Destroyed CIA Tapes

both/and also an acceptable answer

The tendency of the media will be to forget it and let it sink to the sludge at the bottom of the Bush administration's fishbowl. All large news organizations have uniformly been cleansed of any desire to crusade for the public interest.

When the 'story' is largely a question of legality, even if it impinges on the US Consititution and the continued health of the US government, it is deemed of no interest to the public. There must be a redhot scandal attached, senators fistfighting in the cloakroom or some such, before it will acquire legs.

BTW, this is an excellent reason to vote for any candiadte for the US Senate who might get into a fistfight with another senator over a matter of policy.

Right-wingers will dismiss all complaints as bleed hearting liberal Bush bashing, and the majority of Americans will be lulled asleep. (I haven't read a single article about it, because I can't deal with that stuff at the moment myself, but I am just going through a temporary "real news" blackout.) As for the major corporate media: *spits*.

Do most Americans give a shit if our government tortures alleged terrorists?

no

So then why would we expect news of a cover-up of what is already widely known to get a lot of media time?

i heard katie holmes changed her hairdo

I mean there aren't even any good pictures to go with this story.

its a DISTRACTION from the TRUTH@!!!!

Perhaps a better question would be, will the destruction of these tapes (a) increase (b) decrease (c) have no effect on the chance that members of the government will be tried for the crimes against humanity that anyone paying attention knows they have committed.

Cannistraro said he viewed many of the extreme techniques, such as waterboarding, as unhelpful and unwise, at least in retrospect. But he said it was “stupid” to expose people to criminal liability for excesses such as trying to frighten a detainee by staging a mock execution in another room.

“There were a lot of stupid things done, no question about it, but do you want to prosecute them for doing the same kind of thing you saw on TV in a drama?” the former CIA official said. “We are now forgetting why they were doing what they were doing. Whether it was right or wrong is another question.”

so if it was on TV that makes it okay? WTF with this people - christ just fire all of them

"Any act portrayed on prime time (8 pm to 11pm EST) more than three (3) times in five (5) years shall be considered legal and the perpetrators of said act shall be immune from all prosecution."

U.S.C. 19383.199

TRU FACT

I can't even fathom what his point is... that CIA interrogators are SO STUPID they just use TV shows as a guide to how they should do their jobs? That if its on TV that makes it acceptable? That they can't separate TV from reality?

grr

when the sad lols come back from cannistraro

Not to defend 24, but the whole point of last season seemed to be that Jack was willing (or at least resigned) to face prosecution for what he knew to be crimes. If the jury thinks that certain actions were necessary, they are free to find defendants not guilty. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted...

Under a desk?