CIA Tape Destruction
CIA Tape Destruction [20]
Open Discussion, the subject and potential for POV ahould be readily available within ones own resources for media, I'll just give a sample for any who missed it.
"U.S. Congressional Democrats are asking the Justice Department to investigate whether the CIA's destruction of videotapes documenting the interrogation of terrorism suspects amounts to obstruction of justice"
[see also: "Is Torture Appropriate?"]
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/22811968/Is-Torture-Appropriate.html
Open Discussion, the subject and potential for POV ahould be readily available within ones own resources for media, I'll just give a sample for any who missed it.
"U.S. Congressional Democrats are asking the Justice Department to investigate whether the CIA's destruction of videotapes documenting the interrogation of terrorism suspects amounts to obstruction of justice"
[see also: "Is Torture Appropriate?"]
https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/22811968/Is-Torture-Appropriate.html
ASKER
An aside imo relevant, this is #1 here at this time:
http://news.google.com/
US Lawmakers, Rights Advocates Question CIA Tape Destruction
Voice of America - 3 hours ago
By VOA News US lawmakers are calling for a review of the cia's decision to destroy videotaped interrogations of terror suspects.
Democrats' fury grows over destroyed CIA tapes Reuters Canada
Comment by Jennifer Daskal Sr. Counterterrorism Counsel, Human Rights Watch
Baltimore Sun - New York Times - AFP - USA Today
all 1,005 news articles »
http://news.google.com/
US Lawmakers, Rights Advocates Question CIA Tape Destruction
Voice of America - 3 hours ago
By VOA News US lawmakers are calling for a review of the cia's decision to destroy videotaped interrogations of terror suspects.
Democrats' fury grows over destroyed CIA tapes Reuters Canada
Comment by Jennifer Daskal Sr. Counterterrorism Counsel, Human Rights Watch
Baltimore Sun - New York Times - AFP - USA Today
all 1,005 news articles »
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
If not among my quotes there, included in other media is that those involved in whatever was filmed did not do so until they had hardcopy signed by Bush that it was OK, the activities pursued, and that prior to the destruction they had a formal internal review to determine that nothing exceeded parameters permitted. To be determined from what I read so far, the tapes were specifically requested by multiple investigative committees who were that told they did not exist, and that there were no transcripts either, while those in possession of tapes curtailed any further taping immediately upon those requests, and would have destroyed the tapes earlier, but chose to preserve them until all investigations were concluded, just in case they were ever requested - specifically. Among reasons for destruction were that they lacked value, useful only for internal training programs. While those being taped are not all identified, they are no longer of value, so they have been transferred from the secret lockups in Europe to Cuba. Admission of destruction was so far only made for two tapes, and not until the media informed the CIA that they were going to press with it, with what they knew. We are told that it was not until afterwards, that the CIA staff was informed, and the vice-President and President, who until then had not known anything.
Hopefully, this may help others to understand comments questioning there being an obstruction of justice or not (pro/con arguments).
BobSiemens > America has only itself to blame
er, I think that in translation, that means inclusion of BobSiemens. If so, then I'll blame you if you want it that way.
Hopefully, this may help others to understand comments questioning there being an obstruction of justice or not (pro/con arguments).
BobSiemens > America has only itself to blame
er, I think that in translation, that means inclusion of BobSiemens. If so, then I'll blame you if you want it that way.
ASKER
Quite simply, as in the reports, there is apparaently some agreement that tapes once existed and now they do not. Those responsible for the destruction have one side of question, their POV, others are taking sides for other POVs. Should everyone accept the initial position given? Well, first define the positions and then try to support one. What does one think about this issue, the destruction of tapes? Try:
"whether the CIA's destruction of videotapes documenting the interrogation of terrorism suspects amounts to obstruction of justice"
The word "whether" means there is a question on the table, whatever choice the punctuaton. I'd like it to be more open and not steer it to something limited to the democrats mentioned by a reporter.
"whether the CIA's destruction of videotapes documenting the interrogation of terrorism suspects amounts to obstruction of justice"
The word "whether" means there is a question on the table, whatever choice the punctuaton. I'd like it to be more open and not steer it to something limited to the democrats mentioned by a reporter.
Thank you
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Exactly: " they work for us" [20/100]
Whichever side one takes, I would hope those responding would have that in the argument. For example: "Records destroyed - For your own good".
This is not a yes|no question, for that there should be plenty of sites that do polls on such as that.
> Whether we know the facts or not
And that is something that could be some continuing development, with words like "investigation" employed. Still, our members could have alternative resources or suggestions that are not part of media. The media has topic of "CIA Tape Destruction" which menas that they are asking questions and getting answers. That can be a basis for us to determine relevant Q/Qs here, but I did not want to restict it to any particular angle.
So this is not a question on
"Do you support country that destroys tapes"
Not only is that a yes/no, but one should be inclined to support own country, and if not own country they'd more more likely to be less supportive. As such, an answer of
"I support my beloved USA"
Would be ambiguous to this observer, as if the responder either does not care one way or the other or does not understand that there is a question on the table despite all the hits.
about 59,400 for "CIA Tape Destruction".
42 topics ("similar story") in news.
> Whether we know the facts or not, and regardless
and I am unsure of knowing the 'facts', still trying to be seeker, or rather, the asker here
Whichever side one takes, I would hope those responding would have that in the argument. For example: "Records destroyed - For your own good".
This is not a yes|no question, for that there should be plenty of sites that do polls on such as that.
> Whether we know the facts or not
And that is something that could be some continuing development, with words like "investigation" employed. Still, our members could have alternative resources or suggestions that are not part of media. The media has topic of "CIA Tape Destruction" which menas that they are asking questions and getting answers. That can be a basis for us to determine relevant Q/Qs here, but I did not want to restict it to any particular angle.
So this is not a question on
"Do you support country that destroys tapes"
Not only is that a yes/no, but one should be inclined to support own country, and if not own country they'd more more likely to be less supportive. As such, an answer of
"I support my beloved USA"
Would be ambiguous to this observer, as if the responder either does not care one way or the other or does not understand that there is a question on the table despite all the hits.
about 59,400 for "CIA Tape Destruction".
42 topics ("similar story") in news.
> Whether we know the facts or not, and regardless
and I am unsure of knowing the 'facts', still trying to be seeker, or rather, the asker here
ASKER
Re: Response to: Covering it up....
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=50889
105 Die in gas explosion Print
Monday , 10 December 2007
105 Die in China Mine Blast
Rescuers prepare to go in the Xinyao pit, where a blast claimed the lives of 105 miners. Photo by China Daily
A gas explosion at a coal mine in northern China killed at least 105 people, the official Xinhua news agency said Friday.
The explosion hit the Xinyao mine in the coal-rich Shanxi province late on Wednesday, but the managers did not report it immediately and tried to launch their own rescue operation.
According to Chinese officials, the delay caused the number of victims to rise.
The police have arrested the manager of the mine and Xinhua reported that the accident may have been caused by illegal activity in an unauthorized area of the mine.
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=50889
105 Die in gas explosion Print
Monday , 10 December 2007
105 Die in China Mine Blast
Rescuers prepare to go in the Xinyao pit, where a blast claimed the lives of 105 miners. Photo by China Daily
A gas explosion at a coal mine in northern China killed at least 105 people, the official Xinhua news agency said Friday.
The explosion hit the Xinyao mine in the coal-rich Shanxi province late on Wednesday, but the managers did not report it immediately and tried to launch their own rescue operation.
According to Chinese officials, the delay caused the number of victims to rise.
The police have arrested the manager of the mine and Xinhua reported that the accident may have been caused by illegal activity in an unauthorized area of the mine.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
U-Tube?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
>>U-Tube?
Whats wrong with youtube? If know of a better source for older White House Press Briefings and news clips, Id be much obliged...
Whats wrong with youtube? If know of a better source for older White House Press Briefings and news clips, Id be much obliged...
ASKER
[given:]
> WH Press Briefing, December 10, 2007
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERIa_I_0TM
Hmm, OK, how about access to the actual text of initial source without interpretation, and already ready to load into a language translator ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071210-1.html
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:33 P.M. EST
Q Scooter Libby dropped his appeal in the CIA leak case. How will that affect whether the President issues a pardon for him?
MS. PERINO: Well, we never comment on whether or not the President will be granting or not granting pardons to anybody. So I'm not able to comment.
Okay. Well, now that the appeal -- there is no longer any appeal, can you speak to what the President thinks about Scooter Libby disclosing the name of a CIA official?
MS. PERINO: I did not have a chance to talk to -- chance to speak to the President after this announcement was made this morning, and so I don't have his immediate reaction. He gave a lengthy statement in July in regards to the commutation and so I'll have to refer you to that for now.
Q Can you comment on whether Harriet Miers did, in fact, know about the CIA tapes and whether she told the CIA not to destroy them?
MS. PERINO: No. No. It's going to unfortunately be one of those briefings -- I'm not able to comment on anything regarding that
Q Has the White House Counsel directed everybody here to preserve all the documents?
MS. PERINO: Yes.
Q Have the formal orders gone out?
MS. PERINO: Yes.
Q In what form? Was it a letter?
MS. PERINO: As they usually do, it's a notice that goes to all employees.
Q And it's -- can you tell us what it says?
MS. PERINO: I don't remember off -- I don't have it with me, I just -- I received it and I believe it -- preserve the documents, or preserve what you know -- I just can't remember exactly what the language was, but we'll try to get it for you. It came out this weekend.
Q Dana, is the President concerned about the impact on the CIA's reputation and its integrity, not just here but around the world? I mean, there's been similar episodes -- we don't know the full scope of this -- but we know what we know, based on his point, that may be comparable to Abu Ghraib, where there were photos that were released --
MS. PERINO: No. No.
Q -- the President spoke extensively about that.
MS. PERINO: Well, one, I haven't -- I'm not allowed to characterize the President's reaction
Q But why can't you characterize his concern, if there is one, about the integrity of a key governmental agency that operates around the world?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think I -- pressed on that, I would say that I think the President feels very highly about all of the members of the intelligence community, and at the CIA. He knows that they work extremely hard in order to keep all of us protected, that they try to do everything that they possibly can. There's -- in regards to this specific issue, regarding these tapes, that the President said that he does not recall being made aware of their existence or their destruction until last Thursday's briefing. There's not much more I can say.
Q But he's not concerned about the facts as we know them now?
MS. PERINO: In terms of -- I can't talk about that particular -- I can't characterize the President's thinking on that.
Q Perhaps he'd like you to.
Q But why -- I don't understand why his reaction is somehow part of the investigation.
MS. PERINO: Well, because there's a preliminary inquiry that's been started, and to avoid any appearance of trying to prejudice that inquiry, it's appropriate and better for us not to comment.
Q Isn't there a concern here that going into a defensive crouch might look a little bit --
MS. PERINO: I don't think that we're defensive. I think that we're being supportive of the efforts of the DOJ and the CIA.
I'm going to go on. Go ahead.
Q There are calls for an independent counsel into this matter. Senator Biden said as much this weekend. What are the thoughts from this White House?
Q Back on Libby for a moment, Dana. The President and you and others at the podium have always cited the idea that the appeals process was still underway for refusal to comment on whether -- why no one was ever reprimanded or dismissed for disclosing Valerie Plame's name. Now that the appeals process is over, at Libby's choice, will the White House be more -- what are the prospects for the White House being more forthcoming on this?
MS. PERINO: As I said, I wasn't able to talk to the President before the briefing. I will see if I can get you anything additional. For now I have to refer you to the statement that he made in July. And there's been extensive public commentary about this, especially from individuals who were involved, and I'll refer you to their statements, as well, until I have something more.
Q But not from the individual who could have fired or reprimanded someone for disclosing the name, as he said that he would do.
MS. PERINO: This matter has been thoroughly investigated, there was a special prosecutor, he did not bring criminal charges.
Q But that's not the issue, Dana. The issue is the President of the United States commenting, which he did forcefully at the time, and has never said anything since, about the propriety in his mind of his advisors conducting themselves in this fashion. So is it not reasonable to expect him -- I mean, other people talking about it --
MS. PERINO: I'm not saying it's unreasonable, I'm --
Q -- is not germane to whether the President weighs in.
MS. PERINO: I'm not saying it's not, I'm not saying it's unreasonable to ask. I'm saying I didn't have a chance to talk to the President, so I have nothing to give you.
-- etc -- [100/150]
[see the link for the rest]
> WH Press Briefing, December 10, 2007
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERIa_I_0TM
Hmm, OK, how about access to the actual text of initial source without interpretation, and already ready to load into a language translator ....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071210-1.html
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:33 P.M. EST
Q Scooter Libby dropped his appeal in the CIA leak case. How will that affect whether the President issues a pardon for him?
MS. PERINO: Well, we never comment on whether or not the President will be granting or not granting pardons to anybody. So I'm not able to comment.
Okay. Well, now that the appeal -- there is no longer any appeal, can you speak to what the President thinks about Scooter Libby disclosing the name of a CIA official?
MS. PERINO: I did not have a chance to talk to -- chance to speak to the President after this announcement was made this morning, and so I don't have his immediate reaction. He gave a lengthy statement in July in regards to the commutation and so I'll have to refer you to that for now.
Q Can you comment on whether Harriet Miers did, in fact, know about the CIA tapes and whether she told the CIA not to destroy them?
MS. PERINO: No. No. It's going to unfortunately be one of those briefings -- I'm not able to comment on anything regarding that
Q Has the White House Counsel directed everybody here to preserve all the documents?
MS. PERINO: Yes.
Q Have the formal orders gone out?
MS. PERINO: Yes.
Q In what form? Was it a letter?
MS. PERINO: As they usually do, it's a notice that goes to all employees.
Q And it's -- can you tell us what it says?
MS. PERINO: I don't remember off -- I don't have it with me, I just -- I received it and I believe it -- preserve the documents, or preserve what you know -- I just can't remember exactly what the language was, but we'll try to get it for you. It came out this weekend.
Q Dana, is the President concerned about the impact on the CIA's reputation and its integrity, not just here but around the world? I mean, there's been similar episodes -- we don't know the full scope of this -- but we know what we know, based on his point, that may be comparable to Abu Ghraib, where there were photos that were released --
MS. PERINO: No. No.
Q -- the President spoke extensively about that.
MS. PERINO: Well, one, I haven't -- I'm not allowed to characterize the President's reaction
Q But why can't you characterize his concern, if there is one, about the integrity of a key governmental agency that operates around the world?
MS. PERINO: Well, I think I -- pressed on that, I would say that I think the President feels very highly about all of the members of the intelligence community, and at the CIA. He knows that they work extremely hard in order to keep all of us protected, that they try to do everything that they possibly can. There's -- in regards to this specific issue, regarding these tapes, that the President said that he does not recall being made aware of their existence or their destruction until last Thursday's briefing. There's not much more I can say.
Q But he's not concerned about the facts as we know them now?
MS. PERINO: In terms of -- I can't talk about that particular -- I can't characterize the President's thinking on that.
Q Perhaps he'd like you to.
Q But why -- I don't understand why his reaction is somehow part of the investigation.
MS. PERINO: Well, because there's a preliminary inquiry that's been started, and to avoid any appearance of trying to prejudice that inquiry, it's appropriate and better for us not to comment.
Q Isn't there a concern here that going into a defensive crouch might look a little bit --
MS. PERINO: I don't think that we're defensive. I think that we're being supportive of the efforts of the DOJ and the CIA.
I'm going to go on. Go ahead.
Q There are calls for an independent counsel into this matter. Senator Biden said as much this weekend. What are the thoughts from this White House?
Q Back on Libby for a moment, Dana. The President and you and others at the podium have always cited the idea that the appeals process was still underway for refusal to comment on whether -- why no one was ever reprimanded or dismissed for disclosing Valerie Plame's name. Now that the appeals process is over, at Libby's choice, will the White House be more -- what are the prospects for the White House being more forthcoming on this?
MS. PERINO: As I said, I wasn't able to talk to the President before the briefing. I will see if I can get you anything additional. For now I have to refer you to the statement that he made in July. And there's been extensive public commentary about this, especially from individuals who were involved, and I'll refer you to their statements, as well, until I have something more.
Q But not from the individual who could have fired or reprimanded someone for disclosing the name, as he said that he would do.
MS. PERINO: This matter has been thoroughly investigated, there was a special prosecutor, he did not bring criminal charges.
Q But that's not the issue, Dana. The issue is the President of the United States commenting, which he did forcefully at the time, and has never said anything since, about the propriety in his mind of his advisors conducting themselves in this fashion. So is it not reasonable to expect him -- I mean, other people talking about it --
MS. PERINO: I'm not saying it's unreasonable, I'm --
Q -- is not germane to whether the President weighs in.
MS. PERINO: I'm not saying it's not, I'm not saying it's unreasonable to ask. I'm saying I didn't have a chance to talk to the President, so I have nothing to give you.
-- etc -- [100/150]
[see the link for the rest]
ASKER
How about filtering, comprehension and trust. I ever prefer text to link (unless text already submitted here to this site in the past)
Access Denied (content_filter_streaming)
Internet audio and video downloads are not allowed.
Your request was denied because of its inappropriate content.
Access Denied (content_filter_streaming)
Internet audio and video downloads are not allowed.
Your request was denied because of its inappropriate content.
ASKER
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071211-7.html
Press Briefing by Dana Perino
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:38 P.M. EST
MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. This morning I told you about the federal response in helping deal with the severe winter storms impacting the Midwest, and I wanted to provide you an update on the federal response. First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers are with the families who've lost loved ones because of the storm. This morning, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff briefed the President
Q Did the questioning of al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah conform with the interrogation program approved by President Bush?
MS. PERINO: I can't comment
Q I'm asking if it was within the guidelines -- the interrogation techniques, was that within the guidelines of these programs approved by the President?
MS. PERINO: I will say that all interrogations -- all interrogations have been done within the legal framework that was set out after September 11th, and they are measures that have been tough and limited. They are safe, and they have been very effective in helping prevent terrorist attacks on this country. All of the -- the entire program has been legal.
Q Are you saying that whatever was done in this case was not torture?
MS. PERINO: I am saying that the United States does not torture. The President has been --
Q No, I'm asking you if what was done in this case was not torture, in your opinion.
MS. PERINO: I'm saying the United States does not torture. And the reason I'm answering it that way, Bill, is because I just said to Terry, I cannot comment
But I can say that any interrogations have been legal, and that they have been fully briefed to the United States Congress.
Q But when you have a former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, now saying that waterboarding was used -- since you're saying the interrogations were legal; he's saying on the record now, waterboarding was used in at least one case. You're saying waterboarding is legal?
MS. PERINO: Ed, I'm saying I'm not commenting on any specific technique. I'm not commenting on that gentleman's characteristics of any possible technique. I've given you a very general statement about interrogations being legal, limited and --
Q You just said it was legal.
MS. PERINO: I'm sorry?
Q You said it was within the legal framework.
MS. PERINO: Yes.
Q Everything that was done.
MS. PERINO: Yes.
Q So waterboarding is legal.
MS. PERINO: I'm not commenting on any specific techniques. And you can ask me all sorts of different ways, and we can go back and forth, but I'm not going to do it, Ed.
Q Okay. The New York Times today also reports that -- and I know you can't comment on specifics of the investigation about the CIA tapes so as not to jeopardize the investigation, but The New York Times quotes one former CIA official, or intelligence official putting out the notion that the White House was almost not pushing hard enough to say to the CIA, don't destroy the tapes. Can you at least on the record push back on that? Is the White House comfortable with that notion out there that you were not really forcefully telling the CIA, don't destroy the tapes?
MS. PERINO: As I said earlier, and as I said yesterday, I cannot comment
Q But just generally speaking, I mean, does the President believe it is good practice for the intelligence agencies to be destroying things like tapes of interrogations?
MS. PERINO: If I were to answer that question the way that you want me to, it would be extrapolated and applied to the specific case at hand. And so, as reasonable as I understand your question to be, I'm in the position where I cannot answer it.
Paula.
Q I don't think anyone would dispute that all illegal actions are unethical, but not all unethical actions are illegal. Does that apply to your interrogation technique (inaudible)? (Inaudible), I also mean humane as well.
MS. PERINO: What I've said before stands.
I'm going to go to Ann. Go ahead.
Q Has the President asked again recently of the Department of Justice whether all interrogation techniques currently being used are legal? And with the arrival of a new Attorney General, will he again seek assurances from the Department of Justice that all interrogation techniques are legal?
MS. PERINO: Well, I would refer you to Justice Department in terms of what the Attorney -- the new Attorney General is seeking.
Q The President feels no need to follow up on that?
MS. PERINO: No
Ed.
Q Has the President teased you about the Cuban Missile Crisis at all?
MS. PERINO: No. It was a humorous show and I was exaggerating. Tell your host of your late-night show that.
Q Thank you. (Laughter.)
END 12:54 P.M. EST
- [ e t c ] -
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 11, 2007
Well, they do call it multi-media for a reason.
ASKER
//SideBar//
Re: "(Laughter.)"
A recent comment in another thread addressed side-topic
What is definition of word: drama
There was the thought of some participants that a question needs but one good answer, then it is over, no further or subsequent comments needed, just an award of points
The comments had by then evolved to experts providing subsequent other answers and forms of answering. Here is the actual quote
> "Ok, I'm kinda new here. Is this type of drama typical for these questions?"
The experts answered, no, no drama in the question. Response:
> "Haha, alrighty, fair enough. :) I'm impressed with the response time of everyone though."
> Ok, cool. :) Sorry, I did mean in the negative sense, because all too often you see forum drama pop up over nothing. If everyone's just having fun, then that's excellent."
While I do try to reduce the text to extract essence, I consider that some context also needs to be included (meaning length, <sorry>, censorship not intended, hence the inclusion of a suppotive link for any to validate context or quote)
https://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Puzzles_Riddles/Q__22886812.html
//SideBar//
Re: "(Laughter.)"
A recent comment in another thread addressed side-topic
What is definition of word: drama
There was the thought of some participants that a question needs but one good answer, then it is over, no further or subsequent comments needed, just an award of points
The comments had by then evolved to experts providing subsequent other answers and forms of answering. Here is the actual quote
> "Ok, I'm kinda new here. Is this type of drama typical for these questions?"
The experts answered, no, no drama in the question. Response:
> "Haha, alrighty, fair enough. :) I'm impressed with the response time of everyone though."
> Ok, cool. :) Sorry, I did mean in the negative sense, because all too often you see forum drama pop up over nothing. If everyone's just having fun, then that's excellent."
While I do try to reduce the text to extract essence, I consider that some context also needs to be included (meaning length, <sorry>, censorship not intended, hence the inclusion of a suppotive link for any to validate context or quote)
https://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Puzzles_Riddles/Q__22886812.html
//SideBar//
ASKER
Analog_Kid > If know of a better source for older White House Press Briefings and news clips, Id be much obliged...
Looks like I found that while we crossposted, I leave that now for you.
At least you left more than the link, to give me at least some idea of content. I just did a search on "CIA Tape Destruction", and with no results accepted option to remove the quotes and got a long list (maybe for two with all three). From the list I used your dates, then went after a newer one. If you want older, go for it, I do not know at this time how many are online, but at least if you know what date you want they have a decent filing system that way, just try typeover on the URL. Testing...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/
gets list for this month of December
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/
<error>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
<error>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
<Main Page> [looks like current month][includes multimedia: Audio-&Video, and some slides for press briefing]
For other multi-media I do not recommend going to their .com website [150/200]
Looks like I found that while we crossposted, I leave that now for you.
At least you left more than the link, to give me at least some idea of content. I just did a search on "CIA Tape Destruction", and with no results accepted option to remove the quotes and got a long list (maybe for two with all three). From the list I used your dates, then went after a newer one. If you want older, go for it, I do not know at this time how many are online, but at least if you know what date you want they have a decent filing system that way, just try typeover on the URL. Testing...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/
gets list for this month of December
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/
<error>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
<error>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
<Main Page> [looks like current month][includes multimedia: Audio-&Video, and some slides for press briefing]
For other multi-media I do not recommend going to their .com website [150/200]
ASKER
The later press release referred to something else not spelled out well that I heard on radio, I'll try google for that.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=cia+waterboarding
US House votes to outlaw CIA waterboarding
Reuters - 4 hours ago
The CIA has told lawmakers they stopped waterboarding a few years ago, aides say. The overall intelligence authorization bill that contains the ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN13245960
US House votes to outlaw CIA waterboarding
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday to outlaw harsh interrogation methods, such as simulated drowning, that the CIA has used against suspected terrorists.
On a largely party line vote of 222-199, the Democratic-led House approved a measure to require intelligence agents to comply with the Army Field Manual, which bans torture in compliance with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.
The measure, part of a sweeping intelligence bill, passed amid a congressional probe into the recent disclosure that the CIA destroyed videotapes of al Qaeda suspects undergoing waterboarding, a simulated drowning.
Many countries, U.S. lawmakers and human rights groups have accused the United States of torturing terror suspects since the Sept. 11 attacks.
President George W. Bush says the United States does not torture, but the administration will not disclose what interrogation methods it has approved for the CIA.
In threatening to veto the House-passed measure, which now awaits Senate action, the White House argued it would prevent the United States from conducting "lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists."
House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer countered that the current administration had blurred the line "between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture."
"There is no doubt our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result," Hoyer told colleagues.
Backers of harsh interrogation say it is needed to pry vital information out of enemy combatants. But critics say torture is inhumane and such information is often unreliable.
The CIA has told lawmakers they stopped waterboarding a few years ago, aides say.
The overall intelligence authorization bill that contains the interrogation provision faces another fight in the closely-divided, Democratic-led Senate.
The Army Field Manual provides 19 approved interrogation methods. They include isolating prisoners, allowing American interrogators to pose as representing another country and the "good-cop, bad-cop" interviewing technique.
It prohibits eight methods, including waterboarding. (Editing by Lori Santos)
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=cia+waterboarding
US House votes to outlaw CIA waterboarding
Reuters - 4 hours ago
The CIA has told lawmakers they stopped waterboarding a few years ago, aides say. The overall intelligence authorization bill that contains the ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN13245960
US House votes to outlaw CIA waterboarding
By Thomas Ferraro
WASHINGTON, Dec 13 (Reuters) - Defying a White House veto threat, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday to outlaw harsh interrogation methods, such as simulated drowning, that the CIA has used against suspected terrorists.
On a largely party line vote of 222-199, the Democratic-led House approved a measure to require intelligence agents to comply with the Army Field Manual, which bans torture in compliance with the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war.
The measure, part of a sweeping intelligence bill, passed amid a congressional probe into the recent disclosure that the CIA destroyed videotapes of al Qaeda suspects undergoing waterboarding, a simulated drowning.
Many countries, U.S. lawmakers and human rights groups have accused the United States of torturing terror suspects since the Sept. 11 attacks.
President George W. Bush says the United States does not torture, but the administration will not disclose what interrogation methods it has approved for the CIA.
In threatening to veto the House-passed measure, which now awaits Senate action, the White House argued it would prevent the United States from conducting "lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists."
House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer countered that the current administration had blurred the line "between legitimate, sanctioned interrogation tactics and torture."
"There is no doubt our international reputation has suffered and been stained as a result," Hoyer told colleagues.
Backers of harsh interrogation say it is needed to pry vital information out of enemy combatants. But critics say torture is inhumane and such information is often unreliable.
The CIA has told lawmakers they stopped waterboarding a few years ago, aides say.
The overall intelligence authorization bill that contains the interrogation provision faces another fight in the closely-divided, Democratic-led Senate.
The Army Field Manual provides 19 approved interrogation methods. They include isolating prisoners, allowing American interrogators to pose as representing another country and the "good-cop, bad-cop" interviewing technique.
It prohibits eight methods, including waterboarding. (Editing by Lori Santos)
ASKER
Here's what I was looking for, except for a quote from CIA that the ## tapes could not be permitted for public view due to the graphic nature, that it is one thing to read the words (more acceptable) and another to actually have to see it in action (less acceptable). Already mentioned was that they did not have any big secrets to protect
Senate Launches Probe Into Destruction Of CIA Waterboarding Tapes
Web Editor: Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer
Created: 12/11/2007 8:23:41 PM
Updated: 12/12/2007 12
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=76316
WASHINGTON (NBC) -- CIA Chief Michael Hayden went behind closed doors Tuesday with Senators demanding to know why the agency destroyed videotapes that reportedly showed top terror suspects being subjected to waterboarding.
"I'm very delighted to come down here and lay out the facts
...
A former CIA interrogator says Abu Zubaydah and other top Al Qaeda figures were subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.
"I'll let the lawyers decide if it's legal or not. But at the time, I think it was necessary to disrupt to disrupt terrorist attacks," said former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou. "This was a policy decision that was made at the white house with concurrence from the National Security Council and the Justice Department."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/12/12/too_graphic_for_the_cia/
Too graphic for the CIA?
December 12, 2007
ONCE the CIA got hold of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, two leading Al Qaeda operatives, agents interrogated them harshly in 2002 and taped the sessions as an instruction video for future grillings
George Bush and Dick Cheney deny that's what it was. But the two Al Qaeda men, according to The New York Times, were subjected to loud noise, put in painful positions, isolated, and waterboarded. That's torture. The administration acknowledged as much when it issued a new policy this year for CIA interrogations. The allowable methods remain severe, but government officials told the Times that they forbid waterboarding.
Authorization for the CIA's use of torture came from on high, in the days just after the Sept. 11 attacks. "It's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective," Cheney said on Sept. 16, 2001. Four years later, with the disclosure of mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, Rodriguez realized that release of the 2002 tapes would have serious legal implications for the agents involved and represent a public-relations debacle for the CIA.
And the harsh methods also coarsen CIA agents. Rodriguez should know. According to Time magazine, he was an agent in Latin America in the 1980s, when the CIA was complicit in major human rights violations, including murder. Torture is a step or two away from that, and needs to be stopped before it becomes a CIA habit.
If a CIA spymaster can't allow anyone to see what his agents are doing to prisoners, Congress should not allow the agents to do it.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwfqYkJWpSEqqBAsWjv75RSf4TaA
CIA tape destruction lends weight to torture fears: UN expert
9 hours ago
GENEVA (AFP) The CIA's destruction of videotapes showing the interrogation of terror suspects gives more reason to fear that detainees face torture, a UN human rights expert said Thursday.
During a Senate confirmation hearing in November, attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey refused to address the legality of bringing a prisoner to near drowning to make him talk, drawing fire from opposition Democrats and human rights groups.
"The evasion of high-ranking civilian and military officers in respect of waterboarding is indicative of waterboarding remaining a permitted interrogation method for the CIA," Scheinin said.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Scarborough_defends_destruction_of_CIA_waterboarding_1211.html
Scarborough defends destruction of CIA waterboarding tapesDavid Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Wednesday December 12, 2007
Conservative TV host Joe Scarborough attempted to argue on his MSNBC program Tuesday that the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes was a good thing because it helped prevent terrorists from learning about US interrogation methods via YouTube.
He then explained, more seriously, that "I think destroying the taped interrogations makes a lot more sense than taping the interrogations."
Co-host Mika Brzezinski countered that a former CIA officer who participated in waterboarding now agrees that it was torture. "I think people are upset that we're actually, perhaps, torturing people and then destroying the evidence," she proposed. "That could be the issue."
Scarborough suggested in response that waterboarding has been known about since 2002 but is only being turned into an issue now as a distraction from all the good news coming out of Iraq
"John McCain has a very different opinion on this, and he has a little bit more experience than both of us," Brzezinski suggested
Scarborough began by telling Shuster about how happy he'd been to read in 2002 that after being waterboarded, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed "started talking like a little pansy."
"How do they know the information he was providing was accurate?" Shuster demanded. "We're not talking about all the people who provided false information and false leads and all the time we wasted chasing down ridiculous information because we were waterboarding."
"You two are in the distinct minority of America!" Scarborough exclaimed to Brzezinski and Shuster. "When did the liberal media decide ... that waterboarding was torture?"
Shuster responded, "If it's so measured, then why are we afraid to release the tapes? Why did somebody feel it was necessary to destroy these tapes? ... If it's something we can all be proud of, let's show the tapes."
As an explanation of why we can't afford to show the tapes, Scarborough launched into a long rant about the horrific firebombing of Dresden, Germany in February 1945:
"At the end of World War II, after the Germans were already ready to surrender, we firebombed Dresden. We killed tens of thousands of little children and mothers. We didn't have to do that, but we were sending a message to Germany: You brought us into war. We're going to incinerate your town. We're going to burn your little children up. We're going to burn babies up. We're going to burn mothers up. We're going to burn grandmothers up. We're going to burn grandfathers up. Was it immoral? Probably so.... Were we trying to send a signal? Yes."
Scarborough did not mention that at the time of the attack on Dresden, Germany was far from ready to surrender, and the firebombing was justified as a crucial measure to prevent them from regrouping at one of their last remaining undestroyed industrial centers. Even critics of the excessive loss of civilian life accepted that the bombing of residential neighborhoods was intended to weaken German morale and bring a speedier end to the war. But no one at the time would have seen the bombing as a pointless and immoral "message" that the US would routinely take vengeance on an already defeated enemy by incinerating its babies and grandmothers.
Brzezinski then attempted to bring the discussion back to the central issue, pointing out that the destruction of the tapes in itself suggests that the administration considers waterboarding to be torture and so "it's fair to ask questions."
Shuster then called Scarborough on his claims of success in Iraq. "Iowa's going pretty well, Joe. You know, they're dancing in the streets this morning because of all the success in Iraq that you were talking about -
This video is from MSNBC's Morning Joe, broadcast on December 11, 2007.
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=2880
CIA Whistleblower Kiriakou Rendered at Guantanamo Bay
Former CIA caseworker John Kiriakou shown in custody in Guantanamo Bay
Washington, DC (Rotters) - In a dramatic reversal of it's previous position, the CIA today announced that former agent and torture whistleblower John Kiriakou had been taken into custody and rendered in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Kiriakou became famous in the past few days for coming forward in multiple news outlets to describe the successful waterboarding of Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah. Kiriakou maintains that he has come full circle on the issue of waterboarding, stating that while he felt useful information had been obtained due to the controversial process, he now believes it to be torture. Kiriakou's revelations occurred just as the Bush administration and the CIA were rocked with the scandal of the destruction of videotapes documenting "extreme interrogation" of terror suspects, and has sparked a renewed debate over the legality of the technique of waterboarding.
Former agent Kiriakou being subjected to stress positioning at Camp Delta
A CIA spokesperson stated that the agency had felt all along that Kiriakou had overstepped his responsibilities and now posed a security threat to the agency and to America. The agency revealed pictures of some of the extreme interrogation techniques which were now being applied to Kiriakou in captivity in Guantánamo Bay in an effort to determine how far the breach in security might have progressed within the agency.
situations, so Mr. Kiriakou is really in little danger," stated the CIA spokesperson. "The vast majority of our techniques amount to little more than mental intimidation. That being said, it was a little disappointing that Mr. Kiriakou seem to crack after about 45 seconds. This has resulted in some leads which need to be followed up, but his story of undercover work for the White House is a little unbelievable."
The White House refused to comment on allegations that Kiriakou was functioning as a White House/CIA plant within the press, stating that the investigation was still ongoing.
"We applaud the CIA and director Michael Hayden for the transparency of its actions in regards to former agent Kiriakou," stated White House press secretary Dana Perino. "Their immediate release of pertinent photographs and documents should serve as ample proof to the American public and the world that America does not torture."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_tacitly_approved_destruction_of_1211.html
CIA may have more interrogation tapes, detainee's lawyer suggestsJohn Byrne
White House tacitly approved destruction of CIA waterboarding tapes, former official says
Contrary to the official CIA line, the lawyer for a captured prisoner revealed that her client reported seeing videocameras in interrogation rooms and on the wall of the prison in 2003 -- a year after the CIA said interrogations had stopped, suggesting there may be yet more tapes.
Even after two years of debate among government agencies, the White House declined to order the CIA to retain videotapes showing hundreds of hours of interrogations
The White House and the Justice Department advised against destroying the tapes in 2003. But after two years of inter-agency deliberation and CIA pressure on the White House to deliver a clear answer, the tapes were destroyed after clearance from lawyers from the CIA's clandestine service.
Jose Rodriguez, the former chief of the then-Directorate of Operations, authorized the tapes destruction.
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20071231&s=cockburn
Congress to CIA Torturers: 'If Only You'd Told Us'
Here we have the spectacle of members of the CIA oversight committees, like Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, saying virtuously that the CIA never told them at the time about deep-sixing the videos. If true, the CIA was stupid. All the agency needed to have done was set up a secret viewing room on Capitol Hill and hold "last peek before we burn them" sessions. Sworn to silence, a few senators and reps would have trooped along, no doubt with Larry Craig in the front row hogging three seats with his wide stance. The CIA says it did brief key legislative overseers about torture techniques in about thirty private briefings.
With one unknown exception the politicians said it all looked fine to them, except the CIA should be rougher.
It's all in the labeling. Former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou says he used to think waterboarding wasn't torture but an enhanced interrogation technique--even though he refused to inflict it after experiencing it. Now that he's retired he thinks torture is the word to use.
Senate Launches Probe Into Destruction Of CIA Waterboarding Tapes
Web Editor: Rhonda Erskine, Online Content Producer
Created: 12/11/2007 8:23:41 PM
Updated: 12/12/2007 12
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=76316
WASHINGTON (NBC) -- CIA Chief Michael Hayden went behind closed doors Tuesday with Senators demanding to know why the agency destroyed videotapes that reportedly showed top terror suspects being subjected to waterboarding.
"I'm very delighted to come down here and lay out the facts
...
A former CIA interrogator says Abu Zubaydah and other top Al Qaeda figures were subjected to harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding.
"I'll let the lawyers decide if it's legal or not. But at the time, I think it was necessary to disrupt to disrupt terrorist attacks," said former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou. "This was a policy decision that was made at the white house with concurrence from the National Security Council and the Justice Department."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2007/12/12/too_graphic_for_the_cia/
Too graphic for the CIA?
December 12, 2007
ONCE the CIA got hold of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, two leading Al Qaeda operatives, agents interrogated them harshly in 2002 and taped the sessions as an instruction video for future grillings
George Bush and Dick Cheney deny that's what it was. But the two Al Qaeda men, according to The New York Times, were subjected to loud noise, put in painful positions, isolated, and waterboarded. That's torture. The administration acknowledged as much when it issued a new policy this year for CIA interrogations. The allowable methods remain severe, but government officials told the Times that they forbid waterboarding.
Authorization for the CIA's use of torture came from on high, in the days just after the Sept. 11 attacks. "It's going to be vital for us to use any means at our disposal, basically, to achieve our objective," Cheney said on Sept. 16, 2001. Four years later, with the disclosure of mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, Rodriguez realized that release of the 2002 tapes would have serious legal implications for the agents involved and represent a public-relations debacle for the CIA.
And the harsh methods also coarsen CIA agents. Rodriguez should know. According to Time magazine, he was an agent in Latin America in the 1980s, when the CIA was complicit in major human rights violations, including murder. Torture is a step or two away from that, and needs to be stopped before it becomes a CIA habit.
If a CIA spymaster can't allow anyone to see what his agents are doing to prisoners, Congress should not allow the agents to do it.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwfqYkJWpSEqqBAsWjv75RSf4TaA
CIA tape destruction lends weight to torture fears: UN expert
9 hours ago
GENEVA (AFP) The CIA's destruction of videotapes showing the interrogation of terror suspects gives more reason to fear that detainees face torture, a UN human rights expert said Thursday.
During a Senate confirmation hearing in November, attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey refused to address the legality of bringing a prisoner to near drowning to make him talk, drawing fire from opposition Democrats and human rights groups.
"The evasion of high-ranking civilian and military officers in respect of waterboarding is indicative of waterboarding remaining a permitted interrogation method for the CIA," Scheinin said.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Scarborough_defends_destruction_of_CIA_waterboarding_1211.html
Scarborough defends destruction of CIA waterboarding tapesDavid Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Wednesday December 12, 2007
Conservative TV host Joe Scarborough attempted to argue on his MSNBC program Tuesday that the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes was a good thing because it helped prevent terrorists from learning about US interrogation methods via YouTube.
He then explained, more seriously, that "I think destroying the taped interrogations makes a lot more sense than taping the interrogations."
Co-host Mika Brzezinski countered that a former CIA officer who participated in waterboarding now agrees that it was torture. "I think people are upset that we're actually, perhaps, torturing people and then destroying the evidence," she proposed. "That could be the issue."
Scarborough suggested in response that waterboarding has been known about since 2002 but is only being turned into an issue now as a distraction from all the good news coming out of Iraq
"John McCain has a very different opinion on this, and he has a little bit more experience than both of us," Brzezinski suggested
Scarborough began by telling Shuster about how happy he'd been to read in 2002 that after being waterboarded, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed "started talking like a little pansy."
"How do they know the information he was providing was accurate?" Shuster demanded. "We're not talking about all the people who provided false information and false leads and all the time we wasted chasing down ridiculous information because we were waterboarding."
"You two are in the distinct minority of America!" Scarborough exclaimed to Brzezinski and Shuster. "When did the liberal media decide ... that waterboarding was torture?"
Shuster responded, "If it's so measured, then why are we afraid to release the tapes? Why did somebody feel it was necessary to destroy these tapes? ... If it's something we can all be proud of, let's show the tapes."
As an explanation of why we can't afford to show the tapes, Scarborough launched into a long rant about the horrific firebombing of Dresden, Germany in February 1945:
"At the end of World War II, after the Germans were already ready to surrender, we firebombed Dresden. We killed tens of thousands of little children and mothers. We didn't have to do that, but we were sending a message to Germany: You brought us into war. We're going to incinerate your town. We're going to burn your little children up. We're going to burn babies up. We're going to burn mothers up. We're going to burn grandmothers up. We're going to burn grandfathers up. Was it immoral? Probably so.... Were we trying to send a signal? Yes."
Scarborough did not mention that at the time of the attack on Dresden, Germany was far from ready to surrender, and the firebombing was justified as a crucial measure to prevent them from regrouping at one of their last remaining undestroyed industrial centers. Even critics of the excessive loss of civilian life accepted that the bombing of residential neighborhoods was intended to weaken German morale and bring a speedier end to the war. But no one at the time would have seen the bombing as a pointless and immoral "message" that the US would routinely take vengeance on an already defeated enemy by incinerating its babies and grandmothers.
Brzezinski then attempted to bring the discussion back to the central issue, pointing out that the destruction of the tapes in itself suggests that the administration considers waterboarding to be torture and so "it's fair to ask questions."
Shuster then called Scarborough on his claims of success in Iraq. "Iowa's going pretty well, Joe. You know, they're dancing in the streets this morning because of all the success in Iraq that you were talking about -
This video is from MSNBC's Morning Joe, broadcast on December 11, 2007.
http://www.unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=2880
CIA Whistleblower Kiriakou Rendered at Guantanamo Bay
Former CIA caseworker John Kiriakou shown in custody in Guantanamo Bay
Washington, DC (Rotters) - In a dramatic reversal of it's previous position, the CIA today announced that former agent and torture whistleblower John Kiriakou had been taken into custody and rendered in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Kiriakou became famous in the past few days for coming forward in multiple news outlets to describe the successful waterboarding of Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah. Kiriakou maintains that he has come full circle on the issue of waterboarding, stating that while he felt useful information had been obtained due to the controversial process, he now believes it to be torture. Kiriakou's revelations occurred just as the Bush administration and the CIA were rocked with the scandal of the destruction of videotapes documenting "extreme interrogation" of terror suspects, and has sparked a renewed debate over the legality of the technique of waterboarding.
Former agent Kiriakou being subjected to stress positioning at Camp Delta
A CIA spokesperson stated that the agency had felt all along that Kiriakou had overstepped his responsibilities and now posed a security threat to the agency and to America. The agency revealed pictures of some of the extreme interrogation techniques which were now being applied to Kiriakou in captivity in Guantánamo Bay in an effort to determine how far the breach in security might have progressed within the agency.
situations, so Mr. Kiriakou is really in little danger," stated the CIA spokesperson. "The vast majority of our techniques amount to little more than mental intimidation. That being said, it was a little disappointing that Mr. Kiriakou seem to crack after about 45 seconds. This has resulted in some leads which need to be followed up, but his story of undercover work for the White House is a little unbelievable."
The White House refused to comment on allegations that Kiriakou was functioning as a White House/CIA plant within the press, stating that the investigation was still ongoing.
"We applaud the CIA and director Michael Hayden for the transparency of its actions in regards to former agent Kiriakou," stated White House press secretary Dana Perino. "Their immediate release of pertinent photographs and documents should serve as ample proof to the American public and the world that America does not torture."
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/White_House_tacitly_approved_destruction_of_1211.html
CIA may have more interrogation tapes, detainee's lawyer suggestsJohn Byrne
White House tacitly approved destruction of CIA waterboarding tapes, former official says
Contrary to the official CIA line, the lawyer for a captured prisoner revealed that her client reported seeing videocameras in interrogation rooms and on the wall of the prison in 2003 -- a year after the CIA said interrogations had stopped, suggesting there may be yet more tapes.
Even after two years of debate among government agencies, the White House declined to order the CIA to retain videotapes showing hundreds of hours of interrogations
The White House and the Justice Department advised against destroying the tapes in 2003. But after two years of inter-agency deliberation and CIA pressure on the White House to deliver a clear answer, the tapes were destroyed after clearance from lawyers from the CIA's clandestine service.
Jose Rodriguez, the former chief of the then-Directorate of Operations, authorized the tapes destruction.
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20071231&s=cockburn
Congress to CIA Torturers: 'If Only You'd Told Us'
Here we have the spectacle of members of the CIA oversight committees, like Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, saying virtuously that the CIA never told them at the time about deep-sixing the videos. If true, the CIA was stupid. All the agency needed to have done was set up a secret viewing room on Capitol Hill and hold "last peek before we burn them" sessions. Sworn to silence, a few senators and reps would have trooped along, no doubt with Larry Craig in the front row hogging three seats with his wide stance. The CIA says it did brief key legislative overseers about torture techniques in about thirty private briefings.
With one unknown exception the politicians said it all looked fine to them, except the CIA should be rougher.
It's all in the labeling. Former CIA interrogator John Kiriakou says he used to think waterboarding wasn't torture but an enhanced interrogation technique--even though he refused to inflict it after experiencing it. Now that he's retired he thinks torture is the word to use.
ASKER
Terror Trial in Miami Ends in One Acquittal, Six Mistrials
By VOA News
13 December 2007
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-13-voa82.cfm
A federal jury in Florida has cleared a man accused of plotting terrorist attacks in the United States, but said it was unable to agree on a verdict for six other defendants.
A judge in Miami declared a mistrial for the six other men, which leaves open the possibility that prosecutors can seek another trial.
The seven defendants were accused of plotting to join forces with al-Qaida and blow up FBI offices and topple the tallest building in the United States, the Sears Tower in Chicago.
Defense lawyers contended the alleged plot was mainly driven by FBI informants who persuaded the men to plan attacks. The defendants said they invented their terror plan in an effort to get cash from the informants, who said they had links to al-Qaida.
The federal government hailed the group's arrest last year as a major crackdown on home-grown terrorists. Prosecutors said no attack was imminent, but that the men's plans were more "aspirational" than "operational."
The defendants, who had been charged with terrorism-related conspiracy, were known as the Liberty City Seven, a name taken from the poor neighborhood of Miami where they met.
The 12-member jury met for more than a week before reporting Friday that it could agree only on acquittal for one of the seven defendants.
By VOA News
13 December 2007
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-13-voa82.cfm
A federal jury in Florida has cleared a man accused of plotting terrorist attacks in the United States, but said it was unable to agree on a verdict for six other defendants.
A judge in Miami declared a mistrial for the six other men, which leaves open the possibility that prosecutors can seek another trial.
The seven defendants were accused of plotting to join forces with al-Qaida and blow up FBI offices and topple the tallest building in the United States, the Sears Tower in Chicago.
Defense lawyers contended the alleged plot was mainly driven by FBI informants who persuaded the men to plan attacks. The defendants said they invented their terror plan in an effort to get cash from the informants, who said they had links to al-Qaida.
The federal government hailed the group's arrest last year as a major crackdown on home-grown terrorists. Prosecutors said no attack was imminent, but that the men's plans were more "aspirational" than "operational."
The defendants, who had been charged with terrorism-related conspiracy, were known as the Liberty City Seven, a name taken from the poor neighborhood of Miami where they met.
The 12-member jury met for more than a week before reporting Friday that it could agree only on acquittal for one of the seven defendants.
ASKER
//quotes// [update on developments]
White House: NYT wrong about CIA tapes
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/19/cia.tapes/
updated 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
Alberto Gonzales was White House counsel until early 2005, when he became U.S. attorney general.
The Bush administration on Wednesday called "pernicious and troubling" a New York Times article on the White House's role in the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes.
Citing unnamed administration officials, the Times article says at least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the CIA between 2003 and 2005 over whether to destroy videotapes of the interrogations of two al Qaeda operatives.
Among those involved in the discussions, according to the Times' sources, were former White House counsel and later Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, who succeeded Gonzales as White House counsel.
The others, according to the Times' sources, were David S. Addington, then Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel and now his chief of staff; and John B. Bellinger III, who was the National Security Council's top lawyer until January 2005.
A subheadline on the Times article reads, "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said."
"The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story," a statement from the White House press secretary's office says.
The White House release said administration officials have generally declined to comment on the matter and denied making any misleading statements. It said the "no comment" policy would continue.
The dispute arises the day after U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy ordered a hearing on Friday to determine whether the tapes' destruction violated an order he issued in 2005.
The order commanded the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
A memo sent to CIA employees by Director Michael Hayden in early December said the recordings were made as "an internal check" on the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques authorized in 2002 against suspected terrorists.
The tapes showed the use of the techniques on two al Qaeda suspects that year, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The videos reportedly show rough interrogation techniques that critics have called torture, including the use of "waterboarding," which simulates drowning.
The videotapes were destroyed in 2005, "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries," Hayden wrote in his memo.
A U.S. government official said last week that the destruction was ordered by Jose Rodriguez, the head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, who retired in September. Lawyers for the NCS gave written approval for the move, the official said.
In an emergency request filed Monday, lawyers for a group of 11 Yemeni prisoners held by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, accused the White House of attempting to block outside inquiry into the tapes
"Plainly, the government wants only foxes guarding this hen house," attorney David Remes wrote.
In its written reply to Kennedy, Justice Department lawyers argued that the 2005 order didn't apply to those tapes because the prisoners were being held not at Guantanamo Bay, but at secret CIA facilities elsewhere.
White House: NYT wrong about CIA tapes
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/19/cia.tapes/
updated 2 hours, 5 minutes ago
Alberto Gonzales was White House counsel until early 2005, when he became U.S. attorney general.
The Bush administration on Wednesday called "pernicious and troubling" a New York Times article on the White House's role in the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes.
Citing unnamed administration officials, the Times article says at least four top White House lawyers took part in discussions with the CIA between 2003 and 2005 over whether to destroy videotapes of the interrogations of two al Qaeda operatives.
Among those involved in the discussions, according to the Times' sources, were former White House counsel and later Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, who succeeded Gonzales as White House counsel.
The others, according to the Times' sources, were David S. Addington, then Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel and now his chief of staff; and John B. Bellinger III, who was the National Security Council's top lawyer until January 2005.
A subheadline on the Times article reads, "White House Role Was Wider Than It Said."
"The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story," a statement from the White House press secretary's office says.
The White House release said administration officials have generally declined to comment on the matter and denied making any misleading statements. It said the "no comment" policy would continue.
The dispute arises the day after U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy ordered a hearing on Friday to determine whether the tapes' destruction violated an order he issued in 2005.
The order commanded the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
A memo sent to CIA employees by Director Michael Hayden in early December said the recordings were made as "an internal check" on the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques authorized in 2002 against suspected terrorists.
The tapes showed the use of the techniques on two al Qaeda suspects that year, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The videos reportedly show rough interrogation techniques that critics have called torture, including the use of "waterboarding," which simulates drowning.
The videotapes were destroyed in 2005, "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries," Hayden wrote in his memo.
A U.S. government official said last week that the destruction was ordered by Jose Rodriguez, the head of the CIA's National Clandestine Service, who retired in September. Lawyers for the NCS gave written approval for the move, the official said.
In an emergency request filed Monday, lawyers for a group of 11 Yemeni prisoners held by the U.S. military in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, accused the White House of attempting to block outside inquiry into the tapes
"Plainly, the government wants only foxes guarding this hen house," attorney David Remes wrote.
In its written reply to Kennedy, Justice Department lawyers argued that the 2005 order didn't apply to those tapes because the prisoners were being held not at Guantanamo Bay, but at secret CIA facilities elsewhere.
ASKER
Thank you all
ASKER
Closing [getting old and less attention] - thank you all
Thank you
ASKER
By Deborah Tate
Capitol Hill
07 December 2007
http://voanews.com/english/2007-12-07-voa43.cfm
Open in new window