SG Broadband Community

*puts car battery back in suitcase... and wipes blood off spoon*

The CIA videotaped its interrogations of terror suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/cia.vi ... index.html

He also said the CIA's internal watchdog watched the tapes in 2003 and verified that the interrogation practices were legal.

"legal" is subjective to the information required.

MadDoctor wrote:"legal" is subjective to the information required.

...and we will determine what is "required"

I have the best job in the world!

MadDoctor wrote:I have the best job in the world!

It's people like you that set a new standard for "jerk"

MadDoctor wrote:It's people like you that set a new standard for "jerk"

bla bla bla

"Bla" it up all you want. Some day your nuts are going to be attached to that car battery.

MadDoctor wrote:"Bla" it up all you want. Some day your nuts are going to be attached to that car battery.

Like that didn't happen last night at the "Pink Pagoda"

He said the CIA began taping the interrogations as an internal check on the program after President Bush authorized the use of harsh questioning methods. The methods included waterboarding, which simulates drowning, government officials said.


I might also mention that the United States has successfully prosecuted people that have engaged in this act.....

UOD wrote:...the United States has successfully prosecuted people that have engaged in this act.....

I wonder if anyone from Blackwater security reads this forum.

"National security risk" must be the new euphemism for "saving our asses"

MadDoctor wrote:I wonder if anyone from Blackwater security reads this forum.

If not now....they will be someday.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/69105/

MadDoctor wrote:I wonder if anyone from Blackwater security reads this forum.

The answer is Yes.

I agree.

MadDoctor wrote:"legal" is subjective to the information required.

I think what MD met to say is that given a good political background and ability to manipulate the masses and the press... any action can be manipulated into "legal" one way or another.

The Bush administration insists that U.S. civilian courts also have little or no jurisdiction over Guantanamo, at least as far as the detainees are concerned, because it "is not a sovereign territory of the United States."

"Anyone, including a federal official, who violates the Endangered Species Act by harming an iguana at (Guantanamo), can be fined and prosecuted," Wilner said. "Yet the government argues that U.S. law does not apply to protect the human prisoners there. ... Pretty absurd."

MadDoctor wrote:I wonder if anyone from Blackwater security reads this forum.

More likely CACI or SAIC. I'm sure BW has personnel who *could* do this, but it's not in keeping with their mission in Iraq which is, after all, protective services, not interrogation ops.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

Bouncer wrote:More likely CACI or SAIC. I'm sure BW has personnel who *could* do this, but it's not in keeping with their mission in Iraq which is, after all, protective services, not interrogation ops.

Regards,
-Bouncer-

I agree. My point was more that:

the United States has successfully prosecuted people

Blackwater's mission (in part/arguably) is protective services. Some activities of Blackwater have been deemed inappropriate and/or illegal. That said, they are in court defending an action that was done in a protective service roll.

Going back to the first post:

The CIA videotaped its interrogations of terror suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners

The U.S. questioners on those tapes could have been taken to court for activities caught on tape. Bad things happen be it questioning a prisoner or protecting a convoy. Things that are appropriate at the time (and only those in place at that time can justify a given action) are questionable when taken out of context or put on display to the public with no or little pre or post information.

I'll go back to trimming my dog's toe nails.

MadDoctor wrote:I'll go back to trimming my dog's toe nails.

That's good MD. Go back to something you can do (poor dog). Perhaps a picture to show a point:



Without context... Things can be misinterpreted. Next you find yourself in court defending an action that does not need to be defended.

MadDoctor wrote:That's good MD. Go back to something you can do (poor dog). Perhaps a picture to show a point:



Without context... Things can be misinterpreted. Next you find yourself in court defending an action that does not need to be defended.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/22/linda-chavez-medal/

Apparently, the guy who destroyed the tapes deserves a medal.