1. Was the destruction of these tapes a coverup or necessary because they posed a serious security risk to CIA officials and their families?

The destruction of the tapes was necessary in order to avoid opening a can of worms which would challenge the accountability of both the CIA and the administration. In viewing the tapes, the systemic behaviour of abuse would come into view and repeat the Abu Gharib experience. The tapes would bring into question the decades old practice of institutionalized training of latin american militaries in brutal repression techniques. Secondly the tapes would bring into question the value of intelligence extracted through torture which would run against the interests of the newly minted judge-wannabees in Military Commissions tribunal.

I very much doubt the public has the appetite for another Abu Gharib and should they learn of such 'accidents' being taught in a classroom setting (like say the School of the Americas) this would become an explosive issue. Specifically we would see the the coercive methods of the Kubark and the Human Exploitation Resource Manuals employed in not just one location, but as an institutional policy. This is larger than just a little water boarding. Where there is water boarding there is much much more. The point is people would stand and gasp that the true origins of Abu Gharib began with counter-insurgency attempts which all ended in repression. Think of the issue as a twofer - two for the price of one.

2. If you believe this was a coverup, who was responsible and who should be held accountable?

To be fair to Dubya, the problem was there well before his stewardship. The short answer, if we saw the tapes we'd seen the coaching from the CIA, we'd inquire into the schools and an pose the inconvenient question of how the government conducts foreign policy. This would be a true Watergate level issue that could completely derail not only the war on terror but question the health of the American intelligence apparatus.

Edit:I uncovered a rather informative article pertaining to the second question of who should be responsible and why. To give people a better overview of who is involved with this investigation John Dean writes;



This is over and above the ACLU's lawsuit. The size and scope of this case could be huge. Dean shows beyond a shadow of doubt this case is beyond partisan. What makes the tape case so interesting is it parallels Abu Gharib in the sense it was not supposed to be made public. By fluke, the judge that disclosed those events is now handling this new case. I believe what was on those tapes was every bit as damning as was done in Iraq, and it is was deemed better to be held in contempt of court than to repeat the embarrassment of Abu Gharib. Ladies and gentleman, we've got Abu part II on our hands.

There's the problem in a nutshell. Says who? The same people who said Iraq was an imminent threat with WMD and links to Al Qaida? The same people who said we needed to go war with Iran before it's too late? How could you possibly know the guy on tape was a high ranking AQ type? Because someone pinky-promised? How could you possibly know he held important information worthy of torture? Because someone is a Jack Bauer fan?

I'd like to believe what you believe, but I don't. I would want proof that the person is high ranking AQ with important information instead of taking someone's word for it. That's the biggest disconnect between people like you and me. People like me want to make sure people with too much power in our government do not abuse that authority. Without oversight or consequence, that is impossible.

Furthermore, let's pretend someone is telling the truth (a dubious prospect at best). Then, Hillary Clinton is elected with her big government socialist policies. She decides to put people in place to effect political gain for herself using the same methods without oversight or consequence. If you are truly a conservative, that should scare the hell out of you. But as long as you are defending current policy, you are defending future policy.

I don't hate Bush for the sake of hating Bush. Hell, I voted for him the first time and immediately after 9/11, would have compared him to the greats - Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt. But instead, we need to compare him to Bill Clinton because that's the closest he's come to after taking a hard left after victories in Afghanistan and the perpetual lies and obfuscations.

His "war" with the CIA is hurting this country. He is the president and the one responsible to make sure we are united. Instead, he points fingers. That's not a president - that's a coward.

What suprises me most about this issue- is how anyone could possibly think it is anything BUT a coverup. It is beyond obvious- they got caught, red handed- I mean, what the heck else could it be? I have seen better excuses for homework lost by gradeschool kids than the CIA has offered.

This topic was suppose to be about the legality and responsibility for the tapes destruction. The questions posed were:

1. Was the destruction of these tapes a coverup or necessary because they posed a serious security risk to CIA officials and their families?
2. If you believe this was a coverup, who was responsible and who should be held accountable?
3. If you believe this was due to security risks, is this the way his matter should have been resolved?


If one believes in a government of laws and the Constitution and knows that the 9/11 Commission, the Congress, and the courts had all asked for these tapes and that at least one court had ordered there preservation, then it becomes obvious that a thorough investigation needs to take place and the guilty parties brought to justice.

The discussion, however, seems to center on waterboarding and whether it is torture and whether it should have been allowed in this case. I think the answers are: Yes, it is torture and has been commonly considered such for centuries. And, no it should not have been used even in this case which might be compared to the hypothetical "ticking time bomb" which might account for Pelosi's reported silence when informed of its possible use. However, if we are going to discuss the torture aspect of this issue we also have to consider how these techniques spread to Guantanamo and then to Afghanistan and Iraq and finally around the world through "extra-ordinary renditions." It is quite clear that torture became a common practice and that those involved were not very careful to make sure only "guilty" targets were subjected to such techniques. Our government doesn't even have the grace to apologize and compensate individuals like Khaled El-Masri and Maher Arar, German and Canadian citizens respectively who were abducted, tortured in third countries, released, and subsequently established to be totally innocent!

Trouble is quite right to point to the use of such techniques in Latin America through individuals trained in the "School of the Americas" sometimes assisted by covert agents of the CIA. It is interesting to note, however, how many key individuals in the GWB Administration were key players in this sad chapter of US interference in Central and South America. (See This Interview).

You want to back this up with data?

The other day a “liberal” on TV was asked what she would do to anyone who had info that could preven the death of her family- the answer of course is anything and everything.

The use of “aggressive methods” has been reserved for those who had info that would save lives and the non-partisan experts say it has done just that.

Now we could have just lived with the deaths and explaine to the families that to get the info we needed we would have had to use techniques “some people” call torture – And that would go over just great wouldn’t it…………….

You know what Ted- again, you are in good company- I mean, after all, I am sure Al-Quaida, when sawing off someone's head, says "hey, they deserve it, because they invaded my country, killed my family, and destroyed everything I have ever known"

In fact, I would say they have far better reasons to torture us than we do for them.

That being said, I don't condone torture for anyone.

And of course- the bottom line is- the CIA destroyed these tapes to cover up a crime. Those that did so should be put in jail for 20-40 years, minimum.

How do you know for whom the use of torture has been reserved for?
The answer is, you don't know. You are just repeating what you were told.
U.S. Military personnel in Abu Ghraib were interrogating people with barking dogs inches away from their genitalia - were those "high-ranking Al-Quaida" operatives as well? Of course not. These soldiers were unlucky - the pictures of their deeds got out.
CIA hides its tracks much better.
Every shady deal ever done by a government - in every country, at any time period - was always - ALWAYS, Ted - done "in the best interest of the State".

Give me a break please. Sympathy for AQ?? Are you over the edge? Lets remember before we get all teary eyed about these animals that they started this with the deaths of over 3,000 American civilians sir.



Right. And you don’t either. They say 2 people were “water boarded” and I believe them. What do you believe? That we do this to anyone? How would that be keep secret?

Abu Ghraib was criminal behavior and the people responsible were tried and convicted for it.

So your position then is let em kill us rather than extract the info with aggressive methods? That’s fine – I disagree – in fact I think we are generally too nice to people who would, and have gladly, tortured, killed, and mutilated American men women and children as well as out men in uniform.

NO, I don't agree with the methods of AQ- that is YOUR position- you agree with torture, you are no different than the folks that voted the Nazis in to Germany, the poeple that supported Saddams methods, and those that support Al-Quaida in foriegn lands. They use the same justifications you do- they killed us, they tortured our poeple, they invaded us, they oppress us yadda yadda, it is just rationalization for why evil behavior is okay when we do it, but not when they do it- that is all- there is absolutely 0 difference between you and those poeple that tactically are okay with Al-Quaida doing what they doing what they do in thier neighborhoods- and, since they have actually lost relatives and family and homes to US forces, while you are nice and warm at home in your outrage, they at least have a far better reason for thier rationalization of evil behavior than you do. They are desperate- youa re not. You sit at home worrying about when monkeys are going to fly out of your butt, while they starve and lose family members that are called "collateral damage"- which is okay with you- though, I am sure, you don't consider those 3000 victims of 9/11 as "collateral damage" and legitimate war targets, now do you?

Thier reasons are no better or worse than yours- they are the same. Difference is, they have lost family members, and live in desperation, while you live as a king to them. You support torture, they support torture- what the heck is the difference between you and them, except you are far more rich and have sacrificed nothing? What is the difference between you and those that agreed with Crystal Nacht? The reasons you give are no different "national security" and "for the common good, we kill, rape and commit evil"

Like I said- congradulations, you are in good company.

The CIA is still run by evil men that think that torture and oppressoin are legitimate ways to effect control in other countries- and it is coming back to bite us in the butt.

We need a thorough housekeeping of these folks, and we need to start by throwing those that destroyed those tapes in jail for a long, long time- and we don't need a trial- just call them "enemies of the state" and start torturing the truth out of them- appropriate under the right circumstances- right Ted?

there is absolutely 0 difference between you and those poeple that tactically are okay with Al-Quaida doing what they doing what they do in thier neighborhoods- and, since they have actually lost relatives and family and homes to US forces, while you are nice and warm at home in your outrage, they at least have a far better reason for thier rationalization of evil behavior than you do. They are desperate- youa re not.


Hey you can explain to the 9/11 victims families your position – I think it is ludicrous.

I wonder if you would feel different about interrogation methods if Gore was in the WH. Certainly they would be the same.

Comparing us to Saddam or our enemies because we used water boarding on 2 people is pure crap. Ya they lost relatives as a result of attacking us and killing US citizens. They call it war.

Like I said- if Nancy was okay with it, if Gore is okay with it- I am not. Throw anyone in jail that okays torture- is a very easy position to take. I make no party distinction or demand no greater burden of proof on one party than the other- unlike you Ted, that would pretty much absolve anyone with a R behind their name of any guilt whatsoever- GW could have sex with a baby while singing satanic verses on live TV and you would deny it was a crime Ted- that much is clear.

When it is bad, it is bad no matter who does it- Al-Quaida, Saddam, Hitler or Ted.

I wonder if the victims of US bombing in Iraq has the same position as those families in 9/11 Ted? After all- thier country had NOTHING to do with 9/11, but 9/11 is the way we pimp the dead to justify atrocities.

We commit atrocities with the okay of poeple like you, just like Al-Quaida commits atrocities with the okay of poeple in thier nieghborhoods.

Atrocity is atrocity, torture is torture, and it is always bad, no matter who does it, or why. That is what we call a "moral absolute"- something that has been talked about by the right wing = you have made noises about "moral relativsm" by liberals- yet you engage in it here- torture is wrong, accomplishes nothing, there is no proof that it has ever done anything positive, ever. So stop torturing- not a hard position to take, and punish those that torture, and punish them harshly.

I read somewhere that the CIA and the Israeli Mossad killed JFK because he was opposed to Israel's acquiring nuclear weapons. Have you ever heard this?

Right. And bad is a relative term. I am NOT in favor of the torture practiced regularly by out enemies. But I will assume if lefty Nancy saw it and thought it was ok, and it has saved lives, it is ok with me CR.

You are against it regardless because you hate Bush. But I will bet that if the stingers got to the terrorists and your family was blown out of the sky along with hundreds of others you would not be satisfied with the explanation that we could have had the information to stop the attack if we had just “water boarded” the terrorist.

Tell me I am wrong.

Nope, wouldn't be for it- because, once again, it is far more likely of a scenario that monkeys fly out of butt. Seriously much higher likelihood that we need to torture someone to make sure the monkeys don't fly. It is the equivilent of saying we need to torture NASA scientists to make sure we are safe from Meteor strikes- in other words- your scenario is the hollywood never happen scenario. So I reject it for the fantasy that it is- just like the fantasy that we need torture to protect us from Al-quaida- it is simply an excuse for bad behavior. No different than the excuses Al-Quaida uses to torture and behead others. Absolutely 0 difference. It is evil no matter the reasons, no matter who does it, and there is no excuse for it- EVER.

There is NO justification for it- period, ever, zip, nada- all the scenarios are simply fantasies cooked up by the guilty.

Haven’t a clue as to what you are saying so let’s drop it. So you are saying YOU know it is torture even though the Congressmen who approved it said it wasn’t – I will go with them over you any day.

As far as “likely scenario” I again have no clue as to what you mean. Nice diuck of the question though.

Obviously if Stinger missiles fell into terrorist hands in the US EACH ONE = a plane down with no survivors. How you blithely discount this is beyond me but it is my mistake for getting into it with you since you seem to have no idea of even what we are talking about.

For your reference:

“The FIM-92 Stinger is a man portable infra-red homing surface-to-air missile developed in the United States and used by all the U.S. armed services, with whom it entered service in 1981. The basic Stinger missile has to date been responsible for 270 confirmed kills of aircraft.”

Light to carry and relatively easy to operate, the FIM-92 Stinger is a passive surface-to-air missile, shoulder-fired by a single operator, although officially it requires two. The FIM-92B can attack aircraft at a range of up to 15,700 feet (4800 m) and at altitudes between 600 and 12,500 feet (180 and 3800 m).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

http://www.painetworks.com/previewsrf/ez/ez1686.html

“The "fire-and-forget" Stinger missile employs a passive infrared seeker to home in on its airborne target. A passive infrared seeker emits no radiation that a target aircraft can detect, and, instead, guides on the infrared energy (heat) emitted by the target. Because the Stinger employs a passive homing seeker, it is a "fire-and-forget" weapon that needs no guidance from the operator after firing, unlike other missiles that track the reflection of a designator beam, requiring the operator to maintain a lock on the target. This allows a Stinger operator to take cover, relocate, or engage other targets immediately after firing a Stinger.
The Stinger system features a proportional navigation system, integrated Indentification Friend or Foe (IFF) interrogation, and threat adaptive guidance. Proportional navigation enables the missile to effectively hit moving targets by injecting a multiplier factor into course corrections so that the missile overcorrects for a target's evasive maneuvers, leading the target to a successful interception. The integrated IFF subsystem allows the Stinger operator to query a target aircraft to determine if it is friendly. Before firing, the operator depresses a button on the gripstock assembly, emitting a coded radio signal. Aircraft equipped with friendly IFF systems will recognize the coded signal and respond with the appropriate coded reply. The IFF subsystem emits one tone if it authenticates a friendly aircraft, and another if the aircraft is unknown. The IFF subsystem is intended to prevent friendly-fire incidents. The Stinger's threat adaptive guidance takesover in the final stages of its approach to the target, slightly shifting the missile's aim from the target's IR hotspot to more vulnerable areas of the aircraft.”
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm

Those are what are known as "fear tactics" playing on the fear that something "might" happen to justify bad behavior.

Your scenario is a non-starter. There is no evidence that torture will prevent stingers from falling into the wrong hands- IIRC< you would be best to torture Ollie North on that one- he has the reciept still

I know what a stinger is- but once again- who cares? We don't need to torture to find one- you are just sidestepping the issue, to build up fear to once again rationalize evil behavior by evil men.

BTW- your argument is very old, I thought I heard it before- and sure enough- I had:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Any guesses who agrees with your side? (Hint, we had to go to war against them in WW2 )

Just insert the word "torture" for "war" and you have the same thing.

We need to torture to find the stingers, or your family will die!

You are quite wrong Ted. What's worse is you are trying to make this a partisan issue. This isn't the first thread you've attempted to do this either. There are some lines you cannot cross without repercussions. By doing so you've completely invalidated whatever small moral right for any type of humanitarian based intervention, and encouraged our peers to practice the bad old ways as well. The issue devolves from what is right to what you can get away with.


I think you are under the impression that heavy-handed methods yield results. I entered this debate only to prove that singular Jack Bauer like incidents give nothing in the way of actionable intel. All you get is what you want to hear.

The latin American references reinforced the snowballing effect water boarding and electroshock had among the populace once they became aware of their existence. The blowback from them was so severe that in order to continue (placing heavy emphasis on continue) these tactics the "high value" criteria was thrown out the window. Soon everyone that had a beef with this behaviour was in the same boat as the suspects guerrillas. The net was widened – in much the same way as is happening with the classification of terrorist. The end result was that political parties and intellectual class became victims of tactics that were once reserved for guerrillas.

As usual, you give no information and only your opinion. Isn't this a debate?

Basically, what you're appearing to say is that torture doesn't work in the search for valuable intelligence. Well, it actually is somewhat ineffective according to many sources. Here's one:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/tor...ogation_te.html

However, even the same article eludes to the overwhelming reason that torture is used. There's no better option.

I don't know your military background, but if I were jailed during my time in Afghanistan, and someone said "Hey man- tell me what you know... or I'll ask loudly", what would've happened? I wouldn't talk. Conversely, sometimes torture gets what someone needs. It's a psychological weapon really even for the rest of the prisoners. I don't agree with it being used with wanton abandonment, but truly it's better at times than the alternative.... Americans dying.

You make a good point about Hitler... HA!. What a stretch man. Using torture to garner intelligence is EXACTLY the same as attempting to rule the world and eradicating Jews. Precisely. Thanks for letting us see the light. hahahahahaha....



Ok... it's game time. Here's the ultimate question.
Your entire family has been kidnapped by a band of men. They captured one of the men, and he knows where your family is. If you don't pay the ransom by 5p on the next day, your family dies. What do you do?

Of course.... you exhaust the conventional methods. No cigar. I would probably make the man hurt. I would deprive him of light, waterboard him, beat him, light him on fire, electrify him, whatever. This is exactly what happens, excepting pull out "family" and put in "fellow soldiers" or "Americans".

I feel like you would too. The issue here isn't that we're pulling people aside off the street and beating them silly. It's more like someone knows about the next impending terrorist attack, and we do what needs to be done. Sure- we make mistakes. So does the justice system, should we stop putting people in jail? Your logic eluding to saving "one innocent man" negates the thousands that often times actions like these save.

No I did not – CR made the ludicrous statement that “Republicans” were almost universally for “torture”. Which is pure crap.

I think you are under the impression that heavy-handed methods yield results. I entered this debate only to prove that singular Jack Bauer like incidents give nothing in the way of actionable intel. All you get is what you want to hear.

Apparently the entire Intel community disagree with you – since that have said that “atoneable intel” has been received from interrogation and saved lived. Do I need to post it again?

Naturally if you have no way to follow up on questions asked and you ask “yes” or “no” questions you will get little. But if you ask for names, plans etc. that can be verified and info can be acted on then the information can be of great value.

“Water-boarding worked wonders in the case of one al-Qaeda leader, according to a former CIA agent who has made the rounds of some television news interviews as CIA director Mike Hayden prepares to testify before a congressional committee today about his agency’s destruction of videotapes of interrogations.”
The controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning also was approved at the highest levels of the government, former agent John Kiriakou, a leader of the team that captured al Qaeda’s Abu Zubaydah, has told network news interviewers. And that water-boarding, Kiriakou has said, produced instant results: Abu Zubaydah started talking in less than 35 seconds.
“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told in to cooperate,’’ Kiriakou told ABC News World News in interview aired last night. “From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.’’
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics..._wonders_e.html

Aevens and Ted- when you guys get some real sources, not you know, a right wing blog and professional liar ( you know, a cia agent, hello, I would take a politicians word before his, and I NEVER believe a politician without some supporting EVIDENCE- as in, third party verifiable disinterested type stuff- a CIA agent justifying torture is like a fox justifying his hen-house watching biz )

Yes, it is quite easy to compare anyone that supports torture to Nazis, or any other group that rationalizes torture and genocide, because the rationalization is no different. You support torture- then you are a monster. Deal with it. Evil poeple need evil poeple to survive. There is no such thing as a good reason to torture- ever. There is no independent evidence that it works- only some words given by poeple that are evil themselves. It is no different than the lame excuses given in the Nuremburg trials.

Just how credible is this when the CIA and Administration had the evidence to backup what information had been revealed from the torture of the 2 al Qaeda leaders and chose to destroy it? This is the same administration that revealed one their own covert operators to try and discredit a critic. It seems much more likely to me that the interagation tapes showed just the opposite and probably that some of the prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere were fingered falsely because of the use of torture.

We now know that the White House was heavily involved in discussions about the destruction of the tapes. (See NYT Article on WH Discussions).

Of course you know it was NOT the “Administration” and the NYT had to print a retraction to clarify that they had no evidence to support the Bush attack – typical of this rag.

So NO the White House was NOT heavily “involved”.


I agree that now we have a situation where Nancy and Teddy will say – see they were torturing – knowing that the proof that it was the “approved” procedure is now destroyed. Sounds more like and anti Bush plot to me.

To paraphrase your hero, there you go again! If the NYT retracted the substance of this story, please link me to the retraction. What they retracted was a subheadline implying that there was more White House involvement than White House spokes persons had implied when, in fact, the White House had consistently refused to comment on the destruction of the tapes. The substance of the story stands including the implication that at least one of the 4 lawyers involved was eager to see the tapes destroyed. Why do I keep hearing this ringing in my ears saying Addington, Addington, VP, VP? (See Subheadline Retracted).

I'm surprised ADers are avoiding this topic when it is just getting interesting. It is likely that Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA’s clandestine service, won't take the fall for ordering the tapes destruction and may reveal the White House role in congressional testimony. (See Times On Line Article). Developments in this case may further implicate the President in war crimes. (See Andrew Sullivan Article). The following information from this article was news to me:

With all this talk about torture to get the invaluable information that the suspects are supposed to have (impossible to know ahead of time) to save our butts, it got me to thinking . . .

Don't we in the high-tech science world have better ways of getting information out of people?

Is it just a myth that things like truth serums exist?

Don't we know a lot more about how the brain works now than in WW II?

The more I think about this, the more it's irrational fear and blind revenge driving the whole torture thing. I suppose that goes in line with some other ways of thinking that I've observed.

I do like the analogy that this CIA cover-up is like the school kid claiming that the dog ate the homework. Yeah kid, we know, we know.

But it sure looks bad, eh? No homework, no grade. Destroyed evidence, throw the bums in the slammer. Try a little waterboarding on them, that'll make 'em fess up.

Exactly. The sub headline, and all it implied, was without foundation and still is. Typical of this left wing rag they just threw it in and only retracted it when it was clear they had no foundation for it whaysoever – and still don’t.

Well gosh darn, it looks like I missed the Liberals Are Making Excuses Admiration Society Social. After perusing the posts, I'd estimate 90-95% liberal viewpoint. Hopefully this isn't typical now for threads around here. That would certainly lower the value of the discussions on this site. I hope the Hillary supporters are demonstrating this level of skepticism over her fund raising methods. I find it quite telling when someone implies that CIA day-to-day operations be televised on CSPAN. These are the same people that complain about the FBI's inability to "connect the dots", and yet are astounded that the CIA didn't want to share data with them. On the one hand liberals want Govt agencies to share, but on the other hand they want that sensitive information shared publicly as SOP. Can liberals have it both ways; well they sure want to, even a third way demonstrated by the Clinton administration's motto "I don't recall" which they enthusiastically considered reasonable. With liberals around you don't have to worry about national security making sense, the only information that needs security is the conversations in a Buddhist temple or a bj in the Oval Office cloakroom. I wonder if the cigars were Cuban, ahhh it's probably a secret.