Whoops! CIA Man Retracts Claim on Waterboarding

[SFC Ollie]

Destroying the tapes was within the confines of the law as it existed back then....otherwise we would have seen prosecutions.

This is plainly false.

How old are you? Over 14?

If so, you should understand that this is not how the legal system works. This doesn't mean in this particular case that what the CIA did was illegal, even if it was in contravention of an order from Congress, but the premise underlying many of your arguments is:

"Nothing is illegal unless it is prosecuted. If it isn't prosecuted, it must not be illegal."

Crimes do not automatically result in a prosecution and lack of prosecution is by no means whatsoever proof that a crime was not committed.

The letter of the law determines what is and isn't illegal, not the actions of individual prosecutors who are humans and part of a bureaucracy and have to make compromises and politically-driven choices on a daily basis.

Powerful people have more influence than the average citizen and particularly those deeply connected are more often afforded the opportunity to avoid the consequences of their crimes. If prosecution will result in an unwanted and unpopular media circus, and the DOJ is as politicized as it is, there is ample motivation to not prosecute that has nothing to do with whether crimes were committed.

In other words, "we haven't seen prosecutions" means exactly jack and shit.

I'm glad they destroyed those tapes. They did it full knowing that idiots would want them to be made public even at the cost of outing their agents and making them and their families targets. Why is this so difficult to understand? It was such a big thing when the not so under cover Plame was outed that some are still trying to pin it on Cheney when the guy who did it walked away from any investigation. But now you want to out a bunch of actual under cover agents..... Give me a break.

 

[Coyote]

Destroying the tapes was within the confines of the law as it existed back then....otherwise we would have seen prosecutions.

This is plainly false.

How old are you? Over 14?

If so, you should understand that this is not how the legal system works. This doesn't mean in this particular case that what the CIA did was illegal, even if it was in contravention of an order from Congress, but the premise underlying many of your arguments is:

"Nothing is illegal unless it is prosecuted. If it isn't prosecuted, it must not be illegal."

Crimes do not automatically result in a prosecution and lack of prosecution is by no means whatsoever proof that a crime was not committed.

The letter of the law determines what is and isn't illegal, not the actions of individual prosecutors who are humans and part of a bureaucracy and have to make compromises and politically-driven choices on a daily basis.

Powerful people have more influence than the average citizen and particularly those deeply connected are more often afforded the opportunity to avoid the consequences of their crimes. If prosecution will result in an unwanted and unpopular media circus, and the DOJ is as politicized as it is, there is ample motivation to not prosecute that has nothing to do with whether crimes were committed.

In other words, "we haven't seen prosecutions" means exactly jack and shit.

I'm glad they destroyed those tapes. They did it full knowing that idiots would want them to be made public even at the cost of outing their agents and making them and their families targets. Why is this so difficult to understand? It was such a big thing when the not so under cover Plame was outed that some are still trying to pin it on Cheney when the guy who did it walked away from any investigation. But now you want to out a bunch of actual under cover agents..... Give me a break.

No. They wouldn't necessarily be outed. Images in tapes can be obscured, just like words in documents can be blacked out, and were.

 

[SFC Ollie]

This is plainly false.

How old are you? Over 14?

If so, you should understand that this is not how the legal system works. This doesn't mean in this particular case that what the CIA did was illegal, even if it was in contravention of an order from Congress, but the premise underlying many of your arguments is:

"Nothing is illegal unless it is prosecuted. If it isn't prosecuted, it must not be illegal."

Crimes do not automatically result in a prosecution and lack of prosecution is by no means whatsoever proof that a crime was not committed.

The letter of the law determines what is and isn't illegal, not the actions of individual prosecutors who are humans and part of a bureaucracy and have to make compromises and politically-driven choices on a daily basis.

Powerful people have more influence than the average citizen and particularly those deeply connected are more often afforded the opportunity to avoid the consequences of their crimes. If prosecution will result in an unwanted and unpopular media circus, and the DOJ is as politicized as it is, there is ample motivation to not prosecute that has nothing to do with whether crimes were committed.

In other words, "we haven't seen prosecutions" means exactly jack and shit.

I'm glad they destroyed those tapes. They did it full knowing that idiots would want them to be made public even at the cost of outing their agents and making them and their families targets. Why is this so difficult to understand? It was such a big thing when the not so under cover Plame was outed that some are still trying to pin it on Cheney when the guy who did it walked away from any investigation. But now you want to out a bunch of actual under cover agents..... Give me a break.

No. They wouldn't necessarily be outed. Images in tapes can be obscured, just like words in documents can be blacked out, and were.

Yes and voices can be disguised and all that, and how many will then be crying that the tapes were edited? The CIA did the right thing to protect their agents. You want them to be evil and not believe them fine, find another government that acts any better.

 

[CMike]

An independent verification does not mean "public debate". If you don't have that possibility, then the system can be readily abused. Destroying the tapes effectively ended any possibility of determining the truth beyond - "trust me". And no manipulative fear of terrorist attacks would make me want to give up those checks and balances.

Actually the justice department knew as well. The CIA memo was to the justice department.

"The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Manipulative fear of terrorist attacks? Days of Terror: A Photo Gallery

Yes. Right there is the manipulation. Rather than work at the issue rationally - people use images of 9/11 to keep people frightened and willing to accept anything, even the situation is no longer the same.

They did work at the issue rationally.

America just got the worst attack in its history. They had three arch terrorists who when asked about terrorist attacks simply answered "soon you will know".

The CIA operatives had no idea what kind of attack it would be. It could have been nuclear, biological, or chemical.

The CIA didn't want to find out. They tried all other methods to get them to talk, and they didn't. They they then cleared it with the department of justice legal department as well as their own legal department. They had strict criteria when to resort to waterboarding.

The situation is no longer the same? How isn't it the same? Al Qaida is no longer interested in attacking the US? Al Qaida didn't just try and blow up a NWA flight in Detroit?

How is Al Qaida no longer a threat?

Since the Bush Justice Department has been under investigation for "politicization" and some of it's decisions legally suspect, I'm not sure that I would take their word for anything anymore than the CIA. The DoJ also only goes by the CIA's word doesn't it? Having those tapes available would have lent legitimacy to the claims, but they were deliberately destroyed after they were told not to

The only reason the Department of Justice knew about the waterboarding is because the CIA told them about it. If they wanted to hide it, they could have.

No, I don't buy into conspiracy theories. What I see is the following:
CIA makes a claim - a claim not uniformly upheld by other (competing) agencies like the FBI (which is also directly dealing with it) and other individuals (such as some in the military).

What an FBI person thought about it is utterly irrelevant. The FBI wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. The only operatives there were the CIA. Whether some FBI person thinks it was a good idea or a bad idea has nothing to do with the situation.

The DoJ under Bush, was hardly impartial in the way the DoJ should be and Gonzales was known to "rubber stamp" what ever the Bush administration wanted. This isn't conspiracy theory stuff - this is what has come out in various inquiries. This sort of thing isn't good because it makes any determininations from the DoJ legally suspect. If they had been on firm ground - it would be resolved.

Partial? What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Three terrorists, right after 911, were taunting the CIA operatives about the next terrorist attacks. They wouldn't talk under any other method. They talked after being waterboarded, and as a result a disasterous terrorist attack was thwarted of a plane crashing a LA building.

The people responsible for getting the information from these terrorists were the CIA. Not the democrat committee, not the ACLU, not Barney Frank, but the CIA. It's their job and they did it well. They deserve medals. Also, Nancy Pelosi was told of the waterboarding.

And then tapes, which documented what was in memos (supposedly) were deliberately destroyed contrary to Congress' express order.

There was no order by congress. The CIA told the congressional committee that they were destroying the tapes. They had them for 3 years, they had not more value, and only posed a security risk now. A democrat on the committee disagreed with it. There was no order, and the CIA was within the law.

The fact that the liberals have made this such a political issue confirms to me that the CIA made the right decision. If the information on the videos leaked it would have hurt thwarting future terrorist attacks. And I have little doubt that it would have been leaked.

The only reason that the democrats in the committee knew about the tapes, and what were on them, was because the CIA told them. Also, as I stated Nancy Pelosi knew about the waterboarding and never objected, until the democrats politicized it.

What we have is a situation that boils down to this: trust us.

My question is why, when you destroyed the very means available to produce that trust?

Then why destroy the tapes which would have confirmed the CIA operatives story? Not wanting the tapes leaked is very weak given that there is a lot of material is successfully kept secret. Destroying those tapes also prevents Congress from conducting any sort of oversight. In otherwords, trust us.]

Why? Because we are in an intelligence war. It's criticial for information gotten by the CIA to not get out because that helps the enemy. The CIA already had the tapes for 3 years, and they had no more value. They can only compromise national security now.

I could care less what the ACLU and the liberals think about it. The CIA thwarted a major terrorist attack

It is about trust. And I have no trust that the information from the tapes who have been leaked by people who care more about making politicial points than protecting its citizens.

According to who? The CIA. All we have is their word for it.

And again, the only source is the CIA telling the DoJ and the DoJ reiterating what the CIA said. Trust us.

Yet why was he waterboarded so many times if it was so successful?

Because it took that many times to be successful. Because these are three ardent hard terrorists. That should tell you something too. That they had to be treated this roughly to get the information to thwart the LA building attack.

That's one Department - with the DoJ going by what the CIA told it. A DoJ that was has subsequently been compromised. And you have the FBI contradicting what the CIA said and any independent verification of their claims has been destroyed. You can't get around that. It would settle this thing once and for all.

You don't have the FBI contradicting the CIA. The FBI was not there, and therefore can offer no opinion what transpired.

The DOJ was not compromised.

Also, the arch leftwing speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi was told that waterboarding was used as well, and she didn't have an objection.

Source: Aide told Pelosi waterboarding had been used - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was actually used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah.


Source says Nancy Pelosi didn't object about waterboard usage because she wasn't personally briefed about it.

This appears to contradict Pelosi's account that she was never told waterboarding actually happened, only that the administration was considering using it.

Sheehy attended a briefing in which waterboarding was discussed in February 2003, with Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, who took over Pelosi's spot as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Just because she did not object does not make it right. You're throwing out a red herring and "bandwagon" fallacy here.

You said only the CIA and DOJ knew about it.

I am telling you that the arch leftist and speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi knew about it too.

This issue has really very little to do with waterboarding, it's about the democrat method of throwing enough shit on the wall and seeing what sticks.

I don't give a fig what the democrats are doing or saying. My argument is about waterboarding. I'm not the one trying to change it.

What really scares me is that your mindset is now that of the white house.

That when they will have the next arch terrorist who is taunting them about the next terrorist attack that they will not do what needs to be done to extract that information from them.

And who knows what terrorist attacks will occur as a result? A nucler bomb? A wmd? How many millions will die because the Obama administration wants to play nice nice with ardent terrorists who are trying to kill as many americans as possible?

Also, I mentioned this before, this memo was declassified by the Obama administration. Why didn't Pres. Bush declassify this memo, when the memo vindicates him?

Perhaps Obama should not have declassified this memo? Perhaps Obama is helping the enemy?

Have you considered that the CIA actually was trying to stop terrorist attacks?

Have you considered that what they said was true?

Have you considered that they saved thousands of american lives?

Have you considered the security risks of releasing tapes to people whose only agenda is to score political points?

Have you considered that america is lucky that the CIA did what they did?

Have you considered that our country is now in more danger because Obama has taken away from the aggresiveness the CIA had in stopping terrorist attacks? You should.

 

[CMike]

Destroying the tapes was within the confines of the law as it existed back then....otherwise we would have seen prosecutions.

This is plainly false.

How old are you? Over 14?

If so, you should understand that this is not how the legal system works. This doesn't mean in this particular case that what the CIA did was illegal, even if it was in contravention of an order from Congress, but the premise underlying many of your arguments is:

"Nothing is illegal unless it is prosecuted. If it isn't prosecuted, it must not be illegal."

Crimes do not automatically result in a prosecution and lack of prosecution is by no means whatsoever proof that a crime was not committed.

The letter of the law determines what is and isn't illegal, not the actions of individual prosecutors who are humans and part of a bureaucracy and have to make compromises and politically-driven choices on a daily basis.

Powerful people have more influence than the average citizen and particularly those deeply connected are more often afforded the opportunity to avoid the consequences of their crimes. If prosecution will result in an unwanted and unpopular media circus, and the DOJ is as politicized as it is, there is ample motivation to not prosecute that has nothing to do with whether crimes were committed.

In other words, "we haven't seen prosecutions" means exactly jack and shit.

Could you please get the facts right?

There was no order from congress.

The CIA told the congressional committe that they are going to destroy the tapes. They told them that they no longer had value for the CIA, and to have them longer would only be a security risk.

A democrat member on the committee disagreed. That is NOT an order from congress.

There was nothing wrong with what they did.

They kept it from being leaked from people who are more interested in political points than the security of this country.

Once again, the CIA followed procedure. The waterboarding was done within the guideliness which I already posted. The DOJ was notified as well as Nancy Pelosi. The congressional committee was told that the tapes were destroyed.

Most importantly, a major terrorist attack was thwarted.

 

[CMike]

Yes...and that is why it concerned me so much that they destroyed the tapes and that people are willing to accept that.

Destroying the tapes was within the confines of the law as it existed back then....otherwise we would have seen prosecutions.

It was technically legal, but it should not have been done particularly when Congress asked them not to. It means there is no way to know the truth of their claims.

Congress did NOT ask them not to do it, a democrat congressman on the committee asked them not to. He did not speak for all of congress.

 

[CMike]

Yanno...all this idiocy of giving rights to terrorists, poo pooing the war, making the CIA timid, is going to lead to dead american civilian lives.

I hope when (not if) it comes to that, that it's the families, of those who have advocated these methods, who are murdered, as opposed to those that haven't.

They will have gotten what they have pushed for.

I think it is very dangerous to give any agency unlimited powers in the name of national security. There have to be checks and balances and essentially, you are advocating their removal for the CIA. They are accountable only to themselves.

Where exactly have I said that?

 

[Coyote]

Yanno...all this idiocy of giving rights to terrorists, poo pooing the war, making the CIA timid, is going to lead to dead american civilian lives.

I hope when (not if) it comes to that, that it's the families, of those who have advocated these methods, who are murdered, as opposed to those that haven't.

They will have gotten what they have pushed for.

I think it is very dangerous to give any agency unlimited powers in the name of national security. There have to be checks and balances and essentially, you are advocating their removal for the CIA. They are accountable only to themselves.

Where exactly have I said that?

I didn't say you did.

However, by applauding the destruction of those videotapes you are effectively doing so. We have only the CIA's word that what transpired did. For some things, that might not matter but for something that has such huge repercussions to us as a nation as torture and security - I'm not willing to just "take their word" especially in combination with the destruction of any supporting evidence.

 

[CMike]

I think it is very dangerous to give any agency unlimited powers in the name of national security. There have to be checks and balances and essentially, you are advocating their removal for the CIA. They are accountable only to themselves.

Where exactly have I said that?

I didn't say you did.

However, by applauding the destruction of those videotapes you are effectively doing so. We have only the CIA's word that what transpired did. For some things, that might not matter but for something that has such huge repercussions to us as a nation as torture and security - I'm not willing to just "take their word" especially in combination with the destruction of any supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence for what?

They are not on trial other than in the political circus.

They did not only what was legal but what they should have been.

Sensitive intelligence information being kept secret is much more important to this country, and it's protection, than being in the middle of a political circus.

 

[QUENTIN]

CMike, you're right that requests were made to turn over the tapes, not orders given. That the CIA kept the tapes for years then destroyed them once Congress and the courts were intensifying their scrutiny of the agency’s detention and interrogation program however speaks to their decision being one attempting to avoid scandal or criminal culpability. There is no reason to believe the tapes would have been made public, and almost zero likelihood that in the unlikely event they were they wouldn't have been heavily redacted.

Whether they were right in doing so or not is not what I was arguing though and is tangential to my main point: Patek's repeated assertion that if something is illegal, it would be prosecuted and the absence of prosecutions proves that the actions aren't illegal is flatly incorrect and absurd on its face, showing no practical understanding of how the legal system operates.

 

[CMike]

CMike, you're right that requests were made to turn over the tapes, not orders given. That the CIA kept the tapes for years then destroyed them once Congress and the courts were intensifying their scrutiny of the agency’s detention and interrogation program however speaks to their decision being one attempting to avoid scandal or criminal culpability. There is no reason to believe the tapes would have been made public, and almost zero likelihood that in the unlikely event they were they wouldn't have been heavily redacted.

Whether they were right in doing so or not is not what I was arguing though and is tangential to my main point: Patek's repeated assertion that if something is illegal, it would be prosecuted and the absence of prosecutions proves that the actions aren't illegal is flatly incorrect and absurd on its face, showing no practical understanding of how the legal system operates.

Take that up with Patek.

I wouldn't even says requests made. One democrat member was against it.

The CIA made the right decision.

 

[Coyote]

America just got the worst attack in its history. They had three arch terrorists who when asked about terrorist attacks simply answered "soon you will know".

Maybe.

The CIA operatives had no idea what kind of attack it would be. It could have been nuclear, biological, or chemical.

Maybe.

The CIA didn't want to find out. They tried all other methods to get them to talk, and they didn't. They they then cleared it with the department of justice legal department as well as their own legal department. They had strict criteria when to resort to waterboarding.

Maybe.

If all went as said, then surely those tapes would have vindicated them and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

The situation is no longer the same? How isn't it the same? Al Qaida is no longer interested in attacking the US? Al Qaida didn't just try and blow up a NWA flight in Detroit?

How is Al Qaida no longer a threat?

When did I say that?

No. I didn't.

I said the situation is no longer the same. We are no longer blissfully ignorant, safe across oceans, thinking terrorism is a problem for other countries. We have many more safeguards in place.

The only reason the Department of Justice knew about the waterboarding is because the CIA told them about it. If they wanted to hide it, they could have.

The CIA sought and needed legal sanction for what they were doing and they got it. I don't blame them. However, that also doesn't mean they told everything or even necessarily the truth. The only reason I say this is that there is nothing but their own words to back them up. Don't you think that for something as important as sanctioning torture, you might want a little bit more than that?

What an FBI person thought about it is utterly irrelevant. The FBI wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. The only operatives there were the CIA. Whether some FBI person thinks it was a good idea or a bad idea has nothing to do with the situation.

I disagree because again, we come down to the word of one agency: trust us.

Partial? What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Three terrorists, right after 911, were taunting the CIA operatives about the next terrorist attacks. They wouldn't talk under any other method. They talked after being waterboarded, and as a result a disasterous terrorist attack was thwarted of a plane crashing a LA building.

There is not even complete agreement on the credability of that threat.

And only the CIA's word on the fact that no other methods would work. Why did they have to waterboard 87 times?

The people responsible for getting the information from these terrorists were the CIA. Not the democrat committee, not the ACLU, not Barney Frank, but the CIA. It's their job and they did it well. They deserve medals. Also, Nancy Pelosi was told of the waterboarding.

We are not talking about the Democratic Committee.

We are not talking about the ACLU.

We are not talking about Barney Frank.

Congress IS part of the government. Congress has oversight responsibilities. Congress legislates the law. You can flail away all you want at the Democrats etc etc but it's irrerrelevant unless you are suggesting there is no need for oversight and that is a scary proposition indeed.

While the CIA was in charge of getting information from suspected terrorists - that does not mean the FBI was uninvolved so what they have to say does count for something.

Congress asked for the tapes. That same day, the CIA started asking for permission to destroy the tapes. The next day the tapes were destroyed. The timing simply doesn't suggest that they had outlived their usefulness but rather, their legality was in question.

The CIA destroyed interrogation videotapes against the advice of the White House, Justice Department, and members of Congress. The agency's chief of clandestine operations overruled the advice and destroyed them without notifying even the CIA's top lawyer.

That is not good.

There was no order by congress. The CIA told the congressional committee that they were destroying the tapes. They had them for 3 years, they had not more value, and only posed a security risk now. A democrat on the committee disagreed with it. There was no order, and the CIA was within the law.

That's total baloney - they had no value after three years? We keep our tax records for longer than that! not only that, if they posed a "security risk" then why not destroy paper documents which would be even more easily leaked?

The fact that the liberals have made this such a political issue confirms to me that the CIA made the right decision. If the information on the videos leaked it would have hurt thwarting future terrorist attacks. And I have little doubt that it would have been leaked.

The only reason that the democrats in the committee knew about the tapes, and what were on them, was because the CIA told them. Also, as I stated Nancy Pelosi knew about the waterboarding and never objected, until the democrats politicized it.

It has nothing to do with being liberal. Anyone - conservative or liberal should be concerned about this frankly. It should not be condensed into a partisan issue.

Why? Because we are in an intelligence war. It's criticial for information gotten by the CIA to not get out because that helps the enemy. The CIA already had the tapes for 3 years, and they had no more value. They can only compromise national security now.

Evidence shows that is not the reason they were destroyed. That rationale sounds like grasping at straws. The other consideration is that intelligence relating to terrorism has a very short shelf life. After 3 years it is very doubtful those tapes could compromise national security unless agents undercover were revealed but that can easily be prevented.

Because it took that many times to be successful. Because these are three ardent hard terrorists. That should tell you something too. That they had to be treated this roughly to get the information to thwart the LA building attack.

All accounts I've read concerning waterboarding indicate that they break very very quickly.

What really scares me is that your mindset is now that of the white house.

What scares me is you look at this as a partisan issue.

That when they will have the next arch terrorist who is taunting them about the next terrorist attack that they will not do what needs to be done to extract that information from them.

And who knows what terrorist attacks will occur as a result? A nucler bomb? A wmd? How many millions will die because the Obama administration wants to play nice nice with ardent terrorists who are trying to kill as many americans as possible?

Also, I mentioned this before, this memo was declassified by the Obama administration. Why didn't Pres. Bush declassify this memo, when the memo vindicates him?

Perhaps Obama should not have declassified this memo? Perhaps Obama is helping the enemy?

Have you considered that the CIA actually was trying to stop terrorist attacks?

Have you considered that what they said was true?

Have you considered that they saved thousands of american lives?

Have you considered the security risks of releasing tapes to people whose only agenda is to score political points?

Have you considered that america is lucky that the CIA did what they did?

Have you considered that our country is now in more danger because Obama has taken away from the aggresiveness the CIA had in stopping terrorist attacks? You should.

All of that sounds like the politics of fear mixed with hardcore partisanship.

How much are you willing to trade for the illusion of security?

 

[Coyote]

Where exactly have I said that?

I didn't say you did.

However, by applauding the destruction of those videotapes you are effectively doing so. We have only the CIA's word that what transpired did. For some things, that might not matter but for something that has such huge repercussions to us as a nation as torture and security - I'm not willing to just "take their word" especially in combination with the destruction of any supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence for what?

They are not on trial other than in the political circus.

They did not only what was legal but what they should have been.

Sensitive intelligence information being kept secret is much more important to this country, and it's protection, than being in the middle of a political circus.

Torture - and legitimizing it - and hoping that it is only used on the hard core (which doesn't tend to happen in reality - like the Canadian citizen who was exported under extraordinary rendition - tortured - found innocent and returned) is not a circus.

It is not a political circus.

It is a very serious matter - every bit as serious as our national security. The fact that you trivialize it into a partisan fight says much.

 

[Coyote]

I'm glad they destroyed those tapes. They did it full knowing that idiots would want them to be made public even at the cost of outing their agents and making them and their families targets. Why is this so difficult to understand? It was such a big thing when the not so under cover Plame was outed that some are still trying to pin it on Cheney when the guy who did it walked away from any investigation. But now you want to out a bunch of actual under cover agents..... Give me a break.

No. They wouldn't necessarily be outed. Images in tapes can be obscured, just like words in documents can be blacked out, and were.

Yes and voices can be disguised and all that, and how many will then be crying that the tapes were edited? The CIA did the right thing to protect their agents. You want them to be evil and not believe them fine, find another government that acts any better.

Then they can just join the birthers and troofers in idiocy.

Sensitive stuff gets blacked out all the time in released documents.

 

[CMike]

America just got the worst attack in its history. They had three arch terrorists who when asked about terrorist attacks simply answered "soon you will know".

Maybe.

The CIA operatives had no idea what kind of attack it would be. It could have been nuclear, biological, or chemical.

Maybe.



Maybe.

If all went as said, then surely those tapes would have vindicated them and we wouldn't be having this conversation.



When did I say that?

No. I didn't.

I said the situation is no longer the same. We are no longer blissfully ignorant, safe across oceans, thinking terrorism is a problem for other countries. We have many more safeguards in place.




The CIA sought and needed legal sanction for what they were doing and they got it. I don't blame them. However, that also doesn't mean they told everything or even necessarily the truth. The only reason I say this is that there is nothing but their own words to back them up. Don't you think that for something as important as sanctioning torture, you might want a little bit more than that?



I disagree because again, we come down to the word of one agency: trust us.



There is not even complete agreement on the credability of that threat.

And only the CIA's word on the fact that no other methods would work. Why did they have to waterboard 87 times?



We are not talking about the Democratic Committee.

We are not talking about the ACLU.

We are not talking about Barney Frank.

Congress IS part of the government. Congress has oversight responsibilities. Congress legislates the law. You can flail away all you want at the Democrats etc etc but it's irrerrelevant unless you are suggesting there is no need for oversight and that is a scary proposition indeed.

While the CIA was in charge of getting information from suspected terrorists - that does not mean the FBI was uninvolved so what they have to say does count for something.

Congress asked for the tapes. That same day, the CIA started asking for permission to destroy the tapes. The next day the tapes were destroyed. The timing simply doesn't suggest that they had outlived their usefulness but rather, their legality was in question.

The CIA destroyed interrogation videotapes against the advice of the White House, Justice Department, and members of Congress. The agency's chief of clandestine operations overruled the advice and destroyed them without notifying even the CIA's top lawyer.

From your link

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.

Win McNamee/Getty Images, 2006
Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said he was never told that interrogation tapes had been destroyed.

Congress Looks Into Obstruction as Calls for Justice Inquiry Rise (December 8, 2007)
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web
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.



Totally and utterly meaningless. Government officials? Which government officials? Officials? Which officials? Top CIA officials? Which top CIA officials?

It's funny when it comes to the NYT and other hard left media, their sources are anonymous.

Basically the NYT just makes crap up, and attributes it to "government officials".

Zero credibility.

If an article can't internally document what it's saying it has no credibility and no relevance.

Basically, it's the opinion of the author.

 

[CMike]

America just got the worst attack in its history. They had three arch terrorists who when asked about terrorist attacks simply answered "soon you will know".

Maybe.

The CIA operatives had no idea what kind of attack it would be. It could have been nuclear, biological, or chemical.

Maybe.



Maybe.

If all went as said, then surely those tapes would have vindicated them and we wouldn't be having this conversation.



When did I say that?

No. I didn't.

I said the situation is no longer the same. We are no longer blissfully ignorant, safe across oceans, thinking terrorism is a problem for other countries. We have many more safeguards in place.




The CIA sought and needed legal sanction for what they were doing and they got it. I don't blame them. However, that also doesn't mean they told everything or even necessarily the truth. The only reason I say this is that there is nothing but their own words to back them up. Don't you think that for something as important as sanctioning torture, you might want a little bit more than that?



I disagree because again, we come down to the word of one agency: trust us.



There is not even complete agreement on the credability of that threat.

And only the CIA's word on the fact that no other methods would work. Why did they have to waterboard 87 times?



We are not talking about the Democratic Committee.

We are not talking about the ACLU.

We are not talking about Barney Frank.

Congress IS part of the government. Congress has oversight responsibilities. Congress legislates the law. You can flail away all you want at the Democrats etc etc but it's irrerrelevant unless you are suggesting there is no need for oversight and that is a scary proposition indeed.

While the CIA was in charge of getting information from suspected terrorists - that does not mean the FBI was uninvolved so what they have to say does count for something.

Congress asked for the tapes. That same day, the CIA started asking for permission to destroy the tapes. The next day the tapes were destroyed. The timing simply doesn't suggest that they had outlived their usefulness but rather, their legality was in question.

The CIA destroyed interrogation videotapes against the advice of the White House, Justice Department, and members of Congress. The agency's chief of clandestine operations overruled the advice and destroyed them without notifying even the CIA's top lawyer.

That is not good.



That's total baloney - they had no value after three years? We keep our tax records for longer than that! not only that, if they posed a "security risk" then why not destroy paper documents which would be even more easily leaked?



It has nothing to do with being liberal. Anyone - conservative or liberal should be concerned about this frankly. It should not be condensed into a partisan issue.



Evidence shows that is not the reason they were destroyed. That rationale sounds like grasping at straws. The other consideration is that intelligence relating to terrorism has a very short shelf life. After 3 years it is very doubtful those tapes could compromise national security unless agents undercover were revealed but that can easily be prevented.



All accounts I've read concerning waterboarding indicate that they break very very quickly.

What really scares me is that your mindset is now that of the white house.

What scares me is you look at this as a partisan issue.

That when they will have the next arch terrorist who is taunting them about the next terrorist attack that they will not do what needs to be done to extract that information from them.

And who knows what terrorist attacks will occur as a result? A nucler bomb? A wmd? How many millions will die because the Obama administration wants to play nice nice with ardent terrorists who are trying to kill as many americans as possible?

Also, I mentioned this before, this memo was declassified by the Obama administration. Why didn't Pres. Bush declassify this memo, when the memo vindicates him?

Perhaps Obama should not have declassified this memo? Perhaps Obama is helping the enemy?

Have you considered that the CIA actually was trying to stop terrorist attacks?

Have you considered that what they said was true?

Have you considered that they saved thousands of american lives?

Have you considered the security risks of releasing tapes to people whose only agenda is to score political points?

Have you considered that america is lucky that the CIA did what they did?

Have you considered that our country is now in more danger because Obama has taken away from the aggresiveness the CIA had in stopping terrorist attacks? You should.

All of that sounds like the politics of fear mixed with hardcore partisanship.

How much are you willing to trade for the illusion of security?

In order to stop a terrorist strike? I'll be happy to pour the first bucket of water myself on the arch terrorists.

 

[CMike]

I didn't say you did.

However, by applauding the destruction of those videotapes you are effectively doing so. We have only the CIA's word that what transpired did. For some things, that might not matter but for something that has such huge repercussions to us as a nation as torture and security - I'm not willing to just "take their word" especially in combination with the destruction of any supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence for what?

They are not on trial other than in the political circus.

They did not only what was legal but what they should have been.

Sensitive intelligence information being kept secret is much more important to this country, and it's protection, than being in the middle of a political circus.

Torture - and legitimizing it - and hoping that it is only used on the hard core (which doesn't tend to happen in reality - like the Canadian citizen who was exported under extraordinary rendition - tortured - found innocent and returned) is not a circus.

It is not a political circus.

It is a very serious matter - every bit as serious as our national security. The fact that you trivialize it into a partisan fight says much.

It's nothing more than democrats trying to score political points.

I bet if you ask the majority of americans do you feel that waterboarding three terrorists who were taunting CIA agents about a terrorist strike, and that waterboarding led to the thwarting of a terrorist attack of a plane flying into a los angeles building, almost all would say yes.

The CIA agents deserve medals.

The scary part is that the Obama adminstration has made them timid, and america will continue to the pay the price with more terrorist strikes.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Where exactly have I said that?

I didn't say you did.

However, by applauding the destruction of those videotapes you are effectively doing so. We have only the CIA's word that what transpired did. For some things, that might not matter but for something that has such huge repercussions to us as a nation as torture and security - I'm not willing to just "take their word" especially in combination with the destruction of any supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence for what?

They are not on trial other than in the political circus.

They did not only what was legal but what they should have been.

Sensitive intelligence information being kept secret is much more important to this country, and it's protection, than being in the middle of a political circus.

CMike, in this new world of liberalism the government is always on trial if it makes conservatives or the USA as a whole look bad. I thought you would have figured that out by now.

 

[CMike]

Ollie unless the government is controlled by liberal gods like Obama.

Then they can do whatever they want.

 

[CMike]

I'm glad they destroyed those tapes. They did it full knowing that idiots would want them to be made public even at the cost of outing their agents and making them and their families targets. Why is this so difficult to understand? It was such a big thing when the not so under cover Plame was outed that some are still trying to pin it on Cheney when the guy who did it walked away from any investigation. But now you want to out a bunch of actual under cover agents..... Give me a break.

No. They wouldn't necessarily be outed. Images in tapes can be obscured, just like words in documents can be blacked out, and were.

Yes and voices can be disguised and all that, and how many will then be crying that the tapes were edited? The CIA did the right thing to protect their agents. You want them to be evil and not believe them fine, find another government that acts any better.

Exactly. There is no pleasing them. It's not about the substance, it's about the liberals trying to manufacture a political issue.

Do they even care that a major terrorist attack was foiled? No.