Hundreds of Hours of CIA Video Destroyed
"Laws? We don't need no stinking laws."
But of course, none of this is really any surprise, if you've been paying attention.
...and in case there is any doubt that the CIA did the waterboarding torture, now they admit it but of course say it was SO useful and that it saved lives.
Right.
Update: This Bushco "torture timeline" is a useful reference.
But of course, none of this is really any surprise, if you've been paying attention.
...and in case there is any doubt that the CIA did the waterboarding torture, now they admit it but of course say it was SO useful and that it saved lives.
Right.
Update: This Bushco "torture timeline" is a useful reference.
posted by spooked at 7:55 AM
17 Comments:
What part of "Lawyers within the clandestine branch of the Central Intelligence Agency gave written approval in advance..." do you not understand?
You are so spring-fucking-loaded with your "Laws?" rant that you ignore the facts of the case.
This comment has been removed by the author.
CIA lawyers approved it???
LOL!
Problem is, Sphincter, is you think you can just make up whatever rules or laws you want and to hell with those you don't like.
Id doesn't *matter* if you don't like the CIA. It doesn't *matter* if you don't like the lawyers for the CIA. It just doesn't fucking *matter* if you don't like the rules and regulations they operate under. The facts of the matter are ("facts" being a completely foerign concept to you as you demonstrate daily on this crap of a blog) that the legal individuals who had cognizance over whether this was a appropriate mode of actions determined that it was.
Funny how you are all up in arms over Mrs No-to-Playboy Plame and HER "outing" (which it wasn't) but you could care less about other covert agents. More selective justice for you - what *you* like, the facts and the law be damned.
Fuck you, asshole.
Behind all your bluster, mr. anonymous, you got nothing-- and you know it. Why are you even trying to defend this CIA bullshit?
Spooked asked one of the SHILLS:
"Why are you even trying to defend this CIA bullshit?"
Maybe she's in the Disinfo business,
and likes the pay.
"covert agents"!
Anonymous said...
"Problem is . . . you think you can just make up whatever rules or laws you want and to hell with those you don't like."
Nice summary of the Bush regime's MO.
"Legal individuals with cognizance over the matter" -- hah! - can't make a crime not a crime, and can't make contempt of court not contempt of court. A current debate among lawyers who know and care about international law is whether the torture memo lawyers aided and abetted war crimes.
So anonymous, doesn't putting Agent Kiriakou on ABC make a joke out of your justification - protecting agents' identities?
It was already a joke of an excuse: it's easy to disguise faces and voices.
One more thing, anonymous fool: even if it were necessary to show the interrogators' faces and voices, there are procedures for doing that confidentially. Any CIA lawyer would know all about such options, and could not reasonably claim that protecting agents' identities excused the destruction of evidence.
Anonymous Legal Individual
Tell me, Sphincter and new butt buddy Ali:
What is illegal about destroying videotapes that nobody told them not to destroy?
And for that matter, show me the statute/law/congressional mandate/what-the-fuck-ever stipulation that told the CIA NOT to destroy them.
Tell me, please, if you two can stop sucking each other's cocks long enough to wipe your chin off and answer a godamned question.
TELL ME THE LAW THAT WAS BROKEN WITH DESTROYING THOSE TAPES, motherfuckeing asshole, or shut the fuck up about this.
Like I said before - just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal, douche head.
The crime would be obstruction of justice, where the original crime was torture-- my foul-mouth commentator.
The original crime also is 9/11, you foul-mouthed cretin.
CIA claims the tapes were destroyed in November 2005, which would violate a June 2005 court order telling the government to "preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees."
18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1), enacted as part of Sarbanes-Oxley, makes it a felony to "corruptly alter[], destroy[], mutilate[], or conceal[] a record, document, or other object, . . . with the intent to impair the object’s . . . availability for use in an official proceeding."
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/12/questions-that-beg-to-be-answered.html
“preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba”
Read the whole fucking thing, asswipe. Show me evidence that Abu Zubaida was in Gitmo at the time in question. He wasn't.
Go back to your internet porn, Ali. You're better at that then playing with the big dogs.
You might be right. We'll see what the judge says. The CIA doesn't get to decide what is relevant.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/abdah-motion-for-inquiry-12-9-07.pdf
Judge Brinkema's order in the Moussaoui trial was not limited to Guantanamo detainees.
There's still this:
18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1), enacted as part of Sarbanes-Oxley, makes it a felony to "corruptly alter[], destroy[], mutilate[], or conceal[] a record, document, or other object, . . . with the intent to impair the object’s . . . availability for use in an official proceeding."
there's at minimum, the destruction of federal property... :)
Law professor Jonathan Turley describes all the laws violated, here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/11/countdown-cia-agent-involved-in-torture-tapes-now-says-waterboarding-is-torture/
Post a Comment
<< Home