TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- CIA destroyed interrogation tapes - who's to blame?
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

CIA destroyed interrogation tapes - who's to blame?

Bush.

Republican leaders.

And the Democratic leadership.

Interesting, ain't it?

I'll start with the initial breaking story a few days back on the CIA destroying the tapes:

quote:

C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes of Interrogations WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 � The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency�s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A�s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials. he videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects � including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody � to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said. The C.I.A. said today that the decision to destroy the tapes had been made �within the C.I.A. itself,� and they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value. The agency was headed at the time by Porter J. Goss. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Goss declined this afternoon to comment on the destruction of the tapes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/w...=rssnyt&emc=rss

Now before you choke on your lunch when reading in utter disbelief the rationale the CIA is supposedly giving us as to why they destroyed those tapes, I offer you another interesting read as to an alternative rationale:

quote:

Yesterday we learned that in 2005, despite earlier warnings from Congress, the White House, and the Justice Department, the CIA destroyed two videotaped interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives who had been captured shortly after 9/11. Why? CIA director Michael Hayden says the tapes were destroyed because of fears that they might leak and give away the identity of CIA interrogators, but that's an excuse so thin that I hesitate to even call it laughable. In fact, the decision was made just as questions were starting to be raised about the torture of CIA prisoners, and the tapes were almost certainly destroyed for fear that they'd be subpoenaed and it would become clear just how harsh our "harsh interrogation" measures really were. So what would investigators have seen if they'd had access to the tapes? One of the captured prisoners was an al-Qaeda operative named Abu Zubaydah, and it turns out we have a pretty good idea of what his tape would have shown. First, Spencer Ackerman gives us this from James Risen's State of War: quote: Risen charges that Tenet caved to Bush entirely on the torture of al-Qaeda detainees. After the 2002 capture of Abu Zubaydah, a bin Laden deputy, failed to yield much information due to his drowsiness from medical treatment, Bush allegedly told Tenet, "Who authorized putting him on pain medication?" Not only did Tenet get the message � brutality while questioning an enemy prisoner was no problem � but Tenet also never sought explicit White House approval for permissible interrogation techniques, contributing to what Risen speculates is an effort by senior officials "to insulate Bush and give him deniability" on torture. And here is Barton Gellman's gloss of Ron Suskind's The One Percent Doctrine: quote: Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be....Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics. [Other unrelated bungling described, all of which is worth clicking the link to read.] Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety � against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each...target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered." So here's what the tapes would have shown: not just that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative, but that we had brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative who was (a) unimportant and low-ranking, (b) mentally unstable, (c) had no useful information, and (d) eventually spewed out an endless series of worthless, fantastical "confessions" under duress. This was all prompted by the president of the United States, implemented by the director of the CIA, and the end result was thousands of wasted man hours by intelligence and and law enforcement personnel. Nice trifecta there. And just think: there's an entire political party in this country that still thinks this is OK. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ar...7_12/012662.php

Interesting thought, and I won't say I necessarily buy into all of it. But one thing is certain - it's not even laughable to buy into the lame ass excuse of "protecting" the CIA interrogators as to why they destroyed the tapes. If anyone believes that, I've got a lovely bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

And don't think this is the first time a branch of the Executive has seemingly had a bad case of "missing" evidence when it comes to interrogations. As an example, here's the case with the trial of Jose Padilla:

quote:

A videotape showing Pentagon officials' final interrogation of al- Qaida suspect Jose Padilla is missing, raising questions about whether federal prosecutors have lost other recordings and evidence in the case. The tape is classified, but Padilla's attorneys said they believe something happened during that interrogation that could explain why Padilla does not trust them and suspects they are government agents. . . . . U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke was incredulous that anything connected to such a high-profile defendant could be lost. "Do you understand how it might be difficult for me to understand that a tape related to this particular individual just got mislaid?" Cooke told prosecutors at a hearing last month. . . . Miami criminal defense lawyer David O. Markus said the missing tape makes the government agents look like "Keystone cops." "You can't help but be suspicious," Markus said. "It's the government's burden to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. When it 'loses' evidence, defense lawyers are right to cry foul." http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...&show_article=1

So naturally, Bush supporters are thinking I'm going to pin the blame all on Bush and those who enabled him, right?

Guess again.

According to today's WaPost:

quote:

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002 In Meetings, Spy Panels' Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01 In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk. Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7120801664.html

That's right, kids - top Democratic leaders were complicit as hell with these tactics back then, such as Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman. Now since this story has broke and the Democratic leadership bullshit exposed, they've all come out either expressing denial or have attempted to demonstrate their efforts to supposedly stop the process. Needless to say, their attempts were, shall we say, lame as fuck?

For more on the complicit behaviors and failures of these Democratic leaders, I highly encourage you to read Greenwald's post here:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gr.../view/?show=all

More can be read here as well:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...ence/index.html

Unbelievable, and sad. Fingers are being pointed, but it's becoming obvious just how fucking hypocritical it is to see those Democrats point the fingers. To me it's a sign of the absolute necessity to clean house first before criticizing how dirty someone else's house is. Rockefeller is fucking inept as hell and should have NEVER been given the chair position of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Harman is just as bad. And Pelosi, well, it was nice and all, but as one blogger mentioned, she seemed like a wonderful housewife who was in a little over her head. She's not a bad Speaker, to be certain, but this type of complicit behavior should make her step down.

Impeach the entire government.

Let's start this whole mess over and try to get it right this time.

^And how would that be an easy thing to do or that we wouldn't end up the same way as now?
I say disband the nation and each state allow for them to be their own nation!!

quote:

Originally posted by ams.rld I say disband the nation and each state allow for them to be their own nation!!

lol, have you ever been to the US?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov lol, have you ever been to the US?

Of course, I have been to Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angelous, Las Vegas, Yellowstone, Minneapolis, D.C., miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Philidelphia, New York City, Bostan, Charlotte, a lot of places there.

quote:

Originally posted by ams.rld Of course, I have been to Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angelous, Las Vegas, Yellowstone, Minneapolis, D.C., miami, Atlanta, New Orleans, Philidelphia, New York City, Bostan, Charlotte, a lot of places there.

And they were all more or less the same, yes? The fifty states would never stand alone as individual nations (except for maybe Texas) - even if just for the sheer reason that creating border checkpoints would be a real pain.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And they were all more or less the same, yes? The fifty states would never stand alone as individual nations (except for maybe Texas) - even if just for the sheer reason that creating border checkpoints would be a real pain.

They were pretty much boring places with no ideal eating places and the food too was pretty bad.
I think you are forgetting that not only can Texas be an independant nation but so can California, Alaska, and perhaps Florida. I think if the states were to disband and form seperate nations there wouold be like fix or six nations created. And it would be good for the world.

quote:

Originally posted by ams.rld They were pretty much boring places with no ideal eating places and the food too was pretty bad.

you've been to NYC, Chicago, SanFran, Vegas, Miami, Philly... and you were bored and didn't like the food? you're either a spoiled child or an idiot, take your pick.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you've been to NYC, Chicago, SanFran, Vegas, Miami, Philly... and you were bored and didn't like the food? you're either a spoiled child or an idiot, take your pick.

well i do come from a wealthy family

But really do you think that was good food there? God knows what they put in their meats but think of how unhealthy it all is for you? You ever wonder why so many young adults in the states suffer from achne? Because of the food!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And they were all more or less the same, yes? The fifty states would never stand alone as individual nations (except for maybe Texas) - even if just for the sheer reason that creating border checkpoints would be a real pain.

Dont forget about Hawaii ... they've been longing for independence ever since Americans have overthrown Hawaiian monarchy and took over the islands in late 1890s, the natives over there still demand it. American imperialism goes a long way back

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Dont forget about Hawaii ... they've been longing for independence ever since Americans have overthrown Hawaiian monarchy and took over the islands in late 1890s, the natives over there still demand it. American imperialism goes a long way back

what native Hawaiians (there are only around 100,000 nationaly) don't comprehend is that it was either gonna be us or the French. you ever been to Haiti? yeah, don't.

they also voted overwhelmingly to become a state, so...

but thats another thread.

this is f**king gold.

Ain�t that tough enough? Well cue the Fabulous Thunderbirds. Everybody with any sense was a tough guy on terror back in 2002. Now, not so much. Everyone�s tough on Bush but fewer are they who remain tough on the terrorists in anything more than lip service.
Notice what else Pelosi knew about : The CIA�s so-called black sites where terrorists were being held overseas. And she did not object.
Has the actual threat of large-scale terrorism receded enough so that we can all go back to a 9-10 slumber and wash our collective hands of the tactics that we approved of in the clarifying months to years immediately after 9-11? I don�t think so, though the threat has been blunted by, you guessed it, tough action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The degree to which we all feel safer now is the degree to which we argue about everything under the sun, including things that former tuff guys were once fine with, or at least lodged no formal objection to. Only one Congressperson is known to have objected to waterboarding when it would have made any difference, which is when the practice was actually used against three high value al Qaeda targets. 2002 and 2003 were the years to make a strong stand on this, not years later when it�s politically useful and convenient. And those who have made careers out of decrying waterboarding really ought to craft some new spin now, because pinning it all on Bush will no longer fly. The CIA that is under President Bush�s responsibility did its due diligence and notified Congress members in both parties of what it was doing. And with one exception, they didn�t object.

This story exposes the fact that the Democrats have been playing games on waterboarding for years now, publicly decrying it while privately raising no useful objection to it. So I�m in agreement with Captain Ed and InstaPundit among others on this. And I�ll add that we�re seeing one more incident in which the Democrats simply cannot be trusted to live up to their public statements even on so vital an issue as the tactics and techniques that will occasionally be necessary to fight and win the long war on terrorism. During the 1990s they all warned us about the dangers of Saddam Hussein, only to turn their backs on the actual war to remove him, and during 2002 and 2003 they knew about the CIA�s aggressive interrogation of high value al Qaeda terrorists, only to politicize that in the years since.

If you think the Democrats are dishonest and unreliable on matters of war and peace (and a whole lot else), then they are exactly who you think they are.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this is f**king gold. Ain�t that tough enough? Well cue the Fabulous Thunderbirds. Everybody with any sense was a tough guy on terror back in 2002. Now, not so much. Everyone�s tough on Bush but fewer are they who remain tough on the terrorists in anything more than lip service. Notice what else Pelosi knew about : The CIA�s so-called black sites where terrorists were being held overseas. And she did not object. Has the actual threat of large-scale terrorism receded enough so that we can all go back to a 9-10 slumber and wash our collective hands of the tactics that we approved of in the clarifying months to years immediately after 9-11? I don�t think so, though the threat has been blunted by, you guessed it, tough action in Afghanistan and Iraq. The degree to which we all feel safer now is the degree to which we argue about everything under the sun, including things that former tuff guys were once fine with, or at least lodged no formal objection to. Only one Congressperson is known to have objected to waterboarding when it would have made any difference, which is when the practice was actually used against three high value al Qaeda targets. 2002 and 2003 were the years to make a strong stand on this, not years later when it�s politically useful and convenient. And those who have made careers out of decrying waterboarding really ought to craft some new spin now, because pinning it all on Bush will no longer fly. The CIA that is under President Bush�s responsibility did its due diligence and notified Congress members in both parties of what it was doing. And with one exception, they didn�t object. This story exposes the fact that the Democrats have been playing games on waterboarding for years now, publicly decrying it while privately raising no useful objection to it. So I�m in agreement with Captain Ed and InstaPundit among others on this. And I�ll add that we�re seeing one more incident in which the Democrats simply cannot be trusted to live up to their public statements even on so vital an issue as the tactics and techniques that will occasionally be necessary to fight and win the long war on terrorism. During the 1990s they all warned us about the dangers of Saddam Hussein, only to turn their backs on the actual war to remove him, and during 2002 and 2003 they knew about the CIA�s aggressive interrogation of high value al Qaeda terrorists, only to politicize that in the years since. If you think the Democrats are dishonest and unreliable on matters of war and peace (and a whole lot else), then they are exactly who you think they are.

I don't think it's quite fair to say that the Democrats did nothing whatsoever. For example, in February 2003, upon learning of waterboarding Jane Harman filed "an official protest about the interrogation program":

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...0801664_pf.html

In fact, she's demanding that Michael Hayden declassify her letter of protest:

quote:

This matter must be promptly and fully investigated and I call for my letter of February 2003, which was never responded to and has been in the CIA�s files ever since, to be declassified. http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=981

Was that the person the blogger above was referencing about the protest?

From what I gather it seems to me that Dick Durbin's hands might be clean as he's calling for an investigation:

http://durbin.senate.gov/showReleas...eleaseId=288549

I can't say the same thing for Silvestre Reyes, however, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee:

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001879

As for Rockefeller and Pelosi, there's just no fucking excuse for them, and poor little Jay is starting to trip over his own bullshit timeline of events. And while it is to Harman's credit that she did protest, the bottom line is she had numerous avenues to do more than write a fucking Sternly Worded Letter and wipe her hands clean. More on that here:

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2...nsequences.html

And it seems that the speculation across the librul blogs might be correct about Pelosi taking impeachment off the table - the bitch knew and sat on her hands.

quote:

Originally posted by ams.rld They were pretty much boring places with no ideal eating places and the food too was pretty bad. I think you are forgetting that not only can Texas be an independant nation but so can California, Alaska, and perhaps Florida. I think if the states were to disband and form seperate nations there wouold be like fix or six nations created. And it would be good for the world.

Wow, you obviously didn't make the most of your visits. You went to Chicago and weren't impressed with the food? You certainly didn't order steak.

And as to states being independent, nobody thinks of themselves as anything but American first (again, except for maybe in Texas). The difference between an Iowan and an Ohioan is negligible - as is the difference between a Floridian and a Californian. They all play baseball and watch Grey's Anatomy. The cultural differences between states and even regions in the US are minuscule in comparison to what they were just thirty years ago.

Back to the CIA Tapes, There is no doubt that there is a cover up, this is typical Washington Bullshit. The thing is, is that of course their were taped Interogation Technics and I am pretty sure they were brutal as hell, but here is the issue. We all more or less knew they existed, we all knew to we will never see them so what are we worried about, Yes evidence has been destroyed, but I dont think its all destroyed. They need to make a case somehow. Bush and Cheney will go down in History as the worst in History, They need to be in the Hague on War Crimes trials. Bush and Cheney have distorted the truth so much that we might not ever know what to take a real information anymore. I have stopped believing in all medias, FAUX, CNN, BBC, its all distorted. Only what the Evil Illuminati want you to believe!

quote:

Originally posted by Chryz707 Back to the CIA Tapes, There is no doubt that there is a cover up, this is typical Washington Bullshit. The thing is, is that of course their were taped Interogation Technics and I am pretty sure they were brutal as hell, but here is the issue. We all more or less knew they existed, we all knew to we will never see them so what are we worried about, Yes evidence has been destroyed, but I dont think its all destroyed. They need to make a case somehow. Bush and Cheney will go down in History as the worst in History, They need to be in the Hague on War Crimes trials. Bush and Cheney have distorted the truth so much that we might not ever know what to take a real information anymore. I have stopped believing in all medias, FAUX, CNN, BBC, its all distorted. Only what the Evil Illuminati want you to believe!

I agree, and you make a very good point.

All of us are, or should be, at the point where we no longer can have any trust or faith in the goverment. It's really a shame.

Lets face it Bin Laden is a CIA media tool, the new tapes arent real, they are distortions. As far as I am concerned Bin Laden has been marginalized. He doesnt matter anymore. if we want to succeed in the war on terror, it will be won thru educating people, not dropping bombs on them. We fuel Muslim Rage every time we drop a bomb on them, everytime we hear about Gitmo, it fans the flames. Everytime we hear about Torture, it makes me sick that we are to be americans and we do this to them. We are supposed to be better than them by not torturing and not killing.

quote:

Originally posted by Chryz707 Everytime we hear about Torture, it makes me sick that we are to be americans and we do this to them. We are supposed to be better than them by not torturing and not killing.

This is so true - using torture makes it impossible to claim any sort of moral high ground - even against an "enemy" that specifically targets civilians. If the US is to reassert any sort of international legitimacy, it is imperative that we get our own house in order first, and start doing as we say. Senator Paul Wellstone said that one should "Never separate the life you lead from the words you speak." Anything else is just hypocritical.

quote:

Coming in From the Cold: CIA Spy Calls Waterboarding Necessary But Torture Former Agent Says the Enhanced Technique Was Used on Al Qaeda Chief Abu Zubaydah A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary. CIA Agent Speaks Out, Part 1 -- Watch the Full InterviewIn the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds. (Editor's Note for Video to the Left: Material from this video transcript may not be used without crediting ABC News in each instance of use. In all cases, use must be limited to one minute or less without the explicit permission of ABC News.) "The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News' "World News With Charles Gibson" and "Nightline." "From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks." Former CIA Agent Speaks OutKiriakou said the feeling in the months after the 9/11 attacks was that interrogators did not have the time to delve into the agency's bag of other interrogation tricks. "Those tricks of the trade require a great deal of time -- much of the time -- and we didn't have that luxury. We were afraid that there was another major attack coming," he said. Kiriakou says he did not know that the interrogation of Zubaydah was being secretly recorded by the CIA and had no idea the tapes had been destroyed. Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it. "Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it." But he says the urgency in the wake of 9/ll led to a desire to do everything possible to get actionable intelligence. That began with Abu Zubaydah's capture following a series of raids in which Kiriakou co-led a team of CIA officers, FBI agents, a Port Authority police officer named Tom McHale and Pakistani police, including a SWAT team. And, in the case of Abu Zubayda, it ended with waterboarding. "What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack," Kiriakou said. "I would have trouble forgiving myself." The former intelligence officer says the interrogators' activities were carefully directed from Langley, Va., each step of the way. "It wasn't up to individual interrogators to decide, 'Well, I'm gonna slap him.' Or, 'I'm going to shake him.' Or, 'I'm gonna make him stay up for 48 hours.' "Each one of these steps, even though they're minor steps, like the intention shake, or the open-handed belly slap, each one of these had to have the approval of the deputy director for operations," Kiriakou told ABC News. "The cable traffic back and forth was extremely specific," he said. "And the bottom line was these were very unusual authorities that the agency got after 9/11. No one wanted to mess them up. No one wanted to get in trouble by going overboard. So it was extremely deliberate." And it was always a last resort. "That's why so few people were waterboarded. I think the agency has said that two people were waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah being one, and it's because you really wanted it to be a last resort because we didn't want these false confessions. We didn't want wild goose chases," Kiriakou said. And they were faced with men like Abu Zubaydah, Kiriakou says, who held critical and timely intelligence. "A former colleague of mine asked him during the conversation one day, 'What would you do if we decided to let you go one day?' And he said, 'I would kill every American and Jew I could get my hands on...It's nothing personal. You're a nice guy. But this is who I am.'" In that context, at that time, Kiriakou says he felt waterboarding was something the United States needed to do. "At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do. And as time has passed, and as September 11th has, you know, has moved farther and farther back into history, I think I've changed my mind," he told ABC News. Part of his decision appears to be an ethical one; another part, perhaps, simply pragmatic. "I think we're chasing them all over the world. I think we've had a great deal of success chasing them...and, as a result, waterboarding, at least right now, is unnecessary," Kirikou said. Brian Ross: "Did it compromise American principles? Or did it save American lives? Or both?" John Kiriakou: "I think both. It may have compromised our principles at least in the short term. And I think it's good that we're having a national debate about this. We should be debating this, and Congress should be talking about it because, I think, as a country, we have to decide if this is something that we want to do as a matter of policy. I'm not saying now that we should, but, at the very least, we should be talking about it. It shouldn't be secret. It should be out there as part of the national debate." A CIA spokesperson declined to specifically address Kiriakou's comments. In a statement, the CIA reiterated its long standing position that "the United States does not conduct or condone torture. The CIA's terrorist interrogation effort has always been small, carefully run, lawful and highly productive." (Editor's Note on Interview Transcripts: Material from this transcript may not be used without crediting ABC News in each instance of use. In all cases, use must be limited to 250 words or less without the explicit permission of ABC News.) >link< >John Kiriakou interview part 1<

i'm just not going to buy the "moral high ground" argument when faced with such "pillars of morality" that are being dealt with. this asshole in particular.



this morally upstanding gentleman with a rap sheet longer than my arm was tried, convicted and SENTENCED TO DEATH in abstentia in Jordan 1999. he eluded capture until 2002 when he was picked up in a Pakistani safehouse.

this ass-munch was not only prepared to kill at random anybody that would get in his way, Arab, Muslim, Jew, Yank, whatever, he would probably have no problem dying in a firestorm of Semtex and propane canisters just to get his point across. forgive me if i don't lose sleep at night worrying about some water being put up his nose.

this useful idiot has served his purpose in life. time to give him to the Jordanians

Re: CIA destroyed interrogation tapes - who's to blame?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Bush. Republican leaders. And the Democratic leadership. Interesting, ain't it?

What's interesting is how dellusional a lot of people are in the face of this reality; a completey compromised and dysfunctional system.

http://www.236.com/news/2007/12/07/..._cia_1_2816.php

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Wow, you obviously didn't make the most of your visits. You went to Chicago and weren't impressed with the food? You certainly didn't order steak.

Sorry, still on that tangent, I'm a little stunned - New York, for food? Seriously? At all price points, New York has excellent food. Of course, being the size that it is, there's tons of shitty food, which is why it's essential to do your research. Is a Zagat really that pricey to find good food when on vacation? Or using Citysearch reviews?

Agreed this waste of life should be killed, but if they were going to kill him, dont make a big deal over it, who gives a shit, he's a terrorist, just kill him out in the desert where no one cares and forget him, the end, but no everyone has to make a federal case. if we didnt make any records and just killed him there wouldnt be anything to have a scandal over. Fuck it feed him to some pigs on a Farm in Canada. Let him goto Allah via the pig.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'm just not going to buy the "moral high ground" argument when faced with such "pillars of morality" that are being dealt with. this asshole in particular. this morally upstanding gentleman with a rap sheet longer than my arm was tried, convicted and SENTENCED TO DEATH in abstentia in Jordan 1999. he eluded capture until 2002 when he was picked up in a Pakistani safehouse. this ass-munch was not only prepared to kill at random anybody that would get in his way, Arab, Muslim, Jew, Yank, whatever, he would probably have no problem dying in a firestorm of Semtex and propane canisters just to get his point across. forgive me if i don't lose sleep at night worrying about some water being put up his nose. this useful idiot has served his purpose in life. time to give him to the Jordanians

quote:

Originally posted by Chryz707 Agreed this waste of life should be killed, but if they were going to kill him, dont make a big deal over it, who gives a shit, he's a terrorist, just kill him out in the desert where no one cares and forget him, the end, but no everyone has to make a federal case. if we didnt make any records and just killed him there wouldnt be anything to have a scandal over. Fuck it feed him to some pigs on a Farm in Canada. Let him goto Allah via the pig.

i don't want to kill him. i want to put water up his nose and scare him a bit.

i'll warehouse him like a common criminal and pay $150,000 a year to a Supermax to do it, but i don't want him dead.

the Jordanians want him dead.

hell, he likely would rather be dead if given the choice but f**k if i'm not gonna squeeze him for all he's worth first.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.