What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
90 Comments
- njection, on 12/09/2007, -4/+39Is anyone ACTUALLY surprised anymore? We all know what we need to do.
- inactive, on 12/09/2007, -3/+26its not the initial crimes that get you in trouble, its the cover-up.
- Groovemaster, on 12/09/2007, -2/+24I don't buy this story.
Everyone knows the CIA is above the law. - moxley, on 12/09/2007, -3/+21*****..
***** damage control attempt.
No, that is not the reason they were destroyed.
They were destroyed because of the information that came out during the interrigations showed that Saudi Arabia (the Royal family in particular) Pakistan's ISI (a CIA proxy) were the button men of 9/11. Our two "biggest allies" in the bogus 'war on terror' actually were involved in comitting the act. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-ci ...
And who has very close ties to the Saudi Royal family (house of Saud) and the CIA? The house of Bush.
They had to destroy the tapes, because they are the missing link in 9/11 - they disprove (not that they were needed for this since anyone with half a brain who has looked into it can see that the "official" conspiracy theory is *****) the official story and implicate our "allies" (who really are not allies of the American people, but are partners in crime with the neocon cabal.
Now we likely know how this was done and who was involved, and how so many of these neocons knew in advance and got warnings to people in the US and a few in the buildings. We know now why alphabet agencies stopped investigations prior to the event, why hijackers living across the street from CIA headquarters, etc. We know why Bush demanded congress not investigate 9/11 really at all. This could have broken 9/11 wide open; and I suppose it's another piece of the puzzle. - inactive, on 12/09/2007, -4/+20Doesn't that show the contempt for rule of law by the United States Government?
I love how US Gov destroyed the Air Traffic Controllers' tapes too. Can you say cover up? - dinostabOMG, on 12/09/2007, -2/+16They should get in trouble for the initial crimes as well.
- inactive, on 12/09/2007, -3/+16Why not, they were stupid enough to commit the atrocities in the first place.
- bitcloud, on 12/09/2007, -2/+12Jesus christ... it sounds like you'd like to give Clinton a blowjob yourself...
We're talking about the CIA here.. try to keep up. - skews13, on 12/09/2007, -4/+12the administration,is worried about protecting the identity of cia operatives?
yeah.i'm sure valerie plame will be glad to hear that. - YoMahDiggas, on 12/09/2007, -1/+7Left out of these stories is what the torturees might have said - especially if it condradicted the official "the Oswalds-flew-the-planes" story and implicated a political ally (Bush family, Saudis, Mossad), or was just such gibberish that it would have pointed out that confessions obtained under torture are worthless.
The other point is how this may be a limited hangout to distract from Bush's lies about Iran. The CIA was the convenient scapegoat (as if a few disparaging newspaper articles hurts the CIA) when that happened with Bush's lies about Iraq.
The only real and appropriate consequence for all of this is *impeachment*. Anything else is just collusion and coverup. - voyvf, on 12/09/2007, -2/+8What the hell does Clinton's sex life have to do with this? Talk about reaching. And, for the record, the illegal act wasn't getting head. It was perjury.
- rhodydog, on 12/09/2007, -0/+6BannedTwice, I know your type, you hate American and want it to fail.
- senatebuddy, on 12/09/2007, -2/+7Oh well. The CIA has always been the servant of the government and politicians, it's not like it's against the law to destroy evidence, right?
- omegaant, on 12/09/2007, -2/+7War? what war? Who declared war? Where was Congress? Were we all asleep? Wow - war, huh? Looks to me like all we did was destroy an entire infrastructure (taxpayers' expense) and pay KBR, Halliburton to repair it (taxpayers' expense), oh, and hang their ruler after three or four of his attorneys were quietly killed... So, I guess that means it's okay if some other country who disagrees with Bush (or wants some resource we have) shocks and awes us?? Great! Who's a socialist/fascist/totalitarian? Bush!
- dinostabOMG, on 12/09/2007, -3/+8I don't think stupid is the right word, but yeah. Heads should roll for this.
- inactive, on 12/09/2007, -3/+7what if, maybe, could have....didn't.
- krnldmp, on 12/09/2007, -3/+7Hey buddy. The CIA is ratting out the CIA and you still wanna focus on the fake war it created? I think you'd be better off making sure congress busts out of theater and into prosecution mode.
- bitcloud, on 12/09/2007, -2/+6Can you ***** read? I know you 23 percenters struggle with complicated things like actually ***** reading before you respond, but at least *try* to keep up...
You could probably figure out why you're being dugg down by simply *reading the ***** description* but we'll probably all be better off if l just politely inform you that this came from CBS. - PalIkas, on 12/09/2007, -2/+6CIA is the scum of the earth and do more harm then good....!
They are no different then the KGB was...!!!! - phantomex, on 12/09/2007, -1/+5Was it a crime against the Constitution? or Was it a crime against Hillary? ;) lol
- cheesehead, on 12/09/2007, -2/+5I agree. I think it was what was revealed in those tapes that's got everyone ***** scared.
http://cliffschecter.bravenewfilms.org/blog/20922- ... - jlhoben, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4CIA is not above the rule of law. There are good people in the CIA, congress needs to make sure intelligence agencies are within their prerogative.
- Jamihabs, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Was Valerie Plame was one of the interrogators?
- inactive, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4Do we win the war after we wasted 2.4 trillion dollars?
How are we going to win a war based on a lie? - Digg4This, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4There is no good other explanation. its just that simple. we are time and again shown lies right to our faces, nothing happens...
-actually i think these events are much more dangerous than just a handful of people getting thrown in jail for their crimes. the real danger is that when this happens and nothing is done in response to these crimes the dumb masses of people think that it must never have been in a crime in the first place because they didnt go to jail, or bush didnt resign. its terrible logic but i have talked with dozens of people with this circular thinking.... actually i am curious to here people's opinions on this... - amoirae, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2He plans on being BannedThrice.
- inactive, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4and?
- Akyan, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4Wow, what a shock, who would have guess that was the reason.
- worldtechguy, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Frankly I'm glad they destroyed the tapes. They probably shouldn't have been made in the first place. Sure as hell, once the Socialists get into office (that means Democrats) they would air the tapes causing numerous Americans to be in harms way worldwide. And no, waterboarding is NOT torture.
- crazywarthog, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Shhhhhhhh ...
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. - moxley, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4Exactly. They only admit something like this when there is something far more damaging to cover up.
- crazywarthog, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Dear dumb schmucks. The CIA tapes interrogations for their internal use. Why ? Because they want to insure they didn't miss anything during the interrogation and to determine what worked and didn't work. Once the tapes are no longer needed they are destroyed per normal internal operating procedure.
The left is just playing political football with half truths and lies. - moxley, on 12/09/2007, -0/+2
Posted from here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-ci ...
The CIA's Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 9/11 Connection Posted December 7, 2007 | 03:25 PM (EST) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Read More: 9/11, Abu Zubaydah, Cia, CIA Interrogations, CIA Tapes Destroyed, CIA Torture, Missing CIA Torture Tapes, Pakistan, Pakistan 9/11, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia 9/11, Why America Slept: The Failure To Prevent 9/11, Breaking Politics News On December 5, the CIA's director, General Michael V. Hayden, issued a statement disclosing that in 2005 at least two videotapes of interrogations with al Qaeda prisoners were destroyed. The tapes, which the CIA did not provide to either the 9/11 Commission, nor to a federal court in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, were destroyed, claimed Hayden, to protect the safety of undercover operatives. Email Print Comment Hayden did not disclose one of the al Qaeda suspects whose tapes were destroyed. But he did identify the other. It was Abu Zubaydah, the top ranking terror suspect when he was tracked and captured in Pakistan in 2003. In September 2006, at a press conference in which he defended American interrogation techniques, President Bush also mentioned Abu Zubaydah by name. Bush acknowledged that Zubaydah, who was wounded when captured, did not initially cooperate with his interrogators, but that eventually when he did talk, his information was, according to Bush, "quite important." In my 2003 New York Times bestseller, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, I discussed Abu Zubaydah at length in Chapter 19, "The Interrogation." There I set forth how Zubaydah initially refused to help his American captors. Also, disclosed was how U.S. intelligence established a so-called "fake flag" operation, in which the wounded Zubaydah was transferred to Afghanistan under the ruse that he had actually been turned over to the Saudis. The Saudis had him on a wanted list, and the Americans believed that Zubaydah, fearful of torture and death at the hands of the Saudis, would start talking when confronted by U.S. agents playing the role of Saudi intelligence officers. Instead, when confronted by his "Saudi" interrogators, Zubaydah showed no fear. Instead, according to the two U.S. intelligence sources that provided me the details, he seemed relieved. The man who had been reluctant to even confirm his identity to his U.S. captors, suddenly talked animatedly. He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would kill him. He then asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the Saudi royal family. And Zubaydah provided a private home number and a cell phone number from memory. "He will tell you what to do," Zubaydah assured them That man was Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, one of King Fahd's nephews, and the chairman of the largest Saudi publishing empire. Later, American investigators would determine that Prince Ahmed had been in the U.S. on 9/11. American interrogators used painkillers to induce Zubaydah to talk -- they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet. They also utilized a thiopental sodium drip (a so-called truth serum). Several hours after he first fingered Prince Ahmed, his captors challenged the information, and said that since he had disparaged the Saudi royal family, he would be executed. It was at that point that some of the secrets of 9/11 came pouring out. In a short monologue, that one investigator told me was the "Rosetta Stone" of 9/11, Zubaydah laid out details of how he and the al Qaeda hierarchy had been supported at high levels inside the Saudi and Pakistan governments. He named two other Saudi princes, and also the chief of Pakistan's air force, as his major contacts. Moreover, he stunned his interrogators, by charging that two of the men, the King's nephew, and the Pakistani Air Force chief, knew a major terror operation was planned for America on 9/11. It would be nice to further investigate the men named by Zubaydah, but that is not possible. All four identified by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes, the King's 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe, after having liposuction in Riyadh's top hospital; the second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one car accident, on his way to the funeral of Prince Ahmed; and one week later, the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, "of thirst." The head of Pakistan's Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, was the last to go. He died, together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides, when his plane blew up -- suspected as sabotage -- in February 2003. Pakistan's investigation of the explosion -- if one was even done -- has never been made public. Zubaydah is the only top al Queda operative who has secretly linked two of America's closest allies in the war on terror -- Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- to the 9/11 attacks. Why does Bush, and the CIA, continue to protect the Saudi Royal family and the Pakistani military, from the implications of Zubaydah's confessions? It is, or course, because the Bush administration desperately needs Pakistani and Saudi help, not only to keep Afghanistan from spinning completely out of control, but also as counterweights to the growing power of Iran. The Sunni governments in Riyadh and Islamabad have as much to fear from a resurgent Iran as does the Bush administration. But does this mean that leads about the origins of 9/11 should not be aggressively pursued? Of course not. But this is precisely what the Bush administration is doing. And now the cover-up is enhanced by the CIA's destruction of Zubaydah's interrogation tapes. The American public deserves no less than the complete truth about 9/11. And those CIA officials now complicit in hiding the truth by destroying key evidence should be held responsible. - inactive, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3Congress is funding the war, which implies consent.
It's not just Bush, but whoever is funding the war that is to blame. - dcbebop, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3Perhaps the solution is to make the crime of coverup worse than the actual crime committed, as a deterrent.
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2They were destroyed to cover up what the prisoners said ... like the CIA cares about torturing people and covering it up?
It's well known they torture and no one really cares, the tapes were covered up for what was said. Bet $100,000 on that.
lol - aman78, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2I continuously amaze myself at my ability to still be surprised by all this. For anyone who has read about ISI (Pakistani Secret Service), they are in bed with Al-Qaeda likes and have always been. So it is not surprising that they knew about it. I can definitely believe that. What surprises me is the fact that none of the people higher up seem to have any backbone to speak of. Absolutely shameful.
- Orwig, on 12/11/2007, -0/+1So the facts are all there. We all know that the CIA is a covert group of criminals set out to destroy the American way of life. Now, what are you all going to do about it?
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Buried for being stupid enough to suggest another GOP ***** as a solution to GOP *****.
- inactive, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Torture is a crime. That's not political, it's legal. The fact that it's been going on for years only means it is time to start prosecuting people and putting them into prison.
- appleann1, on 12/11/2007, -1/+2Yes, it is glaring hypocrisy. You libs were so worried over Plame (non covert desk jockey), yet don't give a rat's behind for the safety of REAL covert agents.
- eth3l, on 12/09/2007, -5/+6Buried for inaccurate title. Shoudl read: Rumor is that tapes were destroyed to avoid prosecution. the stiory cited is from Think Progress ... cant be anythign more than a rumor.
- moxley, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2Not that a sheeple like you Carhino deserves a response, but I will bite anyways:
I don't think I know everything, or even that everything I think I know is definitely correct - but I do know what DIDN'T happen, and I do know ***** media play when I see it.
I do trust people like Greg Palast and Posner more than US corporate media shills. - bitcloud, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2I can't even bring myself to dignify that utterly moronic, inane and infantile comment with a response.
- phantomex, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3So what do we all expect Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey will do? Will he be unbiased? Will all involved be exonerated? Any guesses as to what will be the outcome? So many questions, so few answers. :|
- astitious, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-ci ...
- mabhatter, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1actually, the CIA is above the rule of law.. that's why their investigations must remain secret.. because many of their investigations on US Soil are illegal.. for ANYBODY, so their agents should go to jail under the rule of LAW. Much of the "chinese wall" of information is because the CIA and NSA are allowed to use illegal tactics to get the really bad guys. But those tactics are not admissible in court under the Constitution. Politicians want to employ their tactics out of expediency, but that is foolish... the letter agencies (CIA, NSA, etc, ) are forbidden from law enforcement work for a reason.
- moxley, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2The only people they are more in bed with than Al Qaeda is the CIA. Where do you think Al Qaeda came from?
Al QaEea = "The Base." Interestingly the CIA started a database of islamic radicals in the late 70s and 80s. Quite Orwellian - uptown, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1...not this season.
- inactive, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3Pelosi will not impeach Bush no matter what. See the law and the constitution only matter when it's politically convenient, and Democratic strategists feel it's more important to leave Bush alone, use him as a whipping boy in the election, and grab his new unconstitutional power for themselves. Corruption beyond repair. They're destroying our country. Ron Paul everybody ... Ron Paul.
-
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is