• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The CIA's Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 9/11 Connection

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
The CIA's Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 9/11 Connection

On December 5, the CIA's director, General Michael V. Hayden, issued a statement disclosing that in 2005 at least two videotapes of interrogations with al Qaeda prisoners were destroyed. The tapes, which the CIA did not provide to either the 9/11 Commission, nor to a federal court in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, were destroyed, claimed Hayden, to protect the safety of undercover operatives.

Hayden did not disclose one of the al Qaeda suspects whose tapes were destroyed. But he did identify the other. It was Abu Zubaydah, the top ranking terror suspect when he was tracked and captured in Pakistan in 2003. In September 2006, at a press conference in which he defended American interrogation techniques, President Bush also mentioned Abu Zubaydah by name. Bush acknowledged that Zubaydah, who was wounded when captured, did not initially cooperate with his interrogators, but that eventually when he did talk, his information was, according to Bush, "quite important."

In my 2003 New York Times bestseller, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, I discussed Abu Zubaydah at length in Chapter 19, "The Interrogation." There I set forth how Zubaydah initially refused to help his American captors. Also, disclosed was how U.S. intelligence established a so-called "fake flag" operation, in which the wounded Zubaydah was transferred to Afghanistan under the ruse that he had actually been turned over to the Saudis. The Saudis had him on a wanted list, and the Americans believed that Zubaydah, fearful of torture and death at the hands of the Saudis, would start talking when confronted by U.S. agents playing the role of Saudi intelligence officers.

Instead, when confronted by his "Saudi" interrogators, Zubaydah showed no fear. Instead, according to the two U.S. intelligence sources that provided me the details, he seemed relieved. The man who had been reluctant to even confirm his identity to his U.S. captors, suddenly talked animatedly. He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would kill him. He then asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the Saudi royal family. And Zubaydah provided a private home number and a cell phone number from memory. "He will tell you what to do," Zubaydah assured them

That man was Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, one of King Fahd's nephews, and the chairman of the largest Saudi publishing empire. Later, American investigators would determine that Prince Ahmed had been in the U.S. on 9/11.

American interrogators used painkillers to induce Zubaydah to talk -- they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet. They also utilized a thiopental sodium drip (a so-called truth serum). Several hours after he first fingered Prince Ahmed, his captors challenged the information, and said that since he had disparaged the Saudi royal family, he would be executed. It was at that point that some of the secrets of 9/11 came pouring out. In a short monologue, that one investigator told me was the "Rosetta Stone" of 9/11, Zubaydah laid out details of how he and the al Qaeda hierarchy had been supported at high levels inside the Saudi and Pakistan governments.

He named two other Saudi princes, and also the chief of Pakistan's air force, as his major contacts. Moreover, he stunned his interrogators, by charging that two of the men, the King's nephew, and the Pakistani Air Force chief, knew a major terror operation was planned for America on 9/11.

It would be nice to further investigate the men named by Zubaydah, but that is not possible. All four identified by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes, the King's 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe, after having liposuction in Riyadh's top hospital; the second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one car accident, on his way to the funeral of Prince Ahmed; and one week later, the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, "of thirst." The head of Pakistan's Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, was the last to go. He died, together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides, when his plane blew up -- suspected as sabotage -- in February 2003. Pakistan's investigation of the explosion -- if one was even done -- has never been made public.

Zubaydah is the only top al Queda operative who has secretly linked two of America's closest allies in the war on terror -- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- to the 9/11 attacks. Why does Bush, and the CIA, continue to protect the Saudi Royal family and the Pakistani military, from the implications of Zubaydah's confessions? It is, or course, because the Bush administration desperately needs Pakistani and Saudi help, not only to keep Afghanistan from spinning completely out of control, but also as counterweights to the growing power of Iran. The Sunni governments in Riyadh and Islamabad have as much to fear from a resurgent Iran as does the Bush administration. But does this mean that leads about the origins of 9/11 should not be aggressively pursued? Of course not. But this is precisely what the Bush administration is doing. And now the cover-up is enhanced by the CIA's destruction of Zubaydah's interrogation tapes.

The American public deserves no less than the complete truth about 9/11. And those CIA officials now complicit in hiding the truth by destroying key evidence should be held responsible.

Source: HuffingtonPost

Truth really is stranger than fiction. When you create movies with these kinds of incidents, say these four individuals who are already at the center of one of the most interesting stories in history and involved in intelligence all dieing in such fashion, you call it over the top fiction.
Yet here it is before us as documented fact and it hardly makes the news.
I heard recently they spent ten million dollars investigating 9/11 and a hundred million investigating the Monica Lewinski Scandal.
If this is so I find it absolutely flabberghasting!
Probably they spend more to prosecute most serial killers than they did to investigate the mass murder on 9/11.
No wonder people are screaming for a new investigation. Human beings crave answers and here there are more questions than answers.
I just don't have the words....

Note: I reaize this story is from last year. Probably most have yet to hear it however.
 
Not surprised. Lots or them "terrerist" are Saudis. As long as the US has to send billions to buy their oil, they will gladly take our money and gladly support al-qaida types.
 
The writer of this story is a joke. Go read his wiki page and you will see that even people who agreed with his past books said he was a dishonest writer.

Where did Posner get the details of his story and why has no one else received them?
If you are a CIA agent with inside information why bring it to Posner? Why not bring it to the NY Times or Bob Woodward etc etc.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The writer of this story is a joke. Go read his wiki page and you will see that even people who agreed with his past books said he was a dishonest writer.

Where did Posner get the details of his story and why has no one else received them?
If you are a CIA agent with inside information why bring it to Posner? Why not bring it to the NY Times or Bob Woodward etc etc.

The writer is Gerald Posner. Here's a brief bio:

John Martin of ABC News says "Gerald Posner is one of the most resourceful investigators I have encountered in thirty years of journalism." Garry Wills calls Posner "a superb investigative reporter," while the Los Angeles Times dubs him "a classic-style investigative journalist." "His work is painstakingly honest journalism" concluded The Washington Post. The New York Times lauded his "exhaustive research techniques" and The Boston Globe determined Posner is "an investigative journalist whose work is marked by his thorough and meticulous research." "A resourceful investigator and skillful writer," says The Dallas Morning News.

Posner was one of the youngest attorneys (23) ever hired by the Wall Street law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. A Phi Beta Kappa and Summa Cum Laude graduate of the University of California at Berkeley (1975), he was an Honors Graduate of Hastings Law School (1978), where he served as the Associate Executive Editor for the Law Review. Of counsel to the law firm he founded, Posner and Ferrara, he is now a full time journalist and author.

He is a freelance writer on investigative issues for several news magazines, and a regular contributor to NBC's TODAY Show as well as other national shows on the History Channel, CNN, FOX News, and CBS. A member of the National Advisory Board of the National Writers Union, Posner is also a member of the Authors Guild, PEN, The Committee to Protect Journalists, and Phi Beta Kappa. He lives in Miami and Manhattan with his wife, author, Trisha Posner, who works on all his projects and writes with him the monthly OceanDrive "Cultural Chatter" column.

Labling the writer of the story as "a joke" is worse than a joke, but it's consistant with your long established reputation on these forums as a pathetic, sycophantic Bushwhacko neocon apologist. As usual, you can't dispute the facts so you attempt to shoot the messenger. And, as usual, the target you hit is your own credibility. :laugh:
 
This story has never been backed up by any other evidence or testimony. Please wake me up when there is some of either, and I will listen, I promise.
 
Harvey, you are quoting the guys own biography as proof that he is a good writer?

Look at what other writers have to say about him.

link
About Posner's book on JFK
24. Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed" came out around the time the National Archives started releasing the first group of JFK assassination files under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination records Collection Act. Posner was highly regarded by the media, but to the best of our knowledge did not see any of the newly released files. Of these records, some of which you have seen, what if any shows Posner's insufficient knowledge of the case?

GF: Well again, I think I answered [that] before [in terms of] my own relationship with those areas of the investigation which Posner mentioned in his book. As far as other areas, I'm aware of individual researchers who are extremely knowledgeable in certain areas who find Posner's conclusions and his handling of the evidence absolutely ludicrous.

24.a. Have you read his book?

GF: Sure.

24.b. You call it dishonest. Do you think intentionally so?

GF: Oh yeah. I have to believe on the basis of my own experience with Posner, that it was intentional. As he said, he was going to come down and talk to me about that area of the investigation that I was involved with. And when I read what he had written without doing that, without getting the details I had. I offered him access to my files. He never showed up. And so when he did that, I could come to no other conclusion that he deliberately distorted those areas because they would have run against the thesis of this book.
link 2
THE POSNER REPORT: A Study In Propaganda: One Hundred Errors in Gerald Posner's Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK
They actually list all 100 errors.
link
About his book about MLK's murder
Posner shows the same type of "convict at any cost" attitude, the same quoting of clearly biased resources, the same use of character assassination on the supposed perpetrator, the same heavy-handed maneuvering of the evidence to rig the deck. For instance, in his public appearances, Posner?s version of candor is admitting that certain government agencies had surveillance on King. Sending King a note with a thinly veiled threat to commit suicide or be sexually blackmailed?which is what the FBI did to King?qualifies as a bit more than intelligence surveillance.
Google the guy, there are a ton of people who question him and his tendency to distort things to fit whatever view he is trying to push.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Labling the writer of the story as "a joke" is worse than a joke, but it's consistant with your long established reputation on these forums as a pathetic, sycophantic Bushwhacko neocon apologist. As usual, you can't dispute the facts so you attempt to shoot the messenger. And, as usual, the target you hit is your own credibility. :laugh:
What facts?

He made it all up, now prove to me that he didn't
 
Originally posted by: palehorse
This story has never been backed up by any other evidence or testimony. Please wake me up when there is some of either, and I will listen, I promise.

Well I imagine not, those tapes were destroyed for a reason. Its having its desired affect.
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
This story has never been backed up by any other evidence or testimony. Please wake me up when there is some of either, and I will listen, I promise.

Well I imagine not, those tapes were destroyed for a reason. Its having its desired affect.

What do you suppose is the "desired effect"?
 
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
This story has never been backed up by any other evidence or testimony. Please wake me up when there is some of either, and I will listen, I promise.

Well I imagine not, those tapes were destroyed for a reason. Its having its desired affect.

What do you suppose is the "desired effect"?

No trials or charges?
 
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
This story has never been backed up by any other evidence or testimony. Please wake me up when there is some of either, and I will listen, I promise.

Well I imagine not, those tapes were destroyed for a reason. Its having its desired affect.

What do you suppose is the "desired effect"?

No trials or charges?
In this case, who should be charged, and on what charges?
 
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
This story has never been backed up by any other evidence or testimony. Please wake me up when there is some of either, and I will listen, I promise.

Well I imagine not, those tapes were destroyed for a reason. Its having its desired affect.

What do you suppose is the "desired effect"?

No trials or charges?
In this case, who should be charged, and on what charges?

How about those that ordered the destruction of the tapes and the charges could be obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey

Labling the writer of the story as "a joke" is worse than a joke, but it's consistant with your long established reputation on these forums as a pathetic, sycophantic Bushwhacko neocon apologist. As usual, you can't dispute the facts so you attempt to shoot the messenger. And, as usual, the target you hit is your own credibility. :laugh:
What facts?

He made it all up, now prove to me that he didn't

What exactly did Posner "make up?" In his first two paragraphs, he states that the CIA destroyed video tapes of their illegal secret interrogations. Are you disputing that the CIA destroyed video tapes of them torturing prisoners during interrogations? 😕

Inquiry Begins Into Destruction of Tapes

WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 ? The Justice Department and the Central Intelligence Agency?s internal watchdog on Saturday began a joint preliminary inquiry into the spy agency?s destruction of hundreds of hours of videotapes showing interrogations of top operatives of Al Qaeda.

The announcement comes amid new questions about which officials inside the C.I.A. were involved in the decision to destroy the videotapes, which showed severe interrogation methods used on two Qaeda suspects, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

The agency operative who ordered the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the chief of the C.I.A.?s national clandestine service, known as the Directorate of Operations until 2005. On Saturday, a government official who had spoken recently with Mr. Rodriguez on the matter said that Mr. Rodriguez told him that he had received approval from lawyers inside the clandestine service to destroy the tapes.
.
.
(continues)

Are you denying they destroyed the tapes despite warnings not to do so from the Department of Justice, the C.I.A.?s own top attorney, John A. Rizzo, Republican Porter J. Goss, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Democratic Representative Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee in 2003, and even White House attorneys, two years before the tapes were destroyed or that they withheld the fact tht they had destroyed them so from the Committee? 😕

C.I.A. Was Urged to Keep Interrogation Videotapes

By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 ? White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two operatives of Al Qaeda, government officials said Friday.

The chief of the agency?s clandestine service nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the C.I.A.?s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said.

The disclosures provide new details about what Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, has said was a decision ?made within C.I.A. itself? to destroy the videotapes. In interviews, members of Congress and former intelligence officials also questioned some aspects of the account General Hayden provided Thursday about when Congress was notified that the tapes had been destroyed.

Current and former intelligence officials say the videotapes showed severe interrogation techniques used on two Qaeda operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who were among the first three terror suspects to be detained and interrogated by the C.I.A. in secret prisons after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Top C.I.A. officials had decided in 2003 to preserve the tapes in response to warnings from White House lawyers and lawmakers that destroying the tapes would be unwise, in part because it could carry legal risks, the government officials said.

But the government officials said that Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the chief of the agency?s clandestine service, the Directorate of Operations, had reversed that decision in November 2005, at a time when Congress and the courts were inquiring deeply into the C.I.A.?s interrogation and detention program. Mr. Rodriguez could not be reached Friday for comment.

As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee in 2003, Porter J. Goss, then a Republican congressman from Florida, was among Congressional leaders who warned the C.I.A. against destroying the tapes, the former intelligence officials said. Mr. Goss became C.I.A. director in 2004 and was serving in the post when the tapes were destroyed, but was not informed in advance about Mr. Rodriguez?s decision, the former officials said.

It was not until at least a year after the destruction of the tapes that any members of Congress were informed about the action, the officials said. On Friday, Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from 2004 to 2006, said he had never been told that the tapes were destroyed.

?I think the intelligence committee needs to get all over this,? said Mr. Hoekstra, who has been a strong supporter of the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program. ?This raises a red flag that needs to be looked at.?

The first notification to Congress by the C.I.A. about the videotapes was delivered to a small group of senior lawmakers in February 2003 by Scott W. Muller, then the agency?s general counsel. Government officials said that Mr. Muller had told the lawmakers that the C.I.A. intended to destroy the interrogation tapes, arguing that they were no longer of any intelligence value and that the interrogations they showed put agency operatives who appeared in the tapes at risk.

At the time of the briefing in February 2003, the lawmakers who advised Mr. Muller not to destroy the tapes included both Mr. Goss and Representative Jane Harman of California, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Ms. Harman described her role on Friday. Mr. Goss?s role was described by former intelligence officials.

Are you denying they lied to a Federal judge and to Congress about the existence of the tapes? 😕

C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes as Judge Sought Interrogation Data

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 7, 2008

WASHINGTON ? At the time that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed videotapes of the interrogations of operatives of Al Qaeda, a federal judge was still seeking information from Bush administration lawyers about the interrogation of one of those operatives, Abu Zubaydah, according to court documents made public on Wednesday.

The court documents, filed in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, appear to contradict a statement last December by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, that when the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 they had no relevance to any court proceeding, including Mr. Moussaoui?s criminal trial.

It was already known that the judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, had not been told about the existence or destruction of the videos. But the newly disclosed court documents, which had been classified as secret, showed the judge had still been actively seeking information about Mr. Zubaydah?s interrogation as late as Nov. 29, 2005.
.
.
(continues)

I cited Posner's background for reference because it's part of what establishes his credibility. Did he "make up" all those credentials? Prove to us he did.

Posner's article is based on the facts. You said he "made it all up." Prove to us he did.

For that matter, what credentials and experience do you have that would give us any reason to believe anything you say? Go ahead. Prove to us that you're anything other than a deluded, lying neocon Bushwhacko sycophant. :thumbsdown: :|
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Labling the writer of the story as "a joke" is worse than a joke, but it's consistant with your long established reputation on these forums as a pathetic, sycophantic Bushwhacko neocon apologist. As usual, you can't dispute the facts so you attempt to shoot the messenger. And, as usual, the target you hit is your own credibility. :laugh:

Rarely has someone characterized JokeJohn so succinctly yet so accurately.
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
How about those that ordered the destruction of the tapes and the charges could be obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence?

name them.

Originally posted by: Harvey
What exactly did Posner "make up?"

Except for the existence and subsequent destruction of "some tapes," the entire Pakistan/Saudi Family connection may be entirely fabricated. There is no actual evidence for any of the claims Posner made. If one believes Poser's version of what was on those tapes, then he/she must be doing so on faith alone.

I believe that's what PJ was saying, and I completely agree.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
How about those that ordered the destruction of the tapes and the charges could be obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence?

name them.

that's what a real investigation is for, moron.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

How about those that ordered the destruction of the tapes and the charges could be obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence?

name them.

I could search for more, but you can start with Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., named in my quote and link, above:

But the government officials said that Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the chief of the agency?s clandestine service, the Directorate of Operations, had reversed that decision in November 2005, at a time when Congress and the courts were inquiring deeply into the C.I.A.?s interrogation and detention program.

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Harvey

What exactly did Posner "make up?"

Except for the existence and subsequent destruction of "some tapes," the entire Pakistan/Saudi Family connection may be entirely fabricated. There is no actual evidence for any of the claims Posner made. If one believes Poser's version of what was on those tapes, then he/she must be doing so on faith alone.

Oops! PJ's reply was a blanket statement. Referring to Posner, he said:

He made it all up, now prove to me that he didn't

He didn't include any weasel word exceptions like, "except for the existence and subsequent destruction of 'some tapes,' ..."

In other words, he was posting his usual lies, distractions and diversions.

"The existence and subsequent destruction of 'some tapes'" is explicit criminality in its own right, and it's more than enough to raise suspicions of an obvious motive to cover up further, deeper and far worse criminality by the CIA and Bushwhacko administration.

I believe that's what PJ was saying, and I completely agree.

I don't. I have no other information about Posner's charges regarding the Pakistani or Saudi family connections to 9-11, but given the Admin's and the CIA's proven history of lies and deception, I have no reason not to accept the possiblity he's telling the truth and hope the coming Democratic administration and Congressional majority will investigate. I certainly wouldn't dismiss his allegations out of hand.
 
i just wonder if the whole sibel edmonds "whistleblowing" intel is related to this as well.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t...ast/article3137695.ece

The Turks and Israelis had planted ?moles? in military and academic institutions which handled nuclear technology. Edmonds says there were several transactions of nuclear material every month, with the Pakistanis being among the eventual buyers. ?The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,? she said
The Turks, she says, often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan?s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract suspicion. Venues such as the American Turkish Council in Washington were used to drop off the cash, which was picked up by the official.

Edmonds said: ?I heard at least three transactions like this over a period of 2½ years. There are almost certainly more.?

The Pakistani operation was led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, then the ISI chief.

Intercepted communications showed Ahmad and his colleagues stationed in Washington were in constant contact with attachés in the Turkish embassy.

Intelligence analysts say that members of the ISI were close to Al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. Indeed, Ahmad was accused of sanctioning a $100,000 wire payment to Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, immediately before the attacks.

The results of the espionage were almost certainly passed to Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist.

then this on 9-11
At the time of the attacks, ISI Director Lt. Gen. Mahmood Ahmed is at a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with the chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Senator Bob Graham (D) and Representative Porter Goss (R) (Goss is a 10-year veteran of the CIA?s clandestine operations wing). The meeting is said to last at least until the second plane hits the WTC. [Washington Post

Senator Graham says of the meeting: ?We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan.? The New York Times reports that bin Laden was specifically discussed. [Vero Beach Press Journal, 9/12/2001; Salon, 9/14/2001; New York Times, 6/3/2002]

more on sibel edmonds and the gag orders to keep her quiet-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds

 
well now you've done woken up the uber conspiracy whackjobs... swell.

tinfoil +1

Harvey>
"the possibility of" such a story being true is a reasonable position to take; however, selling it as fact, just as the OP and Posner attempt to do, is complete bullshit... at best, this is an untested hypothesis; at worst, it's a work of fiction based on the single fact that "some interrogation tapes" were destroyed.

I agree that a full investigation is justified based on the destruction of the tapes alone -- and those who did wrong deserve their appropriate punishments -- but any wild connections to Pakistan and Saudi will require evidence before we can begin to take them seriously.
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
This story has never been backed up by any other evidence or testimony. Please wake me up when there is some of either, and I will listen, I promise.
Well I imagine not, those tapes were destroyed for a reason. Its having its desired affect.
What do you suppose is the "desired effect"?
No trials or charges?
In this case, who should be charged, and on what charges?

How about those that ordered the destruction of the tapes and the charges could be obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence?
You may have missed the circular logic you are using there.

PC suggests the tapes were destroyed to prevent a trial.

Pale asks what the charges would be.

You state the charges would be the destruction of the tapes.


You can't charge them for destroying the tapes BEFORE they destroy them. So if they don't destroy the tapes then there are no charges for obstruction.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: palehorse
This story has never been backed up by any other evidence or testimony. Please wake me up when there is some of either, and I will listen, I promise.
Well I imagine not, those tapes were destroyed for a reason. Its having its desired affect.
What do you suppose is the "desired effect"?
No trials or charges?
In this case, who should be charged, and on what charges?

How about those that ordered the destruction of the tapes and the charges could be obstruction of justice and tampering with evidence?
You may have missed the circular logic you are using there.

PC suggests the tapes were destroyed to prevent a trial.

Pale asks what the charges would be.

You state the charges would be the destruction of the tapes.


You can't charge them for destroying the tapes BEFORE they destroy them. So if they don't destroy the tapes then there are no charges for obstruction.

If I remember the tapes very much were destroyed to protect the officers from future prosecution by a less friendly administration. The US has numerous anti-torture obligations those people could have been prosecuted under, those are the likely charges.
 
Harvey, the point of my 'made it all up' was to say that we have NO idea what was on the tapes.

We know some tapes were destroyed, but we have NO idea what was actually on them and what was said.

Here is an interesting bit from an interview with Posner
link
. I can't prove even if what the terrorist - Abu Zubaydah - has said, is true, whether the people he names were doing it at the request of the government and the leadership of the royal family.

Also, please explain to me why his 'sources' only seem to have talked to him. Why talk to a guy whose previous career as a writer involved writing books about the murders of JFK and MLK. Why not bring this information to a 'real' news reporter?
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
If I remember the tapes very much were destroyed to protect the officers from future prosecution by a less friendly administration. The US has numerous anti-torture obligations those people could have been prosecuted under, those are the likely charges.
Having dug around some more it seems the tapes were destroyed to prevent prosecution as you say and to prevent them from being released to the public.
This was done after the Abu Ghraib pictures had come out and the last thing the CIA wanted was a tape of them 'torturing' someone.
 
Back
Top