The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.If Hayden can't bother to read this elementary principle of American jurisprudence or worse he cannot understand it, then he should step down. He might try sweeping floors to "generalling". Hayden preferred to argue, not from ignorance which can be remedied, but from the marriage of arrogance and stupidity. No one on my high school debate team would have tried getting away with what this idiot, who presumes to head the freakin' CIA, tried to get away with. Hayden is a specimen to be studied, evidence of the dumbing down of America. Is it too much to expect of our "leaders" that they take their heads out of their criminal asses? Now --the CIA and quite possibly the Bush White House are up to those same criminal "asses" in obstruction of justice. The CIA, it is now revealed, destroyed video tapes of tortures in progress even as the CIA's secret detention program was under Congressional and legal scrutiny.
--Fourth Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution
Hayden's letter attempts to create a rationale for what was clearly a move to hide the government's actions from American and world public opinion and destroy evidence of criminal activity by CIA operatives and government officials, up to and including President Bush.The tapes in question are destroyed despite the fact that the CIA had been "warned" against it.
As the CIA well knew, if the tapes had become public-especially in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib revelations-they would have evoked a wave of shock and revulsion in the United States and around the world, and confirmed that Abu Ghraib, far from an aberration, was the outcome of US government policy.
Hayden made the improbable claim that the tapes were destroyed to protect CIA interrogators from retaliation by Al Qaeda. He wrote in his letter that the CIA halted the practice of taping interrogations in 2002, after only a few recordings had been made.
White House and Justice Department officials, along with senior members of Congress, advised the CIA in 2003 against a plan to destroy hundreds of hours of videotapes showing the interrogations of two al-Qaeda operatives, government officials said yesterday. The chief of the agency's clandestine service nevertheless ordered their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying even the CIA's own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the decision, the officials said.Violations of both Nuremberg Principles and the Geneva Conventions had become and most certainly remain a matter of Bush administration policy. This most recent destruction of evidence, this clear case of obstruction of justice, must be considered in this context. We are told that it is not known who authorized this case of obstruction of justice. Even so, it is fair to ask who benefits? The answer to that question is simple: George W. Bush, who has supported policies violating both Nuremberg and Geneva from the get go. The numerous violations of Nuremberg and Geneva are under US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441 capital crimes.
--CIA told not to ruin tapes, The New York Times
(a) Offense.- Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.Given Bush's numerous public pronouncements on the issue, the policy belongs to Bush. The buck stops at the White House. As I have stated repeatedly, there is enough probable cause in the public record to bring capital charges against George W. Bush. Who is protected by the destruction of these tapes of a procedure that had been denied in numerous administration lies? The answer to that question, again, is: George W. Bush!