CIA Destroyed Interrogation Tapes

[LoungeMachine]

C.I.A. Destroyed 2 Tapes Showing Interrogations

Doug Mills/The New York Times


By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: December 7, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The Sept. 11 commission releasing its report on July 22, 2004.
The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.

In a statement to employees on Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, said that the decision to destroy the tapes was made “within the C.I.A.” and that they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value.

The destruction of the tapes raises questions about whether agency officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the program.

The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which was appointed by President Bush and Congress, and which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.

The disclosures about the tapes are likely to reignite the debate over laws that allow the C.I.A. to use interrogation practices more severe than those allowed to other agencies. A Congressional conference committee voted late Wednesday to outlaw those interrogation practices, but the measure has yet to pass the full House and Senate and is likely to face a veto from Mr. Bush.

The New York Times informed the intelligence agency on Wednesday evening that it was preparing to publish an article about the destruction of the tapes. In his statement to employees on Thursday, General Hayden said that the agency had acted “in line with the law” and that he was informing C.I.A. employees “because the press has learned” about the matter.

General Hayden’s statement said that the tapes posed a “serious security risk” and that if they had become public they would have exposed C.I.A. officials “and their families to retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.”

Current and former intelligence officials said that the decision to destroy the tapes was made by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who was the head of the Directorate of Operations, the agency’s clandestine service. Mr. Rodriguez could not be reached Thursday for comment.

Two former intelligence officials said that Porter J. Goss, the director of the agency at the time, was not told that the tapes would be destroyed and was angered to learn that they had been.

Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Goss declined to comment on the matter.

In his statement, General Hayden said leaders of Congressional oversight committees had been fully briefed about the existence of the tapes and told in advance of the decision to destroy them. But the two top members of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 said Thursday that they had not been notified in advance of the decision to destroy the tapes.

A spokesman for Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, who was the committee’s chairman between 2004 and 2006, said that Mr. Hoekstra was “never briefed or advised that these tapes existed, or that they were going to be destroyed.”

The spokesman, Jamal Ware, also said that Mr. Hoekstra “absolutely believes that the full committee should have been informed and consulted before the C.I.A. did anything with the tapes.”

Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the committee between 2002 and 2006, said that she told C.I.A. officials several years ago that destroying any interrogation tapes would be a “bad idea.”

“How in the world could the C.I.A. claim that these tapes were not relevant to a legislative inquiry?” she said. “This episode reinforces my view that the C.I.A. should not be conducting a separate interrogations program.”

In both 2003 and 2005 C.I.A. lawyers told prosecutors in the Moussaoui case that the C.I.A. did not possess recordings of interrogations sought by the judge. Mr. Moussaoui’s lawyers had hoped that records of the interrogations might provide exculpatory evidence for Mr. Moussaoui, showing that the Qaeda detainees did not know Mr. Moussaoui and clearing him of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, plot.

Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said that the court had sought tapes of “specific, named terrorists whose comments might have a bearing on the Moussaoui case” and that the videotapes destroyed were not of those individuals. Intelligence officials identified Abu Zubaydah as one of the detainees whose interrogation tape was destroyed, but the other detainee’s name was not disclosed.

General Hayden has said publicly that information obtained through the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program has been the best source of intelligence for operations against Al Qaeda. In a speech last year, President Bush said that information from Mr. Zubaydah had helped lead to the capture in 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Staff members of the Sept. 11 commission, which completed its work in 2004, expressed surprise when they were told that interrogation videotapes had existed until 2005.

“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and later as a senior counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.

1 2 Next Page » at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/washington/07intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Hyman Roth]

That's some fucked up shit right there.

[Jim Shetterlini]

Good! Keep interrogating and keep destroying! 6.5 yrs no attacks shows this is a winning combination.

[Hyman Roth]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
Good! Keep interrogating and keep destroying! 6.5 yrs no attacks shows this is a winning combination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Take your pick.

[Hyman Roth]

Hey, Jim, we're Americans. We don't torture people. That's what terrorists do.

And we're not supposed to destroy evidence and lie about its existence under oath. Where I come from you get in a shit-ton of trouble for doing that. You go to prison and your career is over when you do that.

[LoungeMachine]

Under BushCO, we have become everything we've despised about others since WWII.

Stolen Elections
Preemptive Wars
Corporate Welfare and Graft
Torture
Nullifying Habeus Corpus
Warrantless Spying on own Citizens
Leading By Fear


The Bush Administration should be labelled a Terrorist Organization

[Hyman Roth]

The irony is not lost on me.

And now you can add intentional destruction of evidence of the comission of war crimes.

[Deklon]

Hyman,

With all due respect, this is a much different world now. We are not fighting a country that plays by rules. If you don't accept the fact that there is a real enemy that wishes and plans for our demise, than our disagreement on policy can't even begin. I subscribe to the belief that the enemy exists and will/would try to acquire weapons to kill unimaginable amounts of Americans. If you were in charge and felt the responsibilty of protecting your citizens, I would hope that you would do everything possible to protect your country now and for the future. I don't argue that laws or previous principles have been bent or broken, but the ultimate goal for this president isn't to change everything we always have been. His goal is to PROTECT you, me, and our families. If this could be done to perfection without things such as torture, wiretapping (of people in this country corresponding with KNOWN terrorists), or a preemtive war, than it would be done that way.

In short, it is my opinion that if the president needs to break some rules and hurt some people's feelings and even go against traditional American principles (all hopefully temporary) to make the country safer now and in the future, I can be OK with that. If he is doing it unneccesarily, than I would side with you.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
Good! Keep interrogating and keep destroying! 6.5 yrs no attacks shows this is a winning combination.

hasn't beaten clinton's record of 8 years of no attacks on the continental U.S....

does it mean that clinton's tatics post 1993 were so outstanding? or is it also possible that the terrorists aren't always quite as organized as we might think?...

[Jim Shetterlini]

Good God, I don't have time for all this bleeding heart shit today You like a lot of americans on your side, seem to have forgot what started all of this. 3000 americans fucking died. So to me any and all means necessary to protect all of us including Hyman and Lounge(maybe) LOL
Because as we all know they will use any means necessary to KILL any and all of us at random. So as I said 6.5 yrs no attacks no americans have died from an attack. So, I will take the interrogating and waterboarding to get info which we have, over Hyman, Lounge or any of the Roth Army being killed by these phanatic fucks.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon
Hyman,

With all due respect, this is a much different world now. We are not fighting a country that plays by rules. If you don't accept the fact that there is a real enemy that wishes and plans for our demise, than our disagreement on policy can't even begin. I subscribe to the belief that the enemy exists and will/would try to acquire weapons to kill unimaginable amounts of Americans. If you were in charge and felt the responsibilty of protecting your citizens, I would hope that you would do everything possible to protect your country now and for the future. I don't argue that laws or previous principles have been bent or broken, but the ultimate goal for this president isn't to change everything we always have been. His goal is to PROTECT you, me, and our families. If this could be done to perfection without things such as torture, wiretapping (of people in this country corresponding with KNOWN terrorists), or a preemtive war, than it would be done that way.

In short, it is my opinion that if the president needs to break some rules and hurt some people's feelings and even go against traditional American principles (all hopefully temporary) to make the country safer now and in the future, I can be OK with that. If he is doing it unneccesarily, than I would side with you.


:rolleyes:

I don't even know where to begin with this tripe.

Let me guess. You BELIEVE we're "fighting them over there so we dont have to fight them over here"

Jesus :rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
Good God, I don't have time for all this bleeding heart shit today You like a lot of americans on your side, seem to have forgot what started all of this. 3000 americans fucking died.

Is that where you think it "started" ??

Oh, boy. :rolleyes:

That's the problem with you Ditto Heads.

Short memories.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
Good God, I don't have time for all this bleeding heart shit today You like a lot of americans on your side, seem to have forgot what started all of this. 3000 americans fucking died. .

And what did IRAQ have to do with this?

Hmm?

This should be good.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini


. So as I said 6.5 yrs no attacks no americans have died from an attack. .


American Military Casualties in Iraq

Date Total In Combat

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 3886 3189
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 3747 3081
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3426 2883
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3027 2555
Since Election (1/31/05): 2449 2293
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 28582 23000 - 100000
Latest Fatality Dec. 5, 2007

[Hyman Roth]

Wanna post more...gotta run...maybe later. Peace out.

[Jim Shetterlini]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
American Military Casualties in Iraq

Date Total In Combat

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 3886 3189
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 3747 3081
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 3426 2883
Since Handover (6/29/04): 3027 2555
Since Election (1/31/05): 2449 2293
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 28582 23000 - 100000
Latest Fatality Dec. 5, 2007

Why do you want to show these numbers in vain? You should be ashamed of yourself! What has been done is right and history will prove what it means to the future of this country and the world. I will be forever grateful for what are troops have done and what they have sacrifriced.

You keep hating the people that protect you and they will just keep protecting you.


But for me, you are a lost cause and I just can't keep wasting my time trying to help you anymore. There is so much hatred in you for this president that you can not see through it. I'm done!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
Why do you want to show these numbers in vain? !

:confused:

You're the one who claimed no American attacks/deaths in 6.5 years.

Your pResident sent almost 4,000 men and women to their deaths in Iraq for nothing.

You should be ashamed for supporting him.

:mad:

[Deklon]

It's really a simple question Lounge...

You and those against this war don't like it for what it is right now, which is huge loss of life, Americans included. Until recently, there hasn't even been a hint of an end in sight. Even those of us who support the effort are frustarted with the time, lives, and cost involved.
Where we differ is this...
I beleive that in a number of years, if we stay and succeed, that an ally (Iraq) and a democracy (in some form) in the heart of the Middle East will hugely benefit the safety of America. Secondly, I believe that this democracy (we all agree we don't know exactly how it will look) will most definietely spill over to other parts, if not all, of the region. It is my honest opinion, and obviously that of the President's, that this is what will defeat terrorsim and hopefully prevent larger scale attacks over time. The terrorism threat against America began decades ago, not on 9/11/01. So, therefore, every administration and policy pre-9/11 could not prevent 9/11. Thirdly, I firmly believe that while WMD was part of the decision to go to Iraq (and remember every intel agency in the world, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and most democrats in congress agreed, that WMD was at most 25% of the reason behind he war. I know, that's what we were told the reason was. However, I believe the President and his administration felt that the world needed to see drastic acion from the US that said "if you fuck with us AT ALL, we will come and get you". Do you think all of the insurgent groups put up a fight because they don't like us or do you think they know that our success in Iraq would be devastating to their long term cause? I believe the latter.
Next, since it is fact that most people did in fact believe Saddam had, or was close to having, significant WMD's, what would people like you have said if we had never gone to Iraq, and yesterday a dirty bomb originating from Iraq and placed in terrorist hands had gone off in LA killing 100,000 people? You would have ripped the head off of the President for having not acted on worldwide intelligence. You're probably someone who ripped the President for not acting quicker on the famous memo in August of '01 that said Al Qaeda poised to strike US, no?
The point is, those of you against the war and the deaths of 4,000 members of the military have the luxury of worrying about the here and now. A President does not have such a luxury. It is his (or her) awesome responsibilty to do things that must benefit the country for decades, not a few years while in office. Neither you nor I can make a conclusion as to the success or failure of this campaign for many, many years.
If in the next 10 or 20 years the Middle East is not stable, attacks happen on US soil to significant degrees, and Iran and others are still huge threats, you will have been right. And in between reading how Michael Anthony is in his reunion after 20 years out of VH, I will admit I was wrong.
But the extent to which you mock he man who has the phenominal responsibilty of protecting your country for years to come in an environment history had not yet seen is simply shortsighted. History may eventually prove you to be correct. However, saying "Your pResident sent almost 4,000 men and women to their deaths in Iraq for nothing." is way beyond insulting to them and there families. Again, if in many years you are proven correct, I'll stand with you in calling it a huge mistake and will call the deaths a waste. But calling it a failure now is decades premature.

[Nitro Express]

Dead men and destroyed evidence tell no tales.

[LoungeMachine]

This administration gets more NIXONIAN every day....

Dana Perino today said there is an "internal WH investigation" into this.

:rolleyes:

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
I will be forever grateful for what are troops have done and what they have sacrifriced.



i don't doubt your sincerity, and i share your appreciation.


but i have to ask: why is it ok to have people dying to protect my safety, if i'm not willing to take some risks to protect our freedoms?


truly, if all i cared about was my safety, i'd have no problem implanting everybody with a tracking device. (or maybe just moving to a place like bora bora, which will ALWAYS be safer than being in the U.S....) but the reason i stay here is because i think it's WORTH it to stay here.

not just because i like my little plot of land. not just because the flag looks bitching. not just because it's easy access to motreal strippers and mexican tequila.

but because of who we are and what we stand for. if getting rid of the freedom of assembly made me a little safer, i wouldn't do it. if torturing people who may or may not be guilty, overall made me a little safer, i wouldn't do it. if intentionally killing an innocent man would make me a little safer, i wouldn't do it.


so, if i have to die to keep America what it was intended, and what it should be, then i'll make that sacrifice. home of the brave. land of the free.

[LoungeMachine]

Key Senator Calls for Justice Department Investigation of Destroyed CIA Tapes
Friday, December 07, 2007

WASHINGTON — No. 2 Senate Democrat Dick Durbin on Friday called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate whether the CIA legally destroyed videotapes showing the interrogations of two terrorists.

"Today I'll be sending a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey calling on him for an official investigation of whether there was destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice in the destruction of these videotapes on the interrogation of detainees," Durbin said, speaking on the Senate floor. The Justice Department later acknowledged receipt of the letter.

The CIA acknowledged Thursday that it had destroyed the interrogation tapes. One is of an unnamed alleged terrorist, and one was of Abu Zubaydah — who under questioning gave up information leading to the capture of alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh, a fact disclosed by President Bush last year.

White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters Friday afternoon that President Bush "does not remember being made aware of those [tapes] prior to yesterday morning." She said she would not characterize his reaction to the news.

Perino also indicated the inherent conflict of the White House's interests in the developing issue, noting that the president will support the CIA's continuing collection of facts surrounding the tapes' destruction, but would also support the Justice Department probe if it came to that.

"If there's a decision to investigate ... if the Attorney General moves on down that road, of course the White House would support that."

But asked whether the administration was urging an investigation, Perino said: "We are supporting the CIA director. They are still gathering facts over at the CIA. We are helping them. I think it's premature to say."

In the hours before The New York Times was set to publish a story regarding the tapes' destruction, CIA Director Michael Hayden told agency employees Thursday that the agency destroyed the tapes in 2005 — they were made in 2002 — because keeping them "posed a security risk." The revelation reverberated around Washington.

"This is not an issue that can be ignored," Durbin said, also noting that he believed, "This is the first real test" for Mukasey, who was sworn in to office last month.

Click here to read Sen. Durbin's letter to Attorney General Mukasey (.pdf).

"I hope he will do the right thing. What is at stake here goes to the heart of the rule of law and justice in America. If our government can destroy evidence, can misrepresent to our courts whether that evidence ever existed, if it can attempt to cover up wrongdoing, that Mr. President, goes way beyond the standards of justice and the values of America," said Durbin of Illinois, using the formal name for the presiding office of the Senate.

Durbin later was joined in the call for the investigation by another influential Democrat, Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy.

In his message to agency workers, Hayden said that House of Representatives and Senate intelligence committee leaders had been informed of the existence of the tapes and the CIA's intention to destroy them to protect the identities of the questioners. He also said the CIA's internal watchdog watched the tapes in 2003 and verified that the interrogation practices were legal. Hayden said the tapes were destroyed three years after the 2002 interrogations.

Jane Harman, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was one of only four members of Congress in 2003 informed of the tapes' existence and the CIA's intention to ultimately destroy them.

"I told the CIA that destroying videotapes of interrogations was a bad idea and urged them in writing not to do it," Harman said. While key lawmakers were briefed on the CIA's intention to destroy the tapes, they were not notified two years later when the spy agency actually carried out the plan. The Senate Intelligence Committee's Democratic chairman, Jay Rockefeller, said the committee only learned of the tapes' destruction in November 2006.

Republican Pete Hoekstra, who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from August 2004 until the end of 2006, said through a spokesman that he does not remember being informed of the videotaping program.

"Congressman Hoekstra does not recall ever being told of the existence or destruction of these tapes," said Jamal D. Ware, senior adviser to the committee. "He believes that Director Hayden is being generous in his claim that the committee was informed. He believes the committee should have been fully briefed and consulted on how this was handled."

The House Intelligence Committee’s Democratic Chair, Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, also reportedly denied knowledge of the action.

A well-known human rights advocacy organization also decried the tapes' destruction.

Jennifer Daskal, senior counsel with Human Rights Watch, said that destroying the tapes was illegal. "Basically this is destruction of evidence," she said, calling Hayden's explanation that the tapes were destroyed to protect CIA identities "disingenuous."

Hayden said that a secondary reason for the taped interrogations was to have backup documentation of the information gathered.

"The agency soon determined that its documentary reporting was full and exacting, removing any need for tapes. Indeed, videotaping stopped in 2002," Hayden said.

The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but not since 2003. Hayden banned the use of the procedure in 2006, according to knowledgeable officials.

The disclosure of the tapes' destruction came on the same day the House and Senate intelligence committees agreed to legislation prohibiting the CIA from using "enhanced interrogation techniques." The White House Thursday threatened to veto the bill.

"What matters here is that it was done in line with the law," Hayden said. "Over the course of its life, the agency's interrogation program has been of great value to our country. It has helped disrupt terrorist operations and save lives. It was built on a solid foundation of legal review. It has been conducted with careful supervision. If the story of these tapes is told fairly, it will underscore those facts."

The CIA says the tapes were destroyed late in 2005, a year marked by increasing pressure from defense attorneys to obtain videotapes of detainee interrogations. The scandal over harsh treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq had focused public attention on interrogation techniques.

Beginning in 2003, attorneys for Al Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui began seeking videotapes of interrogations they believed might help them show their client was not a part of the 9/11 attacks. These requests heated up in 2005 as the defense slowly learned the identities of more detainees in U.S. custody.

In May 2005, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the government to disclose whether interrogations were recorded. The government objected to that order, and the judge modified it on Nov. 3, 2005, to ask for confirmation of whether the government "has video or audio tapes of these interrogations" and then named specific ones. Eleven days later, the government denied it had video or audio tapes of those specific interrogations.

Last month, the CIA admitted to Brinkema and a circuit judge that it had failed to hand over tapes of enemy combatant witnesses. Those interrogations were not part of the CIA's detention program and were not conducted or recorded by the agency, the agency said.

"The CIA did not say to the court in its original filing that it had no terrorist tapes at all. It would be wrong to assert that," CIA spokesman George Little said.

The 9/11 Commission referenced the 2002 interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Binalshibh multiple times throughout its report, but cited written documents and audiotapes only.

CIA Spokesman Mark Mansfield told FOX News the tapes were not destroyed while the 9/11 Commission was active so that they would be avilable if ever requested for its report.

"The agency went to great lengths to meet the requests of the 9/11 Commission," Mansfield told FOX News. "As Director Hayden pointed out in his statement, the tapes were destroyed only when it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."

FOX News' Catherine Herridge and The Associated Press contributed to this article.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315965,00.html

[Deklon]

Dick Durbin coming after Bush.....shocking! What's next?

[scamper]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
hasn't beaten clinton's record of 8 years of no attacks on the continental U.S....

check your history

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by scamper
check your history

WTC attack came 38 days into Bill's term.

I think you need to chalk that one up to Poppy Bush, don't you?

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters Friday afternoon that President Bush "does not remember being made aware of those [tapes] prior to yesterday morning."

LOL.

Reminds me of the Iran-Contra hearings.

"I do not presently recall..."

[scamper]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
WTC attack came 38 days into Bill's term.

I think you need to chalk that one up to Poppy Bush, don't you?

Can't the same be said for 9/11? My point is that people hate us (take BoF for example) it's just the way the world is. Bush didn't start it he's just fueling the fire. I think George Washington started it, but he was a terrorist in his own right.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by scamper
Can't the same be said for 9/11?

38 days

9 months.

Yeah, about the same thing. :rolleyes:

We'll forget for a moment the PDB of August 6th.

[scamper]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
38 days

9 months.

Yeah, about the same thing. :rolleyes:

We'll forget for a moment the PDB of August 6th.

I think the planning for 9/11 probably took a little more time then a bomb in a parking garage. The BC....oops I mean terrorists put a little more effort into it.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
LOL.

Reminds me of the Iran-Contra hearings.

"I do not presently recall..."

Gonzalez and Rice's favorite lines too...

Just like Nixon and Ronnie, it's not the crime as much as the lying and covering up that makes me want to vomit.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by scamper
check your history

all i meant was that in 1993, the WTC was attacked by apparent radical islamic terrorists (car bomb). there wasn't another attack on the continental U.S. by radical islamic terrorists for another 8 years (9/11/2001.)


now, you could argue that U.S. soil was attacked in 1998 when our two african embassies were bombed. true. but not the continental U.S....

[Baby's On Fire]

Originally posted by scamper
Can't the same be said for 9/11? My point is that people hate us (take BoF for example) it's just the way the world is. Bush didn't start it he's just fueling the fire. I think George Washington started it, but he was a terrorist in his own right.


Excellent! I'm honoured to be mentioned out of nowhere.

If you think "I hate Americans" than you you haven't been paying close attention, or you're just plain old stupid.

Actually, it's only Americans LIKE YOU that I fucking hate. Holier-Than-Thou the US-of-A can do no wrong assholes.

But fortunately, there less and less of them like you.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Jim Shetterlini
Good! Keep interrogating and keep destroying!

"Interrogating" whom?

Destroying what? Civil liberties?


6.5 yrs no attacks shows this is a winning combination.

Actually, what it shows was that al Qaeda was a shallow and loose organization that blew its wad on 9/11. There were no real terror cells in the US to carry out follow on attacks, because al Qaeda is an exaggeration...

Please feel free to provide examples of actual al Qaeda cells that had actual, tangible plans for follow on attacks in CONUS, and how the "winning combination" of torture and "breaking a few rules" by raping civil liberties has stopped any attacks...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Hyman,

With all due respect, this is a much different world now. We are not fighting a country that plays by rules. If you don't accept the fact that there is a real enemy that wishes and plans for our demise, than our disagreement on policy can't even begin. I subscribe to the belief that the enemy exists and will/would try to acquire weapons to kill unimaginable amounts of Americans. If you were in charge and felt the responsibilty of protecting your citizens, I would hope that you would do everything possible to protect your country now and for the future. I don't argue that laws or previous principles have been bent or broken, but the ultimate goal for this president isn't to change everything we always have been. His goal is to PROTECT you, me, and our families. If this could be done to perfection without things such as torture, wiretapping (of people in this country corresponding with KNOWN terrorists), or a preemtive war, than it would be done that way.

In short, it is my opinion that if the president needs to break some rules and hurt some people's feelings and even go against traditional American principles (all hopefully temporary) to make the country safer now and in the future, I can be OK with that. If he is doing it unneccesarily, than I would side with you.

http://www.skyone.co.uk/programmes/24/images/24_overview_pic1.jpg
Terrorists make me so angry, I'm gonna drive drunk!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by scamper
Can't the same be said for 9/11? My point is that people hate us (take BoF for example) it's just the way the world is. Bush didn't start it he's just fueling the fire. I think George Washington started it, but he was a terrorist in his own right.

George Washington deployed troops in Saudi Arabia? Who knew?

[LoungeMachine]

All Nick, All Night. :D

3 for 3 from the top of the key.

:gulp:

[stringfelowhawk]

I am not attacking you. I'm just commenting on the following post:

It's really a simple question Lounge...

You and those against this war don't like it for what it is right now, which is huge loss of life, Americans included. Until recently, there hasn't even been a hint of an end in sight. Even those of us who support the effort are frustarted with the time, lives, and cost involved.
Where we differ is this...
I beleive that in a number of years, if we stay and succeed, that an ally (Iraq) and a democracy (in some form) in the heart of the Middle East will hugely benefit the safety of America. Secondly, I believe that this democracy (we all agree we don't know exactly how it will look) will most definietely spill over to other parts, if not all, of the region. It is my honest opinion, and obviously that of the President's, that this is what will defeat terrorsim and hopefully prevent larger scale attacks over time. The terrorism threat against America began decades ago, not on 9/11/01. So, therefore, every administration and policy pre-9/11 could not prevent 9/11. Thirdly, I firmly believe that while WMD was part of the decision to go to Iraq (and remember every intel agency in the world, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and most democrats in congress agreed, that WMD was at most 25% of the reason behind he war. I know, that's what we were told the reason was. However, I believe the President and his administration felt that the world needed to see drastic acion from the US that said "if you fuck with us AT ALL, we will come and get you". Do you think all of the insurgent groups put up a fight because they don't like us or do you think they know that our success in Iraq would be devastating to their long term cause? I believe the latter.
Next, since it is fact that most people did in fact believe Saddam had, or was close to having, significant WMD's, what would people like you have said if we had never gone to Iraq, and yesterday a dirty bomb originating from Iraq and placed in terrorist hands had gone off in LA killing 100,000 people? You would have ripped the head off of the President for having not acted on worldwide intelligence. You're probably someone who ripped the President for not acting quicker on the famous memo in August of '01 that said Al Qaeda poised to strike US, no?
The point is, those of you against the war and the deaths of 4,000 members of the military have the luxury of worrying about the here and now. A President does not have such a luxury. It is his (or her) awesome responsibilty to do things that must benefit the country for decades, not a few years while in office. Neither you nor I can make a conclusion as to the success or failure of this campaign for many, many years.
If in the next 10 or 20 years the Middle East is not stable, attacks happen on US soil to significant degrees, and Iran and others are still huge threats, you will have been right. And in between reading how Michael Anthony is in his reunion after 20 years out of VH, I will admit I was wrong.
But the extent to which you mock he man who has the phenominal responsibilty of protecting your country for years to come in an environment history had not yet seen is simply shortsighted. History may eventually prove you to be correct. However, saying "Your pResident sent almost 4,000 men and women to their deaths in Iraq for nothing." is way beyond insulting to them and there families. Again, if in many years you are proven correct, I'll stand with you in calling it a huge mistake and will call the deaths a waste. But calling it a failure now is decades premature.

Now, democracy in the Middle East for our safety is a bogus thought. Bush is using our perception of "our safety" as a front to wage war for no purpose as noble as our national security. He is not looking to the future of our country with regard to our best interests. He is looking at a wealth of world currency known to the lamen as "oil". If he truly had our safety in mind why in the hell would he need to manufacture evidence to support an unnecessary war? Why has he not implemented the most basic measures suggested by the 9/11 Commission? Why is he cutting the DHS budget next year? Why does he and his Vice President continue to spread propaganda thats proven false? Why did we invade a country that DID NOT attack us nor did they have any ties to the actual people who DID attack us? Why, in a slip of monumental arrogance, did he say he didn't know where OBL was, didn't care, and he wasn't his priority? He goes after Saddam Hussein who did not attack us but now "doesn't care" where OBL is after he killed 3,000 Americans on our own soil? He is guilty of war crimes by the very definition. He has subverted the foundation of the country he is supposed to protect. If he cared about our safety he'd resign. His foreign policy had made us MORE vulnerable and likely to be attacked than we were before 9/11. He and his Vice President were head long into starting another illegal war under the guise of our safety until every intelligence organization in our country balked by refusing to provide false intel supporting his case in an attempt to restore some sanity. Why is he borrowing so much money from China to fund his illegal war allowing in return, unsafe products with incredibly lax inspection procedures that seems to have them being recalled almost on a bi-weekly basis into our country? Why is it that even after adjusting for inflation his administration has increased the national deficit by more than EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT IN HISTORY COMBINED? Why was he trying to sneak behind Congress' back and give a foreign government control of security for our ports? Why has he illegally politicized the Justice Department ? Why do you have to work on a republican campaign to get a job in his administration instead of being, you know, qualified or something? If he cares about our safety so much why is the Constitution just a "Goddamn piece of paper" to him? Why does he feel he can ignore the same document whenever he wishes? Why does his administration commit treason by outting a covert agent dedicated to gathering intelligence to ensure our safety for political retribution? Why did he suspend Habeas Corpus? Why does his administration not only allow but encourage torture that is illegal under Geneva of which the U.S. is a signee? Why are there billions of dollars missing from the reconstruction efforts? Why are there "no bid" contracts given to companies that have a history of fraud on taxpayers? If he is really trying to look out for this country why did he lie about his intentions of staying in Iraq after it became a full democracy? He waited for Congress to recess before signing a declaration that keeps American troops in Iraq indefinately! Its worded so that it obscures its sole purpose of being a treaty so that Congress can't insist on signing it since its not called a "treaty" perse'. Get yourself familiar with the term "Amero".
This is the most arrogant, incompetent group of jackass' government has ever witnessed and if YOU believe George W. Bush has anything as noble as "our safety" and best interest in mind then YOU are the most naive poster ever to visit cyberspace.

[scamper]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
all i meant was that in 1993, the WTC was attacked by apparent radical islamic terrorists (car bomb). there wasn't another attack on the continental U.S. by radical islamic terrorists for another 8 years (9/11/2001.)


now, you could argue that U.S. soil was attacked in 1998 when our two african embassies were bombed. true. but not the continental U.S....

Sorry, misunderstood

[scamper]

Originally posted by Baby's On Fire
Actually, it's only Americans LIKE YOU that I fucking hate. Holier-Than-Thou the US-of-A can do no wrong assholes.

Funny, I don't remember coming off with a holier-than-thou attitude, but you seem to have one. Keep up the hate...it must be a wonderful life.

[LoungeMachine]

They're now talking about how destroying these tapes may affect prosecutions, past and present of "terrorists"

basically the CIA has aided the enemy here.

And anyone else reeling from the HYPOCRISY of the CIA claiming they were trying to "protect the identity of CIA operatives"