« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
The gang's all here!
Really, can you have a botched cover-up without Alberto Gonzales involved? And how can there be a torture scandal without David Addington's great big mug?
The New York Times reports today that Gonzales and Addington were among the White House lawyers (Harriet Miers was also among them) who advised the CIA on what to do with the torture tapes. What's not entirely clear, however, is what they advised to the CIA to do.
The story up until now had been at least somewhat simple. White House and Justice Department lawyers had been unanimous in their advice: do not destroy the tapes. But those in the camp of Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA operations chief who gave the order to destroy the tapes, have said that the White House's advice wasn't unequivocal ("They never told us 'Hell, no'"). For lack of any clear directives or advice from on high, Rodriguez had them destroyed.
But now the story gets murkier:
One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.Some other officials assert that no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes. Those officials acknowledged, however, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal.
The Times can't hope to sort all this out, only reporting that there are "conflicting accounts." Thankfully, Newsweek has reported that there is "an extensive paper—or e-mail—trail" of all this back and forth. So at least investigators have that going for them (of course, it depends on who's investigating).
And to add to the murk, ass-saving, and back-biting, the Times reports that the CIA lawyers who gave Rodriguez the legal green light didn't really mean it to be the green light. After he was given written advice by two lawyers, Steven Hermes and Robert Eatinger, that "he had the authority to destroy the tapes and that the destruction would violate no laws," he went ahead. But:
Current and former officials said the two lawyers informed the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, about the legal advice they had provided. But officials said Mr. Rodriguez did not inform either Mr. Rizzo or Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, before he sent the cable to destroy the tapes.“There was an expectation on the part of those providing legal guidance that additional bases would be touched,” said one government official with knowledge of the matter. “That didn’t happen.”
Robert S. Bennett, a lawyer for Mr. Rodriguez, insisted that his client had done nothing wrong and suggested that Mr. Rodriguez had been authorized to order the destruction of the tapes. “He had a green light to destroy them,” Mr. Bennett said.
So to sum up: after three years of apparently contradictory and equivocal advice from both the CIA and top levels of the government, Rodriguez finally destroyed the tapes after receiving legal advice that he could. But the lawyers who told him that say he should have touched "additional bases" before he did. And none of this explains why the CIA and the administration kept the tapes secret for three years, possibly criminally obstructing multiple investigations.
Comments (21)
gcs wrote on December 19, 2007 9:53 AM:Wow, the White House lied? Bush lied? Cheney lied? Gonzo lied?
My God, who'd believe it?
JohnS wrote on December 19, 2007 9:54 AM:Of course it remains unclear what they "advised." But I'd suggest that what ultimately happened to the tapes gives a pretty big clue what that "advice" was...
Slim wrote on December 19, 2007 10:02 AM:Quick! Somebody get the box of "Captain Renault - I'm shocked. Shocked! To know there's ______ going on here!" awards ready.
This makes me want to look back at that Gonzales testimony a lot more closely. Gosh darn it, I would not be surpirse to see that he wasn't entirely truthful with Congress.
Also, I would be shocked if this had something to do with Harriet not being able to come before Congress.
It is so sad how low our coutry has fallen. I'm not surprised at the mendacious activity of politicians, we have all seen it before - but the near-total lack of outrage, the flippant media, and the gutless cowards in Congress make me want to weep.
anon wrote on December 19, 2007 10:22 AM:Was there a "Non-Denial Denial" category in the muckraker awards? Today's WH statement on the NYT article is a winner. I love the line about changing the subtitle. Yeah! That will do it. The article isn't correct but we don't have any corrections but please change the subtitle. Nice.
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 10:32 AM:What was the quote . . . ?
". . . using innuendo, unnamed sources, the Post's hypocrisy is plain for all to see"
Richard Kleindeist - Attorney General US, 1972, on the Post's publishing a piece naming H.R. Haldeman as one of the controllers of a secret White House Fund.
biff diggerence wrote on December 19, 2007 10:34 AM:escusa . . .
Kleindienst
Bill Peterson wrote on December 19, 2007 10:51 AM:Basically, once we swallowed the Big Lie (the 2000 election theft), there is no way to go back. Each of the other Big Lies (Plame treason, Iraq, Katrina, US Attorneys, domestic spying, torture, secret off-shore prisons, rendition, etc,etc) should have been enough to topple anyone. But it is all one big ball of twine.
If we actually get to start unraveling any of it, the whole thing might come loose. After 7 years of buying into the Lie, the media does not want to bring it all down.
It was so obvious during the "Impeachment" of Clinton that the "news" was just a megaphone. Nothing has changed.
BP
Patience wrote on December 19, 2007 10:56 AM:How exactly can Rodriguez afford to hire Bennett as his lawyer? I would think that an attorney of Bennett's caliber would be priced out of range for a guy who's spent his whole career in government service.
danger wrote on December 19, 2007 10:56 AM:Oh look, Dick Cheney's office is on fire.
JEP wrote on December 19, 2007 11:20 AM:Makes one wonder what's burning in Cheney's office right now (10:16 AM central time, Dec. 19, 2007), either the foxes in charge of the hen house (white house) know the legal hounds are closing in and they burnt up that pile of oldchickenfeathers, or their shredders overloaded and overheated and burst into flames.
Or maybe it was the friction created by their furious tapping on that "delete" button.
Or all of the above.
lambert strether wrote on December 19, 2007 12:08 PM:> Bill Petersen
> Basically, once we swallowed the Big Lie > (the 2000 election theft), there is no
> way to go back.
+1
Please let's stop saying "The Supreme Court" and start saying "The Bush Court."
Because it's plain as day from the way that Bush v. Gore was written that the decision had nothing to do with the merits of the case, and everything to do with getting Scalia et al. the votes to impose their brand of jurisprudence, given the Justices that a Republican would nominate after Bush was selected.
Therefore, every decision the Court has made since Roberts and Alito were voted onto the bench is fruit of the poisonous tree of Bush v. Gore, because without the theft of election 2000, those nominations and the Bush Court would never have come to pass. Basically, they wrote their own ticket into power, just like everywhere else.
So, tell me again why we should regard the Supreme Court as legitimate?
whidbeygrl wrote on December 19, 2007 12:25 PM:Clearly the WH gang is in a deep dither over the tapes.
brian wrote on December 19, 2007 12:34 PM:Which leads to the question of what is it they are so desperate to hide?
Perhaps the answer lies in WHO was being waterboarded on those tapes.
Someone over at Daily Kos a very detailed chunk of information suggesting the reasons for the WH fear...well worth reading.. it rings true for me.
http://leveymg.dailykos.com/
The 'tapes' were not destroyed - why would you think so ?
There are multiple copies of those tapes in computer files, on DVDs - on all sorts of storage devices.
The perpetrators of torture are using this fake story to stall.
Let us use our heads, colleagues. Do not swallow another fake story.
Guideline : everything they say is a fake story.
Fake, fake, fake.
Joe Monster wrote on December 19, 2007 12:43 PM:Dick Cheney's office is on fire? Must not be on fire. Because these are the only two tapes. And they're on Beta. But they're not. Because the Executive Branch is a festering pool of wrong.
Joe Monster wrote on December 19, 2007 12:47 PM:danger wrote on December 19, 2007 10:56 AM:
Oh look, Dick Cheney's office is on fire.
This is the funniest thing I've ever read. Or heard. I've said it aloud a few times. I wish funny was still funny. I want my absurdity back.
Thanks danger.
And Brian is probably right, they told us the tapes were destroyed. That means they're mass producing the tapes in China RIGHT NOW.
anon wrote on December 19, 2007 12:56 PM:...Which leads to the question of what is it they are so desperate to hide?...
I think, though of course there's other stuff going on as well, that the WH is desperate because Bush and Cheney--as LJ and various other people have suggested--have watched the tapes and/or watched a live feed of the torture. Their reaction to the tapes mess is, as the president sez "interesting." Or, rather, that's the reason they are upset about these two tapes. It's pretty clear that lots more people have been tortured and there are more tapes than these two but it seems likely that Bush and Cheney are directly involved in these two cases. Maybe there's more, who knows? But I'd say one or more players are intentionally putting Bush and Cheney in play.
biff diggerence wrote on December 19, 2007 1:18 PM:Catherine Mathis, senior vice president of corporate communications for the newspaper, stated that the sub-headline has been changed, adding that a correction would be printed. However, Mathis also pointed out that the White House did not challenge the contents of the article.
++++
Sons of bitches and their non-denial denials.
Long Memory wrote on December 19, 2007 1:38 PM:I think they should do everything necessary to get to the bottom of this. Including waterboarding.
danger wrote on December 19, 2007 1:49 PM:Heh. The mundane is always the best, isn't it JM.
Given I have nothing better to do at work than follow the news, when I heard about the fire I figured he put a few too many logs in the fireplace.
The revelation, however, that Secret Service agents blocked the fire investigators from entering is astounding, and is tantamount to obstruction. Why couldn't the Secret Service just accompany the fire investigators at every step? Afraid the fire investigators would find something criminal?
B-b-b-b-bbbut... NATIONAL SECURITY!!
Washington must stink today.
Rick wrote on December 19, 2007 2:22 PM:Did Saddam Hussein get the Green Light or not from the Bush to invade Kuwait? Did he get a cable saying “Hell No?” Sorry wrong story.
just joe wrote on December 19, 2007 2:59 PM:What's the big deal? Congress will just give the CIA and the Bush administration retroactive immunity anyway. The congress has already shown their willingness to "do" nothing after they investigate (Doan is still in charge of the GSA for example).
Pelosi has stated that no matter what this administration has done or what the results of any investigations are, she still will not impeach them so why even bother with oversight when there is no accountability.
THIS IS THE CONGRESSIONAL CRIME ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS THE "MONEY PARTY" (whose members are both repub and dem) The dinosaurs of pork...the pork people...porky pigs.