What other evidence has the CIA destroyed?

What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 7:05:44 PM)
What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? So do we accept this from our government employees?

bipolarber -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 7:08:11 PM)
Yadda, yadda, yadda... The cowards in Congress will just turn their heads and let the administration get away with it, like every other scandal this defacto dictatorship has pulled in the last 7 years. Next newscycle, maybe three, it will all be forgotten while the death toll mounts.

Sanity -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 7:27:30 PM)
They're spies for gawds sake They're supposed to do things in secret This is a dangerous world, and we can't all be ninnys you know We might as well lay our heads on chopping blocks as do things your way

farglebargle -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 7:40:03 PM)
I love the way Due Process and Equal Protection gets cast, as you say Sanity, as meaning to "lay our heads on chopping blocks". It is as if adhering the the Rule of Law is some sort of weakness, and not the singular defining characteristic which once made this a nation better than any of the totalitarian states. But those days ended when we started torturing people, and calling it lawful. ( Of course, every time the Supreme Court has ruled on the supposedly lawful tactics..... ) That aside, rumor is that the CIA Tapes DIRECTLY IMPLICATED the Saudi Royals. Which isn't really surprising, is it? Once again the Bush Admin gives material support to a Terrorist Regime.

FangsNfeet -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 7:52:49 PM)
How do we know that Hayden is telling the truth? If you say something is destroyed, does it not keep people from looking for it? Either way, I'm sure the tapes where destroyed after a copy was made.

Sanity -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 7:58:17 PM)
It's funny that, when a desk jockey like Valerie Plame's name wasn't leaked it was the worst thing ever in the history of the world... But if the identity of REAL CIA agents are in danger of being compromised through the release of this video, that's fine. No problem at all... quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle I love the way Due Process and Equal Protection gets cast, as you say Sanity, as meaning to "lay our heads on chopping blocks". It is as if adhering the the Rule of Law is some sort of weakness, and not the singular defining characteristic which once made this a nation better than any of the totalitarian states. But those days ended when we started torturing people, and calling it lawful. ( Of course, every time the Supreme Court has ruled on the supposedly lawful tactics..... ) That aside, rumor is that the CIA Tapes DIRECTLY IMPLICATED the Saudi Royals. Which isn't really surprising, is it? Once again the Bush Admin gives material support to a Terrorist Regime.

mnottertail -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 8:20:00 PM)
Protect this 'REAL CIA AGENT' from what exactly? Prosecution or? Ron

Muttling -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 8:33:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity They're spies for gawds sake They're supposed to do things in secret This is a dangerous world, and we can't all be ninnys you know We might as well lay our heads on chopping blocks as do things your way I strongly suggest you read up on the history of the Gulf of Tonkein Act and the events that lead up to it. If there was ever a GOOD reason to make sure the intellegience agencies do not destroy records, it was that event!!!! I am in complete agreement for the need for secrecy, but there will be a day in the distant future where such secrecy no longer holds value and the American people will have a right to know at that time. There is also the issue of the CIA's failure to provide these tapes to the 911 commission despite the fact it was before they were destroyed and the commission specifically asked for such records.

Muttling -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 8:37:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It's funny that, when a desk jockey like Valerie Plame's name wasn't leaked it was the worst thing ever in the history of the world... But if the identity of REAL CIA agents are in danger of being compromised through the release of this video, that's fine. You got a LOT to learn about that story dude. Valerie Plame WAS a REAL agent and her contacts were compromised by the release of her name. That event did great damage to our ability to recruit future intelligence resources and destroyed several of our existing resources. It's not the worst event in the history of the CIA, but it is yet another example of a totally fucked up administration who prefers to play very loose with the laws and has abandonned morality.

Sanity -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 8:52:03 PM)
No, you're the one who's got things to learn. If she was a REAL agent she should have reigned in her loose cannon hubby who was off publishing letters in the New York Time as a political operative, drawing all kinds of attention - exactly the thing that caused her to be compromised. When it was all said and done it wasn't a Bush administration official who had leaked her name after all, either. But that argument is old, no need to rehash it here. Why not address what's before us here and now, this new issue of why it's not okay for Plame to be "leaked" but yet it is okay for REAL agents to have video of them published Answer that, since you think you know everything If you're okay with the video existing then you're okay with it being published. These days there is no difference, with Democrats holding power in Congress. Why the hypocrisy. Why the double standard. Why are you okay with it.

farglebargle -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 8:58:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It's funny that, when a desk jockey like Valerie Plame's name wasn't leaked it was the worst thing ever in the history of the world... But if the identity of REAL CIA agents are in danger of being compromised through the release of this video, that's fine. Why are you suggesting that video would ever have been released from the secure CIA storage for such items? While it's the only excuse which Hayden could offer, it's full of shit. Do you think the current processes for securing such information is so inadequate, and that the presence of the tape in a secure CIA vault is some sort of viable threat? If what Hayden says is the truth, how can they claim to be able to safeguard any information? It's so stupid, I'm surprised they came up with such a lame cover-story. Apparently, Barnum was right, and there's more than enough gullible people to go along with the charade.

Muttling -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 8:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity If she was a REAL agent she should have reigned in her loose cannon hubby who was off publishing letters in the New York Time as a political operative, drawing all kinds of attention - exactly the thing that caused her to be compromised. Negative. Once a spy, ALWAYS a spy. You don't out a spy who is no longer on assignment because doing so compromises the contacts that they developed while active. Contacts that may or may not be in current use. Furthermore, it tips off counter intellegience operations as to the gaps in their screens and how we manipulated those gaps. quote: If you're okay with the video existing then you're okay with it being published. These days there is no difference, with Democrats holding power in Congress. BIG NEGATIVE. We have massive amounts of classified information that exists but is not published and the Democrats support this. Heck, the National Archives has an entire division devoted to classified information and it's not been published. When you give people a method for avoiding accountability, you give them right to operate with impunity and that is a huge mistake. NOW......Do you or do you not know what lead up to the Gulf of Tonkien Act and why it is so very important to this discussion?

Sanity -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 9:10:07 PM)
No, I don't know what you're getting at with the Gulf of Tonkin act, how it applies. But I totally disagree with you regarding the said video - it isn't safe in this day and age of instant access. A copy goes here, a copy goes there, this Congressman gets it, his staffer gets it, soon big Mike Moore productions is using a ton of creative editing on it... Why even have a CIA if their cloak of secrecy is nothing but a joke It's ludicrous

Muttling -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 9:21:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, I don't know what you're getting at with the Gulf of Tonkin act, how it applies. But I totally disagree with you regarding the said video - it isn't safe in this day and age of instant access. A copy goes here, a copy goes there, this Congressman gets it, his staffer gets it, soon big Mike Moore productions is using a ton of creative editing on it... Why even have a CIA if their cloak of secrecy is nothing but a joke It's ludicrous They can be secret but being secret doesn't mean you are beyond question and oversight of our elected officials. That is the basis of our system of government. The U.S. entered the Vietnam war after the North Vietnamese attacked a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkien. The official report was that the ship was in international waters and it was an unprovoked attack. In the late 1970's, certain documents and tapes of conversations that LBJ made were declassified as required by U.S. law. It turns out that Lynden B. Johnson had ordered the ship well into North Vietnamese waters for the sole purpose of provoking an attack on the ship and was getting ready to order the ship closer to their shores as the attack didn't happen as quickly as he expected. LBJ, baited North Vietnam into attacking a U.S. war ship and then lied about the circumstances of the attack so he could get the Congress to endorse all out war in Vietnam. The resolution that took us to full war in Vietnam was the Gulf of Tonkein Act. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them and you have much to learn concerning the double edged sword we call secrecy.

Sanity -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 9:29:42 PM)
No, you're the one who has much to learn. Neuter the spies, have them answer to hundreds in Congress (and their sexual aids), parade their video for pure political gain, and then wonder in the end why they failed to protect you. I don't care what excuse you use to castrate them, the end result will be more of the same. quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling They can be secret but being secret doesn't mean you are beyond question and oversight of our elected officials. That is the basis of our system of government. The U.S. entered the Vietnam war after the North Vietnamese attacked a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkien. The official report was that the ship was in international waters and it was an unprovoked attack. In the late 1970's, certain documents were declassified as required by U.S. law. It turns out that Lynden B. Johnson had ordered the ship well into North Vietnamese waters for the sole purpose of provoking an attack on the ship and was getting ready to order the ship closer to their shores as the attack didn't happen as quickly as he expected. LBJ, baited North Vietnam into attacking a U.S. war ship and then lied about the circumstances of the attack so he could get the Congress to endorse all out war in Vietnam. The resolution that took us to full war in Vietnam was the Gulf of Tonkein Act. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them and you have much to learn concerning the double edged sword we call secrecy.

farglebargle -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 9:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity No, you're the one who has much to learn. Neuter the spies, have them answer to hundreds in Congress (and their sexual aids), parade their video for pure political gain, and then wonder in the end why they failed to protect you. I don't care what excuse you use to castrate them, the end result will be more of the same. Ah, that's predicated on the false assumption that The People NEED to be protected. Putting aside the reality that torturing people protects no-one, and only destroys the Constitutional foundation of the Republic, to suggest that any Citizen of the Republic NEEDS protection is ludicrous. "Being Protected" is for infants, toddlers, children, the infirm and elderly, and those mentally incompetent to see to their own safety and security. We have a 2nd Amendment for a reason. Are you Fit and Competent? Then arm yourself and see to your OWN safety and security. Stop being one of the winy bitches EXPECTING LIKE SOME SLAVE to "be protected", and stop wasting MY TAX DOLLARS on the feeble and incompetent who REFUSE to get off their asses, and see to their own safety and security. Such an attitude is as destructive to the Free Spirit as any other form of WELFARE. The CIA didn't stop the hijackers on Flight 93. THE PEOPLE ON FLIGHT 93, stopped listening to the fucking feds ("Co-operate with the hijackers..." -- Dumbest Idea Ever... ) and did what needed doin.

Owner59 -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 9:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Muttling quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It's funny that, when a desk jockey like Valerie Plame's name wasn't leaked it was the worst thing ever in the history of the world... But if the identity of REAL CIA agents are in danger of being compromised through the release of this video, that's fine. You got a LOT to learn about that story dude. Valerie Plame WAS a REAL agent and her contacts were compromised by the release of her name. That event did great damage to our ability to recruit future intelligence resources and destroyed several of our existing resources. It's not the worst event in the history of the CIA, but it is yet another example of a totally fucked up administration who prefers to play very loose with the laws and has abandonned morality. Don`t try to explain reality,truth or facts to this guy.He`s from neo-con land,where up is down,in is out and black is white. The new 3rd party,the Neo-Conservatives,are some of the most selfish,pigheaded,arrogant,ignorant,abstinent, MFers in America`s history. You`re new here(welcome!btw),and a very nice,polite and mindful poster.I`m not exactly sure,but I `d bet you`re a member of the armed forces.You seem to have a real grasp on issues and are open minded. Not everyone is like yourself,though. Good luck!

Sanity -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 9:42:18 PM)
Just the fact that you and I know about the video today is proof that you're gravely mistaken about this, evidence that the issue is being used by Congressional Democrats for political gain. quote: ORIGINAL: MuttlingThey can be secret but being secret doesn't mean you are beyond question and oversight of our elected officials. That is the basis of our system of government.

Sanity -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 9:45:50 PM)
Do you never tire of namecalling in place of intelligent discussion, of demonizing, dehumanizing or belittling anyone with whom you disagree? quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Don`t try to explain reality,truth or facts to this guy.He`s from neo-con land,where up is down,in is out and black is white. The new 3rd party,the Neo-Conservatives,are some of the most selfish,pigheaded,arrogant,ignorant,abstinent, MFers in America`s history. You`re new here(welcome!btw),and a very nice,polite and mindful poster.I`m not exactly sure,but I `d bet you`re a member of the armed forces.You seem to have a real grasp on issues and are open minded. Not everyone is like yourself,though. Good luck!

farglebargle -> RE: What other evidence has the CIA destroyed? (12/7/2007 9:48:38 PM)
Did you see my comments in the "high road" thread reminding you of the lack of personal integrity you've shown with your fabrication of defamatory statements, and their libelous mis-attribution? You don't exactly hold any high-ground, from which to judge others.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125