CIA Admits It Destroyed Tapes Of Harsh Interrogation

[Gaard]

PJ brings up Clinton, and Pabster doesn't say a peep.
Someone asks Pabster about Plame and he dodges saying this thread isn't about Plame.

To Palehorse - if you're all about saving American lives, wouldn't you support a pullout from Iraq? I'm just saying...

It seems those that support Bush are being CIA apologists in this thread. Why is that?




Hey Pabster, are you ever going to answer?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gaard
PJ brings up Clinton, and Pabster doesn't say a peep.
Someone asks Pabster about Plame and he dodges saying this thread isn't about Plame.

This thread isn't about Clinton or Flame. My point was valid, as usual.

Hey Pabster, are you ever going to answer?

You are the perfect definition of a "hack". So you can figure out the definition on your own.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Pabster
Come on Harvey, can you imagine the repercussions if those tapes, or copies of them, were "leaked" to the Muslim world? (Or to CNN for that matter.) How many Americans would lose their lives? Look at the outrage over a fake story about a Koran being flushed down the toilet.

I'm not saying destroying them was right; It wasn't. But I understand why they did it, and it wasn't because they are criminals.

You amaze me. One really really big reason you don't torture people is because of the repercussions and here you are providing a way to avoid them and still torture people. It's disgusting. You have to own up to your sins to transcend them. You are a person who is so ashamed you can't bear the thought of being shamed. A great American, somebody like me, will admit to what we have done, punish the people who did it, and make sure they are removed from their jobs. The tapes were destroyed because of those repercussions and no others.

Obviously Pabster "can't handle the truth".

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: noto12ious
oh look. another cover-up.

surprise surprise.

Give that man a cupie doll!!

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Further support for a transparent government. The ONLY things which require classification are codes/frequencies and troop/operative deployment/movement. Absolutely 100% of everything else should be open public record. Period.

I have regularly destroyed records of a great deal more than that. Social security numbers, duplicate medical records (unclassified) as well as operations orders, operating instructions, certain operating procedures (secret) and plenty of junk mail (tinder).

People that work in environments where there are security classifications safeguard them and regularly destroy records when they are no longer needed and having them available is a liability. Not liability as in, 'OMG if someone finds out about this I'm screwed.', but rather, 'Sheez, we don't need this anymore - no sense in having it around.' Yeah, there are forms that need to be filled out to indicate that something was destroyed, but I haven't used one.

The point that I'd like to make is that PrinceofWands view of classification is limited and a little simplistic in my opinion. It's certainly not U.S. Army policy. Secrets save lives.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Further support for a transparent government. The ONLY things which require classification are codes/frequencies and troop/operative deployment/movement. Absolutely 100% of everything else should be open public record. Period.

I have regularly destroyed records of a great deal more than that. Social security numbers, duplicate medical records (unclassified) as well as operations orders, operating instructions, certain operating procedures (secret) and plenty of junk mail (tinder).

People that work in environments where there are security classifications safeguard them and regularly destroy records when they are no longer needed and having them available is a liability. Not liability as in, 'OMG if someone finds out about this I'm screwed.', but rather, 'Sheez, we don't need this anymore - no sense in having it around.' Yeah, there are forms that need to be filled out to indicate that something was destroyed, but I haven't used one.

The point that I'd like to make is that PrinceofWands view of classification is limited and a little simplistic in my opinion. It's certainly not U.S. Army policy. Secrets save lives.

That's all well and good.

But in this case a Federal judge demanded that this information be made available. Has a Federal judge ever demanded that you turn over this information, you lied and said this information didn't exist, and then you subsequently destroyed these records in violation of Federal law and judical decree?

Secrets save lives my ass . . .

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Secrets save lives my ass . . .

Since yours isn't one of those that is on the line every day, I can understand why you'd feel that way.

However, for soldiers like keird and I, secrets do save lives - and not just American lives!

In this case, I'm GLAD that the videos will never see the light of day. Their alleged destruction may have saved thousands of lives, or more...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Secrets save lives my ass . . .

Since yours isn't one of those that is on the line every day, I can understand why you'd feel that way.

However, for soldiers like keird and I, secrets do save lives - and not just American lives!

In this case, I'm GLAD that the videos will never see the light of day. Their alleged destruction may have saved thousands of lives, or more...

Your justification is a horribly hollow one. Of course the military destroys a lot more stuff then what princeofwands mentioned. My shop ran the burn bags for my ship, and the sheer quantity of information that we destroyed on a daily basis was mind boggling. You're right that in some cases secrets save lives... but this has led you to excuse the deliberate destruction of evidence that we have been torturing people. That's NOT OKAY. These aren't details of an operation, this isn't the order of battle or tomahawk targeting data, this is evidence of people committing crimes. What is more important, making sure some Muslims don't get angry, or respecting the rule of law that is the foundation for our country? I can't believe I even need to ask that question.

Not only that, but it's not like Muslims don't have enough reasons to hate us anyway. There might be a few guys out there who are saying "well, sure they illegally invaded one of our nations that has subsequently been reduced to a medieval feudal state and have been torturing and killing my friends for six years now, but NOW THAT I'VE SEEN A TAPE THAT CONFIRMS WHAT I ALREADY KNOW I'M REAAAALLY MAD". Right.

 

[keird]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Further support for a transparent government. The ONLY things which require classification are codes/frequencies and troop/operative deployment/movement. Absolutely 100% of everything else should be open public record. Period.

I have regularly destroyed records of a great deal more than that. Social security numbers, duplicate medical records (unclassified) as well as operations orders, operating instructions, certain operating procedures (secret) and plenty of junk mail (tinder).

People that work in environments where there are security classifications safeguard them and regularly destroy records when they are no longer needed and having them available is a liability. Not liability as in, 'OMG if someone finds out about this I'm screwed.', but rather, 'Sheez, we don't need this anymore - no sense in having it around.' Yeah, there are forms that need to be filled out to indicate that something was destroyed, but I haven't used one.

The point that I'd like to make is that PrinceofWands view of classification is limited and a little simplistic in my opinion. It's certainly not U.S. Army policy. Secrets save lives.

That's all well and good.

But in this case a Federal judge demanded that this information be made available. Has a Federal judge ever demanded that you turn over this information, you lied and said this information didn't exist, and then you subsequently destroyed these records in violation of Federal law and judical decree?

Secrets save lives my ass . . .

Yeah, they save lives. You have to discipline yourself to know that you don't need to know everything. I don't need to have all the codes and passwords for my unit on my person. Just the ones that I need. If I get killed my subordinate knows where they are and takes them. If the enemy gets them, they're of limited value and scope.

More importantly, I can walk by something interesting briefing and not pry for information. If they needed me to know, they've had told me. Compartmentalization works. Secrets save lives, kid.

In regards to the topic; the interrogations happened. There's a reason that the tapes were destroyed. I'm glad I'm not the one facing Federal charges, but I needn't pry in the matter.

Edit: p.s. Thanks for fixing my italics on the previous post.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
This thread isn't about Clinton or Flame. My point was valid, as usual.

This thread is about abuses of power by the Bushwhackos. Breaching national security by outing the identity of a covert CIA operative for political purposes is another example of their monstrous crimes.

Your "point" is unmitigated bullshit... as usual. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

At the time of the crime, who believed us?
We all took a fall on the ride,
When the powers that be had deceived us to leave us the debtor.

And Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
Tell me who's telling who's telling you what to do what to do?

---

Originally posted by: palehorse74
However, for soldiers like keird and I, secrets do save lives - and not just American lives!

In this case, I'm GLAD that the videos will never see the light of day. Their alleged destruction may have saved thousands of lives, or more...

Secrets are necessary, but keeping secrets means keeping potentially dangerous information from our enemies. It does NOT mean attempting to destroy all evidence of the truth to hide it from ourselves and from history.

Secrets are necessary, but secrets requre responsiblity. That's why, in a society based on civilian rule, we have Congressional oversight of those charged with keeping our secrets.

The Bushwhackos are all living proof of Lord Acton's often quoted statement in 1887, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." They have assumed absolute powers well beyond and outside of those assigned to them by the U.S. Contsitution, and they are absolutely corrupt to their very core.

Those like you, who claim their asses are on the line, daily, may want to reflect on WHY you put your asses there. If it isn't to protect and defend our Constitutional rights and freedoms, you should question the motives and agenda of the masters you serve. :shocked:

And they silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light,
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.

And Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?
Tell me who's telling who's telling you what to do what to do?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: keird

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Further support for a transparent government. The ONLY things which require classification are codes/frequencies and troop/operative deployment/movement. Absolutely 100% of everything else should be open public record. Period.

I have regularly destroyed records of a great deal more than that. Social security numbers, duplicate medical records (unclassified) as well as operations orders, operating instructions, certain operating procedures (secret) and plenty of junk mail (tinder).

People that work in environments where there are security classifications safeguard them and regularly destroy records when they are no longer needed and having them available is a liability. Not liability as in, 'OMG if someone finds out about this I'm screwed.', but rather, 'Sheez, we don't need this anymore - no sense in having it around.' Yeah, there are forms that need to be filled out to indicate that something was destroyed, but I haven't used one.

The point that I'd like to make is that PrinceofWands view of classification is limited and a little simplistic in my opinion. It's certainly not U.S. Army policy. Secrets save lives.

Just FYI I served in the Navy with some clearances. That's where I cemented my opinion that there shouldn't be any. Mostly because it's used to cover peoples butts when they do things that are illegal or immoral at least as often as it's used for housekeeping.

Obviously I don't mind destroying sensitive papers rather than putting them in the trash...ie you don't toss out things with credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc...you destroy those.

If secrets save lives then policies are wrong. There is absolutely no good reason to require that secrecy. There are WONDERFUL reasons for requiring transparency however.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just FYI I served in the Navy with some clearances. That's where I cemented my opinion that there shouldn't be any. Mostly because it's used to cover peoples butts when they do things that are illegal or immoral at least as often as it's used for housekeeping.

I think that statement is ridiculous. In over 11 years, I have never witnessed a classification being applied for the purpose of covering anything up or protecting peoples' asses. It may have happened before, but to say that it's "as often as it's used for housekeeping" is just plain ridiculous.

If secrets save lives then policies are wrong. There is absolutely no good reason to require that secrecy. There are WONDERFUL reasons for requiring transparency however.

Most classifications are done to protect operations, sources, methodologies, and technological specifications; which most often, either directly or indirectly, serve to protect human lives. How can you not see that?

Is uncovering the rare incidence of abuse worth risking the real lives of Americans and allies across the globe?

There are perfectly justifiable reasons to keep secrets, and keeping my arse alive is one of them!

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Just FYI I served in the Navy with some clearances. That's where I cemented my opinion that there shouldn't be any. Mostly because it's used to cover peoples butts when they do things that are illegal or immoral at least as often as it's used for housekeeping.

I think that statement is ridiculous. In over 11 years, I have never witnessed a classification being applied for the purpose of covering anything up or protecting peoples' asses. It may have happened before, but to say that it's "as often as it's used for housekeeping" is just plain ridiculous.

If secrets save lives then policies are wrong. There is absolutely no good reason to require that secrecy. There are WONDERFUL reasons for requiring transparency however.

Most classifications are done to protect operations, sources, methodologies, and technological specifications; which most often, either directly or indirectly, serve to protect human lives. How can you not see that?

Is uncovering the rare incidence of abuse worth risking the real lives of Americans and allies across the globe?

There are perfectly justifiable reasons to keep secrets, and keeping my arse alive is one of them!

In only 2 years at COMNAVSURFLANT I would say I saw at least twenty or thirty instances of it. Mind you, at a flag command there's probably a LOT more politics than out in the field. It's a bunch of people trying to become flag officers and with political ambitions.

As I've said, I have no issue classifying operational movements, technical details like frequencies and codes, etc. But that isn't the only things that are classified. Out of all the paperwork that passed my desk (and a yeoman at a flag command sees a LOT of paperwork) I would say at least half to three-quarters was classified...at least confidential, but quite often higher levels. Most of it didn't serve to protect lives or cover someone's ass. It was totally pointless classification. However there was plenty that was definitely done to protect people's jobs, political aspirations, etc...and it was VERY common to see things done to prevent making America or the military look bad, when they clearly deserved to be seen as such.

Yes, it's worth it. Again, if lives are at risk then the POLICIES are wrong and need to be changed. The members of our government, INCLUDING THE MILITARY, are the servants of the people. The people always have a right to know.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The members of our government, INCLUDING THE MILITARY, are the servants of the people. The people always have a right to know.

The people have a right to know the types of things being done by our military, but they have no right whatsoever to the specifics. Keeping those specifics classified saves lives, period.

And, as you can see in this thread, the CIA is a totally different animal...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The members of our government, INCLUDING THE MILITARY, are the servants of the people. The people always have a right to know.

The people have a right to know the types of things being done by our military, but they have no right whatsoever to the specifics. Keeping those specifics classified saves lives, period.

And, as you can see in this thread, the CIA is a totally different animal...

Agreed.

However, they are still servants of the public, and therefore require direct public oversight. Transparency is the only way to assure morality, and maintain democracy.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The members of our government, INCLUDING THE MILITARY, are the servants of the people. The people always have a right to know.

The people have a right to know the types of things being done by our military, but they have no right whatsoever to the specifics. Keeping those specifics classified saves lives, period.

And, as you can see in this thread, the CIA is a totally different animal...

Citizens have a right to know. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Is uncovering the rare incidence of abuse worth risking the real lives of Americans and allies across the globe?

It's definitely worth ensuring there are sufficient safeguards for secret information, but if the intent of those secrets is to preserve the rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution, it's worth having sufficient oversight by our elected represenatives to ensure that those charged with keeping secrets aren't secretly abusing our rights or abusing the system for their personal profit.

There are perfectly justifiable reasons to keep secrets, and keeping my arse alive is one of them!

Not if you're one of those abusing the rights of others. :Q

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The members of our government, INCLUDING THE MILITARY, are the servants of the people. The people always have a right to know.

The people have a right to know the types of things being done by our military, but they have no right whatsoever to the specifics. Keeping those specifics classified saves lives, period.

And, as you can see in this thread, the CIA is a totally different animal...

Citizens have a right to know. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, I most certainly have, but it has nothing to do with classified information.

 

[Harvey]

For our resident brown nosed Bushwhacko neocon sycophants:

December 7, 2007, 5:57 pm
McCain on the Destroyed C.I.A. Tapes
By Marc Santora

NASHUA, N.H. ? We have yet to hear the other Republican presidential candidates weigh in on the news that the C.I.A. destroyed two videotapes showing interrogations of terrorism suspects, but Senator John McCain made it clear that he was not happy about it.

Sitting on the back of his campaign bus Thursday night, Mr. McCain quickly scanned The New York Times account on a BlackBerry as the story broke. He shook his head gravely.

?I am astonished,? he said. ?But am I surprised? No.?

He said that he wanted to know who ordered their destruction and what was on the tapes and that people needed to be held accountable.
.
.
?There is no national security reason I can think of that would justify destroying the tapes,? he said.

As he learned more about the case, Mr. McCain, who has been vehement in his condemnation of abusive interrogation techniques, became only more upset.

?It is only going to serve to increase the skepticism the American people have,? he said rather sadly.

 

[keird]

I just watched a broadcast on CNN indicating that the tapes that were claimed to have never existed may have been of two other terrorists in question at the time. The interrogation tapes that were destroyed could have been from two other terrorist detainees that were not within the scope of the original testimony.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Gaard
PJ brings up Clinton, and Pabster doesn't say a peep.
Someone asks Pabster about Plame and he dodges saying this thread isn't about Plame.

To Palehorse - if you're all about saving American lives, wouldn't you support a pullout from Iraq? I'm just saying...

It seems those that support Bush are being CIA apologists in this thread. Why is that?




Hey Pabster, are you ever going to answer?

As far as I can tell, Bush supporters believe that Bush can do no wrong and is not responsible for what happens in his adminstration. They did divert Bush threads onto Clinton. People who criticizes Bush are "left wing nutjobs". I remember when on this forum if you critixized Mr Bush you were a Bush hater.

This is not a generalization, check out any thread that is remotely Bush related or do a search on left wing, nutjob, and bush hater.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The members of our government, INCLUDING THE MILITARY, are the servants of the people. The people always have a right to know.

The people have a right to know the types of things being done by our military, but they have no right whatsoever to the specifics. Keeping those specifics classified saves lives, period.

And, as you can see in this thread, the CIA is a totally different animal...

Citizens have a right to know. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, I most certainly have, but it has nothing to do with classified information.

Classified information should be very limited in scope. If the people who are supposed to run this country (remember us? the citizens?) can't know about it, we need to ask if it really needs to be done. There should be very few subjects that we shouldn't have full access to.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The members of our government, INCLUDING THE MILITARY, are the servants of the people. The people always have a right to know.

The people have a right to know the types of things being done by our military, but they have no right whatsoever to the specifics. Keeping those specifics classified saves lives, period.

And, as you can see in this thread, the CIA is a totally different animal...

Citizens have a right to know. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, I most certainly have, but it has nothing to do with classified information.

Classified information should be very limited in scope. If the people who are supposed to run this country (remember us? the citizens?) can't know about it, we need to ask if it really needs to be done. There should be very few subjects that we shouldn't have full access to.

You guys are delusional if you really think you need to know everything. Keeping information classified for reasons of National Security is for real, not just something the government bogeymen in your lives throw around because they think they are better than you.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
The members of our government, INCLUDING THE MILITARY, are the servants of the people. The people always have a right to know.

The people have a right to know the types of things being done by our military, but they have no right whatsoever to the specifics. Keeping those specifics classified saves lives, period.

And, as you can see in this thread, the CIA is a totally different animal...

Citizens have a right to know. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

Yes, I most certainly have, but it has nothing to do with classified information.

Classified information should be very limited in scope. If the people who are supposed to run this country (remember us? the citizens?) can't know about it, we need to ask if it really needs to be done. There should be very few subjects that we shouldn't have full access to.

You guys are delusional if you really think you need to know everything. Keeping information classified for reasons of National Security is for real, not just something the government bogeymen in your lives throw around because they think they are better than you.

Ah yes, national security. As soon as those hallowed words are uttered, nobody is supposed to question it, right? Give me one good reason that a government by the people, for the people needs to keep mountains of information a secret from the citizenry.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Pelosi was briefed on the waterboarding technique back in 2002 and had no objections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...8/AR2007120801664.html

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

...

Yet long before "waterboarding" entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Individual lawmakers' recollections of the early briefings varied dramatically, but officials present during the meetings described the reaction as mostly quiet acquiescence, if not outright support. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," said Goss, who chaired the House intelligence committee from 1997 to 2004 and then served as CIA director from 2004 to 2006. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Hmmm. So it wasn't so secret after all. Now certain people are using it as a political tool to bash the Bush admin.

Why am I not surprised?