It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes

page: 1
12

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes


www.suntimes.com

New documents show the CIA destroyed nearly 100 tapes of terror interrogations, far more than has previously been acknowledged.

The revelation Monday comes as a criminal prosecutor is wrapping up his investigation in the matter.

The acknowledgment of dozens of destroyed tapes came in a letter filed by government lawyers in New York, where the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking more details of terror interrogation programs.


(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Why would the CIA destroy these tapes? Were they of no practical use? Was there evidence of illegal interrogation methods contained on them?

I'm no big fan of the ACLU, but they are going to have a field day with this.

It all goes back to President Bush emphatically claiming "We don't torture!", and denying rendition flights and secret prisons, all the while knowing we were violating the Geneva Convention in our treatment of prisoners of war (you can call them whatever you want).

The chickens are coming home to roost.

www.suntimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Icarus Rising]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
This is atypical behavior by the CIA to order the destruction off all documents or videos in this case that might incriminate the covert government. Its a grave national security risk to admit they might do something amoral or illegal.

They did the same damn thing will most of the MKULTRA tapes/documents.

It was Nixon who made it fashionable to shred/spindle and mutitlate all evidence.

[edit on 11/03/2008 by Skydancer]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I think we already know quite well of the cover-up taking place here. When you're housing "terrorists" in a covert prison camp (while suspending rights of Habeas Corpus), no doubt, even if it were part of "policy" or not, you wouldn't want your precious sheeple to know of the unsavory acts you were committing against another (possibly innocent) human being.

The fact that they're covering it up makes me twitch. Though, I guess we shouldn't be surprised...



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I think the quote under your name says it all.

Half of writing history is
hiding the truth.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
You beat me to the punch on this one
S&F for you from me!

The only thing I have to add is what I put in my thread (which will hopefully disappear asap) and that is this information comes out the same day when the financial news is again the top story. The DOW is what people will be focused on today.

Watch your local news I bet this won't even make a blip.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
In my opinion, for what its worth, nothing good or positive or of lasting value to humanity is ever accomplished through deceit and subversion. In that way, I think the means determines the end to a great extent. If something has to be hidden, lied about, and the evidence of it happening destroyed, it probably wasn't something that should have been done to begin with.

Spinkyboo - I got that tag line from the movie "Serenity."

Whisper67 - I was fortunate to see this story just minutes after it broke. I agree the timing of the story will limit its exposure. Funny how that works, isn't it? Another form of subversion, perhaps?

Rollzio - So much has been covered up for so long. Leakage is inevitable. Awareness is growing daily. May the light of truth shine into all the dark corners out there and send the critters scurrying.

Skydancer - Did you mean "a typical behavior?" Your post makes more sense to me when I read it that way.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I guess I’m going to be unpopular with this post but 'Good on them'.

How do you really expect an interrogation of somebody who is prepared to commit suicide by bombing a group of innocent men, woman and children?

Agent: Sorry to interrupt your journey from a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, but could I ask you a few questions?

Terrorist: even thought you are infringing on my civil rights, I will allow this in the hope that some bleeding heart liberals will get me much compensation so that I can fund even more terrorist attacks on your children.

Agent: Are you planning to murder American men, woman and children?

Terrorist: no

Agent: thanks for your assistance, have a nice day.

Come on, this isn’t a school yard game being played out here. These people want to kill you and your family and are trained in anti interrogated techniques.

Ask yourself this what if you were tortured and when released an agent apologised for it then said, that although you where innocent we did stop a group or terrorists who were planning to crash a couple of passenger jets into the twin towers on 9/11. Could you really hold it against them? I sure if it was me I would be very upset, but, I’m grown up enough to know that every war has it’s casualties to friendly fire and that sometimes a general will have sacrifice troops at some point. But I guess cowards cannot see this point of view.


[edit on 2/3/2009 by northerngate]

[edit on 2/3/2009 by northerngate]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by northerngate
How do you really expect an interrogation of somebody who is prepared to commit suicide by bombing a group of innocent men, woman and children?


You start by making the assumption that everyone captured was a terrorist, which is obviously not a case and many of the people captured were later released with no charges.



Come on, this isn’t a school yard game being played out here. These people want to kill you and your family and are trained in anti interrogated techniques.


Yes there are people who want kill us and our families, there always was and probably there will always be, but you don't get to pick and choose what and when the law applies, regardless of the type or gravity of the crime.

The Constitution specifically forbids indefinite detention and imprisonment without representation; and the many laws and treaties the United States has enacted, signed and ratified prohibit torture.

Some criticize those who oppose harsh treatment of terrorists saying we don't want to protect the country. The Constitution and the laws of the land apply always, even when you're scared, want revenge or it's inconvenient.

You can now proceed in calling me unpatriotic.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by northerngate
 




How do you really expect an interrogation of somebody who is prepared to commit suicide by bombing a group of innocent men, woman and children?


Good on you for speaking your mind. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't discuss the issue.

This may seem like a chicken or the egg came first approach, but how does this form of asymmetrical warfare get started to begin with? And more importantly, how do we get it to end? I am of the opinion that, in the long run, torture and supressive tactics create more "terrorists."

Do these people just wake up one morning with the desire to commit suicide in the attempt to kill as many as possible of what they perceive to be an enemy that is threatening their way of life? It is a tactic born of desperation. The radicals urging them on would have no foothold in their society if the culture was treated with respect and dignity in the first place.

Instead, a fait accompli is created and perpetuated by the force with superior armament and a vested interest (usually in territory and/or natural resources). A sense of moral outrage and imperative is cultivated that leads to justification of a "pre-emptive strike doctrine." The cycle becomes self-sustaining and escalating. Each side justifies greater and greater atrocities in the name of their cause. The only outcome is greater and greater destruction. Where does it end? When will we learn?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Icarus Rising
 


My thoughts: If the agencys involved are admitting that they have destroyed tapes, you can be assured that they still exist somewhere.

I don't believe for a second that in this day and age any recordings made by these agencys are destroyed.....by telling people they dont exist anymore stops people looking for them and hides the truth about what was going on in them....

just my 2cents...always look behind the headline top find the real story.....



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising

Why would the CIA destroy these tapes? Were they of no practical use? Was there evidence of illegal interrogation methods contained on them?

I'm no big fan of the ACLU, but they are going to have a field day with this.

It all goes back to President Bush emphatically claiming "We don't torture!", and denying rendition flights and secret prisons, all the while knowing we were violating the Geneva Convention in our treatment of prisoners of war (you can call them whatever you want).

The chickens are coming home to roost.

www.suntimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2-3-2009 by Icarus Rising]

They can argue 'national security' and all the evidence is gone, zip, vooosh. Nothing you can do about it. Americans have been dumbified by this term 'national security' hundreds of times before.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 


That's the thing that gets me here. Why don't they just claim national security forbids disclosure? Why even bother to admit the tapes were destroyed? The circular national security argument was the method of choice during the Bush years.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Good thing all those terrorists testimony who claimed they had nothing to do with 9/11 - that it didn't even occur to them to try - since they couldn't possibly make America's defense forces stand down - nor could they cause THREE buildings to fall with TWO planes - was destroyed!

Last thing we need to hear from terrorists is a bunch of filthy tin foil hat wearing lies!

Stoopid Troothers!!






[edit on 2-3-2009 by TruthMagnet]



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
reply to post by Ownification
 


That's the thing that gets me here. Why don't they just claim national security forbids disclosure? Why even bother to admit the tapes were destroyed? The circular national security argument was the method of choice during the Bush years.

Maybe they are waiting for public reaction, who knows. If the public reacts badly then the 'national security' is used. I'm sure they are not going to over use it because if it is overused than the public will become aware, that is the last thing they want. Just imagine an America that can think for itself in spite of all the propaganda thrown at them, that is not the America they want, we need more info about 'they', who ever 'they' maybe.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
This is the core of national security in and of itself ya national security has everything on everyone but even if you have the information your looking for what are you going to do with it? Its not a shock to me the cia torutured people the nsa did it too and they know it covering it up now doesnt change the fact it happened and it also doesnt change the fact of where the people who did it are going in the end.

Its a nice thing to hide behind a little logo that says national security but it better be just that and not some covert illegal activity going on or covering up of money laundering or econmic plunder exc exc. There are many cases of national security abuses that have taken place before and after bush and clinton just because people havent been brought to justice over it doesnt mean they wont be.

Under the "paperwork reduction act" its usually a 7 year cycle on all documents not excluding confidental secret or topsecret and above material it still has to be accounted for. And they can claim national security all they want if someone or some group requests the documents they dont have any choice but to turn them over.



Falcon




top topics



 
12

log in

join