Achilles Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Link WASHINGTON - The Bush administration told a federal judge it was not obligated to preserve videotapes of CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists and urged the court not to look into the tapes' destruction. In court documents filed Friday night, government lawyers told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy that demanding information about the tapes would interfere with current investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. *watches as U.S. credibility slips even further* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 I hope that at least out of principle, the judge keeps pressing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeroldoth Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 TAKE 1 - *wave* "These are not the tapes you're looking for." TAKE 2- Watching torture tapes is bad, m'kay? TAKE 3- "White House officials announced today that they would not be sending copies of the CIA's alleged "torture tapes" to Justice officials, after the FBI advised them that copying tapes is illegal, as clearly marked at the beginning of every torture tape." P.S. - Achilles, what is this "U.S. credibility" you're talking about? I've never heard of such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Who cares? ~snipped~ Tone it down, Corinthian. --Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 P.S. - Achilles, what is this "U.S. credibility" you're talking about? I've never heard of such a thing.Apologies. Being a citizen, I assumed that we still had some. Who cares? ~snipped~ First off, thanks to MCA, we'll never know if they were terrorists. It's possible that they may be and that they "got what they deserved", but it's possible that these guys were innocent husbands and fathers who were "turned in" by members of a rival tribe for the bounty that the U.S. is paying. Since they will never be given an opportunity to face their accusers or see the evidence against them, no one can say. Second off, when we trot over to to North Korea, China, Iran, etc on our high horse and presume to pass judgment on them for their policies on democracy and human rights, they'll be too busy point at Gitmo and laughing themselves out of breath to listen. But then again, maybe you think a "do as I say, not as I do" foreign policy should carry more weight than it does? We have the nukes after all, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeroldoth Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 So, you don't care if the gvt tortures innocent people, or guilty for that matter, and then destroys any evidence of their having done so? An unaccountable gvt with shadow tortures of unknown people denied rights or protections sits fine with you? It sure as hell doesn't with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Not really, no. They're terrorists. ~snipped~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Not really, no. They're terrorists. ~snipped~ Who's "they"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Terrorists in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Another week, another excuse by this administration, last week there excuse for destroying the tapes was to protect the CIA operatives identity. I say if you want to protect CIA operatives’ identity just keep that information away from this administration (Ever heard of Valarie Plame? And that information came from?). How many of these “so called” terrorists held at Guaantanamo have actually been convicted by us of anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 How many of these “so called” terrorists held at Guaantanamo have actually been convicted by us of anything?IIRC, the number is precisely one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 They're Prisoners of War, we don't have to convict them of anything until we try them for War Crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeroldoth Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Not really, no. They're terrorists. ~snipped~ That seems a not merely cavalier, but callous approach to life. "They" are only suspected terrorists. I don't approve of torturing confirmed terrorists, let alone merely suspected ones; innocent 'til proven guilty, and all. _I_ don't want to be tortured, and as such, cannot thus justify doing it to another. They're Prisoners of War, we don't have to convict them of anything until we try them for War Crimes. With confessions obtained from torture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Who cares? ~snipped~ Not everyone taken in on terrorist charges are, infact, terrorists. And even if many of them are, does that justify unconstitutional (not to mention, globally regarded) inhumane treatment of people? I'm not terribly disturbed by torture, but it is a little ****ed up when people can't at least fess up to their own ****. If you're doing it, and it's right, why hide it? That's what they tell me when it comes to my activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 You mean "enemy combatants"? None of the people that we have captured qualify for POW status. Even the Geneva Conventions guarantee some rudimentary forms of due process, however we aren't signing members of those specific conventions (yay, more hypocrisy!). And not extending our own habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants is just one more nail in the coffin of our "moral superiority". Not that those even protect our citizens anymore. Wiggle all you want; we're dead wrong on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 If we really are torturing them. You have no evidence of that, and remember: Innocent until proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 They're Prisoners of War, we don't have to convict them of anything until we try them for War Crimes. Then why is the military going through the motions of military tribunals now? Moreover, if they are prisoners of war why are we setting them free? In addition, are we fighting wars in Serbian or Macedonian now? These people were not picked up only in Afghanistan or Iraq. We are kidnapping these people from all over the world. We are making criminals out of our own government employees by totally disregarding international laws and our own allies’ citizens’ rights. If we really are torturing them. You have no evidence of that, and remember: Innocent until proven guilty.we have admitted to waterboarding them. Something we called torture when the Japanese were doing it to us. Bush even says he will veto anti-torture Bill. If we are not torturing why veto the Bill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 15, 2007 Author Share Posted December 15, 2007 If we really are torturing them. You have no evidence of that, and remember: Innocent until proven guilty.We have the testimony of at least a dozen people held in CIA "black" prisons overseas. We also know that at least some residents of these "black" prisons have been transferred to Gitmo (and vice versa). Also, I find your use of double standards regarding "innocent until proven guilty" reprehensible. It's either universal or it's not. You cannot use it when it benefits your argument and reject it when it doesn't and expect to be taken seriously by anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 remember: Innocent until proven guilty. Wouldn't it be great if that actually applied in the real world? And as many have pointed out, it's been proven time and again the U.S. has used torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 Who cares? ~snipped~ "Love your enemy and pray for them"? @topic: It's not like no-one else does this. It's just that the rest of us have slightly less blatant politicians. :- Jim: How am I going to explain the missing documents to the Mail? Sir Humphrey: Well this is what we normally do in, circumstances like these. [hands over a file] Jim: [reading] This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. [to Humphrey] Was 1967 a particularly bad winter? Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files. Jim: [reading] Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for liable or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. [to Humphrey] Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? [Humphrey says nothing] How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero? Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted December 16, 2007 Author Share Posted December 16, 2007 It's not like no-one else does this. It's just that the rest of us have slightly less blatant politicians. :-No doubt, but as far as I'm concerned, the more one presumes to tell others how to behave, the higher the bar for their own actions goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 We're in the wrong with torture, and the CIA gave a sorry excuse for document destruction. I can't say I'm surprised, however. I was expecting a number of documents to 'disappear' somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Galt Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 Until we adopt a sensible foreign policy, and cut out the hypocracy, our credibility has nowhere to go but down. Frankly, I think the "do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" mentality that has pervaded US policy, especially in the middle east and southeast asia, is doing more to undermine our superpower status than anything else. as an aside, I can personally attest that waterboarding is EXTREMELY unpleasent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 They're Prisoners of War, we don't have to convict them of anything until we try them for War Crimes. No, they're not, because they're not officially designated as such because the conflict in which they were captured does not fit the right categories. We might call it a "war", and they are prisoners captured from that war, but they aren't actually POWs. In any case, according international law, POWs can't be tortured. Not to mention, we're particularly talking about people who may be innocent. Are you OK with torturing anybody because they might be guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted December 16, 2007 Share Posted December 16, 2007 No doubt, but as far as I'm concerned, the more one presumes to tell others how to behave, the higher the bar for their own actions goes. Agreed. Nevertheless, politicians are a universal blight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.