• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

CIA Admits It Destroyed Tapes Of Harsh Interrogation

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Sinsear


The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody

Big fvcking deal. No sympathy for anyone associated with that organization.

Yeah, no problem. They're just terrorists. Let's just hope nobody mistakes you for a terrorist.

I don't think that will ever be an issue.

Naive. That's the only word I can use to describe you.



Coming from a RP supporter. :laugh:

Ah yes, when you have nothing of substance to say, fall back on childish insults. Let me guess, you support 9/11? Or maybe that guy with the hair and white teeth. Or the TV preacher? What does your candidate say about you, Captain Waterboard?

What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.

:roll:

And to think people here are always accusing "right wingers" of fear-mongering...
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
My position has nothing to do with defending "teh evil administration." I am simply VERY grateful that any videos, such as those the CIA allegedly destroyed, will NEVER hit Youtube and Al Jazeera.

I regret that an alleged crime may have been committed in the process of destroying the alleged tapes, but in the end, my priority is saving American lives, so I can live with that.

I'm also not ignorant enough to believe that the CIA has ever been, or ever will be, publically accountable. This seems to be just another case of the sheep despising the wolves they pay to protect them from other wolves. SOSDD.

QFT. :thumbsup:
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: fallout man
Originally posted by: chucky2

What possible good could come from airing this tape??? (and, once out of CIA hands, it would get leaked, make no doubt about it)

Hey Chuckles...

They deleted and suppressed the existence of these tapes from a congressional investigative body (THEIR BOSS). The congressional investigative body (THEIR BOSS) has security clearance.

No, their "boss" is the CIA Director. His boss is the Executive (President). The intel agencies are under the Exec branch.

Yes, Congress has oversight and they must generally yeild to that Constitutional authority.


Classified stuff get's "leaked" to congress all of the time--it's called "oversight."

No. IIRC, classified info generally not released to the full Congress (that would mean the classified data w/b broadcast on CSpan), but only given to select members of relevant committees.

The article isn't crying foul because the water-boarding tapes didn't get aired on prime-time. It's crying foul because these tapes were lawfully and rightfully subpoenaed by a congressional investigative body (THE BOSS) and were hidden/made to disappear.

Quite possibly could be a (criminal) legal problem. Not sure if the info was properly considered national security/classified if that would be the case though. But generally, intentionally withholding such info would be obstruction of justice.

But the veracity of the outrage seems out of whack, other than for political purpose - something common these days.

I thought that the CIA etc has confirmed use of waterboarding, so there's no "lie" about it existing or not. Rather, some people were denied the "pleasure" of seeing it actual use.


Water-carriers like you love the whole idea of privileged intelligence, right? Well, the God-damn congressional investigative body into the biggest attack on the United States since the Pearl Harbor sounds to me like they ought to have a listen to privileged intelligence.

Seems odd, or wrong, that not even the transcripts of the interrogation were turned over.

Instead, they got hoodwinked.

Does that sound right and proper to you? It doesn't to me.

THis is the same CIA issuing the recent NIE report.

Oddly, they are celebrated in that thread, villified in this one.

Fern
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern

THis is the same CIA issuing the recent NIE report.

Oddly, they are celebrated in that thread, villified in this one.

Fern

If the CIA was one guy this might be a fair comment, but it isn't.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The CIA destroyed evidence that it consider risky. How can anyone know what the CIA is doing or did if CIA can control what information exists about their activities?

We KNOW one thing they did -- When asked if they had such evidence, they LIED to Congressional committees charged with oversight of the CIA, to the 9-11 Commission and to at least two Federal judges and denied that it existed. That constitutes lying to Congress, which is a felony even if not done under oath, and it may also constitute Obstruction of Justice.

We can only speculate about what further crimes the tapes may reveal, but we've already seen other evidence that our government has committed torture at Abu Ghraib and other venues. There is no reason to trust anything this administration says about anything, for any reason without hard independent coroboration from sources more credible than the Bushwhackos, themselves.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BoberFett
What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.

:roll:

And to think people here are always accusing "right wingers" of fear-mongering...

Hahahahaa, are you claiming I'm a left winger? This forum is hilarious. I am somehow simultaneously a left winger and a right winger.

This place is filled with morons, and makes it perfectly clear why the US is going down in flames.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BoberFett
What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.

:roll:

And to think people here are always accusing "right wingers" of fear-mongering...

Hahahahaa, are you claiming I'm a left winger? This forum is hilarious. I am somehow simultaneously a left winger and a right winger.

This place is filled with morons, and makes it perfectly clear why the US is going down in flames.

That's the great part about it, Pabster will assign labels based on views on any single topic but will flip flop when appropriate, he has cat-like agility.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BoberFett
What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.

:roll:

And to think people here are always accusing "right wingers" of fear-mongering...

Hahahahaa, are you claiming I'm a left winger? This forum is hilarious. I am somehow simultaneously a left winger and a right winger.

This place is filled with morons, and makes it perfectly clear why the US is going down in flames.

This is said sadly, but :

QFT ^^^

At least 90% of the posters here see things in purely partisan terms, and will try to place ANYthing that they do not agree with, or that runs counter to their favored political party, as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'.

Whatever happened to things like :

Right vs. Wrong
Accountability
Honesty
Standards

?????

Looking at the disgusting bags of worthless shit that are our Republican and Democratic front-runners for the '08 elections, I have little hope that things will improve.
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BoberFett
What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.

:roll:

And to think people here are always accusing "right wingers" of fear-mongering...

Hahahahaa, are you claiming I'm a left winger? This forum is hilarious. I am somehow simultaneously a left winger and a right winger.

This place is filled with morons, and makes it perfectly clear why the US is going down in flames.

This is said sadly, but :

QFT ^^^

At least 90% of the posters here see things in purely partisan terms, and will try to place ANYthing that they do not agree with, or that runs counter to their favored political party, as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'.

Whatever happened to things like :

Right vs. Wrong
Accountability
Honesty
Standards

?????

Looking at the disgusting bags of worthless shit that are our Republican and Democratic front-runners for the '08 elections, I have little hope that things will improve.

Agreed. But a side question; Do you not like any of the candidates?
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: BoberFett
What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.

:roll:

And to think people here are always accusing "right wingers" of fear-mongering...

Hahahahaa, are you claiming I'm a left winger? This forum is hilarious. I am somehow simultaneously a left winger and a right winger.

This place is filled with morons, and makes it perfectly clear why the US is going down in flames.

This is said sadly, but :

QFT ^^^

At least 90% of the posters here see things in purely partisan terms, and will try to place ANYthing that they do not agree with, or that runs counter to their favored political party, as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing'.

Whatever happened to things like :

Right vs. Wrong
Accountability
Honesty
Standards

?????

Looking at the disgusting bags of worthless shit that are our Republican and Democratic front-runners for the '08 elections, I have little hope that things will improve.

Agreed. But a side question; Do you not like any of the candidates?

Not really. I mean I think Obama is a nice enough guy, and certainly the least offensive of all the candidates, but I see a couple glaring problems that are probable in a potential Obama presidency :

(1)- Lack of experience means he'll probably turn to party leaders for policy decisions (read; Democratic mainstream, which while probably somewhat less destructive than mainstream Republican policy, it's still bad policy overall)

(2)- Sort of related to (1), but : I think that many government institutions have become politicized to the point of no going back, meaning that many agencies would not only be uncooperative with his policy/initiatives, but would actively work to counteract/sabotage his every move. Look at the spectacularly stupid waste of money and resources that is the 'homeland security agency :

*- We have other agencies that were supposed to be doing that work, hugely expensive groups like the NSA/CIA/FBI/DIA/etc. Why create ANOTHER pile of Federal crap, instead of fixing/merging what we already had?

*- What in the hell kind of logic was involved in folding FEMA under DHS? FEMA worked just FINE before the polticos ruined it with their partisan grabastic puke-filled rotting cocks. But no, let's mix domestic intelligence with disaster relief! Perfectly logical!

Argh, I'm angry, so I'll just continue to rant, so I'll stop here.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: Arkaign
*- What in the hell kind of logic was involved in folding FEMA under DHS? FEMA worked just FINE before the polticos ruined it with their partisan grabastic puke-filled rotting cocks. But no, let's mix domestic intelligence with disaster relief! Perfectly logical!

I'm pretty sure the Katrina response occured before FEMA was placed under DHS. Many would prolly disagree that it was working fine back then.

I'd guess the logic, not that I expect it's execution will be anything great, is that FEMA is going to be heavily relied upon in the event of another successful terrorist attack. Quite likely the attack itself will not be near as bad as the aftermath of an unsuccessful respone. That is, a sucessful response by "FEMA" would greatly minimize the consequences. Close co-ordination between DHS and FEMA would be required.

But it's not just FEMA that has been placed under DHS, it's a whole bunch of other stuff too. Consequently DHS is incredible bloated.

Fern

edit: left out the "not" in a sentance above
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,984
55,389
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Arkaign
*- What in the hell kind of logic was involved in folding FEMA under DHS? FEMA worked just FINE before the polticos ruined it with their partisan grabastic puke-filled rotting cocks. But no, let's mix domestic intelligence with disaster relief! Perfectly logical!

I'm pretty sure the Katrina response occured before FEMA was placed under DHS. Many would prolly disagree that it was working fine back then.

I'd guess the logic, not that I expect it's execution will be anything great, is that FEMA is going to be heavily relied upon in the event of another successful terrorist attack. Quite likely the attack itself will not be near as bad as the aftermath of an unsuccessful respone. That is, a sucessful response by "FEMA" would greatly minimize the consequences. Close co-ordination between DHS and FEMA would be required.

But it's just FEMA that has been placed under DHS, it's a whole bunch of other stuff too. Consequently DHS is incredible bloated.

Fern

Anyone remember in the X Files movie about how the shadow government was supposed to use FEMA to take over the whole country and then the world? Someone should probably inform the illuminati that these guys can't even put a trailer park together.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Arkaign
*- What in the hell kind of logic was involved in folding FEMA under DHS? FEMA worked just FINE before the polticos ruined it with their partisan grabastic puke-filled rotting cocks. But no, let's mix domestic intelligence with disaster relief! Perfectly logical!

I'm pretty sure the Katrina response occured before FEMA was placed under DHS. Many would prolly disagree that it was working fine back then.

I'd guess the logic, not that I expect it's execution will be anything great, is that FEMA is going to be heavily relied upon in the event of another successful terrorist attack. Quite likely the attack itself will not be near as bad as the aftermath of an unsuccessful respone. That is, a sucessful response by "FEMA" would greatly minimize the consequences. Close co-ordination between DHS and FEMA would be required.

But it's just FEMA that has been placed under DHS, it's a whole bunch of other stuff too. Consequently DHS is incredible bloated.

Fern

Anyone remember in the X Files movie about how the shadow government was supposed to use FEMA to take over the whole country and then the world? Someone should probably inform the illuminati that these guys can't even put a trailer park together.

Yeah, I think I do. Seems it allowed them to run around in the FEMA trucks wearing biohazard suits. Nobody wants to butt into your business if you're in a biohazard suit (Get back! It's flesh eating bacteria!!).

The Illuminati are too busy trying to save their banks from the homeloan crisis to pay any attention ATM. :)

Fern
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Sinsear


The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency's custody

Big fvcking deal. No sympathy for anyone associated with that organization.

Yeah, no problem. They're just terrorists. Let's just hope nobody mistakes you for a terrorist.

I don't think that will ever be an issue.

Naive. That's the only word I can use to describe you.



Coming from a RP supporter. :laugh:

Ah yes, when you have nothing of substance to say, fall back on childish insults. Let me guess, you support 9/11? Or maybe that guy with the hair and white teeth. Or the TV preacher? What does your candidate say about you, Captain Waterboard?

What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.

You're alot smarter than the FUD in that statement. That sounds more like Dave.

And by actually being in the military, I'm sure there are plenty of people who consider me one. But like I said, I don't put much stock in that. I don't think I'm in any danger of heading off to Gitmo anytime soon.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Arkaign
*- What in the hell kind of logic was involved in folding FEMA under DHS? FEMA worked just FINE before the polticos ruined it with their partisan grabastic puke-filled rotting cocks. But no, let's mix domestic intelligence with disaster relief! Perfectly logical!

I'm pretty sure the Katrina response occured before FEMA was placed under DHS. Many would prolly disagree that it was working fine back then.

I'd guess the logic, not that I expect it's execution will be anything great, is that FEMA is going to be heavily relied upon in the event of another successful terrorist attack. Quite likely the attack itself will not be near as bad as the aftermath of an unsuccessful respone. That is, a sucessful response by "FEMA" would greatly minimize the consequences. Close co-ordination between DHS and FEMA would be required.

But it's not just FEMA that has been placed under DHS, it's a whole bunch of other stuff too. Consequently DHS is incredible bloated.

Fern

edit: left out the "not" in a sentance above

Sorry to show you this, but :

http://www.fema.gov/about/history.shtm

"Billions of dollars of new funding were directed to FEMA to help communities face the threat of terrorism. Just a few years past its 20th anniversary, FEMA was actively directing its "all-hazards" approach to disasters toward homeland security issues. In March 2003, FEMA joined 22 other federal agencies, programs and offices in becoming the Department of Homeland Security."

 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Oh, I have to be fair, and mention this (from Independent Weekly, in an article posted BEFORE Katrina .. very eerie!) :

"In the wake of the terrorist attacks, leading members of Congress pushed for a radical restructuring of the government's anti-terrorism apparatus. Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) proposed legislation to merge several federal agencies into a new security-focused umbrella department. At first, the White House opposed the plan, calling it impractical and unnecessary.

But then, as former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke explained in his recent book Against all Enemies, "the White House legislative affairs office began to take a head count on Capitol Hill." Realizing that the Lieberman Bill would likely pass both houses of Congress, with no credit given to the White House, in June 2002 the administration changed its tune, calling for a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that would be even larger than the one Lieberman had proposed.

Under the administration's plan, 22 government agencies, FEMA among them, would be merged into the DHS. Analysts in and out of government warned against subsuming the emergency agency's vital functions in a new super-department. "There are concerns of FEMA losing its identity as an agency that is quick to respond to all hazards and disasters," the agency's inspector general noted in a memo to Allbaugh. Congress' Government Accountability Office judged the merger to be a "high-risk" endeavor for FEMA, and the Brookings Institution, a leading Washington think-tank, cautioned in a report that such a move could hobble the agency's natural disaster programs. "While a merged FEMA might become highly adept at preparing for and responding to terrorism, it would likely become less effective in performing its current mission in case of natural disasters as time, effort and attention are inevitably diverted to other tasks within the larger organization."

(SEPTEMBER 22, 2004
A Disaster Waiting to Happen
As FEMA weathers a storm of Bush administration policy and budget changes, protection from natural hazards may be trumped by ?homeland security?)



So, to begin with, an idiot DEMOCRAT (Joe Lieberman, a confirmed moron, look at his record on video games) suggests that we do something as retarded as put well-oiled machines like FEMA under a new agency, and the Bush White House rightly calls it a stupid idea. Then, they about face, and go with an even *more* ambitiously stupid plan. Bah.

Edit : and there's this, James Lee Witt's comments regarding the stupidity of putting FEMA under DHS :

March 2004: Former FEMA Director Warns that US Is No Longer Prepared to Respond Effectively to Disasters
Edit event

Former FEMA director James Lee Witt tells Congress: ?I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared. In fact one state emergency manager told me, ?It is like a stake has been driven into the heart of emergency management.??
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Yeah, no problem. They're just terrorists. Let's just hope nobody mistakes you for a terrorist.

I don't think that will ever be an issue.

Naive. That's the only word I can use to describe you.



Coming from a RP supporter. :laugh:

Ah yes, when you have nothing of substance to say, fall back on childish insults. Let me guess, you support 9/11? Or maybe that guy with the hair and white teeth. Or the TV preacher? What does your candidate say about you, Captain Waterboard?

What's perfectly legal today could become a terrorist act tomorrow. Don't be so sure you'll never be labeled a terrorist.

You're alot smarter than the FUD in that statement. That sounds more like Dave.

And by actually being in the military, I'm sure there are plenty of people who consider me one. But like I said, I don't put much stock in that. I don't think I'm in any danger of heading off to Gitmo anytime soon.

Are you kidding? If you pay any attention at all, you'd have seen that various officials have tried to tie marijuana smokers and P2P movie downloaders to terrorism. It's not a stretch to imagine that either of those could in the next ten years mean that half of America is "Supporting the terr'ists" and subject to abuse.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Are you kidding? If you pay any attention at all, you'd have seen that various officials have tried to tie marijuana smokers and P2P movie downloaders to terrorism

< sarcasm >

Ah! Now, it makes perfect sense. The CIA destroyed the tapes of their interrogation in an effort to protect us against the P2P - pot cartel getting nukes and flying their downloads into tall buildings. :p

< /sarcasm >
 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
There seem to be a lot of people here that subscribe to "the end justifies the means" method of governing.

Just remember, that it really means "we'll do immoral, illegal, and unconscionable acts if we deem it necessary". And attempts to hide it usually mean that they would have a hard time convincing others that it was even necessary.

If you don't control your government, it will control you. Beware!
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
There seem to be a lot of people here that subscribe to "the end justifies the means" method of governing.

Just remember, that it really means "we'll do immoral, illegal, and unconscionable acts if we deem it necessary". And attempts to hide it usually mean that they would have a hard time convincing others that it was even necessary.

If you don't control your government, it will control you. Beware!
you better revolt!