ABC News: "hundreds of hours of tapes," only a small fraction showed "enhanced interrogation"

[sabra]

Maybe it's the other stuff they don't want people to see? :tinfoilhat:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/hayden-faces-pr.html

ABC News' Jonathan Karl and Z. Byron Wolf Report: According to an official who spoke to CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden Tuesday, the nation's spy chief is saying the situation regarding the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes was "mishandled."

Publicly the CIA has defended the decision to destroy the tapes as "in line with the law." But, while the agency is still insisting that no law was broken, there has been some evolution of its position.

According to an official who spoke to Hayden Tuesday, the director believes the destruction of the tapes was "legal," but "that does not mean it was the right thing to do."

A counter-terrorism official says although there are "hundreds of hours of tapes," only a small fraction of that showed so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques."

[Supersedeas]

1. but the destruction of the tapes was to protect the identity of the interrogators

And one of the people on the interrogation team is making the Network rounds to profess how great the technique works.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Could it be that the tapes had to be destroyed because they

proved that these techniques don't work and that the information received by these methods is useless and worthless?

[Efilroft Sul]

5. Could be. Or the tapes were destroyed because...

...everyone in the White House had finally finished masturbating to them.

[Supersedeas]

8. even local smocal TV stations have the technology to 'obscure' the faces on Video--but not the CIA?

[peace13]

2. Says who?

Show us the tapes, let the people decide. Really I do not want to see them and I don't think it is good for most humans to witness torture. My point is that I don't believe a word these people say. Peace, Kim

[ThomWV]

4. OK, I'll buy that, now tell me who had the discretion to approve the harsh stuff?

And the moment you tell me that I will follow with this, OK, now tell me what it was specifically that they authorized and how was it harsher than interrogation methods that did not require their authorization?

[terisan]

6. Did information in the other destroyed tapes show who responsible for 9/11 and is that why destroyed

[ray of light]

7. media fram 'enhansed interrogation" sort of sounds like as much fun as

breasts enhansement surgery. May hurt while it's there but you love the whole new look...

Talk about Orwellian opposites!

[KharmaTrain]

9. These Tapes Were To Be Used At Secret Tribunals

This was part of that "undisclosed evidence" that was going to be presented at the secret trials, held outside U.S. jurisdiction. These interogations were to be the smoking gun to get convictions. However this regime has lost court cases for those tribunals and now the tapes have turned into a liability. Trace back the decission to the Padilla ruling and I think you'll see a connection with Larry Johnson's excellent time line and how it could have played into this scandal.

My bets are this regime considers the destruction "legal" as these tapes were no longer "evidence" since they couldn't be used in an open court trial. This would force making those tapes not only available to the defense, but also as part of the public record...and Crashcart wasn't going to let that happen.

I am wondering how this story is going over on the "A-rab Street"...surely Middle East media is focused in on this story and this could be the "second-coming" of Abu Grahb...yet another American PR disaster. No wonder Frau Hughes quit.

[ptolle]

10. compromised media

Who expects any thinking individual to take ABC or, for that matter, any other media outlet at their word these days. I dislike being skeptical to the point of cynicism but it's sort of difficult to be any other way looking rationally at things as they are.Given this administration's record one must consider all media compromised.