Reply With Quote
oh man.....
this means mouse was right all along about 9/11!
Sorry for doubting you.
AP Newsbreak: CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes
By DEVLIN BARRETT 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) New do ents show the CIA destroyed nearly 100 tapes of terror interrogations, far more than has previously been acknowledged.
The revelation Monday comes as a criminal prosecutor is wrapping up his investigation in the matter.
The acknowledgment of dozens of destroyed tapes came in a letter filed by government lawyers in New York, where the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking more details of the Bush administration's terror interrogation programs following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said the letter by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. "Ninety two videotapes were destroyed."
ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for holding back the information for so long.
"The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," Singh said in a statement.
The tapes also became a contentious issue in the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, after prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then after the trial was over, they acknowledged two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.
The letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin erstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents, and the iden ies of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.
But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel that viewed the tapes.
"The CIA intends to produce all of the information requested to the court and to produce as much information as possible on the public record to the plaintiffs," states the letter.
John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, was appointed to lead the criminal investigation out of Virginia.
He had asked that the requests for information in the civil lawsuit be put on hold until he had completed his criminal investigation. Durham asked that he be given until the end of February to wrap up his work, and has not asked for another extension.
Durham's spokesman, Tom Carson, had no immediate comment.
The criminal investigation into the CIA's videotapes included interrogations of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. They were destroyed, in part, to protect the iden ies of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department was debating whether the tactics used during the interrogations which are believed to have included waterboarding were illegal.
oh man.....
this means mouse was right all along about 9/11!
Sorry for doubting you.
Only 92?
I'm telling you, it sounds more and more like Obama doesn't want what happened to get out because it's just THAT bad.
I'm more interested in the tapes that Roger Goodell destroyed.
That felt so wrong to me. Why destroy the evidence? What do the Pats have on Goodell?
Destroying evidence is never a good thing, IMO.
My understanding is the tapes were destroyed years ago, but that the precise information about the destruction ordered by the court is only now coming to light. The bad news is unwelcome.
The Abu Ghraib tapes may soon see wider release. Expect Obama to fight that tooth and nail as well.
Sen. Lindsay Graham used the words "rape" and "murder" to describe the conduct he saw on the tapes, and Sec'y Rumsfeld said their release would be harmful to the country.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-02-2009 at 09:20 PM.
Someday they to will have to be released...Sen. Lindsay Graham used the words "rape" and "murder" to describe the conduct he saw on the tapes, and Sec'y Rumsfeld said their release would be harmful to the country
The truth commission will be powerless to do justice but will compensate by immunizing some of the criminals for their testimony. Ick.
The bottom of the article explained it. To protect the iden y of CIA agents. This was an issue long ago. Came out then that the tapes were destroyed for that purpose. A wise decision considering how many traitors release secret material from within our government before an approval process. Besides, maybe some were destroyed because they were useless? I don't know about such material, but some things, you simply destroy after a three or seven year window anyway. Can you imagine the logistics of saving everything?
And your point? Besides, how do you release destroyed material.
Why is this such a big deal?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-02-2009 at 09:36 PM.
Yep, Joe Wilson was traitor. Armatige? Hard to say. Maybe. There is still debate of her actual status.
L'Affaire Plame changed all that, eh?
Interrogations of dangerous terrorists? Why save those?
Maybe you didn't read through the thread carefully. No biggie. We all do it sometimes. I sidetracked to the Abu Ghraib tapes.And your point? Besides, how do you release destroyed material.
The CIA responded to an court order for information with a tale of destruction. And then, a year later, got around to disclosing the scope of that destruction to the court. Can you see why the judge is peeved at the CIA?Why is this such a big deal?
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-02-2009 at 10:35 PM.
No, there have been several serious leaks throughout government. Here about the new file sharing problem that had Marine One details available on-line?L'Affaire Plame changed all that, eh?
Why save fruitless evidence as well? Without the details, we can only guess. I would say 92 tapes isn't that many. How many thousands are there? One tape, one session. Possible example. Interrogator walks in room. Talks. No response from the terrorists. Walks out. Would you save such a tape any longer than needed?
Are you saying the whole thread is factual?
Serving in the military for 11 years, we destroyed plenty of do ents. Not out of fear, but because it's time was up, or it was no longer useful.
When is it wise to say more than necessary? I simply have seen nothing to convince me that in this case, the CIA's story is a problem. I only see people who wish to project their bias into the situation as seeing problems.
Did you do so when there was a court order not to?
Never in that situation. Weren't the tapes destryed before a court order was issued?
It's not clear from the article whether they were destroyed before or after the order, but if the former, why not simply provide an accurate number of destroyed tapes when it was initially requested?
I don't remember this story very well. I think it started about two years ago. At the time, they simply responded that the tapes were already destroyed for security reasons, to protect their agents iden y. No numbers were asked for at the time that I'm aware of. As far as I know, the tapes were destroyed prior to any request being made. Do you know of accountability being asked for then?
This is a stupid story. Even the story acknowledges the CIA is retrieving what information it can. I only see it as a big deal for those wanting to push an agenda.
The CIA says yes.
General Hayden said he understood that the tapes were destroyed only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries including the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.
It took awhile to round up all the tapes, destroy them and fabricate bogus do entation for the whole thing.
The whole thread? I'll answer for my posts but I'll not answer for any other posters. Let's keep to the OP.
What strikes you as *not* being factual about it?
I don't know. I often flat out ignore what some people say.
For what? Having a position contrary to the President?
The guy who actually spilled the beans? No motive. Just a chatty Cathy.
Really? I thought the debate ended long ago. NOC, right?
Believe me WC, sometimes it shows.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
