesia gang to report to us what they can't recall, again and again.
{"commentId":1250544,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1250563,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
President Bush did not have any recollection
Reminds me of ol' Ronnie.
{"commentId":1250563,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1250680,"authorDomain":"miasma"}
or Alberto Gonzalez. Or Dick Cheney.
{"commentId":1250680,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"miasma"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1251822,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
Water boarding has been illegal in the US for 100 years + the US has prosecuted people for this in the past. I think if the President or anyone in the Executive, ordered people to commit a felony, then they and he should be held accountable.
{"commentId":1251822,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1251896,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
if the President or anyone in the Executive, ordered people to commit a felony, then they and he should be held accountable.
Eh, this one's not so much into consequences so destroying evidence is probably not an option but routine.
{"commentId":1251896,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1253817,"authorDomain":"comsen"}
or Bill Clinton
{"commentId":1253817,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"comsen"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1253822,"authorDomain":"comsen"}
I SPY: Water boarding has been illegal in the US for 100 years + the US has prosecuted people for this in the past.
Could you provide some evidence for that? During testimony before Congress, it was indicated that there was no US law against water boarding.
{"commentId":1253822,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"comsen"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1254434,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
As a JAG in the Nevada National Guard, I used to lecture the soldiers of the 72nd Military Police........................The U.S. government -- whether acting alone before domestic courts, commissions and courts-martial or as part of the world community -- has not only condemned the use of water torture but has severely punished those who applied it.
After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war. At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Nielsen's experience was not unique. Nor was the prosecution of his captors. After Japan surrendered, the United States organized and participated in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, generally called the Tokyo War Crimes Trials. Leading members of Japan's military and government elite were charged, among their many other crimes, with torturing Allied military personnel and civilians. The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding.
In this case from the tribunal's records, the victim was a prisoner in the Japanese-occupied Dutch East Indies:
A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.
The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:
Q: Was it painful?
A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.
Q: Like you were drowning?
A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.
Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:
They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.
And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on end with my head almost touching the floor and my feet in the air. . . . They then began pouring water over my face and at times it was almost impossible for me to breathe without sucking in water.
As a result of such accounts, a number of Japanese prison-camp officers and guards were convicted of torture that clearly violated the laws of war. They were not the only defendants convicted in such cases. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898 Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the "water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
More recently, waterboarding cases have appeared in U.S. district courts. One was a civil action brought by several Filipinos seeking damages against the estate of former Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos. The plaintiffs claimed they had been subjected to torture, including water torture. The court awarded $766 million in damages, noting in its findings that "the plaintiffs experienced human rights violations including, but not limited to . . . the water cure, where a cloth was placed over the detainee's mouth and nose, and water producing a drowning sensation."
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
We know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture. That's a lesson worth learning. The study of law is, after all, largely the study of history. The law of war is no different. This history should be of value to those who seek to understand what the law is -- as well as what it ought to be.
Evan Wallach, a judge at the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York, teaches the law
of war as an adjunct professor at Brooklyn Law School and New York Law School.
{"commentId":1254434,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1251483,"authorDomain":"bluecollarbytes"}
Democrats demand copies of this and they want them NOW. It's been a while since the last tapes were snuck over to their media-counterparts. The world's Islamists need some more enraging, and Democrats want to provide the fuel.
{"commentId":1251483,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"bluecollarbytes"}
- 1 vote
#2 - Fri Dec 7, 2007 9:24 PM EST{"commentId":1251517,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
The world's Islamists need some more enraging, and Democrats want to provide the fuel.
I don't understand your thinking. The question here is whether or not the CIA obstructed justice, which is a crime. It isn't about enraging the Islamists, there's far easier ways to do that. Heck, the US' existence itself enragists many extremists.
This idea that you either support the president or the terrorists is a false and unpatriotic idea. I really hope that wasn't your intent.
{"commentId":1251517,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":1251728,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
bluecollarbytes:
The people that delivered the leaks to the media are CIA agents that do not want the Agency to torture because they know if they are caught they are going to get brutal treatment or because they believe torture is wrong and want to expose the administration is allowing/encouraging the Agency to do it. You get all high and mighty but I fail to see how you derive the moral high road by getting angry when people try to STOP torture. Could you explain the righteous tone in the name of torture to me?
{"commentId":1251728,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":1251693,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
CIA did the right thing.
There was the danger such images could be leaked to the media as it did happen with Abu Graib.
The hatred towards america is hight enought all over the world.
No need for more images that would only fuel hate towards america.
The
real culprits in this story are the democrats. They fail to see america
image in the world is in shambles exactly because of images such as the
images of Abu Graib and others.
It is really shortsighted to condemn CIA for destroying the tapes.
A previous poster said the right thing. Islamists and many others hate america and democrats want to provide MORE fuel.
Democrats do not realize people all over the world has its eyes in the US , and US domestic issues are no more domestic as Abu Graid pictures did show.
Hate towards america does not need more fuel.
Just look at latuff cartoons to realize how much america is hated. And latuff is a brazilian cartoonist.
{"commentId":1251693,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
- 1 vote
#3 - Fri Dec 7, 2007 11:28 PM EST{"commentId":1251710,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
The real culprits in this story are the democrats. They fail to see america image in the world is in shambles exactly because of images such as the images of Abu Graib and others.
Every time I see the Democrats treated as being traitorous or bad for America I always know that I'm dealing with a good little Republican that knows the most successful applause line in American politics since the Civil War. Maybe if the Republicans were less short-sighted and exerted control to prevent torture from going on then there wouldn't be a need to destroy tapes that don't exist. Blame the Republicans for not only letting it go on, but encouraging it and fostering its growth by allowing "private military companies" to conduct interrogations that are, in themselves, abuses of human rights by allowing someone not in the military chain of command to interrogate prisoners, much less torture and kill them.
The last refuge of the scoundrel is to accuse his enemy of treason.
{"commentId":1251710,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":1251713,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
They fail to see america
image in the world is in shambles exactly because of images such as the
images of Abu Graib and others.
60 Minutes and The New Yorker broke that story. The actions at Abu Ghraib were the actions of a small group of soldiers. There was no Democratic conspiracy.
Democrats do not realize people all over the world has its eyes in the US , and US domestic issues are no more domestic as Abu Graid pictures did show.
This doesn't even make sense.
Islamists and many others hate america and democrats want to provide MORE fuel.
Please tell me what purpose this would serve.
{"commentId":1251713,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1251830,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
They fail to see america
image in the world is in shambles exactly because of images such as the
images of Abu Graib and others.This doesn't even make sense.
...
Exactly because I am NOT american..., ( neither I do live in the US )
My apologies, I wrongly assumed you were a US native.
{"commentId":1251830,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
{"commentId":1251855,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
@peter42y
There was the danger such images could be leaked to the media as it did happen with Abu Graib.
Yeh suck on that yankee It was our media that did that. And we will leak these CIA tapes too. This is because these people are war criminals. They must be prosecuted. You peter42y are an accessory after the fact. How dare you defend these actions, I suppose you wipe your arse with the American flag every morning too.
{"commentId":1251855,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1251866,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
You peter42y are an accessory after the fact.
I don't believe peter42y is an American or living in America. I understand your passion on this subject, but perhaps your comment is a bit offsides? I disagree with pretty much everything peter42y said, but there's no reason we can't reason together in a civil manner. Or, failing that, just not talk at all.
{"commentId":1251866,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
{"commentId":1251890,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
He has condoned a felony as the Americans call it, If he is an American citizen, then he is an accessory after the fact to a Crime under US law. If he is not a US citizen, then he is condoning an international war crime as outlined under the Geneva convention, which the US is a signatory. So he is still complicit within the act. It comes under the same act as Holocaust denial. So he is liable to have a warrant issued and appear before the ICC court in Brussels.
The information has been leaked, the CIA have admitted to destroying the video's, so there is no position to take but to condemn this action and demand that it be pursued through the courts.
You cant claim some kind of patriotic duty here, this is not patriotism, It is dangerous nationalism, and by condoning an actual felony, he is in fact an enemy of the state. There is no wiggle room here. that's the law both in the US and Internationally
{"commentId":1251890,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1251899,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
#3 Peter... CIA did the right thing. There was the danger such images could be leaked to the media as it did happen with Abu Graib.
There's a bigger danger crimes are covered up and we are harboring cold blooded killers and lawbreakers. Worse than looking bad is feeding the growth of evil within as policy destroying National values to protect a few who can't respect human life or century old laws of civilized Nations. No, we need it all to come out and hold the guilty responsible or we are exactly like the ruthless dictatorships our public policy claims to abhor.
{"commentId":1251899,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1251769,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
quote
Every time I see the Democrats treated as being traitorous or bad for America I always know that I'm dealing with a good little Republican
end of quote
I am not even american.
Neither I do live in the US.
Exactly because I am NOT american..., ( neither I do live in the US ), I am more aware of US image in the world.
Look at latuff cartoons.
Latuff is popular in Brazil a country with more than 100 million people.
He has cartoons depicting us soldiers with medals that are actually small skulls.
This is the image of US soldiers in many peoples minds.
Why such bad image
Because of Abu Graib pictures, by instance.
Kennedy today said that CIA should do nothing that could not be taped.
This statement is unrealistic.
They seem to be unaware that people do not voluntaarly give information.
There must be some level of pressure and therefore one cannot apply the rule
If you cant show it on tape dont do it.
This is obvious.
I am not saying people should be tortured but I am saying CIA cant have the rule if you cant show it on tape dont do it..., as Kennedy implied.
{"commentId":1251769,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
- 1 vote
#4 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 12:19 AM EST{"commentId":1251776,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
quote
Islamists and many others hate america and democrats want to provide MORE fuel.
end of quote
I do exagerate.
Democrats are not aware they will provide more fuel to hatred against america.., but the fact is that if the tapes had not been destroyed they could be leaked to the media and that would certainly increase the hate towards US.
This is obvious.
{"commentId":1251776,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
#5 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 12:21 AM EST{"commentId":1251786,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
I wrote
Democrats fail to see america
image in the world is in shambles exactly because of images such as the
images of Abu Graib and others.
end of quote
Damian KD wrote
60 Minutes and The New Yorker broke that story. The actions at Abu
Ghraib were the actions of a small group of soldiers. There was no
Democratic conspiracy.
end of quote.
I did not made myself understood.
Democrats are condemning the CIA destruction of tapes.
For me it is pretty obvious why CIA is doing that.
CIA does fear the tapes might fell in the wrong hands fuelling more hate towards america.
I dont understand Democrat position.
It looks democrats fail
to realize there was the danger the destroyed tapes could end in the
wrong hands fuelling more hostility towards the US.
I am not saying democrats did a conspiracy to leak Abu Graib Pictures.
I am saying a sensible person would support the CIA action given the fact that some images greatly damage us image in the world and any country does some kind of abuse especially when it comes to interrogating people.
{"commentId":1251786,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
#6 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 12:27 AM EST{"commentId":1251796,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
the destroyed tapes could end in the
wrong hands fuelling more hostility towards the US.
Dude, our own president single-handedly contributes to hostility against the US. A few CIA tapes showing waterboarding won't exactly set off a firestorm of Islamic rage.
The question is about obstruction of justice. If justice was obstructed, then even the remote chance of angering extremists even more doesn't reduce the fact that America was founded on the ideas of liberty and justice. Obstructing justice = unAmerican acts.
Besides, these folks are still in prison, no? Wouldn't that also get extremists upset?
{"commentId":1251796,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1251818,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
quote
America was founded on the ideas of liberty and justice. Obstructing justice = unAmerican acts.
end of quote.
You ilustrate what I wrote earlier.
Democrats and other
american see issues as if those issues were only domestic issues when
it today globalized world this is not true anymore.
You claim that the destruction of tapes is unamerican since the CIA fellows are obstructing justice.
I replied already that such vision fails to realize that we live in
a globalized world and some US " domestic " issues are no longer
Domestic.
People has to take into account the reaction of the wider world out there.
The fate of america is linked to the fate of the world and some not just american anymore.
It does not to make sense to condemn the destruction of tapes when we
know such tapes could damage america image out there in case they were
leaked wich is a possibility.
Cia reasoned
Better be safe than sorry.
Nothing wrong about that.
The ironic thing is the fact I am not american.., but I realize that america image is in shambles because US media.., keep blasting US policies while it does ignore what does happen in other parts of the world.
The result is that anti americans everywhere are feed with facts criticizing US policies .
Countries such as russia by instance that violate human rights much more than US does.., have a much better image in the eyes of the world.
{"commentId":1251818,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
#7 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 12:52 AM EST{"commentId":1251825,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
It does not to make sense to condemn the destruction of tapes when we know such tapes could damage america image out there in case they were leaked wich is a possibility.
I respectfully disagree. My nation was meant to be a nation of laws. There are rules that all men and women must abide by, and those rules should not be excused just because it would make America look bad. America already looks bad. It did before GW Bush, and it has looked worse since.
Covering up injustices in the name of protecting the image of America actually does nothing more than tarnish that same image. Righting those wrongs is the only way that America can right itself.
I love my country, and there is very little that pains me more than to see my country slowly slip into fascist rule.
{"commentId":1251825,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1251849,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
The latuff cartoon bount to fail is worth watching. Side by side you can see a vietnamese and an Iraqi. The caption is bound to fail. The cartoon does give the message america will fail in iraq as it did in vietnam. Other latuff cartoons are less benign. The comparison between Iraq.., Vietnam.., was a topic that surfaced in the US media in the last campaign for congress.
The cartoon clearly does show how anti americans do pick arguments in the US media and use them to demonize the US.
Check latuff in google. Then check his cartoons in deviant art.
You will have a course in anti americanism out there.
{"commentId":1251849,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
#8 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 1:20 AM EST{"commentId":1251856,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
quote
Covering up injustices in the name of protecting the image of America actually does nothing more than tarnish that same image.
end of quote
Thanks for your message.
I respectfull disagree.
Most people say what you say..., but let us look at the facts.
China has been covering its wrongs in Tibet.
Actually china invaded Tibet in the 50s..., and has covered its misdeeds there.
Such strategy has worked ?
Of course it has.
Not many people are aware of the ocupation of tibet by china.
Same its true when it comes to Chechnya.
When it became president..,putin the russian president , prevented media from covering the war in chechnya.
That strategy has worked ?
Of course it has.
Conversely the openness of the american system..., has damaged US image.
This is sad but true.
quote
Righting those wrongs is the only way that America can right itself.
end of quote
When it comes to american domestic policy I think this is true but when
it comes to america image in the world..., I doubt that this is true.
America image is so bad.., because everyone can see american wrongs while russian wrongs.., or chinese wrongs are hidden from peoples eyes.
{"commentId":1251856,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
#9 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 1:28 AM EST{"commentId":1251869,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
America image is so bad.., because everyone can see american wrongs while russian wrongs.., or chinese wrongs are hidden from peoples eyes.
Life, liberty and justice is what America was founded upon. Covering up crimes is not something that my country should do, and it not something that any true American would think is a good idea.
If you were to murder someone, and cover it up to protect your image in the community, aren't you still a murderer? Hiding it only works for a little while.
{"commentId":1251869,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1251894,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
quote
If you were to murder someone, and cover it up to protect your image in
the community, aren't you still a murderer? Hiding it only works for a
little while.
end of quote
when it comes to a small comunity this is true..., because the
criminal cannot control the media but when it comes to countries this
is less true.
One example example . The tibetans that got invaded by chinese.
They got crushed by the chinese and crime did pay off.
People are not aware of that situation.
Another example the albigencian crusade back in the 13 century.
From wikipedia
The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year
military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate
the heresy of the Cathars of Languedoc.
.....
An estimated 200,000 people died during the crusade.
end of quote.
How many people know that nowadays ?
The albigens were exterminated and the Pope did carry on.
People forget that . Looking back to history one does realize that often , collective crime does pay off.
Did you knew by instance russian troops raped thousands and thousands of German women , back in 1945 ?
Did you knew MILLIONS of germans were expelled from eastern Europe after world war II ?
All of these human rights violations did pay off.
People forgot them.
The idea that hidding a crime does not pay off is not right.
Conversely the idea that openness does pay off..., is not entirely true.
Often the opposite is true.
Crime does pay off when it comes to countries and communities.
{"commentId":1251894,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
#10 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 2:03 AM EST{"commentId":1251944,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
Crime doesn't pay and, even if it does, I don't want the dividends because it is blood money. My religion says that there is nothing done in darkness that doesn't come to light so I am a proponent of living rightly and well in the open and doing nothing you would be ashamed of were it splashed on the front page tomorrow. It's a way of life that allows you to look in the mirror and sleep at night as well as be proud of what you've done at day's end. It's a way of war, in fact, a way of life that I think this country needs to get back to and embrace again.
{"commentId":1251944,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1251918,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
Indeed, America's only defense against a worse image is to halt these interrogations where torture is taking place. Who wants to be allied with or assist a country that routinely uses torture? Torture is not only incompatible with our laws but America's image abroad. The first step to fix that is to vote out of office the party whose core constituency is closely watching a debate where the presidential candidates continually up the ante about how their torture will be worse than the previous candidate's torture.
{"commentId":1251918,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 3 votes
#11 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 2:24 AM EST{"commentId":1251926,"authorDomain":"peter42y"}
quote
Indeed, America's only defense against a worse image is to halt these interrogations where torture is taking place. Who wants to be allied with or assist a country that routinely uses torture?
end of quote
Look at china.
China uses torture.
This is a fact.
China was even choosen to host olympic games.
Governments could not care less if a country does use torture.
Look at russia.
Investment has sky rocked in russia and russia uses torture.
{"commentId":1251926,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"peter42y"}
#12 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 2:30 AM EST{"commentId":1251936,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
Look at china.
China uses torture.
This is a fact.
China was even choosen to host olympic games.
Governments could not care less if a country does use torture.
Look at russia.
Investment has sky rocked in russia and russia uses torture.
It is my opinion that your logic is faulty.
{"commentId":1251936,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1251941,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
Look at china.
China uses torture.
This is a fact.
China was even choosen to host olympic games.
Governments could not care less if a country does use torture.
Look at russia.
Investment has sky rocked in russia and russia uses torture.
Even so, that is not something I am comfortable having my country doing to people in its prisons. I am a Christian with a diction by my faith to do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I would want another country to hold me in prison and not torture me so I think my country should hold its prisoners and not torture them.
Furthermore, America and Europe operate with a moral imperative that used to allow them to speak as the conscience of the world. That wouldn't fly right now but I would like to see us return to that level and be able to speak to moral issues in the world once again.
{"commentId":1251941,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 3 votes
#13 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 2:48 AM EST{"commentId":1252513,"authorDomain":"mikegorse"}
The New York Times web page carries the story C.I.A. Destroyed 2 Tapes Showing Interrogations By MARK MAZZETTI - and beneath the story, a link to the letter from US Attorney, Chuck Rosenberg to Chief Judge Williams and Judge Brinkema explaining the tapes existence.
On page 2 of the PDF, paragraphs two and three, the solicitor clearly says "On September 13, 2007, an attorney for the CIA notified us of a discovery of a video tape of the interrogation of [redacted]. On September 19, 2007, we viewed that video tape and a transcript [redacted] of the interview."
The next paragraph starts "After learning of the existence of the first video tape, we requested the CIA to perform an exhaustive review to determine whether it was in possession of any other such recording for any of the enemy combatant witnesses at issue in this case. CIA's review, which now appears to be complete, uncovered the existence of a second video tape, as well as a short audio tape, both of which pertain to interrogations [redacted]. On October 18, we viewed the second video tape and listened to the audio tape, while reviewing transcripts."
It appears to me the US Attorney has told the Judges he watched the video tapes in September and October of 2007, that Michael Hayden says were destroyed ("all copies") in 2005. Is this as transparent a lie as it seems?
{"commentId":1252513,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"mikegorse"}
- 2 votes
#14 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 11:17 AM EST{"commentId":1252742,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
If those tapes still exist they will get out into the public now.
{"commentId":1252742,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1252712,"authorDomain":"AsymptoticToZero"}
A presumption that tapes were destroyed to hide torture seems premature at best. David Frum floats an alternative theory.
What follows is Posner's account of how an al Qaeda operative fingered key Saudis and a Pakistani general, who were then dealt with, with speculation that various parties would have reason to keep such information secret. On the whole, to me it seems much more likely that tapes are destroyed to protect various international diplomatic and defense ties than to hide torture, if only because the former are perceived as much more important in the grand scheme of things.
{"commentId":1252712,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"AsymptoticToZero"}
- 2 votes
#15 - Sat Dec 8, 2007 12:47 PM EST{"commentId":1252739,"authorDomain":"AsymptoticToZero"}
Here's the link to the Frum post: Frum
I've been having trouble with the Newsvine software for the past week. For example, the above comment appeared without me clicking on the "post comment" button.
{"commentId":1252739,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"AsymptoticToZero"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1252755,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
On the whole, to me it seems much more likely that tapes are destroyed to protect various international diplomatic and defense ties than to hide torture, if only because the former are perceived as much more important in the grand scheme of things.
How many of these utterly pathetic lies will the US public accept? What a pissweak excuse, The only reason they would have destroyed these tapes is to avoid a warrant being issued by the ICC for War Crimes. Any other explanation is just apologist BullS^%$t.
If anyone is so stupid to believe this crap then please explain to me why the CIA does not burmn all its files on these subjects now. There must be millions of them.
pseudonihilist This is the sickest and most depraved excuse I have heard dredged up by Yankee apologists to date.
{"commentId":1252755,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1257960,"authorDomain":"framed"}
What a pissweak excuse
Um, not really.
There are lots of good reasons to keep secret interrogations secret. Imagine if you were the perfectly ethical interrogator, would you want your face plastered all over the news? You'd be an enemy target instantly, torture or not. The whole reason you interrogate is to get intelligence information, that information loses value when the enemy knows you have it. Because of that, you'd never want to release such information to the public, at least not while it still had any value.
{"commentId":1257960,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"framed"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1257975,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
would you want your face plastered all over the news
It isn't like faces couldn't be blurred or blacked out. MTV does it with tshirt logos. Surely the US government can do that with some video.
The whole reason you interrogate is to get intelligence information, that information loses value when the enemy knows you have it.
The issue here isn't the information (which could be obscured), but the means of obtaining it.
{"commentId":1257975,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":1258049,"authorDomain":"framed"}
The issue here isn't the information (which could be obscured), but the means of obtaining it.
I know what the issue is, and your making a big leap saying that it could be sufficiently obscured. When you release a tape you can't do so without revealing information unrelated to the method. What are they saying? Where are they saying it? Who was being interrogated? Who was doing the interrogation? What was the method? How long ago does it appear to have been happening?
What would be left of the tape that showed you the means of interrogation if you blocked out enough to avoid answering those questions? That information can be valuable, and dangerous/detrimental to release. That is why its reasonable to destroy tapes. (Or to not even make them.) You save yourself from tipping off the enemy for no good reason.
The US shouldn't torture, but it shouldn't just hand out its intelligence assets to the media either. When it comes down to it, it hardly matters anyway. People have already made up their minds on the subject, and for good reason. If they showed a tape of someone having a pleasant conversation, people would say "oh the torture happened elseware, I mean we've already seen the photos in Time Magazine" If they showed torture, well...we'd know what we already know. The US has been torturing people.
We need to correct the problem of torture, we don't need to gawk at people being beaten.
{"commentId":1258049,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"framed"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1258093,"authorDomain":"damiankd"}
I know what the issue is, and your making a big leap saying that it could be sufficiently obscured. When you release a tape you can't do so without revealing information unrelated to the method. What are they saying? Where are they saying it? Who was being interrogated? Who was doing the interrogation? What was the method? How long ago does it appear to have been happening?
I admit, I didn't think about those things. However, it would be completely possible to retain these tapes, and show them behing closed doors. Secret info is shared with lawmakers all the time, without compromising the secrecy. I'm not saying that these tapes should be broadcasted on the evening news, there wouldn't be any point of that, except maybe to (hopefully) shock the Bush apologists into reality. As for the rest of your response, I wholeheartedly agree.
{"commentId":1258093,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"damiankd"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1262084,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
More pathetic excuses, what this amounts too is deliberate destruction of evidence. Irt has nothing to do with secrecy if it did then as I said the CIA wopuld have to burn several thousand tonne's of documents and video tapes. Not a single thing you have said has any logical basis. They new they committed a crime and they deliberately destroyed the evidence is what happened. Any other reason is just pure spin.
If you believe this then explain why they did not just lock it away for 50 years. If you cant answer this then you are a deceitful Bush apologist.
{"commentId":1262084,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1264018,"authorDomain":"framed"}
...if it did then as I said the CIA wopuld have to burn several thousand tonne's of documents and video tapes.
Apparently you don't know much about the business. Government agencies *do* burn literally tons of paper and tapes. In fact, they have manuals governing how and when its to be done for sensitive information. (see chapter 6.14)
If you believe this then explain why they did not just lock it away for 50 years. If you cant answer this then you are a deceitful Bush apologist.
There are several reasons, off the top of my head here are three: 1) Its expensive to store things for 50 years. 2) As long as a record exists, it can be leaked. Why risk a leak whats the data is no longer operationally useful? 3) Committing to store something for 50 years implies storing a means to read it for 50 years. How many tapes made 50 years ago can you still play? The expense in doing this is massive, just ask NASA.
By the way: all the "deceitful" "pathetic" "no logical basis" comments really don't add much to the discussion. If you want to have a civilized conversation please try and stay civil. For the record, I don't even like Bush. Your assumptions about me are pretty off base.
{"commentId":1264018,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"framed"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1264857,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
framed makes extremely valid points, particularly the cost of storing something for that long.
{"commentId":1264857,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1265039,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
Well Scott Issacs just on that point
Committing to store something for 50 years implies storing a means to read it for 50 years. How many tapes made 50 years ago can you still play?
All of them, and it would cost about 5 $
So Framed admits it here, the tapes were destroyed to prevent them from being seen. This is deliberate destruction of evidence of a felony. Thanks framed.
{"commentId":1265039,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1265142,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
I don't think you are taking into account the degradation of the media that the information is stored on as well as the cost of keeping and maintaining the machines with which to read the media. You need a good repairman on retainer if you are going to commit to keeping a record of something for fifty years. Although it is getting easier and more reliable now that we can turn analog signals to digital ones and save video and audio on servers with extraordinarily large hard drives. The only proviso to that is that the analog signal must be clear enough and strong enough to still be viewable and audible enough so that when the transfer process takes away some of the clarity and audio volume it still works. Archiving is a much more difficult process than you believe it to be, I think.
{"commentId":1265142,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1266251,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
Rubbish Scott, give them to me and I'll store them for 50 years for 5$. I'll garuntee they will be readable and in good condition. The idea that the CIA is still using magnetic tape is rather amusing too. If they have this stuff on Film, then it will last for 100 years in a wine cellar. even if it was a nitrate film. If it is on analogue magnetic tape. I'll digitize it for free. For 150$ you can even buy a video recorder that will do this.
I regularly digitize file footage as part of my job. I know how easy it is. If you are having trouble with old VHS footage, use the PAL output conversion and then Deinterlace it.
{"commentId":1266251,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1273334,"authorDomain":"framed"}
So Framed admits it here, the tapes were destroyed to prevent them from being seen. This is deliberate destruction of evidence of a felony.
Its protection of classified information. NOT doing this is a felony. You're calling it evidence only after the fact. If you get that much leeway in deciding what is evidence, then anything can be evidence and nothing can ever be thrown away. Thats nonsense.
I'll store them for 50 years for 5$. ... If it is on analogue magnetic tape. I'll digitize it for free.
Good luck with that business model. Secure storage facilities, guards, tape technicians, massive server rooms and IT staff to hold it all in digital form. Its not like we're talking about your home movie collection here. We're talking more data than you could even look at in your lifetime. (or 10 or 100 lifetimes)
{"commentId":1273334,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"framed"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1274399,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
And to framed's point, you won't find what you're looking for unless you know what you are looking for because it's not like you can just watch this stuff and stumble across it. You'd have to know what time period and what subject it is dealing with to have a chance at narrowing the search enough to find it.
{"commentId":1274399,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1278631,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}
Absolute Crap Framed
Good luck with that business model. Secure storage facilities, guards, tape technicians, massive server rooms and IT staff to hold it all in digital form. Its not like we're talking about your home movie collection here. We're talking more data than you could even look at in your lifetime. (or 10 or 100 lifetimes)
With todays Tech you could store the total amount of accumulated data in the US in a small room not much bigger than a double shipping container. It would require three full time staff, and a few temps.
Your argument is just a load of apologist crap. No basis in truth or logic. They destroyed the tapes because they knew they would be liable for prosecution. Therefore they destroyed evidence with the knowledge that it could and would be used against them.
{"commentId":1278631,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"ISPY"}
- 1 vote
{"commentId":1279984,"authorDomain":"isaacs"}
I SPY:
I don't think you are considering the security concerns inherent in this. The US government needs military guards for wherever they store their records to prevent people from stealing them.
{"commentId":1279984,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"isaacs"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":1280218,"authorDomain":"framed"}
With todays Tech you could store the total amount of accumulated data in the US in a small room not much bigger than a double shipping container. It would require three full time staff, and a few temps.
You are massively underestimating the amount of data 100,000 people can produce over the decades. I'm an IT guy. I know the space involved. Do you know what comes after gigabyte? Do you know what comes after that? (I do, and I've built the systems)
Your argument is just a load of apologist crap. No basis in truth or logic.
You said that before, saying it a second time doesn't make it any more accurate. I don't like bush, I don't think torture is right. That said, I don't think the government should be in the business of preserving every possible fact that some conspiracy theory moron wants access to for the next 50 years. Sensitive information should be destroyed to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. There is no better way to protect a national secret than to destroy it.
They destroyed the tapes because they knew they would be liable for prosecution. Therefore they destroyed evidence with the knowledge that it could and would be used against them.
Provide evidence that this is true, or go home.
{"commentId":1280218,"threadId":"186253","contentId":"1148416","authorDomain":"framed"}
- 2 votes
{"commentId":10404831,"authorDomain":"breelaboy"}
{"commentId":10425562,"authorDomain":"brianalampton"}
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"186253","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2009 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
