Comments (18)

John wrote on December 10, 2007 6:00 PM:

Oh well I'm sure that will really shake things up.
How many times have we heard this coming from dems.
They push it so far and then it all vanishes.
Democrats have absolutely no backbone.
I'm sick of it.

1Watt wrote on December 10, 2007 6:07 PM:

copies exsist?

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/12/10/what-destroyed-torture-tapes/

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 6:21 PM:

Why did the CIA 'destroy' a tape of an interrogation the President said was "so valuable" that the prisoner could not be released?

The CIA and WH want us to believe they're not on the same page: But it's classic NeoCon non-sense and bungling:

1. Official Policy

Bungle 1: Assert an illegal policy [deny prisoners any chance to challenge their detention, and abuse them]
- Congress/Members of Congress have been in a position to inquire, conduct oversight, but are claiming stupidity. Stupidity is a basis to ask questions, not assert, "We don't need to conduct an investigation" or "Before we know facts, we know the President has done nothing wrong warranting any investigation."
- When did Members of Congress first realize that by investigating the President for impeachable offenses there would be questions on when Members of Congress first knew of these alleged war crimes but did nothing, as required under the laws of war, oath of office [Oath is to US Constitution; and all treaties, including Geneva as Supreme Law]

2. Evidence

Bungle 2: Gather evidence and share notes related to that illegal activity, under the assumption that evidence would never be discovered [but when it is, destroy it without thinking; then create a non-sense story to explain away the non-sense]
- Evidence destruction isn't something the President can pardon when that legal issue relates to war crimes (no statute of limitations, international jurisdiction; JAGs warned WH in 2002 that ICC could target civilian leadership for prosecution)
- How much evidence destruction have -- by inaction, failure to secure evidence, and failure to appoint a special counsel to safeguard that evidence for the court -- have Members of Congress been complicit with the WH destroying?
- How much evidence -- available in open sources -- is the WH through private contractors claiming is a "state secret"; but that information was openly available through the public search engines, implicating WH IP numbers, outside counsel, and DoJ staff counsel on issues of rendition, war crimes, and other alleged breaches of Geneva?
- Which Subpoenas has the President ordered be issued to identify which US government officials, contractors, and agents, who are openly sharing war crimes evidence with the ICC?

3. CIA Contracts With Civilian Translation Services

Bungle 3: Involve private contractors in the government operation [but fail to provide enough guidance to the contractors on how to handle an investigation of that alleged illegal activity]

- Which Congressional Committees knew the President had his thumb on the IGs; yet despite knowing the WH-IG agreement to not conduct oversight, which Members of Congress did not review the information (in the form of contract vehicles, funding, program management memoranda) they knew -- or should have known -- the WH-IGs agreed to ignore?
- When did Members of Congress first learn the CIA had hired an outside contractor to provide translation services?
- Where are the copies of these translations of the "destroyed" CIA tape:
- When did the CIA direct the contractor -- who provided this translation service of that tape -- to destroy the transcript of that interrogation?
- When was it first discussed within Congressional staff counsel legal circles that Members of Congress -- as stated in the DoD JAG memoranda to DoJ -- that civilians could be prosecuted for war crimes in re alleged mistreatement of prisoners of war?
- When did Members of Congress first learn of the 2001 DoD-DoJ working group concerns that current prisoner policies -- as evidenced on the CIA interrogation tape -- were not consistent with Geneva, and actionable before the ICC?

Note: Look at the MCA language which Congress passed granting to all US government personnel US-government-paid legal defense for international bodies. Congress "didn't know" about these war crimes issues, but thought enough to include this language in the MCA before a body the US government does not believe it needs to answer to? That makes no sense. Congressional staffers have known for at least as long as the JAG Memoranda in 2001 that there was a problem; and since the MCA discussion there's been known a real legal risk of litigation on these issues.

- Plame Outing vs Tape Destruction: Two stories do not reconcile

Cannot credibly argue the effort in 2005 (to supposedly "protect" a CIA agent identity) is a bonafide excuse: The President and VP were openly doing nothing about protecting CIA agent Valarie Plame from retribution; and Libby was lying about the very thing they would have us believe they were trying to "do the right thing about": Protect CIA agents.

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 6:23 PM:

1Watt wrote on December 10, 2007 6:07 PM

There have to be copies: A contractor was doing the translation services for CIA. Those contractors weren't flying around the world; teh tapes were being flown to DC-area, then farmed out. Cheaper to send a tape FedEx than send a translator.

Mitch wrote on December 10, 2007 6:30 PM:

1. silvestre reyes is incompetent and should be as far away as possible from government. of course, he's exactly the type that gravitates to the job ...

2. where's the stern letter?

Helena Montana wrote on December 10, 2007 6:47 PM:

Jay Rockefeller and Silvestre Reyes are both capos for the GOP, so I don't see that either of them is a credible person to undertake alleged, so-called inquiries. That they continue to call themselves Democrats would be a disgrace--if the Democrat party had not become the moderate wing (if such a thing can exist) of the GOP.

Michael A wrote on December 10, 2007 7:05 PM:

Gee, another investigation. Yeah, I want to see tons of investigations and subpoenas. I also want to see heads roll and jail time. We've seen some heads roll, but no jail time. Comeon dems, lets start throwing these criminals in the clink. What are you people afraid of?

Anonymous wrote on December 10, 2007 7:12 PM:

Think in broad terms of the interrogation.

A. The President was saying (words to the effect), "We never torture" and "These are valuable prisoners, with valuable intelligence."

B. So they made tapes.

C. Now they want us to believe, "We _don't_ want the tapes" . . .

Huh? That means they've destroyed the very evidence the President was saying was "gleaned without torture"; and was the "reason" to keep the prisoners; and the basis to justify denying them a chance to challenge their detention. That defies reason. If these interrogations were so "novel" and "valuable" it makes sense to believe that the "value" of that interrogation would go up once that recorded information was compared with other lines of evidence from other (post-2005/2007) interrogations that were expected to occur. But now they can't do that. Supposedly.

Indeed, recall, this "war on terror" was supposed to last "generations". Yet, now they want us to believe they've destroyed "valuable information" on that tape and cannot use the information from 2001 for that "generational war"? No, one cannot credibly argue for a multi-generational warfare requirement; but approach it with a myopic/short-=term approach to evidence. A US government approach of "generational warfare" would not credibly (1) gather information; then (2) destroy that intelligence unless the evidence related to a crime would outweigh any foreseeable benefit of retaining that data. No, they've claimed they've destroyed it; but the other copies floating around would most likely show what's really been going on: A generational plan to ignore Geneva; and no-doubt a silent agreement by future Congress' to remain silent about a growing pile of evidence Members of Congress didn't act on.

There is no reason for any American to trust the leadership in the US government, whether it is in the Congress, Executive Branch, or Judicial branch.
 
Burden is on US Government to show it had a competent oversight in place to fully comply with Geneva. This crew -- all three branches -- has shown recklessness since 2001. No thanks to the allegedly incompetent, rubber-stamping legal counsel making allegedly frivolous legal arguments warranting disbarment and prosecution for alleged war crimes.
 
All three branches have taken a hands off approach to these abuse issues: "State secrets" or "can't talk about it" or "it's not reviewable." Wrong. ICC can review this. That's on the table. And the JAGs warned you in 2001 that risk was real. You didn't listen then. It's too late to believe you've been doing the right thing: It's been six years and no oversight by both leading factions. Send this to the ICC for investigation and prosecution, and keep all options on the table, including prosecuting leading Members of Congress, civilian/government legal counsel (for making allegedly frivolous legal arguments in re the inaction in re alleged Geneva breaches), and civilians within DoD-CIA-DoJ-NSA.

- What else does Congress know about that needs to be put on the table?

- How long has Congress been relying-leaning-depending on/swallowing DoJ OLC legal memoranda for guidance on whether to impeach the President for alleged breaches of Geneva, US law, international law, and the US Constitution?

- Is there any evidence Congressional legal counsel have -- as required -- acted independently of DoJ OLC in arriving at their legal opinions for Members of Congress for the legal obligations of the individual Member in re oath of office( 5 USC 3331), Geneva Treaty obligations, laws of war, and the US Constitution?

- Where is the DC Atty Disciplinary Bar on these issue in re (a) DC-affiliated legal counsel alleged frivolous legal arguments in re war crimes; (b) the disbarment investigations of so-affiliated legal counsel connected with this illegal activity; and (c) the review of all DC-bar affiliated personnel who should have timely reported alleged peer misconduct in re these Geneva violations to the DC Disciplinary Board?

Batsh*t insane pres. wrote on December 10, 2007 7:25 PM:

In the scheme of things, "torture tapes" are nothing you haven't seen before, in Faces of Death, for instance.

So, one more investigation won't help, nor hurt anymore than has been done already.

If I say waterboarding, you can quite readily visualize it. So can everybody else.

midwestblue wrote on December 10, 2007 9:27 PM:

Johnathan Turley was on Olberman and said this cries out for a Special Counsel. He also said what are these committees going to do? Investigate themselves?

Roberta wrote on December 10, 2007 9:43 PM:

I'm really troubled about these "tapes."

Can it possibly be that the CIA used analog camcorders for their documentation? Does all the money go to the Pentagon, so that that CIA has no budget for technology upgrades?

If you suspect, as I do, that these were digital recordings, then it's pretty reasonable to take the step to posit that the translator didn't get a "Fed Ex"ed tape copy (Anon's supposition "Cheaper to send a tape FedEx than send a translator") but was sent a copy of the tape in some way.

So this report comes out that the CIA destroyed "the tapes." Lots of people refer to the digital cartridges in a digital recorder as tapes, and just because these have been destroyed does not preclude their existing digitally.

Anon, put your constructive suspicion onto this question: What would it benefit the Bush Administration to create this brouhaha (knowing it's really a tempest in a teapot)? I find it inconceivable that Busheney does not know EXACTLY what happened in those interrogations. What is worth hiding that they'd subject themselves to this kind of "humiliation" (claims that they didn't even know these "tapes" existed?

One other aspect of this "tape"/waterboarding thing: I have little or no respect for Rockefeller and Pelosi, but doesn't serving in the "Gang of Eight" require that anything that's revealed must stay classified? Weren't they told about the warrantless spying program but forbidden from discussing it until the revelation/declassification? Isn't it treason or something to discuss what they hear in the briefings, and aren't the Congressional representatives there only to receive information and not debate it in the briefings, let alone comment on it to anyone else?

Steve Benen discussed the WaPo report on 12/8: "Leading lawmakers -- including Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Bob Graham, and John Rockefeller -- received 'about 30' private CIA briefings, some of which included descriptions of waterboarding'"and other harsh interrogation methods." Were they sworn to secrecy after these briefings?

I'm not trying to excuse anyone, because I personally could not make a commitment that required me to keep quiet about something illegal/unethical. But this may explain why they all kept quiet. I'd like some feedback on this.

Mary wrote on December 11, 2007 1:23 AM:

I don't say this often, but kudos to Biden.

How is Rockefeller - who reportedly was briefed on and complicit in torture - not conflicted out from any kind of credible investigation?

It cries out for a Special Prosecutor, but we have a DOJ that is too corrupt to even touch the appointment of a Special Prosecutor without tainting it.

How did we come to that sad a pass?

pointus wrote on December 11, 2007 2:53 AM:

I just can't help wondering if maybe this is Cheney's way at punishing the intelligence community for the NIE?

Contigo wrote on December 11, 2007 4:02 AM:

I'm surprised the Left or their media has not published a list of the people who have died while being "waterboarded" or who have any lasting damage from having the water poured over their faces.

Carolyn wrote on December 11, 2007 10:48 AM:

Oh , Contigo, you poor sweet innocent. You truly believe if there's no list of the dead, there's no dead.

LiberalTarian wrote on December 11, 2007 11:52 AM:

You better believe they are going to investigate. Pelosi, Reid, Harmon, et al., were supposed to be the opposition party. It could be there jobs that they didn't do anything then, but it will definitely be there jobs if they don't do anything now that the cat is out of the bag.

Funny thing is, I heard Bush and co. let it be known the Democrats were briefed to hurt them politically. Well, I agree, it hurt Democrats. But, still, it is killing Republicans. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces, much like they have cut off the nose of the country ...

Contigo wrote on December 11, 2007 2:42 PM:

Concerning the attacks that were prevented by the 3 episodes of waterboarding, I wonder if opponents would be more pleased had Al Qaeda's planned attacks on civilians actually occurred instead of putting the water on the prisoners' faces.

Contigo wrote on December 11, 2007 2:45 PM:

Carolyn wrote on December 11, 2007 10:48 AM:

"Oh , Contigo, you poor sweet innocent. You truly believe if there's no list of the dead, there's no dead."

I had to chuckle out loud at this one. If anyone had died, surely it would have been "Valerie Plamed" by someone at the CIA by now. Liberals are willing to lose an American city or two as long as they're not in them.