digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at hosted.ap.org —

Gitmo interrogators told to trash notes

hosted.ap.org — SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- A military defense lawyer says the Pentagon urged interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to destroy handwritten notes in case they were called to testify about potentially harsh treatment of detainees.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • alapoet, on 06/09/2008, -8/+33So much for transparency, indeed.

    Covering their tracks, and covering their asses (and, of course, those of their "superior" officers)...

    It's really a huge problem. And culpability reaches right to the top, in the White House.
  • chemrat, on 06/09/2008, -8/+27How much evidence has now been destroyed? the notes, the interrogation tapes,... not exactly the actions of people with nothing to hide.
  • Macrophage, on 06/09/2008, -9/+21As Commander in Chief..the "Buck Stops right in the oval office.

    He should receive the same treatment Sadam did IMHO

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/4/145255/2358 ...

    .....GOP=WAR....WAR=DRAFT.....GOP=DRAFT

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/4/145255/2358 ...

    Peace
    John....Grassroots..OBAMA...08 and 2012
    • Waiting2awake, on 06/09/2008, -1/+4Problem

      Reaction

      Solution


      Take care for what you wish for - you just might get it.

      I hope Obama is better than I think, but can you explain his sudden flip flop in front of AIPAC? Why doesn't that worry you?
      • Wartyboskfapped, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2If he didn't make happy noises at AIPAC, he wouldn't get elected. Period.

        He may be paying lip service to them to get into the WH and enact changes /hopeful

        Either way, the bottom line is this: All politicians lie. It is the nature of the job, it is virtually the *job description*.

        So basically you are choosing the least damaging of candidates when you vote.

        Now, I ask you, who is the least damaging candidate from the viable choices we have this time? I put it to you that it is Obama.
        • MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3"So basically you are choosing the least damaging of candidates when you vote."

          You're still choosing a damaging candidate.

          "Now, I ask you, who is the least damaging candidate from the viable choices we have this time? I put it to you that it is Obama."

          Now I ask you why do you let the media decide for you which candidates are viable? I put to you that it's because you don't deserve freedom.
    • nycmac247, on 06/09/2008, -2/+5OMG you think that Obama will actually stop the war.
      Once the excuses start flowing will you ... will you think twice about much you believed in Obama without looking at who his foreign policy advisors are?
  • stienster, on 06/09/2008, -11/+12Macrophage: Wake up. Obama is another of the same casting. Didn't you hear him say, "I'll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Everything in my power. Everything." Does that sound anti-war, anti-draft, anti-GOP to you?
    • InfamousAtheist, on 06/09/2008, -2/+6He's a politician, guilty of adjusting his message to get votes.

      I don't believe he's going to pursue war with Iran under the current circumstances.

      I've been wrong before though.
      • MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -1/+4"I don't believe he's going to pursue war with Iran under the current circumstances."

        Based on what? His message, and his actions have both indicated otherwise.

    • johnhummel, on 06/09/2008, -1/+5Yeah - because "I will protect the country and prevent nations known to support terrorism from getting nuclear weapons" is the same thing as "cover up evidence of torture in violation of the US constitution."

      Glad you pointed that out for us. Oh, wait - you were serious? Holy ***** - then you've said the dumbest thing I've seen today! I thought that was sarcasm talking.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3What if covering up evidence of torture was one of the ways he plans to protect the country and prevent nations known to support terrorism from getting nuclear weapons?

        It's happened before, ya know.
        • malex, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2When?
        • PolishLogic, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2Pick a year, any year since the development of nuclear technology.
    • jgzman, on 06/09/2008, -2/+4Yea, are you aware that there are options besides war? Options that the Republican Administration refuses to even consider, least bit carry out?

      Try NEGOTIATION for a change. Let's talk to people. Find out why they are unhappy, and try to fix it. No, you can't make everyone happy, but reasonable people will always be able to find a compromise.
      • PolishLogic, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1Negotiation? Ahmadinejad has been constant on two things. He will gain nuclear technology and will not take no for an answer. Nor will he make any concessions in his pursuit of nuclear technology.


        So how exactly do we negotiate with somebody that says "I will do it my way and only my way"?
        • buckrogers1965, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2All 16 intelligence agencies of the USA disagree with you.

          The NIE report, which the white house delayed the release of for over a year, says that Iran is not seeking to build nukes. It further states that they had a small ineffective program until 2003 which was ended because it was a waste of money.

          Or are you better informed than the unanimous conclusions of the entire United States intelligence community?
        • PolishLogic, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Did I say nuclear weapons?

          I looked over my comment a couple of times, and it would appear that I did not. It seems to me (although this is just what's on my monitor) that I said nuclear technology. I can screen-cap it and send it to you, if you're seeing "nuclear weapons" in my comment somewhere.
        • arcticblue, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2So are you talking about nuclear energy? What's wrong with that?
        • PolishLogic, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Slippery slope for starters.

          I'm also apprehensive of a having nuclear reactors popping up in any country where construction standards (or lack there of) lead to a 6.0 earthquake leveling a city and kill off a quick 50,000 people.
      • armyabn1, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1Try Negotiation??

        Wow...how niave can a person be?

        You obviously have never been to the Middle East -- I don't think negotiation is in their vocabulary....
        • syowr, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4It's certainly not in the United States vocabulary...
  • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/09/2008, -10/+12Hand written notes of an interrogation would be considered classified material. There's no reason to keep them. This is not new.
    • InfamousAtheist, on 06/09/2008, -5/+10What country are you from?

      Just because material is classified, the government does not have a license to destroy it. One day someone could (& should) declassify that stuff so we can find out what's really going on (I think most of us already know).
      • MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -1/+2"What country are you from?"

        My guess is he's from the US, New York City specifically, somewhere around Madison Ave.
      • armyabn1, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3Umm yes....the government has the license to destroy whatever classified it wants - especially notes. If there are notes, there are reports. Once the reports are written, the notes are useless babble only coherent to the person that wrote them.

        The government doesn't have to keep everything. In fact, there are many laws in place that if the classified material collected is not being used for any legal purpose (ie - investigation) it has to be destroyed if it involves US persons. Try looking up Intelligence Oversight regulations.

        Contrary to popular opinion, government employees take these regs seriously - because our careers depend on keeping within the law. You can spout off any BS you want, but my guess is that you haven't served your country (in or out of uniform) a day of your life - so only "know" what other unknowledgeable people tell you.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3"Contrary to popular opinion, government employees take these regs seriously"

          Except for Sandy Burgler.
        • MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3And the Bush Whitehouse IT staff.
        • BohicaTwentyTwo, on 06/09/2008, -0/+3Destroying documentation != not destroying documentation.

          Worst comeback ever.
  • galvo, on 06/09/2008, -5/+4I have the notes. I'll give em to you for an early copy of the 3G iPhone.


    ..psyche.
  • RaDeus, on 06/09/2008, -8/+8Organizations that have a clean conscience dont usually destroy evidence...
    Something tells me that this is going to be big in the future...
    • armyabn1, on 06/09/2008, -2/+1Since when are notes "evidence?"

      Notes help the interrogator write an interrogation report - and not much else.
      • RaDeus, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1notes are very much "evidence", you can get alot from the notes that are not mentioned in the report...
  • mustafya, on 06/09/2008, -6/+4You do realize this is a duplicate of another story also on the front page? Buried.
  • samcrut, on 06/09/2008, -5/+6As much as I hate to say it, I think they need to offer immunity to some of the interrogators if they'll testify before congress against the administration ordering them to break the Geneva Conventions.
    • johnhummel, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7I'd go for that. I found it interesting that just a "few bad apples" from Abu Gharab got sentenced - when there was clear evidence of "oh, this is standard operating procedure, don't worry", mistraining, and "just get results" mentality that *lead* to that debacle.

      I have no trouble offering immunity to the big fish in exchange for getting the people who *told* them to destroy notes and cover their asses.
    • MadN, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2So, they were just "following orders"?
      You know who else was following orders....
  • SilverBlade2k, on 06/09/2008, -2/+5Maybe this should be a considered an automatic 'guilty' confession...
  • CrazedLeper, on 06/09/2008, -3/+3NO! I'm shocked! No, wait; I'm all out of shock.
  • juniorb, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3"NO! I'm shocked! No, wait; I'm all out of shock."

    With no awe to begin with, shock was all they had to go on. Now that that's all used up, maybe people will start demanding these traitors' heads. They stole our country to build their never-ending cash crop of a Terror/Security industry. Now let's use their secret prisons and enhanced interrogation techniques on them.
  • donkeydrop, on 06/09/2008, -3/+3Lame story. This is normal business practice in any company because if you ever get in a law suit some lawyer slime will jump on any inconsistency and claim you falsified the record (as if anyone's notes ever matched perfectly with the final meeting record).
    • buckrogers1965, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2In a democracy the government is accountable to the people.

      Only in a fascist state do government practices reflect business practices that are designed to obstruct justice.
  • chase001, on 06/09/2008, -2/+3What will it take to see these War Criminals tried for their crimes? I don't mean the privates and privateers for the President that were just following orders either. I mean the ones who actually give the orders.
  • PolishLogic, on 06/09/2008, -0/+6Well, just let them all go then.....
    • toefinder, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1That would be the first correct move, yes
      • PolishLogic, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1Then we can compensate them with say $1million a piece for their troubles. As well as immunity from any form of future prosecution.

        It's a small price to pay for the inconvenience we've dished out to the poor innocent people that have been detained, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
  • phoenixshard, on 06/09/2008, -0/+4"The case against Khadr, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15, is on track to be one of the first to trial. He faces war-crimes charges including murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces soldier during a 2002 firefight."

    Thats a part I like a lot. I don't normally think that bad of our govt on some things, but how do you charge someone with a war crime for throwing a grenade in a fire fight? How can you murder someone that you're at war with? That is pushing things a little bit too far IMO. I could understand POW status and hold them for that, but charging someone you're at war with (per our own President), how is that even possible when they are the enemy?
    • MWeather, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1Since Afghanistan was not recognized as a nation at the time of the invasion, any attempt by anyone there to defend themselves is by definition a war crime. At least that's the theory. Uniformed or not, no nation = no legal way to fight a war.
      • buckrogers1965, on 06/09/2008, -0/+2The Geneva convention recognizes spontaneous rising up of a civilian population against invaders. The irregular un-uniformed civilians that fight in that case are to be considered prisoners of war, if captured.

        And the Geneva convention limits what signatories to it can do, it applies to the United States as the law of the land according to the constitution. See Senate ratification of treaties.

        It doesn't matter if Afghanistan was a "country" or not, in other words.
        • MWeather, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1"The irregular un-uniformed civilians that fight in that case are to be considered prisoners of war, if captured."

          Nope. They only get covered by article 3 that protects them from execution, torture, and other cruel treatment, and against outrages upon their personal dignity. We can do what we like provided we follow those rules.

          Well we could, if it weren't for the U.S. Constitution.
    • arkaycee, on 06/09/2008, -0/+1Yeah, I've wondered about these cases too. If someone is invading my country, even if they say it's for righteous reasons, and they are shooting at me, I can't see as how I don't have the right to fight back.
      • MWeather, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1If you're a country, you are covered.
    • 140Suffolk, on 06/10/2008, -1/+1It's simple. Combatants must either wear a uniform, or if that's impossible, they must wear some kind of armband and carry their weapons openly. Otherwise it's a war crime.

      Also, they may not hide among civilians, shoot from civilian homes or institutions, etc.

      All of these things are universally done by the jihadists.

      Also, you girls may not know this. But the Taliban are not Afghanis. They were foreign invaders that took over.
  • Verchiel77, on 06/09/2008, -0/+7What's a little institutionalized obstruction of justice between friends?
  • Zintos, on 06/09/2008, -1/+3Who cares about the terrorists? Did they care about us or show us any mercy on 9/11? Nope. Of course any time someone will try to show people a different viewing point opposed there there far left agenda they just get silenced that is why this comment will be digged down. Shows what liberals really think of freedom of speech
    • Terr01, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1You mean, T.E.R.R.O.R.I.S.T., the sister organization to C.O.B.R.A. and ruled by Osama Bin Laden and his pint-sized clone, Mini-Mullah?

      Yes, of course, they inducted this Afghani 15-year-old into their Council Of Evil right after 9/11. He has been stationed in his village for just such a vicious counterstrike!

      Oh, and digging you down? It's because you're a moron. The same kind of ***** who leaps into a chat channel, spams crap, and whines about "free speech" when banned, because you don't understand that the first amendment is a restriction on government, not on private organizations or forums like Digg.
  • DalamarArgent, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1It takes some serious skill to make yourself look like the bad guys in the trial of TERRORISTS. Congrats US military, you guys are amazing.
  • Skooma714, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1If they have nothing to hide, why are they doing this?

    They always used that line on us.
    • 140Suffolk, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2It's a war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The people they are questioning would gladly push the button on you and all your family. The people you are questioning would gladly burn you alive and all your family.

      Why would you even begin to consider giving away ANY advantage we have?
      Everything they're asked is secret. Everything we've managed to learn is secret. And rightfully so.
  • dildoolielly, on 06/09/2008, -2/+2To deal w/ this piece of sh*t country..

    I have seriously given up on the notion that this country will ever be something that I can be proud of. Our government is run by a bunch of corrupt morons and it is supported by a bigger bunch of bigger morons who have no decent sense of right and wrong, but instead think "morality" is all about trying to legislate who people have intercourse with rather than about honesty or how people should treat one another.

    The only way to approach this country and all of the backwoods idiots in it is to use their own stupid policies against them to get richer and richer so that you have enough money that you never have to be in the same room as any of them and you don't have to send your kids to school with any of them, and when the time comes, you can move to Canada or Europe when things get even more crappy here.

    Bye bye hillbilly, bible-thumping freaks!! Enjoy your speudo-patriot-act-restricted-"freedom" in your illiterate, poverty stricken counties! Hope your 'prayer in schools' makes you feel better about how bad your lives suck!!! Hope you enjoy licking the bottoms of the Bush family's shoes while you wear your size extra-large Walmart outfits and eat hamburger helper for dinner for the rest of your pathetic lives!!!
    • Zintos, on 06/09/2008, -1/+1yeah and North Korea and Iran are the perfect role models. Jeeze your liberals have your views so twisted must suck to be one of you
  • rrouse, on 06/10/2008, -0/+1The Pentagon is a building and can't talk. Who at the Pentagon gave the order?
  • 140Suffolk, on 06/11/2008, -0/+2alapoet said "So much for transparency, indeed."

    What? Transparency? It's a ***** war! They want to kill you and your kids! Geez, if you girls had been in charge during WW II we'd all be speaking German! Interrogations are secret! The names of the interrogators are secret!
    What gets asked, what gets told is all secret. And rightfully so.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.