Whats To Hide

2009-03-02 12:12:34

#1

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6163

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7919579.stm

The Central intelligence Agency (CIA) has destroyed 92 tapes of interviews conducted with terror suspects, a US government lawyer has admitted.

The agency had previously said that it had destroyed only two tapes.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has launched a lawsuit against the CIA to seek details of the interrogations of terror suspects.

Techniques involved are understood to have included water-boarding, which the Obama administration says is torture.

2009-03-02 12:15:01

#2

FatherTed: xD; +3,936|6802|so randum

No offense, but like MI5/6 hasn't either?

Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella

2009-03-02 12:15:31

#3

SgtHeihn: Should have ducked; +394|6789|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Government lawyers said some of the information may be classified.

Classified material is destroyed after at time, you don't just leave it laying around.

2009-03-02 12:16:18

#4

Pochsy: Artifice of Eternity; +702|5845|Toronto

No doubt it goes on, but do they really think these kinds of demands will loosen their tongues? Even if they release any kind of official papers they'll black 1/2 of it out and claim it is for national security reasons.

Last edited by Pochsy (2009-03-02 12:17:03)

The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families

2009-03-02 12:18:33

#5

SgtHeihn: Should have ducked; +394|6789|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

FatherTed wrote:
No offense, but like MI5/6 hasn't either?

Not in the slightest Ted, England is perfect.

2009-03-02 12:19:32

#6

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6163

O, the american extremists sympathizers have arrived and are trying to avoid the question/change the answer/blame someone else.

whats new then

2009-03-02 12:20:38

#7

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6163

The Central intelligence Agency (CIA) has destroyed 92 tapes of interviews conducted with terror suspects, a US government lawyer has admitted.

The agency had previously said that it had destroyed only two tapes.

why lie in the first place???

Last edited by rammunition (2009-03-02 12:20:50)

2009-03-02 12:29:27

#8

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

rammunition wrote:
The Central intelligence Agency (CIA) has destroyed 92 tapes of interviews conducted with terror suspects, a US government lawyer has admitted.

The agency had previously said that it had destroyed only two tapes.

why lie in the first place???

BTW, the answer has already been given.

your article wrote:
In 2005 a judge ordered the preservation of all evidence regarding the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

your article wrote:
But the agency said the ruling did not apply to the destroyed tapes, as they concerned interrogations that took place before the suspects had been transferred to Guantanamo.

your article wrote:
The agency's chief said the recordings had been made in 2002 as an internal check, and had been erased because they no longer had an intelligence value and could permit identification of CIA officers.

You're trying to find evil intent where there is none. In a story that's well over a year old, but recently resuscitated by the ACLU.

And it's just plain sad.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-03-02 12:32:18)

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-03-02 12:30:45

#9

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6163

why are you avoiding the posted question/incident???

2009-03-02 12:34:32

#10

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6839|Long Island, New York

rammunition wrote:
O, the american extremists sympathizers have arrived and are trying to pavoid the question/change the answer/blame someone else.

whats new then

Which is precisely what you're doing.

Ignoring the fact that your own country does it and then placing the blame elsewhere.

And then when someone calls you out for it, you say "stick to the topic" or some other nonsensical bullshit.

You're a reeeeeeeeeeally bad troll. I mean shit, you don't even get people pissed off at you. People just laugh at you, and nobody takes you seriously. Talk to Uzique, he could give you some tips. He's been pretty successful.

2009-03-02 12:52:45

#11

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6525|Escea

rammunition wrote:
O, the people who talk sense have arrived and are answering the question with actual facts.

whats new then

All governments destroy classified material when they no longer require it. The US does it, the UK does it, Germany does it, France does it, Russia does it, Trinidad does it. Everybody does it.

2009-03-02 12:58:49

#12

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,983|6934|949

M.O.A.B wrote:
rammunition wrote:
O, the people who talk sense have arrived and are answering the question with actual facts.

whats new then
All governments destroy classified material when they no longer require it. The US does it, the UK does it, Germany does it, France does it, Russia does it, Trinidad does it. Everybody does it.

That doesn't make it ok. The main issue regarding information gathering by government institutions is transparency. Various factions within and outside government have repeatedly taken steps to block transparency.

Government lawyers said some of the information may be classified.

2009-03-02 12:58:57

#13

MAGUIRE93: High Angle Hell; +182|6496|Schofield Barracks

M.O.A.B wrote:
rammunition wrote:
O, the people who talk sense have arrived and are answering the question with actual facts.

whats new then
All governments destroy classified material when they no longer require it. The US does it, the UK does it, Germany does it, France does it, Russia does it, Trinidad does it. Everybody does it.

In Russia classified material destroys you.

2009-03-02 12:59:17

#14

rammunition: Fully Loaded; +143|6163

M.O.A.B wrote:
rammunition wrote:
O, the people who talk sense have arrived and are answering the question with actual facts.

whats new then
All governments destroy classified material when they no longer require it. The US does it, the UK does it, Germany does it, France does it, Russia does it, Trinidad does it. Everybody does it.

so you are telling me recent tapes are not needed????

it these tapes were 30 years old, then fair enough but a few years??? something doesn't seem right

2009-03-02 13:00:33

#15

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

rammunition wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
rammunition wrote:
O, the people who talk sense have arrived and are answering the question with actual facts.

whats new then
All governments destroy classified material when they no longer require it. The US does it, the UK does it, Germany does it, France does it, Russia does it, Trinidad does it. Everybody does it.
so you are telling me recent tapes are not needed????

it these tapes were 30 years old, then fair enough but a few years??? something doesn't seem right

Perhaps you should read the article you linked to...it would answer your question.

Alternatively, you could read the posts above yours. The answer to your question is there, as well...copy/pasted from the article you linked to.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-03-02 13:02:08

#16

Varegg: Support fanatic :-); +2,206|7112|Nårvei

Tapes, videos and transcripts is the property of the agency that made it and thus they can really can do whatever they wan't with it ... normally they destroy it because the information is worthless, a common practice with most intelligence agencies around the world ...

Wait behind the line ..............................................................

2009-03-02 13:04:01

#17

SgtHeihn: Should have ducked; +394|6789|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

your article wrote:

The agency's chief said the recordings had been made in 2002 as an internal check, and had been erased because they no longer had an intelligence value and could permit identification of CIA officers.

2009-03-02 13:05:37

#18

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6525|Escea

rammunition wrote:
M.O.A.B wrote:
rammunition wrote:
O, the people who talk sense have arrived and are answering the question with actual facts.

whats new then
All governments destroy classified material when they no longer require it. The US does it, the UK does it, Germany does it, France does it, Russia does it, Trinidad does it. Everybody does it.
so you are telling me recent tapes are not needed????

it these tapes were 30 years old, then fair enough but a few years??? something doesn't seem right

The government departments that would require them no longer need them so they dispose of them, not release them for public viewing.

If you made a porn tape you'd keep it for your own use until you got rid of it, you wouldn't put it out on the market for public viewing (ordinarily )

2009-03-02 13:06:56

#19

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,983|6934|949

SgtHeihn wrote:
your article wrote:

The agency's chief said the recordings had been made in 2002 as an internal check, and had been erased because they no longer had an intelligence value and could permit identification of CIA officers.

Right, and one thing this lawsuit will probably answer is whether or not those tapes were legally erased. Just because the CIA says they had no value does not mean they had the authority to erase them against the judge's ruling.

2009-03-02 13:11:08

#20

SgtHeihn: Should have ducked; +394|6789|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

rammunition wrote:
so you are telling me recent tapes are not needed????

it these tapes were 30 years old, then fair enough but a few years??? something doesn't seem right

Do you think intel is good forever? The tapes were from 2002, that is 7yrs ago. That is ancient history in the Intel world.

I will also post it again from your article:

your article wrote: wrote:
The agency's chief said the recordings had been made in 2002 as an internal check, and had been erased because they no longer had an intelligence value and could permit identification of CIA officers.

edit:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Right, and one thing this lawsuit will probably answer is whether or not those tapes were legally erased. Just because the CIA says they had no value does not mean they had the authority to erase them against the judge's ruling.

Its not up to a civil judge. They were gone before the lawsuit and releasing them if they were still around would put CIA agents lives in danger.

Last edited by SgtHeihn (2009-03-02 13:14:05)

2009-03-02 13:17:13

#21

Doctor Strangelove: Real Battlefield Veterinarian.; +1,758|6770

They destroyed the tapes because they account the plot by the American World Domination Conspiracy (AWDC) that will have the US take over Malta. If the tapes had not been destroyed, than the US would not be able to crush the Maltese people.

I know this because I am a major player in the AWDC, as are all Americans.

2009-03-02 13:30:07

#22

Pug: UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate; +652|6844|Texas - Bigger than France

Anyone think its a little weird that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is interested in defending the civil liberties for a population of people who aren't American and therefore don't have American Civil Liberties?

Must of been a slow news day to publish that one...

2009-03-02 13:31:48

#23

icecold2510: Member; +31|6595

FEOS wrote:
rammunition wrote:
The Central intelligence Agency (CIA) has destroyed 92 tapes of interviews conducted with terror suspects, a US government lawyer has admitted.

The agency had previously said that it had destroyed only two tapes.

why lie in the first place???
BTW, the answer has already been given.

your article wrote:
In 2005 a judge ordered the preservation of all evidence regarding the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
your article wrote:
But the agency said the ruling did not apply to the destroyed tapes, as they concerned interrogations that took place before the suspects had been transferred to Guantanamo.
your article wrote:
The agency's chief said the recordings had been made in 2002 as an internal check, and had been erased because they no longer had an intelligence value and could permit identification of CIA officers.
You're trying to find evil intent where there is none. In a story that's well over a year old, but recently resuscitated by the ACLU.

And it's just plain sad.

read again ramm

The agency's chief said the recordings had been made in 2002 as an internal check, and had been erased because they no longer had an intelligence value and could permit identification of CIA officers.

2009-03-02 13:52:40

#24

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6713|'Murka

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
SgtHeihn wrote:
your article wrote:

The agency's chief said the recordings had been made in 2002 as an internal check, and had been erased because they no longer had an intelligence value and could permit identification of CIA officers.
Right, and one thing this lawsuit will probably answer is whether or not those tapes were legally erased. Just because the CIA says they had no value does not mean they had the authority to erase them against the judge's ruling.

Actually, they've already covered that. The judge's ruling was specific to Gitmo. The tapes erased did not pertain to Gitmo.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-03-02 14:02:08

#25

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,983|6934|949

FEOS wrote:
KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
SgtHeihn wrote:

Right, and one thing this lawsuit will probably answer is whether or not those tapes were legally erased. Just because the CIA says they had no value does not mean they had the authority to erase them against the judge's ruling.
Actually, they've already covered that. The judge's ruling was specific to Gitmo. The tapes erased did not pertain to Gitmo.

That's what I'm getting at though - we just take the CIA's word that the tapes erased didn't cover Gitmo? There is a lack of transparency, which should be addressed.

BF2S Forums Whats To Hide

FatherTed wrote:

rammunition wrote:

your article wrote:

your article wrote:

your article wrote:

rammunition wrote:

rammunition wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

rammunition wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

rammunition wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

rammunition wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

rammunition wrote:

your article wrote: wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

rammunition wrote:

your article wrote:

your article wrote:

your article wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

Board footer