PDA

View Full Version : Judge urged not to ask about CIA tapes


Achilles
12-15-2007, 01:04 PM
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_videotapes)
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration told a federal judge it was not obligated to preserve videotapes of CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists and urged the court not to look into the tapes' destruction.

In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. *watches as U.S. credibility slips even further*

Web Rider
12-15-2007, 03:05 PM
I hope that at least out of principle, the judge keeps pressing about it.

Aeroldoth
12-15-2007, 04:16 PM
TAKE 1 -
*wave*
"These are not the tapes you're looking for."

TAKE 2-
Watching torture tapes is bad, m'kay?

TAKE 3-
"White House officials announced today that they would not be sending copies of the CIA's alleged "torture tapes" to Justice officials, after the FBI advised them that copying tapes is illegal, as clearly marked at the beginning of every torture tape."

P.S. - Achilles, what is this "U.S. credibility" you're talking about? I've never heard of such a thing.

Corinthian
12-15-2007, 04:27 PM
Who cares? ~snipped~

Tone it down, Corinthian. --Jae

Achilles
12-15-2007, 04:35 PM
P.S. - Achilles, what is this "U.S. credibility" you're talking about? I've never heard of such a thing.Apologies. Being a citizen, I assumed that we still had some.
Who cares? ~snipped~ First off, thanks to MCA, we'll never know if they were terrorists. It's possible that they may be and that they "got what they deserved", but it's possible that these guys were innocent husbands and fathers who were "turned in" by members of a rival tribe for the bounty that the U.S. is paying. Since they will never be given an opportunity to face their accusers or see the evidence against them, no one can say.

Second off, when we trot over to to North Korea, China, Iran, etc on our high horse and presume to pass judgment on them for their policies on democracy and human rights, they'll be too busy point at Gitmo and laughing themselves out of breath to listen.

But then again, maybe you think a "do as I say, not as I do" foreign policy should carry more weight than it does? We have the nukes after all, right?

Aeroldoth
12-15-2007, 04:36 PM
So, you don't care if the gvt tortures innocent people, or guilty for that matter, and then destroys any evidence of their having done so? An unaccountable gvt with shadow tortures of unknown people denied rights or protections sits fine with you? It sure as hell doesn't with me.

Corinthian
12-15-2007, 04:47 PM
Not really, no. They're terrorists. ~snipped~

Web Rider
12-15-2007, 04:54 PM
Not really, no. They're terrorists. ~snipped~

Who's "they"?

Corinthian
12-15-2007, 04:57 PM
Terrorists in general.

mimartin
12-15-2007, 05:23 PM
Another week, another excuse by this administration, last week there excuse for destroying the tapes was to protect the CIA operatives identity. I say if you want to protect CIA operatives’ identity just keep that information away from this administration (Ever heard of Valarie Plame? And that information came from?).

How many of these “so called” terrorists held at Guaantanamo have actually been convicted by us of anything?

Achilles
12-15-2007, 05:31 PM
How many of these “so called” terrorists held at Guaantanamo have actually been convicted by us of anything?IIRC, the number is precisely one.

Corinthian
12-15-2007, 05:35 PM
They're Prisoners of War, we don't have to convict them of anything until we try them for War Crimes.

Aeroldoth
12-15-2007, 05:39 PM
Not really, no. They're terrorists. ~snipped~

That seems a not merely cavalier, but callous approach to life. "They" are only suspected terrorists. I don't approve of torturing confirmed terrorists, let alone merely suspected ones; innocent 'til proven guilty, and all.

_I_ don't want to be tortured, and as such, cannot thus justify doing it to another.


They're Prisoners of War, we don't have to convict them of anything until we try them for War Crimes.

With confessions obtained from torture?

El Sitherino
12-15-2007, 05:44 PM
Who cares? ~snipped~
Not everyone taken in on terrorist charges are, infact, terrorists.
And even if many of them are, does that justify unconstitutional (not to mention, globally regarded) inhumane treatment of people?

I'm not terribly disturbed by torture, but it is a little ****ed up when people can't at least fess up to their own ****. If you're doing it, and it's right, why hide it? That's what they tell me when it comes to my activities.

Achilles
12-15-2007, 05:45 PM
You mean "enemy combatants"? None of the people that we have captured qualify for POW status.

Even the Geneva Conventions guarantee some rudimentary forms of due process, however we aren't signing members of those specific conventions (yay, more hypocrisy!).

And not extending our own habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants is just one more nail in the coffin of our "moral superiority". Not that those even protect our citizens anymore.

Wiggle all you want; we're dead wrong on this one.

Corinthian
12-15-2007, 05:48 PM
If we really are torturing them. You have no evidence of that, and remember: Innocent until proven guilty.

mimartin
12-15-2007, 05:56 PM
They're Prisoners of War, we don't have to convict them of anything until we try them for War Crimes.
Then why is the military going through the motions of military tribunals now? Moreover, if they are prisoners of war why are we setting them free? In addition, are we fighting wars in Serbian or Macedonian now? These people were not picked up only in Afghanistan or Iraq. We are kidnapping these people from all over the world. We are making criminals out of our own government employees by totally disregarding international laws and our own allies’ citizens’ rights.

If we really are torturing them. You have no evidence of that, and remember: Innocent until proven guilty.we have admitted to waterboarding them. Something we called torture when the Japanese were doing it to us.

Bush even says he will veto anti-torture Bill. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/15/wbush115.xml) If we are not torturing why veto the Bill?

Achilles
12-15-2007, 06:12 PM
If we really are torturing them. You have no evidence of that, and remember: Innocent until proven guilty.We have the testimony of at least a dozen people held in CIA "black" prisons overseas. We also know that at least some residents of these "black" prisons have been transferred to Gitmo (and vice versa).

Also, I find your use of double standards regarding "innocent until proven guilty" reprehensible. It's either universal or it's not. You cannot use it when it benefits your argument and reject it when it doesn't and expect to be taken seriously by anyone.

El Sitherino
12-15-2007, 06:23 PM
remember: Innocent until proven guilty.
Wouldn't it be great if that actually applied in the real world?

And as many have pointed out, it's been proven time and again the U.S. has used torture.

Darth InSidious
12-15-2007, 07:58 PM
Who cares? ~snipped~
"Love your enemy and pray for them"?

@topic: It's not like no-one else does this. It's just that the rest of us have slightly less blatant politicians. :D :-

Jim: How am I going to explain the missing documents to the Mail?

Sir Humphrey: Well this is what we normally do in, circumstances like these.

[hands over a file]

Jim: [reading] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. [to Humphrey] Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?

Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files.

Jim: [reading] Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for liable or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. [to Humphrey] Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? [Humphrey says nothing] How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?

Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister.

Achilles
12-15-2007, 08:19 PM
It's not like no-one else does this. It's just that the rest of us have slightly less blatant politicians. :D :-No doubt, but as far as I'm concerned, the more one presumes to tell others how to behave, the higher the bar for their own actions goes.

Jae Onasi
12-15-2007, 08:43 PM
We're in the wrong with torture, and the CIA gave a sorry excuse for document destruction. I can't say I'm surprised, however. I was expecting a number of documents to 'disappear' somehow.

John Galt
12-15-2007, 11:23 PM
Until we adopt a sensible foreign policy, and cut out the hypocracy, our credibility has nowhere to go but down. Frankly, I think the "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" mentality that has pervaded US policy, especially in the middle east and southeast asia, is doing more to undermine our superpower status than anything else.

as an aside, I can personally attest that waterboarding is EXTREMELY unpleasent.

Web Rider
12-15-2007, 11:53 PM
They're Prisoners of War, we don't have to convict them of anything until we try them for War Crimes.
No, they're not, because they're not officially designated as such because the conflict in which they were captured does not fit the right categories. We might call it a "war", and they are prisoners captured from that war, but they aren't actually POWs.

In any case, according international law, POWs can't be tortured.

Not to mention, we're particularly talking about people who may be innocent. Are you OK with torturing anybody because they might be guilty?

Darth InSidious
12-16-2007, 10:05 AM
No doubt, but as far as I'm concerned, the more one presumes to tell others how to behave, the higher the bar for their own actions goes.
Agreed.

Nevertheless, politicians are a universal blight.

Tommycat
12-16-2007, 09:21 PM
While I am in agreement with the indefinate holding of these prisoners, I also feel that the US SHOULD hold itself to a higher standard. Torture is never a good thing(well almost never, but I won't go into that). While many of these combattants are not a protected class under the Geneva Conventions(I can find the citation if needed), it still does not excuse torture to extract information. Not only that, but torture is not a good way to extract useful information. What torture does is make you willing to say whatever the questioner wants you to say, whether accurate or not.

mimartin
12-16-2007, 11:52 PM
While I am in agreement with the indefinate holding of these prisoners, I have no problem with indefinitely holding terrorists. The problem with Guantanamo and other CIA prisons is the lack of oversight. We are taking people from foreign sovereign nations, locking them up, and torturing them on hearsay evidence. They have NO RIGHTS. They have no way to prove their innocents. Then once we realize we have made a mistake, we are releasing them without even an apology. We will not even acknowledging that we ever even had them. Try explaining that to a wife or a husband. The founding fathers set this country up with checks and balances for a reason and those reasons do not stop just because we were attacked.

Therefore, while I do not care what happens to a terrorist including torture I do care what happens to an innocent victim. I do mean that in the singular. Torturing one innocent man, one innocent woman or one innocent child is one too many. I do care how my government is perceived by the rest of the world. I do care when we destroy the very concepts this country was founded on in the name of security. I said it before and I will say it again, what is the use of protect our way of life when we allow ourselves to become no better than the terrorists, who care nothing for the innocent either.

Tommycat
12-17-2007, 12:19 AM
Considering where our founding fathers came from, I have a hard time believing they would find the current situation acceptable. Our country has been far from the vision of the founding fathers for a long time. I believe that Thomas Jefferson even said we should have a revolution on a regular basis to keep the government in check. Hasn't happened in a long while.

Honestly though how other countries view our government is pretty well low on my priorities. I mean I doubt the british care how I feel about their parlamentary system and their leaders. I don't care how the French feel about our leadership anymore than they care that we consider them surrender-monkeys. Until the other country cares how we feel about their leadership, their opinion means very little to me.

Darth InSidious
12-17-2007, 10:00 AM
Indefinite holding?

You wouldn't say that if it was American Citizens(tm) in an Afghan jail, I think.

And what does it say about us? Holding someone on minimal evidence without charge and without trial?

Are we so much better than these terrorists, and aren't we just adding fuel to the fire?

habeas corpus and all that?

As for France, given that it was considered the greatest military power in the Western world from about 1790-1860, and Wellington's famous comment about Waterloo that "it has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life... By God! I don't think it would have done if I had not been there." ("Nice" here I would assume being in the archaic meaning of the word.), your stereotype of the French people is most amusing.