This is why the CIA torture tapes were destroyed

[AngryAmish]

People in the intelligence business do not like to get sued or go to jail. After 9/11 the administration told them "the gloves were off" and the CIA did as they were told. They got the information whatever way they could, the laws of the US be damned.

They figured that as long as the Administration told them to do the things they did it was OK. Well, guess what? The 2006 election happened. Times have changed, a new sheriff is in town. The people who did the actual torture could no longer count on back up, so they wanted the evidence gone. Again, sued or in jail. The Administration wanted the evidence gone. Sued or in jail.

No evidence no crime.

So they burned the tapes.

It makes sense.

[JDPriestly]

1. I thought they burned them before 2006.

Also, I thought they burned them because some senior level officers were present and they wished to hide that fact.

[lutherj]

2. A new sheriff?

More like Barny Fife.

[dkofos]

7. Don't insult Barney

[alfredo]

3. They were working under the assumption of a permanent

Republican majority, one part rule with no oversight.

[stillcool]

4. Since when has the CIA...

been concerned with the law?

[Bonhomme Richard]

5. I think their lawyers told them that destroying the tapes was bad but

keeping them would be even worse. This is what I think they meant when they said they had legal advice.

[gratuitous]

6. Better to be tried for obstruction of justice in the United States

Than to be tried for crimes against humanity at The Hague.