Answer for: CIA destroys videotapes of "advanced interrogations" - Your thoughts?
#3 Make a Mountain out of a Molehill
| 
18 Comments
Mountain out of a Molehill or just Political Hay... You left out the fact that the tapes "showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects â including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody" and "they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value."
http://www.nytimes.c...p;oref=slogin
Comments |
Leave a comment
How could destroying a tape within a locked CIA vault protect undercover officers? Besides, didn't the Bush administration prove that they have no problem overlooking agent safety when it suits their agenda with the Plame affair?
And this justifies obstruction of justice exactly how?
can't like operatives be blurred and shit, photoshopped out?
yeah but then all pertinent legal documents would have to include the phrase "in b4 looks shooped."
Destroying tapes of interrogations is obstruction of justice how?
(had they been subpoenaed?)
The CIA has experienced a number of leaks. I guess the fear was that the actual contents could be leaked to the press, who would promptly publish.
If I were running the CIA, tapes of operational activities would only last as long needed. Then this message, Jim, will self-destruct in 10 seconds.
If the CIA is so inept that they can't keep classified material from their vaults leaking out to the press, why in the world are we trusting them with the security of our nation?
@MDAdams:
"If I were running the CIA, tapes of operational activities would only last as long needed."
In other words, you support the CIA running with zero oversight?
Besides, if the only way to protect agents is to destroy any evidence related to them, they better get to burning every document they have.
That'll show those terri'sts.
lol @ apologists.
@MDAdams:
"Destroying tapes of interrogations is obstruction of justice how?
(had they been subpoenaed?) "
If I murder someone and then destroy the evidence, I will be charged with obstruction of justice - Why should the same logic not apply to the CIA?
if they are going to destroy the evidence, why bother taping in the first place?
Lets get real here.... the tapes were of interrogations that took place five (5) years ago and as the C.I.A. indicated they felt they were no longer of any "intelligence value." How is that obstruction of justice exactly? The tapes were not part of a subpoena and Abu Zubaydah wasn't murdered while being held by the C.I.A.
Can you imagine if the C.I.A. kept copies of every interrogation that was held for an undetermined amount of time? And I am sure that if congress wants to see other tapes of interrogations there are most likely plenty to choose from.
And don't pull the Plame Affair out of the trash bin... no evidence has ever surfaced that her life was put in jepordy. And what about the Washington Post story, "End of an Affair - It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband." http://www.washingto...01460_pf.html
Finally - in the true scope of all things real... does this mount to a hill of beans? Isn't it the C.I.A.'s job to keep things secret? We all know that the Congress is good at keeping a secret! Why don't they spend just a little effort dealing with real problems like securing the borders, ture immigration reform, tax reform, healthcare reform, and quit making mountains out of mole hills. Do something dam'it, anything but spend time and my money chasing fantastic stories that amount to nothing!!@!!!!!!
shiva: I agree with you in large part. But this isn't making mountains out of molehills. It's making politcal hay. Both parties do it, but now it's the Dem's turn. A pox on both of their houses.
Huh, questions surrounding the use of torture or possible illegal actions by the CIA "amount to nothing" or are just "political hay"?
Give me a break.
I work as a skip tracer. If you want to keep the identities of the interrogators a secret, you would necessarily destroy all documents which would contain their names and SSNs. If I had a photograph or a video, I might not know where to find you. You could be one of many thousands of Americans who look quite similar to you. If I had your name and SSN, I could probably find your address and recently known whereabouts in a heartbeat. If they were truly worried about security, they'd destroy all such documents. Why destroy these videos? What is there to hide?
Another important point via security expert Bruce Schneier:
http://www.schneier....y_record.html
We have NO CLUE what parts of an interrogation may be useful later down the road in when combined with new intelligence - A good law enforcement officer would never destroy potential evidence.
Honestly, I don't know whether *in this case* the CIA was right or wrong to destroy interrogation tapes. But, the CIA is *not* a law enforcement agency. They have a complex set of protocols, decisions and variables that apply to intelligence gathering intended to protect the nation from external threats. Some of which are to protect agents as well as the agency itself from damage.
So this event could range from: a) A cover-up, b) a dumb decision, c) a proper decision based on internal circumstances that we aren't privy to.
I think the congressional oversight representatives with the proper clearance levels should be given disclosure of all the circumstances, and then the chips fall where they may.
But it should *not* be political, and we should *not* insist that the CIA nuts & bolts end up in the NYT or on youtube.
@MDAdams:
"the CIA is *not* a law enforcement agency."
Fair point - Their mission and values page ( https://www.cia.gov/...es/index.html ) makes it clear that they are simply an intelligence gathering and advising agency.
"we should *not* insist that the CIA nuts & bolts end up in the NYT or on youtube."
I don't think anyone is asking for that; Rather, I believe that all evidence and documentation obtained by the CIA should be available for full (security cleared) congressional oversight. I don't want to see the videos, but they most certainly should be retained to ensure a government agency is not participating in illegal activities.
Holo: well said.
Holo: I too must say, "Well Said."