Justice Dept.: No charges in CIA tape case
gimmesometruth27
St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
another surprise.... :roll: ...evidently the cia is above the law....the cia's attorney said the existance and potential release of these tapes would be damaging to the cia so they were destroyed. well if we would stop breaking the fucking international laws we would not have to worry about putting our people in danger.
Justice Dept.: No charges in CIA tape casehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_cia_videotapes
WASHINGTON – No charges will be filed against the CIA's former top clandestine officer or anyone else in the destruction of CIA videotapes of harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.
Another part of the nearly three-year-old criminal investigation is continuing into whether CIA interrogators went beyond the legal guidance given them on the rough treatment of suspects during questioning, a Justice Department official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that part of the probe is still under way.
The CIA destroyed its cache of 92 videos of two al-Qaida operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, being waterboarded in 2005.
Jose Rodriguez, formerly the agency's top clandestine officer, worried the tapes would be devastating to the CIA if they ever surfaced. He approved the destruction of the tapes. Rodriguez's order was at odds with years of directives from CIA lawyers and the White House.
The Justice Department decision "is the right decision because of the facts and the law," a lawyer for Rodriguez, Robert Bennett, said in a statement.
Bennett called Rodriguez "an American hero, a true patriot who only wanted to protect his people and his country."
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham has been investigating the destruction of the videotapes since January 2008.
A team of prosecutors and FBI agents led by Durham has conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter, said Matthew Miller, director of the Justice Department's office of public affairs.
"As a result of that investigation, Mr. Durham has concluded that he will not pursue criminal charges for the destruction of the interrogation videotapes," Miller said.
CIA officers began videotaping to show that Zubaydah was brought to a secret CIA prison in Thailand already wounded from a firefight and to prove that interrogators followed broad new rules Washington had laid out.
Almost as soon as taping began, top officials at the agency's headquarters in Langley, Va., began discussing whether to destroy the tapes, according to current and former U.S. officials and others close to the investigation.
Many dozens of CIA officers and contractors cycled in and out of Thailand to help with the questioning. If those videos ever surfaced, officials feared, nearly all those people could be identified.
During the investigation, agency lawyers were forced to turn over long lists of documents, including classified cables from around the world. Former CIA Director Porter Goss was summoned before a grand jury, as were the agency's former top lawyer and its current station chief in London.
Justice Dept.: No charges in CIA tape casehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_cia_videotapes
WASHINGTON – No charges will be filed against the CIA's former top clandestine officer or anyone else in the destruction of CIA videotapes of harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.
Another part of the nearly three-year-old criminal investigation is continuing into whether CIA interrogators went beyond the legal guidance given them on the rough treatment of suspects during questioning, a Justice Department official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that part of the probe is still under way.
The CIA destroyed its cache of 92 videos of two al-Qaida operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, being waterboarded in 2005.
Jose Rodriguez, formerly the agency's top clandestine officer, worried the tapes would be devastating to the CIA if they ever surfaced. He approved the destruction of the tapes. Rodriguez's order was at odds with years of directives from CIA lawyers and the White House.
The Justice Department decision "is the right decision because of the facts and the law," a lawyer for Rodriguez, Robert Bennett, said in a statement.
Bennett called Rodriguez "an American hero, a true patriot who only wanted to protect his people and his country."
Assistant U.S. Attorney John Durham has been investigating the destruction of the videotapes since January 2008.
A team of prosecutors and FBI agents led by Durham has conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter, said Matthew Miller, director of the Justice Department's office of public affairs.
"As a result of that investigation, Mr. Durham has concluded that he will not pursue criminal charges for the destruction of the interrogation videotapes," Miller said.
CIA officers began videotaping to show that Zubaydah was brought to a secret CIA prison in Thailand already wounded from a firefight and to prove that interrogators followed broad new rules Washington had laid out.
Almost as soon as taping began, top officials at the agency's headquarters in Langley, Va., began discussing whether to destroy the tapes, according to current and former U.S. officials and others close to the investigation.
Many dozens of CIA officers and contractors cycled in and out of Thailand to help with the questioning. If those videos ever surfaced, officials feared, nearly all those people could be identified.
During the investigation, agency lawyers were forced to turn over long lists of documents, including classified cables from around the world. Former CIA Director Porter Goss was summoned before a grand jury, as were the agency's former top lawyer and its current station chief in London.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I agree the cia should be above using torture, but I don't think they meant damaging in a PR way( I very well could be mistaken) but I think they are referring to the fact that not only the location of the prison could be found, but also the identities of those on the tapes could be found, putting a lot of potential lives at risk. I would have to say that releasing the tapes may have cost Americans and others working with them their lives and I have to say it was probably a good decision. having people killed because of releasing the tapes in the name of justice seems off to me.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
i guess expecting my government to be a standard setter for human rights, and punishing those involved with violating those rights is too much of a pipe dream huh...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
it isn't ok to out her, I am not sure where you got that from my post, I was just talking about this situation. Those people have families, who are innocent in any of this.
and no i don't think it is too much to ask, I wasn't defending every action ever by our government...just saying that the release of the tape would have been dangerous to much more than just someone who participated in water boarding.
I was really hoping that more would have happened in the case of Plame. I think you think I am a government bobo who defends all things republican and I couldn't be further from that. I hate the federal government has this much power, it was never meant to be that and it has become a 900 lb chimp that cannot be controlled anymore. Unfortunately we the people didn't move it out to a preserve early enough and the result is the Fed. Gov't constantly bites people's faces off.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
to me the concept is quite simple. it is very black and white to me. if people do not want their lives put in danger, don't torture, and don't videotape it. it creates evidence, and destroying such evidence is obstruction of justice, which is a crime as well. oh silly me, no charges are going to be filed in this case so that is a moot argument.
there is no excuse that can make me change my mind that the cia, like kennedy said, needs to be fractured into a thousand pieces. how can you control something that acts above the law and is not accountable to anyone civilian or military? it is just another massive coverup to ensure that the lawbreakers are kept safe while there is no chance for any legal recourse by the tortured victims, or those like me who defend human rights above all laws...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Its ok to out a hardworking apparently honest agent in Valerie Plume because of her husband s work in showing the hoax that Iraq was.
However its out of the question to at least punish those who have broken a whole lot of laws and put others at risk .
the whole reason it was destroyed is about how high the advice came to do these things I beleive. Did it go all the way to the president.
Valerie family wasnt protected was it
yet cheney's boy libby outs plame, which is high treason punishable by death, ironically enough, and he gets his prison sentence commuted. he will walk free one day, same as these monsters in the cia....
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Thats not correct at all.
by noy obeying the rules of war/ treatys etc we open our opposition to do exactly what they like. If we dont follow the laws why would they.
How can we stand on the hill of morality and say you are so bad for the torture you do . when we are doing the same.
Its a bit Sanctimonius I think
Didnt bush only admit to the waterboarding. not the secret camps around the world. where god only know what is happening
First off I always read your posts fully and more than once, and I am more than capable of understanding what you are saying. The reason I like to argue with you is simple, you usually have well thought out responses and you truly seem to care and have passion for it...cannot say that for everyone here...I would name names but you can probably guess a couple I am talking about.
What about me hating the 900lb chimpanzee makes you think I am not referring to things like the CIA, NSA, or any other acronym?
I am not referring to the AGENTS here, I am referring to the agent's children, wives, husbands, family members, friends, international contacts, etc that can be compromised and harmed. Should the agents be held responsible, yes, should the guy who chose to destroy the tapes face consequences, yes, but the federal government has all this power because WE allow them to have it. The federal government should not be the nations largest employer, it is a sick and twisted version of the government that was intended to be.
For the record I do not support the republican party. I support states rights and a tiny federal government that was outlined for us by the people who started the country. Did they do everything perfectly, absolutely not, considering slavery and women not being able to vote as just a couple mistakes, but the restrictions they attempted to put on a large central government forming have been subverted by the use of one clause and have changed the way the federal government operates.
Also, it is pretty unrepublican to support gay marriage, and to keep religion out of government. The reason I come to your threads is because a lot of what you post seems to me is an indictment on a different way of thinking. You presume the worst motivations for that thinking for all. And I want to point out to you that there are things out there in America that are good that you happen to disagree with. A lot of stuff you say I agree with, but showing someone a different way of thinking in a respectful way isn't a bad thing. I try hard to never be rude or awful to you in anyway and always try to keep it respectful. If it doesn't seem that way I apologize.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
that's a pretty lame excuse. while i've never been tortured at a secret prison before something tells me they wouldn't have a big map on the walls saying 'YOU ARE HERE', isn't one of the ideas of a secret prison that if someone is released they won't know where they were? i doubt the videos start with an introduction and history on the location.
these are tapes of interrogations, they could blur someone's face out if need be, the fact is they were required to turn over these tapes to see if they had gone too far but instead they destroyed them, which is a crime, they destroyed evidence and this administration is just a big fraud and allowing them to get away with it.
extraordinary renditions started under clinton, it's nothing new with bush or obama
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
so, let's say i have sex with a girl and video tape it...later she says it was rape and i say no, it was totally legal and then i destroy the tape....wouldn't you think i destroyed it because it shows me violating the law? otherwise what reason would there be for me to destroy it instead of complying with the law and turning it over?
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
yes, the destruction of the tapes is admission of guilt.