The CIA destroyed the tapes when being scrutinised over secret prisons
The CIA has confirmed that it destroyed at least two video tapes showing the interrogation of terror suspects.
According to the intelligence agency, the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of CIA agents and because they no longer had intelligence value.
But civil liberties lawyers have refused to accept this, saying the CIA previously denied such tapes existed.
They say the move appears to be an attempt to destroy evidence that could have brought CIA agents to account.
And Bush accuses the Muslim extremists of trying to hurl the world back into the "Dark Ages"? The issue of "water-boarding" has alot of people here up in arms, since that was the popular sport during the infamous witch trials. In truth, the church just wanted to acquire land, and those who did not accommodate the church, were accused of witchcraft. Once convicted, the church took their land... and the land three generations back. These "techniques" however, never produced genuine confessions. Here is one (of many) examples from Iraq that I've collected.
I could have just as easily had this man confess to being gay, but I don't suppose the mock-trials that are expected to follow for the prisoners at Guantanamo, will dismiss statements that were made under extreme duress, though they should. Me thinks that's the real issue behind making the tapes "unavailable".
The Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 12-16-2007 at 06:09 PM.
The CIA is known for their protection of fellow agents. I would assume that there were some "procedures" on these tapes that weren't exactly in line with U.S. government guidelines.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
The CIA is known for their protection of fellow agents. I would assume that there were some "procedures" on these tapes that weren't exactly in line with U.S. government guidelines.
I was listening to debate on CNN and one of the guys said that this reason of protecting the identity was not unacceptable and misguiding. There were other ways to handle those tapes.
I was listening to debate on CNN and one of the guys said that this reason of protecting the identity was not unacceptable and misguiding. There were other ways to handle those tapes.
Of course a politician's idea of what is acceptable is quite different than that of an intelligence officer.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
And Bush accuses the Muslim extremists of trying to hurl the world back into the "Dark Ages"? The issue of "water-boarding" has alot of people here up in arms, since that was the popular sport during the infamous witch trials. In truth, the church just wanted to acquire land, and those who did not accommodate the church, were accused of witchcraft. Once convicted, the church took their land... and the land three generations back. These "techniques" however, never produced genuine confessions. Here is one (of many) examples from Iraq that I've collected.
I could have just as easily had this man confess to being gay, but I don't suppose the mock-trials that are expected to follow for the prisoners at Guantanamo, will dismiss statements that were made under extreme duress, though they should. Me thinks that's the real issue behind making the tapes "unavailable".
The Ninth Scribe
What does this have to do with "confessions"? It seems to me this applies to gaining information on future operations and existing networks. We are talking the CIA here...not Guantanamo. Of course, I realize that doesn't fit comfortably into your agenda.
The proper handling of this would have been through Congressional oversight committees. Quite likely, some staffer on one of these committees doesn't quite understand the concept of secrecy.
What does this have to do with "confessions"? It seems to me this applies to gaining information on future operations and existing networks. We are talking the CIA here...not Guantanamo. Of course, I realize that doesn't fit comfortably into your agenda.
Allow me to re-phrase. If I were to water-board your butt, I could make you say anything that will "fit comfortably into my agenda."
The Ninth Scribe
Last edited by Ninth_Scribe; 12-18-2007 at 08:34 PM.
i dont particularly see anything wrong with the CIA destroying these tapes.... It is obvious what must have been on them and I am not by any means condoning torture, but do they not have a right to keep their secrets? They are the "central intelligence agency" and if everyone had their intelligence you might as well rename them the average intelligence agency. Perhaps they destroyed the tapes to prevent a persons identity from being revealed, or prevent a technique from being given to the enemy, or to prevent secret information from being exposed. To be honest it is none of the enemies, medias or anyone elses business what the CIA is doing to enemy combatants as long as it is working... and it seems to be since we havent seen another attack on our soil in 6 years. I say string them up by their toes and remove their finger and toe nails with pliers 1 by 1, give a taste of real torture....... LOL Just kidding, I know that would have really fired some people up had I left that with no additional commentary.
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell
"He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the
enemy." - George Washington
To be honest it is none of the enemies, medias or anyone elses business what the CIA is doing to enemy combatants as long as it is working... and it seems to be since we havent seen another attack on our soil in 6 years.
I wish The Ends Justifying the Means argument actually worked. It would so easily vindicate everybody's favourite supervillain, the Joker.
Also, on the identity point - could they not have simply pixelated the faces of the agents in question? Destroying the original video cassettes/disks if necessary, but still retaining the pixelated version? Photoshop does such wonders.
I wish The Ends Justifying the Means argument actually worked. It would so easily vindicate everybody's favourite supervillain, the Joker.
Also, on the identity point - could they not have simply pixelated the faces of the agents in question? Destroying the original video cassettes/disks if necessary, but still retaining the pixelated version? Photoshop does such wonders.
I think we know why they really destroyed those tapes, I was really just playing the devils advocate in this case. I dont really agree with torture, but I probably have a different opinion of what torture is compared to most people. I will stand by my original claim though that what the CIA does should remain secret, and that their knowledge remaining secret is impairative to our nations security and intelligence.
What I have to wonder is why dont they just start questioning like this:
Torture center found in northern Iraq
By BRADLEY BROOKS, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - U.S. soldiers found mass graves north of Baghdad next to a torture center where chains were attached to blood-spattered walls and a metal bed frame was still connected to an electrical shock system, the military said Thursday.
.....
I wish The Ends Justifying the Means argument actually worked.
Do you not think it is working? We certainly havent seen another attack on our countries soil and it has been 6+ years. One has to believe had we just let the events of 9/11 pass as though it was done by one moron and no other attacks are in the works that we may have recieved a second slap in the face.
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell
"He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the
enemy." - George Washington
Not to justisfy one with the other, as I said I dont condone torture, but in my humble opinion what the CIA does must remain a secret.
The Iraq story you posted was shocking, but not surprising, since Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein never exactly held itself out as a civilised nation. Disgusting behaviour in building and using such torture chambers.
However, I don't understand how one can condemn torture, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to it when it does occur, or else justifying it in light of a positive result. If I've misunderstood you, I do apologise.
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
Do you not think it is working? We certainly havent seen another attack on our countries soil and it has been 6+ years. One has to believe had we just let the events of 9/11 pass as though it was done by one moron and no other attacks are in the works that we may have recieved a second slap in the face.
The logic of 'The Ends Justify the Means' is still very disturbing indeed. Especially when certain people don't even want to know what goes on because they believe that it's for 'the greater good'. Secrecy for the sake of national security is one thing. Wilful ignorance is quite another.
Human rights abuses and torture are two issues very close to my heart. I also understand how vengeance and even sadism are two very human reactions to tragedy, but I still see them as wrong. And I still think that, if certain countries are going to hold themselves out as civilised, they should not engage in barbarism, regardless of their enemies' behaviour. I know I'll be called some sort of pansy liberal for saying such things, but the people who would call me such probably have severe Daddy issues and a lack of Kleenex.
If there's no torture (and not torture as defined by the country perpetrating it, torture as defined by the Oxford dictionary), and no human rights abuses, then I don't have a problem. I will not turn a blind eye to such practices if they continue, no matter who perpetrates them, and no matter how many lives are saved as a result. Others can and will turn a blind eye to brutality. Bully for them. I wish I could voluntarily pull the wool over my own eyes.
The Iraq story you posted was shocking, but not surprising, since Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein never exactly held itself out as a civilised nation. Disgusting behaviour in building and using such torture chambers.
It is pretty shocking, imagine being the guys who walked in on that room, like a seen right out of that movie Hostel
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
However, I don't understand how one can condemn torture, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to it when it does occur, or else justifying it in light of a positive result. If I've misunderstood you, I do apologise.
I am not turning a blind eye to it, I do not know what was on those tapes and probably never will... I dont condone the CIA using torture, however I dont believe torture is being knocked around a bit or simulated drowning or listening to music or being deprived of food or water. To me torture is like what I posted above, or the removal of fingers or other extremites, burning, cutting, ripping, freezing, any sexual assault, anything to do with waste material, etc. As I said I am not turning a blind eye, but I should also add that I am not an ignorant fool either, whatever was on those tapes I am sure was nothing I would be proud of, however as I said secrecy for that agency and others is a must if our country is to remain safe. I expect that the government has a system of checks and balances that are in place to prevent anything over the top from happening, if that system is flawed and if the ones in these tapes got away with something they shouldnt have I would blame those in the system for not handling it internally or stopping it from happening all together, not the CIA for trying to remain private in this age of media frenzy.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
The logic of 'The Ends Justify the Means' is still very disturbing indeed. Especially when certain people don't even want to know what goes on because they believe that it's for 'the greater good'. Secrecy for the sake of national security is one thing. Wilful ignorance is quite another.
Hopefully I clarified myself above, I do believe that our government and the people within the CIA use a system of checks and balances and hopefully do not let anything get out of hand. I am sure there are instances in the present and past that would disgrace our country if they got out, but hopefully those on the inside handle these cases appropriately and I honestly believe that they do.
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Human rights abuses and torture are two issues very close to my heart. I also understand how vengeance and even sadism are two very human reactions to tragedy, but I still see them as wrong. And I still think that, if certain countries are going to hold themselves out as civilised, they should not engage in barbarism, regardless of their enemies' behaviour. I know I'll be called some sort of pansy liberal for saying such things, but the people who would call me such probably have severe Daddy issues and a lack of Kleenex.
Agreed
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
If there's no torture (and not torture as defined by the country perpetrating it, torture as defined by the Oxford dictionary), and no human rights abuses, then I don't have a problem. I will not turn a blind eye to such practices if they continue, no matter who perpetrates them, and no matter how many lives are saved as a result. Others can and will turn a blind eye to brutality. Bully for them. I wish I could voluntarily pull the wool over my own eyes.
If a life could be saved by "torturing" an individual who definitely has the knowledge to save an innocent but wont give the information up willfully because of some sick agenda that he/she may have, I believe I would condone the torture and even the eventual execution of this individual. However, we never know 100% if anyone really knows anything, so I agree with you in part. I say in part, because if there is a high ranking enemy combatant who is captured, and our intelligence tells us there is an impending attack in a known area, it is certain that this individual will have knowledge of the situation, at least to some extent. If it takes simulated drowning or Christina Aguilera or lack of food or water to get this information in time to save lives, I am for it. I guess it would be a sort of case by case basis thing, and more of a last resort than a first option.
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
- Bertrand Russell
"He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat." - Napoleon Bonaparte
"There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the
enemy." - George Washington
Well, we've met halfway in that, if it must be used, it should be both a last resort and judged case by case. I think even that is pushing it, but you made good points about valuable information people may hold. It is indeed an insanely difficult situation.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
LOL Just kidding, I know that would have really fired some people up had I left that with no additional commentary.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks