CIA Videos Predated Bush Legal Memo

[babylonsister]

CIA Videos Predated Bush Legal Memo

By Jason Leopold
April 11, 2009


The CIA began videotaping interrogations of two alleged “high value” terrorist detainees in April 2002, four months before Bush administration attorneys issued a memo clearing the way for CIA interrogators to use “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the Justice Department disclosed in court documents.

However, In a letter to a federal court judge Thursday, the Justice Department only agreed to provide details on the harshest interrogations of prisoner Abu Zubaydah that occurred in August 2002 – after the Bush administration's lawyers had provided the legal cover for waterboarding and other brutal tactics.

That letter prompted ACLU lawyers to express concern over why the government offered no promises regarding the preceding months. Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney, said the government’s “motivations in confining its {latest} response to the month of August are highly suspect.”

The ACLU is suing the CIA to release documents related to 92 interrogation videotapes that were destroyed by the CIA in 2005 as public attention began focusing on allegations that the Bush administration had subjected “war on terror” detainees to brutal interrogations that crossed the line into torture.

Lev Dassin, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said the government intends to provide the civil liberties organization “contemporaneous records that described the interrogations at issue … for the month of August 2002 (approximately 65 documents)."

more...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/041109a.html

[Robb]

1. Oopsie.

:popcorn:

...Man, I love the ACLU. :patriot:

[barbtries]

2. tend to believe that the CIA

has outlived its usefulness. witness 911. what is their purpose in life?

[pocoloco]

3. And so has the ACLU.

"bad idea to impeach bush*" brain dead dipfucks!

[barbtries]

4. was that their position?

eeeek. didn't know that. i am a card carrying member - but i didn't know that.

[babylonsister]

6. Lots of people in the ACLU advocated impeachment.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+aclu++bush+impeachment&btnG=Search

The president of the ACLU's 'personal' opinion was that it'd be a bad idea.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/ACLU_President_Strossen_on_religion,_drugs,_guns_and_impeaching_George_Bush

Do I think it would be a good idea to impeach him? I think it would be a terrible idea to impeach him. Among other reasons, I think it would have the effect of placing disproportionate responsibility on to him when a lot of the blame for the violations I’m talking about rests in the hands of Congress. Congress did not have to vote for the Patriot Act, as they did almost unanimously in the Senate. Congress did not have to expand his domestic wire-tapping power this summer, even beyond what he was initially doing in his secret program. Congress did not have to roll over and play dead with respect to torture and rendition and Guantanamo and all the other human rights disasters. They really bear a lot of responsibility and we should not be letting them off the hook. By going after Bush, it deflects responsibility from Congress, it deflects responsibility from the courts, which have been issuing a lot of bad decisions, I think. It also deflects responsibility from the Democrats. It makes it too much of a partisan issue. There is bipartisan responsibility here. For that reason I strongly oppose it. I’m not speaking for the ACLU, I know some people in the ACLU would like to see it.

[Frustratedlady]

5. Makes you wonder how many more "Oops!" moments are out there, doesn't it?

They have too much power and secrecy...watched too many movies.

I wonder what kind of family men these guys are. Are their lives affected adversely or do they go home at the end of the day and be plain old "Daddy!" Just askin. I don't think I've ever known one, but then, how would you know?