« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Usually, what nails you in Washington malfeasance is the cover-up, not the crime. With the revelation that the CIA in 2005 destroyed videotapes of interrogations of senior al-Qaeda detainees, it'll be both.
Start with the facts as they're currently understood. In 2002, the CIA videotaped interrogations of Abu Zubaydah, the chief of al-Qaeda's military committee, and an as-yet-unknown colleague. (My guess is that Detainee #2 is Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who, following his capture that September in Pakistan, was the second most important detainee then in custody.) During that time, the tapes remained a closely-held secret, despite requests for information on interrogations from the 9/11 Commission, a 2002 joint Congressional inquiry into 9/11, and Judge Leonie Brinkema, who presided over the Zacharias Moussaoui trial. In 2005, then operations chief Jose Rodriguez ordered the tapes destroyed, without disclosing their existence to anyone who didn't already know. This week, The New York Times prepared a story about the tapes. To get out in front of it, Director Michael Hayden released a statement about both the tapes and their destruction.
Hayden makes not a single plausible claim about the tapes and why they were destroyed. He said in an internal message to CIA employees that the release of the tapes -- whether to the judge or to the inquiries or to, ultimately, the press -- would have allowed al-Qaeda to identify CIA interrogators and then target them for retribution. The appropriate response to that is: LOL. The CIA has the capacity to move its operatives around the world, including to places where there aren't any al-Qaeda "assassins" -- like, say, northern Virginia. To say otherwise, as Hayden does, is to tacitly concede that CIA is too incompetent to protect its people.
Hayden said that the tapes in 2005 "were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries." First, that ducks the question of why they weren't relevant to, say, the joint Congressional inquiry or the 9/11 Commission, which they obviously were. Second, Moussaoui was convicted in 2006. The tapes were clearly relevant to his case, as Moussaoui wanted Abu Zubaydah's interrogation entered into the record for his defense (bin al-Shibh's, too). The Justice Department told Judge Brinkema that the interrogation wasn't videotaped. Someone at CIA either lied to DOJ (likely) or someone at DOJ lied to Brinkema (less likely). Third, Congress has been trying to get information about CIA interrogations for years. These are obviously relevant to that "legislative inquiry" as well.
He also said that the CIA's general counsel -- who works for the agency's director -- said the destruction was kosher, while neglecting to say whether his persecuted inspector general ever rendered a judgment here.
Of course, Hayden just inherited this whirlwind. His predecessors, George Tenet and Porter Goss, sowed it. And to a greater degree, it's the fault of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, John Yoo and John Rizzo, who created a blatantly illegal interrogation program for the CIA to implement. Those on the tapes torturing Abu Zubaydah and Detainee #2 were, loyally, doing what those men wanted. But Tenet must have known that what's on those tapes is evidence of criminal activity. That's a much more plausible explanation for why he stopped taping interrogations. And it's also probably why Rodriguez, with Goss' tacit or explicit consent, destroyed them. If Michael Mukasey is the same man of integrity he was before he became attorney general, he'd call that criminal conspiracy or deliberate obstruction of justice.
What will probably end up consuming the remainder of Bush's term is an inquiry into the cover-up. But it's always the crime -- torture, systematic and approved by the highest levels -- that demands focus. And it was the CIA's decision to distract whomever it could from knowing about the crime.
Comments (55)
danger wrote on December 7, 2007 9:53 AM:LOL is an entirely appropriate response.
gcs wrote on December 7, 2007 10:02 AM:I wonder if anyone will please ask Speaker Pelosi to explain to us all again why impeachment is "off the table."
dm wrote on December 7, 2007 10:03 AM:I wonder if Judge Brinkema is considering appointing a special prosecutor to investigate contempt charges against the DOJ or CIA in this matter. The courts exercise this inherent authority from time to time, so maybe we don't have to wait for the AG to act...
hope4usa wrote on December 7, 2007 10:06 AM:Could this evidence which was withheld from both Judge Brinkema and Moussaoui, be used to overturn his conviction? What other litigation Padilla(?) could be overturned as a result of prosecutorial misconduct. Even if the Prosecutor was lied to by CIA it doesn't protect him.
Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 10:12 AM:keep impeachment off the table and get them after 08 when bushit can no longer pardon and punishment can actually be meted out.
johno wrote on December 7, 2007 10:15 AM:Actually, the CIA could easily obscure the identity of their staff on the tapes - isn't that done all the time?
slb wrote on December 7, 2007 10:16 AM:>> Those on the tapes torturing Abu Zubaydah and Detainee #2 were, loyally, doing what those men wanted. <<
Loyally??? What happened to loyalty to the Constitution, which all of those men took an oath to defend? Personal loyalty should never have trumped loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. Yes, the guys at the top of the food chain are the worst offenders, but those who carried out their orders should not be given a free pass.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke was right -- that is exactly what happened here.
Dennis wrote on December 7, 2007 10:18 AM:"If Michael Mukasey is the same man of integrity he was before he became attorney general, he'd call that criminal conspiracy or deliberate obstruction of justice."
Surely, you jest.
Mukasey was placed in his position (by BOTH Democrats and Republicans) explicitly for occasions like this.
If I am wrong, then George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, John Yoo and John Rizzo, and unnamed others will be charged and tried in a court of law.
Yet, we all know from experience past, and certainly day present, this is not going to happen.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
TheraP wrote on December 7, 2007 10:21 AM:Remember, they say "at least" two tapes were destroyed. If two, then plural. So they had to say "tapes." I doubt just two.
Next thing to remember, they "stopped taping." Hmmmmm.... What were they doing after that - instead of taping? (These people use words with great deliberateness, so what is contained in those words?)
Where is the paper trail for this? Paper trail authorizing taping? Authorizing destruction? Who watched the tapes? And where's the paper trail for that?
Subpoena all involved!
It's a war crime to photograph a prisoner. Not just to mistreat. To film. To photograph.
So, they destroyed war crime evidence for multiple crimes.
It's my understanding there is no statute of limitations for war crimes.
jolly ranchero wrote on December 7, 2007 10:22 AM:This is beyond laughable. Am I suppose to believe that AQ would "target" ONLY those CIA agents responsible? As if they'd run into a bunch of CIA agents in the field, and say, "Well, you're not the ones who waterboarded my brother, so, come on, let's get coffee"???
Are we really supposed to believe that AQ suddenly decides to kill only those Americans responsible for waterboarding, implying all other Americans are safe?
Is Hayden really that f'in stupid to think we'd buy this?
JohnW1141 wrote on December 7, 2007 10:24 AM:All too many Bush administration officials feel they can break the law with impunity. They know the Democrats will bloviate, talk tough.......and do nothing else.
Democrat Chairmen: 'If you don't obey this subpoena we'll be forced to give you 6 more months!'
Bill in Chicago wrote on December 7, 2007 10:24 AM:Regarding the Zubaydah videos, harsh interrogation techniques might not be the only remarkable thing on those tapes. Could the administration once again be trying to deep-six evidence implicating their bestest oil buddies in the Middle East?
Check out "Part 4" here for the disturbing background:
www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
Barry Stock wrote on December 7, 2007 10:25 AM:Yes, it is quite easy, in fact MTV blurs out product logos or offensive artwork in videos all the time, and we have all seen interviews with covert operatives with blacked out faces and altered voices. It can be done by anyone with a bottom-of-the-line video rig.
EH wrote on December 7, 2007 10:27 AM:Am I the only one who thinks this story (CIA only) was leaked in order to take the NIE story (CIA + Administration) off the headlines? Conspiratorial for sure, but we know that the CIA can punt every question into an investigation that doesn't go anywhere. The NIE story is not so easily blackholed.
slomojoe wrote on December 7, 2007 10:34 AM:I guess it's possible that the CIA interrogators may have been foreign nationals, for whom arranging protection would have been difficult. Add to that the likely political consequences for the participating foreign governments, and the obviously embarrassing revelation that by "We do not torture" the Administration may well just mean that we gladly allow foreigners to torture for us, and you have a neat package of reasons that fulfill the explanations provided and preserve plausible deniability.
C92 wrote on December 7, 2007 10:34 AM:So many issues wrapped up in this latest finding.
First, the criminality of the interrogations that could be revealed by the . Was there waterboarding? Other prohibited torture treatments during interrogation that the Administration may deny using? Or has been legislated against using?
Second, the policy outcomes of the interrogations. Do the tapes show that the methods of interrogation lead to collection of actionnable intelligence? These were high value detainees. What a blow it would be to the Administration's position it needs to do anything and everything to extract info if no info was extracted.
So much, so much.
I actually can see Hayden's worry about compromising identities, though. The CIA cannot protect its people as has been proven by the Plame case. Hayden is acting to protect interrogators not from Al-Qaeda assassins, but from the Administration itself.
S.G.E.W. wrote on December 7, 2007 10:35 AM:Honestly, I think that the C.I.A. officials were probably correct in their decision to destroy the tapes (from their point of view, of course). On the one hand, it's often true that "it's the cover-up that'll get ya," but, on the other hand, if those video tapes ever saw the light of day (either behind closed doors in the 9/11 commission meetings or, heaven forbid, the public forum) the results would be devastating to their interests.
Specifically: these tapes were (most likely) clear and convincing visceral evidence that government officials of the U.S. are torturing people. Period.
There is a great deal of debate over whether "enhanced interrogation techniques" are "torture" or not. Of course, (virtually) anyone who has ever glanced at international or domestic law knows the answer to this (yes: or at least "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment," which is equivalent to torture as a matter of law and forbidden by jus cogens norms and the appropriate statutes, treaties, etc. etc.), but the American public is unsure about the issue.
Actual video imagery of water-boarding (and/or other "enhanced techniques") would settle this debate pretty f*@&ing quickly. If there weren't photographs from Abu Ghraib it would never have been a very big deal at all. And those photographs were only of run-of-the-mill humiliation techniques, not the outright torture that these destroyed videos (and the Padilla tapes) would have unmistakably illustrated. And who in the C.I.A. wants to face a war-crimes tribunal? Much better to prepare for a possible (but, let's face it, unlikely) indictment for obstruction of justice.
Cost/Benefit analysis: A slap on the wrist (at best) for a few C.I.A. flunkies for destroying evidence? Or indictment for war crimes?
Heaven forbid, the public might even turn against torturing "teh mooslems" and other brown people! We can't have that now, can we?
I am the most cynical man in the room.
Cheviteau wrote on December 7, 2007 10:35 AM:The CIA admitting it can't protect its people? I call bullshit. They did a heck of a job protecting Valerie Plame and her network. Or not.
Nin wrote on December 7, 2007 10:38 AM:Well well well. Why destroy it if you have nothing to hide (torture) and why lie about having it if you have nothing to hide (torture) and why make up some silly story to make the case for the destruction (torture) and....
Harry Potter's magic cloak that Bush borrowed for the last 6 plus years has some moth holes in it.
FMArouet wrote on December 7, 2007 10:40 AM:Two simple points:
(1) Destruction of the tapes is itself a criminal act, for it destroys evidence, and therefore obstructs justice. The taped evidence was clearly relevant to trials (and other legal proceedings) regarding the detainees. It was also potentially relevant to eventual trials of U.S. officials for violations of the U.S. War Crimes Act and and the U.S. Anti-torture Statute.
(2) Under U.S. case law, the destruction of such evidence provides ample justification for judicial dismissal of prosecutions of detainees who have been subjected to the torture (i.e., "enhanced" or "harsh" interrogation) techniques, for it destroys potentially exculpatory evidence involving coerced confessions.
In short, rather than actually bringing real terrorists to legitimate justice through trials and convictions, the Bush Administration has mucked up the legal cases first by using torture on detainees, and then by destroying the videotaped evidence of torture.
It is a return to Medieval World, and the neoconderthal nutzis of the Bush Administration have surged ahead in the race back to the 13th Century.
Louise wrote on December 7, 2007 10:42 AM:There were reports during the 2004-2005 period that both Cheney and Rumsfeld were regularly provided with copies of the "interrogation" tapes. They would not only study them, according to visitors, but would also show appropriate segments to guests.
Check Rumsfeld's DVD collection.
JohnJ wrote on December 7, 2007 10:57 AM:Louise: "but would also show appropriate segments to guests."
With this bunch, you have to wonder if this wasn't the major reason for doing this: entertainment.
I'd start looking at rummy's and the Big Dick's DVDs for snuff films as well.
Tortoise wrote on December 7, 2007 11:08 AM:Ah, but Louise, DVDs aren't tapes are they?
So no need to mention those.
vdomeras wrote on December 7, 2007 11:13 AM:ges:
As much as I'd love to see the bastards (is that still an epithet?) impeached, we need to understand that the slim Democratic majority need to establish a record of competence, responsibility and even-handedness before the '08 elections.
Impeachment would use up all the oxygen for two years and maybe yield some satisfaction for us who have been appalled at the way things have been done recently, but do nothing to change the situation. How could any useful, just legislation be passed while the parties fought it out over whether W is a hero or a criminal, and whether the Democrats are just sore losers who want to divide us and distract our leadership in a time of war?
I just hope that the next administration and congress don't decide to let bygones be bygones. Some decent judicial appointees along with some courage on the part of the new leadership and the media will be needed to pursue the illegal activities of all of them from the lowest level political appointees up to the Decider.
alex wrote on December 7, 2007 11:26 AM:Sadly, I'm in the camp of being glad the tapes were destroyed. Better them than America at this point. The world as a whole would be in danger if such images were beamed around the world.
Serious consideration should be given now to a post-election strategy for prosecution of high crimes committed by the Bush administration. A Democratic president is hard not to predict given the daily fealty being put forth by the Republican field.
A team of lawyers should be working behind closed doors even now preparing a strategy of how to go after these people on justified grounds.
Once utter contempt is out of the Department of Justice, and that department is tasked with restoring its credibility and commitment to the Constitution, then these guys could start going to jail for breaking the public trust.
How do you go after a president out of office based on Constitutional abuse?
will o dwisp wrote on December 7, 2007 11:44 AM:maybe the tapes were destroyed because these were the interrogations Rumsfeld sat in on -they could blur his face for the public, but there would always be the possibility an unblurred copy exists
John Forde wrote on December 7, 2007 11:50 AM:Protect interrogator's identities? It's laughable. After capture, Zubayda never saw a human face. EVER.
Interrogators and anyone else wore hoods. ALWAYS.
EH wrote on December 7, 2007 11:59 AM:"In short, rather than actually bringing real terrorists to legitimate justice through trials and convictions, the Bush Administration has mucked up the legal cases..."
This assumes that your definition of "legitimate justice" comports with the administration's. You neglect to account for the possibility that this is all normal in the course of business, S.O.P.
abarefootboy wrote on December 7, 2007 12:09 PM:These videos should have been shown on all the national news progams, distributed to all public libraries, and free from Neflix and US Government , at the time we were disscusing whether waterboarding is torture.
Philip wrote on December 7, 2007 12:09 PM:Now that's a shame... if those tapes were still around you could have marketed them as porn to the "double guantanamo", "I'm looking for jack bauer", "I don't know that waterboarding is torture" crowd. What red-blooded red-state American wouldn't get a woody from watching islamofascists be tortured? Ah, well.
djrichard wrote on December 7, 2007 12:15 PM:I'm surprised nobody in legal told Gates that "serious security risk" was meant to be used for many years and shouldn't be used for something so obviously transparent. Ah well, all manner of stock phrases are still available for hiding activities meant to be kept in the dark. "National security" comes to mind. I would imagine that there's no way that they're going let that one be sqaundered away so easily as Gates did with "serious security risk".
mo2 wrote on December 7, 2007 12:27 PM:wiki says "On August 8, 2007, the Associated Press reported on Jose Rodriguez's upcoming retirement. He will retire on September 30, 2007."
It sounds like he jumped ship once it became evident that his actions would be revealed.
mo2 wrote on December 7, 2007 12:31 PM:Couple my above comment with what the TPM reader says on TPM main page, "What happened in early August was not that Bush learned of the findings, but that McConnell informed him that the NIE containing the findings would be released."
By "early August" I assume the date was prior to August 8.
mo2 wrote on December 7, 2007 12:35 PM:Question: Who has the authority to fire or ask for the resignation of the Director of the National Clandestine Service at the CIA? The list is surely a short one.
Bob's Not RIght wrote on December 7, 2007 12:37 PM:I agree with the assessment that the destroyed tapes are better than the public release of them for the country's sake.
I think this is a legal rabbit hole anyway, it is not evidence unless it was under subpoena or otherwise identified by the courts or unless the CIA was under order to produce.
As to the blurring out of identities that is done digitally. I am sure the CIA never let those tapes become digital; once they are digital controlling them is very tricky. My guess is that there were some tightly controlled analog tapes that never saw a computer and were very easy to destroy, they knew that before they ever started.
mo2 wrote on December 7, 2007 12:38 PM:"someone at DOJ lied to Brinkema" (less likely).
No way - just as likely as anything else. This is Cheny/Bush/Gonzales' DOJ, not the US DOJ we're talking about.
Richard Tatlow wrote on December 7, 2007 12:42 PM:A mountain out of a molehill! Why shouldn't the CIA erase video tapes if they chose to do so? Is their a federal statue that says all video must be kept forever? I would like to see all phone call, eMails, and meeting notes of Pelosi/Reid made public. I wonder how many violations of the Hatch Act would be uncovered!
RCL wrote on December 7, 2007 12:44 PM:The argument of the Bush Administration with respect to their enhanced interrogation policy is that it is both legal and effective. What could be more useful to supporting their case than tapes that would prove both? The tapes were indeed destroyed to protect the agents, not from "Islamic terrorists", but from criminal prosecution by a subsequent administration. It also reinforces the more troubling narrative pervading the Bush administration:we will not engage in a rational dialogue about the balance between security and civil liberties, we will tell you what is right and legal and suppress any facts which may prove inconvenient to our revealed truth.
mo2 wrote on December 7, 2007 12:49 PM:Remember Scott Bloch's, Special Counsel for protection of whistle blowers, erased laptop? And that he carries his files on his key ring? Would/Could he have the interrogation videos?
virginia cynic wrote on December 7, 2007 12:58 PM:and Rockefeller and Harman both knew of the tapes and just sat there. A simple lack of courage by two of our absolutely useless Democrats. They could have immediately told the world and then have let Bush try to attack them. They will not even have the decency to let someone with courage take over after their failure.
djrichard wrote on December 7, 2007 1:19 PM:For the country's sake all war crimes should be hidden from public view - not!
Gene wrote on December 7, 2007 1:31 PM:Mr. Tatlow: You are a twit. The destruction of tape recordings of CIA agents committing torture is a crime. The torture they committed is a crime.
"We conduct our activities and ourselves according to the highest standards of integrity, morality and honor and according to the spirit and letter of our law and Constitution." Central Intelligence Agency Credo.
Audio recordings and/or transcripts will still exist, as well as documents evaluating the conduct of the torture. Congress should demand that evidence.
JF wrote on December 7, 2007 1:45 PM:I'm confused. The NYT says that the tapes were destroyed in 2005. But the Justice Department apparently viewed some interrogation tapes in 2007. See letter dated October 27, 2007 relating to the Moussaoui prosecution.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/20071207_intel_letter.pdf
ddd wrote on December 7, 2007 2:00 PM:"-- would have allowed al-Qaeda to identify CIA interrogators and then target them for retribution."
Probably he accidentally said al-Qaeda when he mean't to say Congress, DOJ, or The American People instead.
al75 wrote on December 7, 2007 3:01 PM:The Porter Goss connection seems really important. Goss -- as was covered extensively in TPM at the time -- came into the CIA and installed 4 political hacks in all the senior spots of the CIA in what was touted as an effort to "de-politicize" the CIA (i.e. put an end to the resistance to Dick Cheney/Doug Feith's intelligence-fixing operations, etc, which was seen as treason by the Cheney-ites).
One of Goss's associates had to quit immediately, because it turned out he had been canned from the CIA previously for a shoplifting conviction. Leaking of this shady background was seen as another act of treason by insiders at the CIA.
Another of Goss's Cronies was Dusty "nine fingers" Foggo, who with Brent Wilkes ran a "hospitality suite" for US congressman complete with hookers bussed in under a DHS contracted limousine company.
As reported in TPM at the time, Foggo was an impulsive moron with a long history of screwing up when he was a low-level operative at the CIA, and a rumored history of being the go-to guy for hookers in Honduras the 1980's, for Republicans visiting the contras.
Many members of congress, including powerful Democrats (remember the Democrats?) visited the "hospitality suites", but they did so only for "poker games". The only Congressman who was ever id'd as laying with the hookers was Duke Cunningham.
Cunningham and Wilkes were being prosecuted and investigated by Carol Lam, until Gonzalez/Scholtzman had her fired. Other California Republicans were potentially implicated.
All those hookers, a whole limousine operation, just to service one fat, dumb Republican? Damn. Must have had balls of tungsten!
All kidding aside, the story was an utter disgrace. At the very least, it represented a gross breach of security at the CIA. Espionage 101 involves getting your target to lay with hookers etc. so you can blackmail them.
There is also a real question in my mind as to whether the "poker game" was a blackmail/bribery operation being run BY Goss and Foggo. Certainly the involvement of prominent Dems (on from Texas as I recall) was one of the reasons this story never saw the light of day, other than hideous radical America-hating blogs run by Josh Marshall.
Goss quickly and quietly stepped down to spend more time with his family. His name is almost never mentioned by the MSM. Even in the times today, the fact that he was DCIA at the time is (as far as I could read) not mentioned -- they only publish his denial that he knew anything.
Clearly, Goss's "clean-up" at the CIA was on of complete lawlessness, and an effort to subordinate the agency to Cheney's agenda using cash, poon-tang, and muscle -- remember that the Valerie Plame burn was ongoing at the same time: an effort to slam and burn spooks who actually thought they were in the intelligence business, rather than the unitary executive propaganda business.
Goss ordering tapes destroyed is entirely consistent with his reckless crony takeover.
But...why is this coming out now?
Is it a coincidence that this story follows th Iran NIE story by two days?
If all of this is linked, and Dems are implicated, then it makes sense that Harman/Rockefeller played nice.
RichM wrote on December 7, 2007 3:36 PM:Don't worry, Mr. Ackerman. Babs Boxer said she doesn't believe that the CIA has done anything wrong, so everything should be hunky-dory. And let's face it, Rockefeller and Harmon knew the tapes were lying around and were probably destroyed - and didn't say a peep about it until today. So I'm sure there is nothing to see here. Don't you have any news about Britney, Paris or Lindsey?
PeaceMan wrote on December 7, 2007 4:46 PM:Message for Pelosi- How many times have you and your fellow Democrats tried, of course only to appeal to your far-left fringe, to pull the troops out of Iraq? Time and time again, instead of doing the work that needs to be done for the majority of the country, you continue to try and appease the few of your supporters on the left who want nothing more the the defeat of the United States.
"to the "double guantanamo", "I'm looking for jack bauer", "I don't know that waterboarding is torture" crowd. What red-blooded red-state American wouldn't get a woody from watching islamofascists be tortured? "
Wow I can't imagine why The Left (excuse me Progressives)is considered a bunch of bitter angry burnouts left over from the 60's
Talk about divsive!! "See it my way or your evil" "How dare you decide someone is actually an enemy of our country." "If we have any enemies that want to do violence we must have caused their anger in the first place"
Ross Best wrote on December 7, 2007 4:49 PM:I tnink the source of wars is the vitriolic hate and discourse found in blogs like this.
"LOL is an entirely appropriate response"
Impeach Out Loud would be more appropriate.
skippyjones wrote on December 7, 2007 8:14 PM:johno wrote on December 7, 2007 10:15 AM:
Actually, the CIA could easily obscure the identity of their staff on the tapes - isn't that done all the time?
That's pretty funny actually - we can make movies where New York City is flooded, destroyed, taken over by aliens - but it is beyond our half a trillion dollar defense budget to black out a face on a videotape. not like NBC news can't do it in about...oh....a minute or two.
green heron wrote on December 7, 2007 9:43 PM:at any rate, hayden is ridiculous. you would have to destroy all the records of the CIA to protect the identity of an agent from being leaked. it's why we have all those...uh....classifications on documents, y'know...like 'top secret'...compartimentalized yadayada. That is about the most disingenous excuse I've ever heard from a government official, save nixon's secretary who just so happened to have accidently erased those eighteen minutes of tape.....sure makes you wonder what might be on those tapes, huh? HINT: it has nothing to do with interrogation techniques. It has everything to do with the information provided by Moussaoui regarding Saudi and Pakistani involvement in 9/11.
With this administration, I always suspect the worst. My first thought after reading this story was that someone, somewhere was videotaped being tortured and ended up dead.
parrot wrote on December 8, 2007 4:27 AM:Again, lack of photographs or videos is not the deciding factor in whether a crime has or has not been committed. And who ever says that it is never actually believed in the law and judicial systems prior to the invention of cameras and movies. GET WITH ACTUALLY PURSUING CRIMINALS MASQUERADING AS PUBLIC SERVANTS! PLEASE! WE DO NOT NEED TORTURERS--BUREAUCRATIC OR OTHERWISE--DECIDING WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICANS AND/OR WHAT TO DO WITH THE WORLD'S RESOURCES.
Thank you for your attention to detail...I hope.
myiq2xu wrote on December 8, 2007 5:16 AM:By making torture an official US policy, G-Dub accomplished one thing I thought was impossible.
He made me ashamed to be an American.
cindy wrote on December 8, 2007 1:45 PM:Hey Peaceman-
That was a stoopid post.
Now go away.
Rufus wrote on December 9, 2007 5:41 PM:OMG, could the interrogators have been Bush and Cheney? No wonder they destroyed the tapes.
Rufus wrote on December 9, 2007 5:48 PM:OMG, could the interrogators have been Bush and Cheney? No wonder they destroyed the tapes.