CIA destroyed tapes of ‘harsh interrogations.

[kpete]

CIA destroyed tapes of ‘harsh interrogations.

’In 2005, while “in the midst of congressional and legal scrutiny” over its secret detention program, the CIA “destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody,” the agency admitted today. The videotapes, which contained footage of “severe interrogation techniques,” were “destroyed in part” out of concern that they could “could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy.” The decision to destroy the tapes was made “within the C.I.A. itself.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/06/cia-destroyed-tapes-of-harsh-interrogations/

[Xipe Totec]

1. greater risk of legal jeopardy

That means this is willful destruction of evidence.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. You put it out there, first.

:hi: I threw it out without reading your post.

Thing is, though,...if legal jeopardy (or practical consequences, for that matter) were the REAL ISSUE, all the OTHER EVIDENCE of torture would have been destroyed aaaannndddd Valerie Plame would NEVER HAVE BEEN OUTED.

I figure, this is much more about CYA of VIP.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

2. Uh, huh. It's ACTUALLY called, "destruction of evidence"!!! Recommended.

C'MON GUYS!!! It's not like it's the ONLY evidence out there of freakin' WAR CRIMES!!!!

These particular dudes must've been closely connected to the powers-that-be. That's all I can figure.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. That's my first thought...

Tampering with or destroying evidence in the midst of an investigation is an actionable crime. Even in a civil suit a party can get in trouble for "spoliation of the evidence."

These people all need to become very familiary with the inside of a prison cell pronto.

Per Wikipedia
The theory of the spoliation inference is that when a party destroys evidence, it may be reasonable to infer that the party had consciousness of guilt or other motivation to avoid the evidence. Therefore, the factfinder may conclude that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the spoliator. Some jurisdictions have recognized a spoliation tort action, which allows the victim of destruction of evidence to file a separate tort action against a spoliator.

[Solly Mack]

4. "destruction of evidence" - exactly

[Bitwit1234]

5. So, what of it, who's gonna do anything about it. not congress

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

6. EWWW!!! *grumble* GRRRR! EW!!!!

It's nice to be able to get on-line and fully express myself.

It's even nicer to have a well-prepared, rational RANT to lay on not only MY congress-critters but also those directly connected to information pertaining to this DOMESTIC AND WAR CRIME (atop all the other barbaric activities sponsored by this administration and their profiteers): defense, intelligence, appropriation and judicial committees. I usually do so ad hoc. I'm thinking I could be more organized.

[riverdeep]

12. But, but

Conyers feels your pain, why isn't that enough?

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

8. .

:kick:

:shrug:

[Selatius]

9. I don't believe Congress will do anything with this revelation. I think they'll sit it out.

I would be surprised if they did go the whole 9 yards and try to convict White House officials for destroying evidence.

[hootinholler]

10. WHAT.THE.FUCK?

They admitted it? They copped to a felony?

-Hoot

[Contrary1]

11. K&R

Seriously, how much more are we willing to take?

[Disturbed]

13. CIA has admitted to at least three cases of Water Boarding.

They also claim that they will no longer carry out that form of Torture.
Did Congress do anything about the CIA's admission?

[riverdeep]

14. Don't forget,

the stuff we find out about, that makes it past the layers and layers of secrecy, disinformation, and lies, is like a cockroach. If you see one, you can bet on it there are 100 more you can't see. And the stuff we know about is so troubling...I don't know if our collective heads would explode on finding out the full extent of the subversion of everything this country supposedly holds dear.