Comments (24)

Jones Day wrote on December 12, 2007 6:03 PM:

Maybe Spencer should call Buzzy and ask him what he knows about the tapes?

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 6:16 PM:

The key is also to ask, "Which US contractors working for DoJ, CIA, NSA, DoD, or any other US government contractor/agency did the translation and transcription services of these audio tapes?"

One firm which provide transcription services for DoJ in the Small Business area is Abraxas of McClean, VA; Abraxas also works with CIA to provide CIA agents with cover stories when they are stationed overseas.

- Which audio tapes did Abraxas or other contractors review during these transcription contracts?

- Where are copies of these audio tapes Abraxas or others had access to perform their translation/transcription duties under these Small Business contracts for the US government?

- Where are the copies of the transcripts (the paper copies); who in Congress-GOP-WH-DoJ-OVP-DoD-CIA-NSA was provided copies of these transcripts which Abraxas or others created?

- FISA violation connection: How was the information gleaned from the FISA-violations used to organize the infromation used to abuse POWs?

- How was the information glaned through rendition/abuse/FISA violations used by US government contractors to create media messages to induce the public to support illegal warfare, prisoner abuse, or other illegal activity, to include inaction in re these alleged crimes?

- Was it the intent of the President, Congerss, and Supreme Court to pretend the illegal renditions were a "state secret" to avoid a war crimes trial of US government offiicals; if so, why did Congcress include in the MCA language permitting US governmenet funds to be used to defend US government personnel/agents before international bodies in re war crimes?

will o dwisp wrote on December 12, 2007 6:22 PM:

They will just ignore the letters -what a bunch of arrogant creeps -what country did these people grow up in anyway? Certainly not the same one as I.

PBS Frontline wrote on December 12, 2007 6:34 PM:

"PBS Frontline"-link goes to someone who apparently/allegedly knew something about prisoner treatement, rendition, and others issues apparently related to this CIA memo.

- What was the form of data/tape/transcript this former WH Counsel had access to to review the status of prisoner treatment? [Ref: "In terms of the intelligence take, _while I was there_, we continued to hear that the interrogations were productive and that we were learning a lot about Al Qaeda and its methods from the Guantanamo detainees."]

- Who, by name, did counsel interact with to get feedback on these interrogations?

- Was there any information from Eastern Europe, Jordan, Syria, or any other country other than GTMO?

- Did the named counsel have a chance to review the CIA tape which is now longer available?

- Which "other folks" did counsel know were keeping tabs of these interrogations? [ Ref: "These were all things that were dealt with by other folks, and so I wasn't even aware of those debates at the time."]

- What kind of interaction did counsel have with Abraxas; or DoJ contractors providing transcription services on these interrogations: Any access to the transcripts of the interrogations?

- Which e-mails did counsel have access to when reviewing the US Atty firing issues; how did counsel know that his client's e-mails were or were nto related to appropriate issues related to prisoner treatement, DoJ policies on that treatement, or OLC positions on water boarding?

- Did counsel have a chance to review the DOJ Memoranda on Waterboarding? [Ref: "_In my presence_, in the _discussions_ that I was a part of, it was always explained to me that we did not use torture"]

- What was counsel's plan inside the WH to handle disclosures of evidence on tapes? [Ref: "The notion that the kinds of interrogations that were being conducted of terrorist detainees weren't going to yield evidence admissible in court was seen as _completely beside the point_, because most of these people were never going to be charged in a criminal court."]

- When we read, in effect, that the "admissability" of this evidence was "beside the point" what was the reason the CIA videotaped the interrogation if there was no interested in brining this evidence to court?

- Is it counsel's position, while working in WH Counsel's office as reported on Frontline, that the WH never intended for these CIA videotapes to be seen?

- When did counsel realize that the tapes existed; and it was known that they had been made despite JAG concerns at the POW Working Group meetings?

Time for counsel listed at the link to be subpoenaed as a material witness to the WH Counsel's knowledge of the CIA tape destruction/WH involvement with the review of that tape.

DoJ Memoranda on Waterboarding wrote on December 12, 2007 6:44 PM:

Nuremberg is precedent for litigating war crimes issues against civilian counsel. Named counsel at the Frontline link above, also has an issue to explain:

"Ref: "_In my presence_, in the _discussions_ that I was a part of, it was always explained to me that we did not use torture"]".

Grand Jury/War Crimes Prosecutor questions for named counsel:

- When did the named counsel at the Frontline link [ December 12, 2007 6:34 PM ] plan to review the DOJ Memoranda on waterboarding, as linked above?

- What was the basis for the named counsel to "believe" that these assertions were true: That the treatement of prisoners was "not" torture?

- Did the named counsel have a duty to investigate?

- What access did the named counsel have to the DOJ OLC Memoranda on waterboarding, linked above?

- Did counsel ever consider the CIA tape contents in light of the DOJ Memoranda on waterboarding?

- When did the named counsel compare [a] DoJ OLC Memorand on waterboarding; [b] what the named counsel was being told about prisoner treatment; [c] the transcription/evidence or other things counsel is alleged to have reviewed in re prisoner treatement/interrogation results; and [d] the duty of counsel to ensure Geneva was fully enforced?

- What evidence does the named counsel have that their legal arguments -- and statements made to Frontline -- are fully protected?

- Is there a reason this named counsel discussed on frontline an issue of prisoner treatement, which the US govenrment would have us believe is a "state secret"; why was this named counsel discussing issues in re rendition, but we're asked to beleive that the litigation of these issues is impossible, despite this named counsel's open discussion of the interrogation, rendition, and prisoner treatement issues on Frontline?

- Did the named counsel react with shock when he reviewed the DOJ OLC memoranda on prisoner treatment; or was WH counsel not effective in fully reviewing the case law related to water boarding?

- Which information did the named counsel at the Frontline link have access to which would respond to Senator Durbin's request for information?

OCPatriot wrote on December 12, 2007 6:53 PM:

I get sick (gag) when I read about letters being sent, instead of subpoenas, because letters are often ignored or only partially answered, and supbpoenas also get ignored. So it's all a farce. The Congress needs to vote to force the DOJ to accept, not appoint, a third party to do the investigation and anything less is a farce. So once again the Democrats become the party of farce. Farce, caving in, trembling with fear at using anything that might CONFRONT the juggernaut that DOJ and the Administration have become. Leahy, Durbin, Hoyer, Pelosi, Waxman -- all farce, all the time. Let's start replacing them, whenever possible.

JA wrote on December 12, 2007 7:23 PM:

It appears that the Dem Leadership, Pelosi, Harman, Rockefeller knew about the torture, so they aren't about to have special counsel look into any of this because they would be right up there in the Hague with Bushco for war crimes.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 8:56 PM:

[ OCPatriot wrote on December 12, 2007 6:53 PM ]

A sitting Speaker -- before the election -- can be removed as Speaker, replaced, and clear the way for impeachment. It only takes some of the DNC Members of Congress who supported the Kucinich resolution to work with the GOP to unseat Pelosi. It can happen; no need to wait until the 2008 election to remove Pelosi as Speaker.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 8:58 PM:

[ JA wrote on December 12, 2007 7:23 PM: ]

You are correct: DOJ OLC memoranda show waterboarding was viewed as torture. Congressional staff counsel should have known about the DOJ OLC memo; and the case cited. Either the Members of COngress were reckless in not asking; or, despite a duty to investigate and check, they failed. Yes, the alleged war crimes attach also to Members of Congress for their alleged failure to fully assert their oath, 5 USC 3331 in re Geneva.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 9:18 PM:

JA wrote on December 12, 2007 7:23 PM
OCPatriot wrote on December 12, 2007 6:53 PM

Google "Remove Pelosi" to find out how a sitting Speaker can be removed -- now, before the election -- to make way for impeachment.

LEONIDUS wrote on December 12, 2007 9:43 PM:

The Oil-King wants Congress to submit to his will and allow him to continue ignoring the Constitution.

In response, don't ask what should Congress do or what should the Democrat Presidential Candidates do. Instead ask yourself, WHAT SHOULD A FREE MAN DO.

DEMOCRATS, READY YOUR BREAKFAST AND EAT HEARTY, FOR TONIGHT WE DINE IN GRIDLOCK!

Aurelius wrote on December 12, 2007 10:04 PM:

"...his captors made audiotapes of his extensive interrogations in an Egyptian prison that recorded 'the sounds of my torture and my cries.'"

They probably listened to these tapes during sex.

Teaeopy wrote on December 12, 2007 10:18 PM:

Committees of Congress looking into matters of recorded interrogations are going to need technical assistance, and they'd better plan for that from the outset or else immediately appoint independent counsel who will be furnished with funds for technical assistance.

It's easy for us, and for Congress, to think chiefly in terms of audio cassettes or video-with-audio cassettes of some kind that are passed around or stored in some safe or cabinet somewhere. If recordings (audio, video, or both) and/or transcripts were made digitally, or if they were made as analog information then converted to digital information, the pursuit of the recordings and transcripts in question can lead in many directions. In the digital realm, hiding places and evidence may not be easy to find. Members of Congress should call experts who can apprise them of the technical issues that may apply, so that they won't limit searches to low-tech haystacks.

anon wrote on December 12, 2007 11:31 PM:

Somebody in DoJ has reviewed some tapes, and confessed to the court about it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071207_intel_letter.pdf

cinnamonape wrote on December 13, 2007 12:01 PM:

Judge Mukasey was the one who approved the FISA warrants against Jose Padilla, based largely on the "confessions" of Abu Zubaydah. So how is it that Atty General Mukasey is even involved in deciding anything about this case?

If he was told that the Zubaydah confession was consensual he is a party to being defrauded by the DOJ/CIA. If he knew that Zubaydah was tortured he is a participant in the crime. In either situation, he is a party to the case, and he needs to recuse himself, allowing Congress to appoint a Special Prosecutor.

cinnamonape wrote on December 13, 2007 12:06 PM:

Why would the Republicans join with Democrats to remove a Speaker and replace her with a real progressive? The only replacement that might occur would be someone like Rahm Emanuel or Steny Hoyer. Or a "Bush Dog".

Now I suppose that progressives could "go nuclear" and threaten that they would jump ship and vote for a Republican Speaker. They'd likely have to walk away from the Party to do this.

Hip E. wrote on December 13, 2007 1:51 PM:

"their"

MrJJ wrote on December 13, 2007 2:11 PM:

AG MuKasey.."I think the Justice Department is capable of doing whatever it appears needs to be done," Mukasey said. "The question of a special prosecutor is the most hypothetical of hypotheticals, and that isn't going to be faced until it happens. And if it has to be, it will be."

Mukasey may have a conflict of interest problem already, and may have to call upon a Special Prosecutor.

Jose Padilla’s lawyers argued before the Florida Federal Court that Abu Zubaydah was tortured into saying Padilla was an al Qaeda associate. The DOJ dismissed Padilla’s allegations as “meritless,” asserting Padilla’s legal team could not prove that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured. Well, it’s clear now that they certainly COULD have, if the tapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah had been made available!

Now here is where Mukasey’s role comes into question. U.S. District Judge Mukasey, now attorney general, was the one who signed the warrant used by the FBI to arrest Padilla in May 2002. Court records show the warrant relied in part on information obtained from Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. So we have a problem Houston.

The Attorney General can only issue a warrant based upon legally obtained evidence, and confessions under torture are certainly not “legally obtained”. So either Mukasey was misrepresented the evidence, and would be liable to be potentially a party in those who were presented with “perjured evidence”; or he knew that torture was used in obtaining the confession and ignored it.

In either case he is unsuitable to run an investigation, as it will, inevitably, involved himself. Thus a Special Prosecutor is necessary.

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 2:24 PM:

cinnamonape wrote on December 13, 2007 12:06 PM:
Why would the Republicans join with Democrats to remove a Speaker and replace her with a real progressive?

You're assuming the DNC would not -- as a tactical move -- permit the GOP to support as a replacement, someone that both supports impeachment, and is leaning toward the GOP.

It's not unimaginable that the GOP could bargain with the right DNC House members to give the DNC what it wants -- an impeachment investigation -- in exchange for DNC support of someone the GOP likes as House leader.

Recall, if Cheney and Bush are convicted/removed without any replacement, the GOP in the House would want an input to the new President, former House Speaker.

Mary wrote on December 13, 2007 3:20 PM:

BTW - is Congress ever going to get around to asking about the torture of el-Masri and what info is floating around on that? Or the way the US disappeared children aged 6 and 8, to use them as hostages and abuse them to try to make KSM say what they wanted him to say? Those children are still missing.

And while Durbin is asking for audio tapes, why not ask for the basics on pictures? Almost all the rendition victims mention being stripped and photographed and they seemed to enjoy making the Arab men be photographed by women when possible. Binyam Mohammed (the only Brit affiliated detainee that the loyal Bushies are not sending to Britain) has made the allegations that the US first sent him to Morocco for torture which included scalpel cuts on his chest and genitals and that the US photograher on his rendition flight gasped a little at what she saw.

Could all be a lie - or not. With a CIA that disappears children and a CIA Director who has been as truthy, in his uniform and even under oath, as Hayden, how can you know? How do we get to such a state?

DoJ Declaration: What About DVD? wrote on December 13, 2007 7:03 PM:

The link "DoJ Declaration: What About DVD?" goes to a NYT pdf of the DoJ letter to the court correcting the record. The letter discusses various lines of evidence which were not destroyed.

Notice nobody appears to be asking for or discussing _DVDs_. Some lawyers might say, "Videos are not the same as DVDs." The responses at the declaration leave open the possibilty the CIA has disclosed all "videos" but is silent onw hether there are or are not DVDs or other electronic storage.

- Are there any recorded _DVDs_ or DVD-masters of the interrogations related to water boarding or any other prisoner abuse?

- How many of the CIA interrogations were taped using DVDs?

- In the CIA responses to Congress, were they only referring to video taping, and _not_ referring to electronic recording including DVDs?

- Who/which contractor did the electronic transfer of data from video to DVD; when was this done; what facility/facilities was/were the transfer(s) started/done/processed/completed?

parrot wrote on December 13, 2007 11:17 PM:

Is someone taping the torturing of our Constitution too?

michael72 wrote on December 14, 2007 4:20 AM:

durbin's on the ball.
my first thought was, there are still a few good decent men and women in congress.
now, whether the Torture Regime answers is another question.

Sailmaker wrote on December 14, 2007 11:51 AM:

Where are the tapes of the torture of John Walker Lindh (american taliban)? Not holding my breath waiting for them to surface.