CIA Destroys/Hides Evidence Of Wrongdoing - Harman Warns against - Merged

[JohnDoe]

This might be it?

§ 37.09. TAMPERING WITH OR FABRICATING PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE. (a) A person commits an offense if, knowing that an
investigation or official proceeding is pending or in progress, he:
(1) alters, destroys, or conceals any record,
document, or thing with intent to impair its verity, legibility, or
availability as evidence in the investigation or official
proceeding; or

[Dilloduck]

This might be it?

hopefully the trial will get underway soon so we can find out if they did something wrong or not.

[Psychoblues]

I have an opinion on everything, dd. And I earned it rather than claim as my birthright to it.

try again psycho-----my motive ? To point out your biased view of everything.

You accused JD of including a lot of "ifs" in the post and I simply informed both you and the reading population here there were no "ifs" in the post at all.

You gotta do better than that if you want to do anything other than spew shit and spit piss.

[Dilloduck]

I have an opinion on everything, dd. And I earned it rather than claim as my birthright to it.




You accused JD of including a lot of "ifs" in the post and I simply informed both you and the reading population here there were no "ifs" in the post at all.

You gotta do better than that if you want to do anything other than spew shit and spit piss.

I was talking about JDs' post dumb ass. If your oninion is already formed before you have even heard the other side of the story then so be it---what else is new?

[Psychoblues]

I was as well. I wanted to post all those "ifs" that you were talking about that JD had posted but I couldn't find a single one.

I was talking about JDs' post dumb ass. If your oninion is already formed before you have even heard the other side of the story then so be it---what else is new?

Just for clarification purposes, I'll repeat the posts in question.

1. John Doe: Well, it did say something about wrong doing, but not necessarily the wrong doing of torture, but the wrong doing of not turning over the tapes when asked to by the court and by lying to the 911 investigative committee about the tapes and by not listening to the Congressmen that asked them NOT to destroy them....I believe that the law was broken in those circumstances, but we will see....

Which is wrong doing if they broke the law to coverup something or even if it wasn't to coverup something...it put themselves above the law or in a state of lawlessness by not turning over the tapes when legally asked to do such imo.

2. dd: Lots of "ifs" in there, JD. How IF about we wait til it's over before make conclusions ?

See what I mean, dd? Where are the "ifs"?

Actually, there was one "if" and I highlighted it for you. Do you still want to satand by your statement about all those "ifs"?

The only "if" was in JD's opinion and not in the article itself. You gotta be kidding?!?!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[Dilloduck]

I was as well. I wanted to post all those "ifs" that you were talking about that JD had posted but I couldn't find a single one.




Just for clarification purposes, I'll repeat the posts in question.

1. John Doe: Well, it did say something about wrong doing, but not necessarily the wrong doing of torture, but the wrong doing of not turning over the tapes when asked to by the court and by lying to the 911 investigative committee about the tapes and by not listening to the Congressmen that asked them NOT to destroy them....I believe that the law was broken in those circumstances, but we will see....

Which is wrong doing if they broke the law to coverup something or even if it wasn't to coverup something...it put themselves above the law or in a state of lawlessness by not turning over the tapes when legally asked to do such imo.

2. dd: Lots of "ifs" in there, JD. How IF about we wait til it's over before make conclusions ?

See what I mean, dd? Where are the "ifs"?

I already highlighted them for you in post # 105----get those glasses on dude

[Psychoblues]

I have my glasses on, dude, and I still can't see any justification for you to claim the entire post was covered up with the "ifs" as you imply.

I already highlighted them for you in post # 105----get those glasses on dude

I believe the United States Justice Department will sort all this out. IF they don't, I will lose even more confidence in their ability to be fair and just.

[Dilloduck]

I have my glasses on, dude, and I still can't see any justification for you to claim the entire post was covered up with the "ifs" as you imply.



I believe the United States Justice Department will sort all this out. IF they don't, I will lose even more confidence in their ability to be fair and just.

I hope they sort it all out too, psycho. The CIA is bound to get a fairer trial there than you have given them here.

[Psychoblues]

I am not their judge and I have offered no trial, ddumbass.

I hope they sort it all out too, psycho. The CIA is bound to get a fairer trial there than you have given them here.

I posted an article with which you take exception and you suddenly became the judge.

Like I said in an earlier post, typical.

[Psychoblues]

Rep. Jane Harman said Friday that she warned the CIA not to destroy videotapes of its interrogations of terror suspects, and defended herself from critics who said she should have done more prevent their destruction.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden disclosed Thursday night that congressional leaders, including Harman, had been informed of the agency’s plan to destroy those tapes several years ago.


Hayden was defending his agency from a New York Times report that the tapes had been destroyed in 2005.

In an interview Friday, Harman said that after the briefing in 2003, she sent a letter to the CIA warning the agency not to destroy the tapes.

“I told the CIA that destroying any tapes of interrogations was a bad idea,” Harman said. “I gave the best advice I could, and obviously my advice was not heeded.”



Read more: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/12262496.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what the hell else did she warn them about?

Here's some more that you might be interested in.

"The news that the tapes were destroyed was extremely disturbing to me and the CIA's description of notifying Congress is inconsistent with our records. As we learn more, it is only raising new questions and concerns," Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Friday.

"We do not know if there was intent to obstruct justice, an attempt to prevent congressional scrutiny, or whether they were simply destroyed out of concern they could be leaked — whatever the intent, we must get to the bottom of it. This is a very serious matter with very serious consequences," he added.

Rockefeller said the committee hasn't found records showing they were told about the existence of the tapes, or their plans to destroy them. He said he knew about about the tapes himself, but doesn't remember being told about plans to destroy them either.

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

[PostmodernProphet]

Rockefeller said the committee hasn't found records showing they were told about the existence of the tapes

well of course not.....those records were destroyed.....and the orders to destroy the records were destroyed.....and the minutes of the committee that ordered the records destroyed were destroyed......,,,,

....this thread will self destruct before you read it......

[PostmodernProphet]

oops....it malfunctioned.....you read it.....now we have to eliminate you......

[retiredman]

Ask the relatives of dead American POWS what they would rather have happened to their family member. Water boarding or death via torure. Ask Mc Cain and other surviving POWS to explain their torture in DETAIL to America.

I have, actually. Have you?

[Dilloduck]

I have, actually. Have you?

Well fill us in----how many of them were waterboarded ? Did their family prefer that they were dead ? What are the details of the type of torture that Amarican POWs suffered while being interrogated.

[Dilloduck]

How can it be more clear?


WASHINGTON - The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top terrorism suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.

Officials told NBC News' Robert Windrem that one of the videos included the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the leader in charge of al-Qaida's training camps.

The disclosure that tapes were destroyed brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group, which said the spy agency’s action amounted to criminal destruction of evidence.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312


Just how is all this destruction of factual documentation and evidence of practises approved by the United States Of America government in any way in keeping with the values of the general citizenry of the United States Of America?

I could accept a header that said "CIA destroys interrogation tapes and may be guilty of wrongdoing" because it is the truth.

"I think that Hayden is not to be the judge of whether or not his ordering or his condoning the destroying of the tapes was lawful," Biden said. "It appears as though there may be an obstruction of justice charge here, tampering with evidence, and destroying evidence. And this is — I think this is one case where it really does call for a special counsel. I think this leads right into the White House. There may be a legal and rational explanation, but I don't see any on the face of it."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h...mroogD8TE0R0G0
Again your eagerness to convict before all the facts are in are quite obvious.