« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Achtung Baby
We've had some fun keeping track of the various muddled descriptions of the advice that White House lawyers gave the CIA about the torture tapes.
But The Washington Post has the clearest description yet of the unclear counsel:
When told that some high-ranking CIA officials were demanding that the tapes be destroyed, the White House lawyers "consistently counseled caution," said one U.S. official familiar with Hayden's testimony. Another source said that Harriet E. Miers followed up with a similar recommendation in 2005, making her the fourth White House lawyer "urging caution" on the action.
But: "other intelligence officials recalled White House officials being more emphatic at the first meeting that the videos should not be destroyed." To be sure, all of-the-above could be true.
Meanwhile, there's this:
[CIA Director Michael] Hayden's message to lawmakers last week was that the White House officials neither advocated destroying the tapes nor counseled against their destruction.
Why so much confusion?
"People are trying to recall stuff that happened four or five years ago," said [one former senior attorney for the CIA]. "They are trying to speak with honesty and candor, but they are also having to get 'lawyered' up themselves -- they have to protect themselves."
To be sure, their lawyers are "urging caution."
Advertisement
Comments (13)
TheraP wrote on December 20, 2007 10:36 AM:I love your title! All the inherent irony!
Lloyd wrote on December 20, 2007 11:48 AM:I spent nine years in Naval Intelligence/Counter-Terrorism and not only is there a paper trail on each and every piece of classified material destroyed, if it was something that potentially explosive, I am sure that our very high IQ CIA officers would have tremendous recollection of the discussions and events leading up to the destruction of the tapes.
brian wrote on December 20, 2007 11:53 AM:Why does anyone believe that 'the tapes were destroyed' ?
What a great lie ! Everyone swallowed it.
Mary wrote on December 20, 2007 12:03 PM:If it didn't involve things like disappearing children and stray Canadians into chillingly horrible acts of depravity, it would be the makings of farce.
It's nice to know everyone is "trying" so hard to speak with "honesty and candor" but it's easy to see why such a thing is a "trial" for them.
I guess if you're telling someone to destroy evidence, you'd be cautious in how you put it to them.
parrot wrote on December 20, 2007 12:34 PM:So many lawyers...so few impeachments.
Bushie wrote on December 20, 2007 12:54 PM:Yep, it's hard to remember what was said or done 4 or 5 years ago. Is the use of "advanced interrogation” techniques so commonplace that it all just runs together in the feast of the senses of the inquisitors?
The refrain “I vas only following orters”, used by Nazi war criminals won’t be heard on these shores. The Powers That Be either go along to get along, are intellectual lightweights or basically dishonest (and/or ideologues). Same with likely Democratic or GOP Presidential candidates.
No accountability, few meaningful investigations, no trials. Then it starts again.
C92 wrote on December 20, 2007 12:57 PM:The parsing BURNS!!!
"White House lawyers "consistently counseled caution"
Read between the lines.
The White House lawyers were counseling caution that the CIA NOT GET CAUGHT destroying the tapes. Counseling caution that they be very careful in the coverup of the destruction of the tapes.
[The "caution" wasn't necessarily caution against destroying the tapes.]
Adam wrote on December 20, 2007 1:00 PM:It is difficult to get your stories straight this early into an investiagtions. Your first reaction is to want to lie, but then you don't know how much information may get out, and you don't want to get caught in a lie as you may be uncomfortable for a while unitl you get your presidential pardon. I understand why they are playing this so aloof. Maybe after they set a few more small fires they can synchronize their story and lie will all confidence.
A wrote on December 20, 2007 1:22 PM:Don't forget: If you are accused of some wrongdoing, you destroy evidence only if you think that the expected penalty for destroying it is much less than that you'd get if the evidence came out.
Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 8:14 PM:So we should insist that the content of the tapes (if the tapes are indeed destroyed) should be made public; there are certainly witnesses one could call who saw the tapes (or better those who were there when the tapes were recorded).
Why didn't WH counsel, upon "learning" of the tapes existence, not personally go to the CIA and get the tapes?
LITIGATORMOM wrote on December 20, 2007 8:31 PM:"Urged caution" -- legalese for telling client "that's not such a good idea, but it's your decision."
Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 8:47 PM:Any evidence WH or CIA counsel made frivolous legal arguments in re tape retention/destruction? If so, that could attach to counsel the criminal activity: Evidence destruction and the original prisoner abuse/war crime.
Dennis wrote on December 20, 2007 9:37 PM:Hey, man, you don't talk to Jose. You listen to him. The man's enlarged my mind. He's a poet-warrior in the classic sense. I mean sometimes he'll... uh... well, you'll say "hello" to him, right? And he'll just walk right by you. He won't even notice you. And suddenly he'll grab you, and he'll throw you in a corner, and he'll say, "do you know that 'if' is the middle word in life? If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you, if you can trust yourself when all men doubt you"... I mean I'm no, I can't... I'm a little man, I'm a little man, he's... he's a great man. I should have been a pair of ragged claws scuttling across floors of silent seas...