Larisa Alexandrovna: "I Ask Again... When Were The CIA Tapes Destroyed?"

[Hissyspit]

http://www.atlargely.com/2007/12/i-ask-again-whe.html

I ask again... when were the CIA tapes destroyed?

We are told that the CIA tapes were destroyed in 2005. Now, what tapes are these DOJ lawyers examining in September and October of 2007? Please take a look at this memo, HERE, do you see anything that says that the tapes were a). destroyed and b). in 2005?

I am sure someone has a logical answer to this. I am, unfortunately, not that person. Anyone?

[Swamp Rat]

1. lala_rawraw!!

:loveya:

[Mnemosyne]

2. Get 'em lala!

Thanks Hissy!:hi:

[paulthompson]

3. Different tapes

From what I understand, they were different tapes. Moussoui's lawyers asked for tapes relating to his trial. The destroyed tapes were of Abu Zubaida and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Those guys didn't really have anything to do with Moussaoui. But in Sept. 2007, some tapes of another (still unnamed) guy were found and viewed that did have something to do with Moussaoui, probably Ramzi bin al-Shibh or maybe Mohamed al-Khatani (the only two guys Moussaoui's lawyers were interested in who were arrested in 2002, which is when all the videotaping supposedly happened). But the tapes were reviewed and the claim was made that this third guy didn't say anything relevant to Moussaoui's case, so there's no need for a Moussaoui retrial.

Twice, in 2003 and 2005, Moussaoui's lawyers were lied to when they were told there were no interrogations videotaped at all. And for some reason, when the powers that be finally did discover in 2007 that there were some videotapes, it leaked out that some of them were destroyed (in November 2005), thus really beginning this whole scandal. November 2005 was the same month some stories came out detailing the use of torture in secret CIA prisons, so obviously the destruction was a reaction to the news stories, and an attempt to prevent another Abu Ghraib scandal. It would seem that most people really don't care unless there's vivid photos or videos.

But what's interesting is that the videotapes of some interrogations do still exist. And there's audiotapes of others, and sometimes transcripts of audio. I hope as the scandal continues to unfold, reporters will figure this out and we can put some pressure on to release the audio and video that still exists. Although it would make sense that the tapes that survived show less incrimating torture, or they'd probably have been destroyed too.

[paulthompson]

7. Interesting take here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_skeeter__071209_the__skeeter_bites_r.htm

[EFerrari]

11. It's difficult to believe Rodriguez acted "unilaterally".

"Goss, whose tenure as CIA director ended with his resignation in 2006 amid much controversy over his management style, was not told in advance about Rodriguez’s decision, the former officials said. Indeed, according to the Times, Rodriguez appeared to have acted unilaterally, without notifying anyone -- not even John Rizzo, the CIA's chief counsel."

Yesterday it was reported on Amy Goodman's show that Jose Rodriguez has been heavily recruited for the last year by Blackwater. And we know Krongard seemed to be obstructing an investigation of security contractors when he was IG at State while his brother (ex #3 at CIA) was also involved with Blackwater, and we know J. Coffer Black (now at Blackwater) ran the extraordinary rendition program.

Do all ex CIA lawbreakers go to Blackwater or, does it go the other way, too -- are CIA employees protecting some present or anticipated commercial interest ahead of retiring? I don't know if that's the right question but there's a something here. Given the close relationships, it would be surprising if there was no cross contamination of interests.

[Rene]

4. Don't you know they're 'saying' the taps are destroyed....but they're not.

They're sure to have originals and copies somewhere within the CIA/DOD.
Hopefully there is some honest person amongst this group who will come forward with the truth some day.
Very good catch Larisa.

[annabanana]

5. Add it to the list of "Things that make you go 'hmmmmmm'". . ..n/t

[JackRiddler]

6. When did they even exist?

Incredible how they just keep lying their way unpunished from one paradox to the next, no?

Their magic spell is as follows:
"Counter reset: Memory at zero."

Hope you're doing well, by the way. Had an article on this at...

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20071208163121510

Which lie should we believe? CIA admits it destroyed evidence it said didn't exist.

(...)

The most important document in the official mythology of September 11th, The 9/11 Commission Report, is based largely on the reported statements of three prisoners: Khalid Shaikh Mohamed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zubaydah.

(...)

The Report cites Mohamed, Binalshibh and Zubaydah uncritically as primary sources, without expressing a shred of doubt that the transcripts constitute the mens' words, that the words are genuine and unedited, or that the prisoners really are who the CIA says they are. This is despite the fact that Ernest May, one of the architects of the Report, admitted in a May 2005 memoir that the Commission "never had full confidence in the interrogation reports as historical sources." One top CIA official throws out an estimate that as much as 90 percent of information gleaned from Mohamed (or is that "Mohamed"?) is unreliable.

We learned this week that CIA videotapes of at least some of these supposed interrogations -- tapes which were previously said not to have existed! -- are now said to have been destroyed in 2005. So far the CIA has copped to destroying hundreds of hours of tapes of Abu Zubaydah and of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, also identified as an Al Qaeda leader (captured in 2002, never produced in public).

The CIA claims -- bizarrely -- that this was done to protect the identities of the interrogators (apparently the Agency's 19th-century video technology is incapable of blurring out faces or distorting voices on a tape). The corporate media floated the idea that the motive was to cover up the use of torture, possibly waterboarding. But as the "evidence" from which the official 9/11 fable lives disappears further into a black box, naturally any breathing skeptic must wonder to what extent the tapes, or even the prisoners, existed in the first place. And granting that the tapes existed, was the motive behind their destruction to hide torture, or to hide evidence? Even a defender of the official story like former CIA agent Robert Baer knows this latest twist only adds to the stink of obstruction and fakery in everything the intelligence community says about 9/11.

(...)

[gratuitous]

8. An interesting question

But of course, since our stalwart bulldogs of the Fourth Estate don't remember stuff, and in fact actively forget inconvenient data, it's for damn sure that this highly interesting question won't be asked.

[lala_rawraw]

9. Well thank you kind sir:)

[DemReadingDU]

10. morning kick