CIA deliberately destroys 92 interrogation tapes.

Status
Not open for further replies.

vhx

Golden Member
Jul 19, 2006
1,151
0
0
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/...e_anyone_for_0303.html
Even though he has yet to complete his investigation, a federal prosecutor has already signaled that he is unlikely to indict any CIA employees for incinerating 92 secret interrogation tapes that purportedly show suspects being waterboarded.

Lost in the flood of reports about the CIA admitting the destruction of 92 interrogation tapes in a government legal filing were new and potentially devastating details. Sources close to an ongoing probe told The Washington Post that they expect no one at the CIA will be charged.

Obama CIA Director Leon Panetta previously told a confirmation committee that there were no plans to prosecute those involved in former President George W. Bush's interrogation program, which critics -- and Panetta -- describe as torture. But the new revelation that federal prosecutor John Durham won't charge CIA operations employees with what appears to have been obstruction of justice, raises the stakes even higher.

In fact, the CIA said it destroyed the tapes to protect the identities of agents involved in the interrogation program.

Further, the government knows who ordered the tapes destruction. Then-directorate of operations chief Jose A. Rodriguez gave the order to destroy the tapes in 2005. Since then, the CIA says they've discontinued taping detainees.

Federal prosecutor John "Durham appears unlikely to secure criminal indictments against Rodriguez and other agency operations personnel involved in the conduct," three sources told the Post. "In recent months, the prosecutor has focused special attention on CIA legal advisers who reviewed court directives and on agency lawyers who told Rodriguez that getting rid of the recordings was sloppy and unwise but that it did not amount to a clear violation of the law, the sources said.

The prosecutor has also obtained e-mail messages and internal memoranda that detail the "jarring or unpleasant substance" or the interrogations, the report added -- which purportedly include waterboarding.

"At issue are recordings that chronicle the interrogation of two senior al-Qaeda members... while they underwent a simulated drowning practice known as waterboarding and in less hostile moments as they interacted with agency employees or sat in their prison cells," government officials speaking under the condition of anonymity said.

According to the letter the government filed Monday disclosing the number of tapes destroyed, the agency has asked for an extension until Friday to provide the names of witnesses who might have viewed the tapes before they were destroyed.
For those who missed it, it was discovered that the CIA deliberately destroyed 92 terrorist interrogation tapes. How fortunate for them no one will be prosecuted for it. Meh not like it matters, who cares about accountability or destroying evidence anymore anyways.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
I think it's a travesty of justice if no one will be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, if it occured as it appears it did.

For that matter, I'd like to see every interview taped, for review by investegators and people with oversight as needed.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
In a way you can't really blame them for not being charged. When the POTUS condones (I'm referring to bush) it it seems less of a sure footing legally. The US has a lot of things to be ashamed of that it's done in recent years. This, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping being near the top of the list.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,674
6,733
126
People who hate themselves do not trust virtue and truth, decency and freedom to be the lights that win the hearts and minds of humanity. That is for dreamers and idealists, people who understand psychology. People who hate themselves know that the way to victory is to become the turd you feel yourself to be. The way to victory is not Jihad but moral surrender, to do unto others before they undo you.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
In a way you can't really blame them for not being charged. When the POTUS condones (I'm referring to bush) it it seems less of a sure footing legally. The US has a lot of things to be ashamed of that it's done in recent years. This, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping being near the top of the list.

Yes, I can blame them. First, the orders of the President are no excuse for lawbreaking. Second, there is no evidence Bush ordered these tapes destroyed.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Skoorb
In a way you can't really blame them for not being charged. When the POTUS condones (I'm referring to bush) it it seems less of a sure footing legally. The US has a lot of things to be ashamed of that it's done in recent years. This, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping being near the top of the list.


Evidence that Bush condoned the destruction of the tapes?

Or could it be that the people that controlled the tapes saw which way the political winds were shifting and decided to play CYA?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: Skoorb
In a way you can't really blame them for not being charged. When the POTUS condones (I'm referring to bush) it it seems less of a sure footing legally. The US has a lot of things to be ashamed of that it's done in recent years. This, Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping being near the top of the list.


Evidence that Bush condoned the destruction of the tapes?

Or could it be that the people that controlled the tapes saw which way the political winds were shifting and decided to play CYA?
I mean he condoned torture. I have no idea what the atmosphere back then was, though. It wasn't a big issue under Clinton.

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
There isn't going to be any accounting for what may have happened. The Dems were using this as a talking point for the election. That's over with, and it serves no useful political purpose now. There will be bits and pieces come out, but unless something startling comes to light only the occasional minor official will be thrown to the wolves as a token sacrifice. No administration wants to have its dirt dug up. It was expedient for the Dems to hit Regan, and the same with the Reps and Clinton. It wasn't easy for the Dems to sling much mud on Bush, because they hadn't sufficient control of Congress, and even if they did, Bush would have ignored everything based on executive privilege. That would have resulted in getting the SCOTUS involved, which would have loved to shoot itself rather than hear such a case. Besides, they were complicit and being fearful of an enraged ignorant public toed the Bush line.

Why bring up embarrassing memories? Just find things which can be plausibly denied and it strokes the Dem base without being a serious threat to themselves. Remember "First do no harm" applies to themselves as politicians.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.