[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval You've got a lot more than one question...

One main question... many sub questions for possible answers which may have arose from the main question to save time.

When you are extracting information out of someone, what makes more sense - video taping it so that you can review the information as needed or having someone in there trying to write it down? Although audio recording probably could have been used, video would make who said what and any inconsistancies that may arise that much clearer.

That's true.... but they're destroyed now.

The "human rights group" call them evidence...the CIA called them trash.

So it was a group which specializes in human rights and knows the laws which relates to them.... so therefore not credible?

People love to jump all over the RCMP over tasers, yet the CIA can do no wrong?

I'm sure everything that occurred had been transcribed.

Really? I'm not so sure.

"harsh questioning methods"

AKA Rebound: Torture. It's been torture for centuries and considdered by many around the world as Torture.

"Harsh Questioning Methods" can range from shooting someone in the knee, to border-line drowning, to many other things..... the word twist still means the same thing, esspecially in these cases... Torture.

What was illegal about destroying the tapes? a "bad idea" doesn't mean illegal and there was "the absence of any legal or internal reason to keep them,".

I will redirect you to this in the above article:

CIA Director Michael Hayden said the CIA began taping the interrogations as an internal check on the program after President George W. Bush authorized the use of harsh questioning methods..... ....."The Agency was determined that it proceed in accord with established legal and policy guidelines. So, on its own, CIA began to videotape interrogations,"....... ......The CIA decided to destroy the tapes in "the absence of any legal or internal reason to keep them......" ........The CIA says the tapes were destroyed late in 2005, a year marked by increasing pressure from defence attorneys to obtain videotapes of detainee interrogations.

Bush gave them the ok and told them it was legal to do.... then those techniques became public and later it was determined what they were doing was illegal and now they possessed evidence proving they were performing an illegal act.

There was "Absence of any Legal reason" for them to keep them, but there was plenty of legal reason for those tortured to have them as evidence against the CIA for what they did.... so in order to cover up the level of torture they performed on these two individuals, they destroy the tapes.

Oh but then again illegal enemy combatants.... or is it legal combatants now? Anyways, apparently these guys have no rights to see evidence presented against them and proper representation in court, so I also assume destroying evidence which can help them is ok as well.