NationStates Jolt Archive

The Bush administration destroyed tapes despite court order
Dec 12, 2007 03:11 EST

The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.

Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations.

While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered 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."

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July. At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody.

In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."

Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.

Sources: Yahoo/OccNEWS
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/CIA_destroyed_tapes_despite_court_o_12122007.html
Is The US gov above the Law? I guess this settles that question.

When I made a thread on this a while back they were just tapes of an interrogation. How did someone manage to find and watch these destroyed tapes and conclude that they showed people being tortured?

When I made a thread on this a while back they were just tapes of an interrogation. How did someone manage to find and watch these destroyed tapes and conclude that they showed people being tortured?they canNOT watch the evidence -and decide if its Torture- because the evidence has been destroyed by the alleged Torturers.

this is what the thread is all about..

When I made a thread on this a while back they were just tapes of an interrogation. How did someone manage to find and watch these destroyed tapes and conclude that they showed people being tortured?you seem to say -your use of the word "Just"- it was NOT torture.

The question I have for you is:
Did you watch the tapes?

you seem to say -your use of the word "Just"- it was NOT torture.

The question I have for you is:
Did you watch the tapes?

Did you?

you seem to say -your use of the word "Just"- it was NOT torture.
Perhaps I seem to, but whatever news source I got the story from, most likely the BBC, didn't feel it necessary to assume, as you have, that the tapes were of torture.

Thread in question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544751)

The question I have for you is:
Did you watch the tapes?

Don't be ridiculous.

Ah, who says the government didn't learn from Nixon's mistakes! ;)

When I made a thread on this a while back they were just tapes of an interrogation. How did someone manage to find and watch these destroyed tapes and conclude that they showed people being tortured?

they aren't tapes of just any interrogations, but ones on subjects they have already admitted to torturing (only they still refuse to call things that are defined as torture torture, so it's all "coercive" or "harsh" or the directly-translated-from-the-original-nazi "enhanced" interrogation).

Is The US gov is above the Law? I guess this settles that question.

The USian gov is not above the law. Otherwise they'd not bother saying that the tapes were destroyed.

Besides, how can one be above the law one makes oneself? :cool:

They however seem to have calculated that the probable consequences of destroying the tapes were more desirable than the probable consequences of not destroying them.

If they actually have destroyed the tapes. How much would the copyright fetch on E-Bay?

Ah, who says the government didn't learn from Nixon's mistakes! ;)

We need a new Deep Throat.

and people are suprised by this behavior by Uncie Sammy???? wow, just need to beat my head against a wall to remind me of some pets people's thickness :headbang::headbang::headbang: :rolleyes: didnt help

If the administration gets away with this, and we know they will, what else do you think they'll try? Rigging another election? Deciding that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply and that the 2008 election results are just a "suggestion"? It's a bit of a slippery slope, but I wouldn't put it past the cronies Bush set up to try something like that.

Although, on the other hand, so many of them have resigned, it makes me think Bush is just going to go crawl in a hole after the administration.

If the administration gets away with this, and we know they will, what else do you think they'll try? Rigging another election? Deciding that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply and that the 2008 election results are just a "suggestion"? It's a bit of a slippery slope, but I wouldn't put it past the cronies Bush set up to try something like that.

Although, on the other hand, so many of them have resigned, it makes me think Bush is just going to go crawl in a hole after the administration.

Nah, he'll get a CEO position of some shell corporation owned by one of his daddy's friends, with a nice big 7 or 8 figure salary.

We need a new Deep Throat.

Kinky. :)

Nah, he'll get a CEO position of some shell corporation owned by one of his daddy's friends, with a nice big 7 or 8 figure salary.
Isn't that generally what "crawl[ing] into a hole" means, when one deals with ex-politicians? They either get cushy, do-nothing jobs or are sent to make peace in the Middle East.

We need a new Deep Throat.

Ahh Linda Lovelace.

Perhaps I seem to, but whatever news source I got the story from, most likely the BBC, didn't feel it necessary to assume, as you have, that the tapes were of torture.

Thread in question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=544751)



Don't be ridiculous.

The point isn't that they were of torture, it's that now nobody can watch them to determine if they were of torture. They may have been or they may not have been, but now we'll never be able to find out because they destroyed the evidence-- which was completely against the court order.

Kinky. :)

Not that Deep Throat, you silly, silly man. :p

Videotaping your own people possibly using tactics your don't officially allow them to use in the first place is the height of stupidity. It amazes me they had the common sence to destroy it, unlike Abu Ghuraib..... Now that was just painfully stupid.

Never ever photograph, or record audio or visually... always transcribe....

Isn't that generally what "crawl[ing] into a hole" means, when one deals with ex-politicians? They either get cushy, do-nothing jobs or are sent to make peace in the Middle East.

Until Dubya runs said business into the ground, that's probably what it will mean.

Please tell me you folks don't think the interrogators destroyed the tape because they are shy.

If the administration gets away with this, and we know they will, what else do you think they'll try? Rigging another election? Deciding that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply and that the 2008 election results are just a "suggestion"? It's a bit of a slippery slope, but I wouldn't put it past the cronies Bush set up to try something like that.

I wouldn't be suprised if there is a terrorist attack or terrorist threat on Election day, causing the president to "Cancel" them.


Although, on the other hand, so many of them have resigned, it makes me think Bush is just going to go crawl in a hole after the administration. I wish they'd all crawl into a prison cell with their roomates having names like "Bubba", "BigBoy", and "Papabear".
XD

People should not afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.