Quote:
Originally Posted by Daybreaker";p="
If it's as justifiable as you think it is, and it's so totally okay for them to torture people, then why did they have to destroy the tape? Why not just show it, and then the proper authorities and the people in whose name this action is being done can judge for themselves.
You guys seem to think it's okay. So why should they hide?
|
Well, look - that's a good question, and here's my thought on it:
Nothing good, can possibly come of a tape like that, being released to the public.
And that's what would happen, "eventually", right? I mean, some reporter is gonna get hold of it or something, and it's gonna be used for propaganda purposes, it'll be like, plastered on every web site in the whole entire world -
"Look, here's what the USA is doing these days".....
You know, and I mean, the reality of something like that, registering on the little old ladies who form a significant chunk of the Christian conservative voting block, would be like..... you could kiss any hope of a Republican President goodbye, for a long, LONG time to come.
And I mean, this
is the CIA we're talking about, right? They deal in issues of
national security, and I mean, if someone in the CIA is going to release the fact that such a tape exists (or "existed"), then one of two things is true: either a) he's a whistle-blower, or b) someone told him to do it. And if it's the latter, there's almost "no doubt whatsoever", that such a decision would have to go right up to the very top, which would mean either Hayden or Bushie himself. 'Cause that's
political, right? Such decisions don't get made by anyone but the top-dog policy-maker types.
But I rather think that in this case, it's more likely that some clever reporter picked up wind of the existence of "something" at some point, and then once someone got wind that there was something in the wind, they made sure that the odor went away before the breeze got stronger -
So, you know, all things considered, I still think I don't have a problem with this "destruction of evidence", if you want to call it that. I mean, the President of the United States himself (via his direct minions) has admitted that he did the waterboarding, that it actually occurred - and he
claims it was useful and it helped - so I mean, yo uknow, what more do you want? The guy admits it happened, so what do we need to see the whole thing in living color? Ain't it bad enough to know that "it happened"? And to have the President of the United States stand there and tell you that it happened on
your behalf?