CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

What a bunch of lying, two-faced, hypocritical, opportunistic, self-delusional rat bastards.

The Democrats now whining about waterboarding have known about the technique for at least 5 years.  They were given briefings on the technique by the CIA, and they approved of it!  Yet now they're shouting from the rooftops about how eeeeevil Bush is for allowing such a thing to happen.

And now it appears that Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman, both high level Democrat congressmen in charge of intelligence oversight, were informed about the destruction of the tapes before it happened.  Yet they expect us to believe that this is all some sort of eeeevil Bushco coverup.

For months all we heard from them was about how terrible and bad and evil the Bush administration was for leaking the identity of CIA agent Val Plame.  Now the CIA destroyed some tapes in order to protect the identies of the agents.  Do the Democrats care about the confidentiality of those identities now?  No no no!  Of course not!  Not if they can use the situation to smear George W Bush and compromise the United States' ability to prevent terrorism.

[Len Budney]

The Democrats now whining about waterboarding have known about the technique for at least 5 years.  They were given briefings on the technique by the CIA, and they approved of it!  Yet now they're shouting from the rooftops about how eeeeevil Bush is for allowing such a thing to happen.

Agreed. But that's not a defense of waterboarding, it's an indictment of the rat bastards on the (D) side of the aisle, who originally colluded with the rat bastards on the (R) side of the aisle but now are turning on them. Everyone who approved of this stuff should be imprisoned for three years and put through the same experience as Jos? Padilla, plus waterboarding if that wasn't on his menu.

They should also televise the whole thing as a warning to future politicians.

--Len.

[gunsmith]

Funny, I don't remember the 'left' cheering that on at all

Oh I remember it well, all the Hollywood nitwits were all aglow with praise for Clinton wagging the dog, when the airstrikes were happening I was in San Francisco, I went out to find the demonstrations and there were 4 Spartacus League guys with two signs.

The whole protest movement is owned lock, stock and barrel by the dems, if dems murder and torture
all you will hear from "answer" and "workers world" and "code pink" is the chirp of the crickets.

[wooderson]

Oh I remember it well, all the Hollywood nitwits were all aglow with praise for Clinton wagging the dog

Ah, yes, "the Hollywood nitwits" - who, even if we accept your version as reality - constitute the entirety of the 'left,' right?

ANSWER didn't exist during the Clinton administration. Shocking that they never protested...
Likewise, the Workers World folks are a tiny group of Maoists who were never involved in any kind of mass action prior to the Bush era. (and are once again irrelevant)
And Code Pink? Nope, didn't exist either.

As for why there were few protests in general: no war, buddy. Hard to mount a campaign against missile strikes that have already ceased. The only long-term event of Clinton's tenure was the Balkan incursion, and it did receive broad support, as campaigns framed in human rights terms are wont to do.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The Democrats now whining about waterboarding have known about the technique for at least 5 years.  They were given briefings on the technique by the CIA, and they approved of it!  Yet now they're shouting from the rooftops about how eeeeevil Bush is for allowing such a thing to happen.

Agreed. But that's not a defense of waterboarding, it's an indictment of the rat bastards on the (D) side of the aisle, who originally colluded with the rat bastards on the (R) side of the aisle but now are turning on them. Everyone who approved of this stuff should be imprisoned for three years and put through the same experience as Jos? Padilla, plus waterboarding if that wasn't on his menu.

They should also televise the whole thing as a warning to future politicians.

--Len.

Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

[Hawkmoon]

The problem is that we're hypocrites. We want to "interrogate" suspects using methods the goverment claims aren't torture, but ...

Remember when the Iranians captured a British naval patrol a few months back? At the time, it was reported that the Brits were "tortured." I believe they were kept apart from each other, deprived of sleep, and probably questioned in harsh terms. I don't believe any of them were beaten, whipped, cattle prodded, stripped and forced to assume sexually humiliating positions, or water boarded. Yet the western press reported on their treatment as if it was torture.

But it's okay for us to do those things because we're the good guys? Reality check -- the other side thinks THEY are the good guys. We can't have it both ways. If we don't want (and expect) that it'll be done to captured Amwricans, we shouldn't be doing to our captives.

Period.

[Hawkmoon]

Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

Have it done to you, then say that.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

interesting title to thread  implys that they violated court order  when in fact article clearly shows they didn't

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

Have it done to you, then say that.

If being waterboarded were all it took to end this stupid debate, I would gladly do it.  A few minutes of safe, harmless unpleasantness is a small price to pay for stopping some terrorist attacks.  Many other folks have endured far worse to protect our country.

[geronimotwo]

I didn't notice the fallacy until jfruser quoted you. The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. It restricts government from infringing pre-existing rights. For example, the 2A forbids the government to disarm anyone. The can't disarm citizens, they can't disarm non-citizens, they can't disarm sentient lichen from the planet Zort.

i'm glad someone pointed this out. that each of us have pre-existing rights. does this also imply our enemy has those rights?

3)  Which conventions & accords?  I would abide by the letter of only those we have signed on to.  BTW, terrorists are not covered by any the USA has signed.  They can be shot out of hand, on the spot.  If you can kill them, you can certainly ask them questions in a "vigorous" manner.

i believe(perhaps incorrectly) that the geneva convention was signed by the US, and is still in effect. here is a small excerpt from the fourth article of the geneva convention (gcIIII)

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

i guess whether or not they are "prisoners of war" can be subjective. so here is a sumarry of the third article of the geneva convention (gcIII)

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

[Jamisjockey]

Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

Have it done to you, then say that.

If being waterboarded were all it took to end this stupid debate, I would gladly do it.  A few minutes of safe, harmless unpleasantness is a small price to pay for stopping some terrorist attacks.  Many other folks have endured far worse to protect our country.

My understanding of the process of waterboarding is that your body is going to tell you that you are drowning.  Having been within seconds of drowning before, more than once, I can tell you personally that its not a pleasant experience.  If, even in controlled circumstances, I was subjected to something that made me feel that I were drowning, I garauntee you that is torture. 

[Nitrogen]

People like Harry Reid and Joe Biden want the tapes for one reason, and one reason only: they see it as a way to hurt Bush

If bush didn't want to be hurt by it, he shouldn't have done it, or shouldn't have hid it.

Much like Clinton and his Cigar adventures.

Only his didn't kill people or torture anyone (except via the news coverage.)

[Jamisjockey]

People like Harry Reid and Joe Biden want the tapes for one reason, and one reason only: they see it as a way to hurt Bush

If bush didn't want to be hurt by it, he shouldn't have done it, or shouldn't have hid it.

Much like Clinton and his Cigar adventures.

Only his didn't kill people or torture anyone (except via the news coverage.)

Clintons mistake was never the cigar-intercourse...it was lying about it.  And one may argue he only bombed that factory in somalia as a way out of the Lewinski scandal.....

[Len Budney]

Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

You mean you volunteer? Excellent. I'll be happy to make all the arrangements for you.

[Paddy]

Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

You mean you volunteer? Excellent. I'll be happy to make all the arrangements for you.

I'd pay and supply the beer to watch that.

[roo_ster]

3)  Which conventions & accords?  I would abide by the letter of only those we have signed on to.  BTW, terrorists are not covered by any the USA has signed.  They can be shot out of hand, on the spot.  If you can kill them, you can certainly ask them questions in a "vigorous" manner.

i believe(perhaps incorrectly) that the geneva convention was signed by the US, and is still in effect.

i guess whether or not they are "prisoners of war" can be subjective. so here is a sumarry of the third article of the geneva convention (gcIII)

FYI, there have been several rounds of conventions & accords over the years.

Captured terrorists are not POWs.  It is not subjective at all, as the "unlawful combatant" criteria are spelled out.  I have posted them before.  Do a search for the verbiage & a link.  They have no rights as POWs under the accords we have signed on to.  The USA specifically repudiated one of the later (1970s, IIRC) accords granting unlawful combatants POW status.  I think that right.  It was a blatant attempt by those who expect to violate the conventions to receive POW treatment from those who do.

IMO, we ought to shoot a goodly proportion of unlawful combatants out of hand, right on the spot.  The Geneva Conventions were to have two components, a carrot and a stick.  The carrot was good treatment by signatories if you also adhered to the conventions regarding POW treatment.  The stick was no obligation to treat violators well by the signatories.  There ought to be a price to be paid for targeting noncombatants.

I repeat: signatories who fulfill their commitments are under no obligation to follow them in the case of those who either do not sign on to the conventions or do not fulfill their obligations.

[roo_ster]

Military action is not a police function.  What the Police, Military, CIA and our Politicians share, however, is an oath to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION and laws of our nation...

I actually am not against torture in certain instances...

Remember...Hitler didn't start Gassing the Jews immediately. 

Well, you and I differ on a great deal.  For one, I do not believe that we ought to inflict torture (as opposed to your idea of "torture") on any one at any time for any reason.  Period. 

[hypothetical]What if he holds out?  Remember, you'd only do this in a "ticking bomb" circumstance...What if you're torturing a strong-willed man who will not break?  Perhaps by threatening his family and putting them under the knife you might gain his compliance.  Hurting ONE innocent family member of a scumbag terrorist is worth it if you save thousands or millions?[/hypothetical]

The most pathetic and morally indefensible position is McCain's: outlaw all effective legitimate techniques, but expect our men to break the law and actually go hammer & tongs when it might be critical.  Thus, depriving our men of the proper tools to do their job, while maximizing their exposure to legal consequences when they find that patty-cake don't cut it.  Disgusting.

Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, fiddling with food to wig out his internal clock, mind games, intimidation, etc. are not torture.  They are legitimate interrogation techniques with no lasting effects on the subject.  It is a recent innovation by the vile, simpering weasels of the West to categorize each and every effective technique as "torture."

The Brits mentioned earlier were not tortured, if the description given is accurate.  They were ill-treated for no good reason and Iran ought to have paid a steep price for doing such to one of the civilized countries.

Interrogation of unlawful combatants is most certainly in accord with the COTUS.  It has ever been so and ever will be, barring an Amendment. 

Finally, I can not take seriously any argument that relies on reducto ad hitlerum. 

[RevDisk]

how did anyone even find out about them if they are being held in secret?

my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.

Becoming carbon copies of the Soviets is not exactly endearing to me.  We are Americans.  We are not supposed to operate secret prisons.  "State Security" does not trump the rule of law.  We do not torture people.  We do not allow NKVD style organizations.  And if you want to go down that road for 'victory', remember, the communists lost.  For all their horrors they unleashed on the world, they lost.

Also, be care when you cheer for 'enemies of the people' to be blackbagged, shipped to secret prisoned, tortured, 'confess', a short show trial, and then sent to the labor camps.  For a while, they might be used on actual enemies.  Very shortly after, they will be used on ordinary people.  The horrors we allow in the name of 'state security' WILL be used on American citizens.  Remember that, and remember a left wing president will eventually be elected.  Do you still want the government to have that kind of authority?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

You mean you volunteer? Excellent. I'll be happy to make all the arrangements for you.

Oh, well I don't consider waterboarding to be torture.

You mean you volunteer? Excellent. I'll be happy to make all the arrangements for you.

I'd pay and supply the beer to watch that.

Like I said, if it'll allow our country to use the technique to protect our citizens, I'd gladly volunteer.  It's a small price to pay.

I've near-drowned before.  So have other folks I know.  No, it was not pleasant.  But neither was it particularly harmful to any of us once we got the water out of our lungs and the air back in.  Think of it as a character building exercise.

[ilbob]

But it's okay for us to do those things because we're the good guys? Reality check -- the other side thinks THEY are the good guys. We can't have it both ways. If we don't want (and expect) that it'll be done to captured Amwricans, we shouldn't be doing to our captives.

Reality check. We are the good guys. The other side is inherently evil. It does not matter much if they actually do think they are the good guys. if they think that, they are wrong.

These are scum that behead people with dull knives.

[ilbob]

3)  Which conventions & accords?  I would abide by the letter of only those we have signed on to.  BTW, terrorists are not covered by any the USA has signed.  They can be shot out of hand, on the spot.  If you can kill them, you can certainly ask them questions in a "vigorous" manner.

i believe(perhaps incorrectly) that the geneva convention was signed by the US, and is still in effect. here is a small excerpt from the fourth article of the geneva convention (gcIIII)

(Article 17): "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

i guess whether or not they are "prisoners of war" can be subjective. so here is a sumarry of the third article of the geneva convention (gcIII)

Article 3 describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.

Terrorists are not now, nor have they ever been considered POWs under any convention. They do not meet the criteria of lawful combatants anymore than spies and saboteurs do. There is no requirement they even be tried. They can be shot out of hand.

[geronimotwo]

Terrorists are not now, nor have they ever been considered POWs under any convention. They do not meet the criteria of lawful combatants anymore than spies and saboteurs do. There is no requirement they even be tried. They can be shot out of hand.

that is why i provided article III which deals with any combatant. here in gcIII it specifically states that once they are detainees, they will be given the same considerations as others covered by the gc. up until that point you certainly may shoot them "out of hand".

[Jamisjockey]

If you took waterboarding out of that list we'd be in agreeance.  Waterboarding is physical, therefore its torture.  Playing with someone's mind isn't real torture.  Making them feel they are about to die, physically feel that way...well that's torture.

[Len Budney]

Playing with someone's mind isn't real torture.

It can do permanent damage.

--Len.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i have a question i've asked often never got an answer  my understanding was we never ratified one of the accords  does that affect compliance?