Comments (4)

brian wrote on January 15, 2008 12:26 PM:

Question Number One : were copies made of the tapes before they were destroyed ?

Is it a phony story that "the tapes were destroyed" ?

Would the agency rather catch hell for destroying the tapes than have the tapes themselves revealed ?

You bet it would.

Anonymous wrote on January 15, 2008 12:43 PM:

On CIA tape destruction: Recall, Addington was former GC at CIA in 1980s before working for Cheney in House of Reps. Further, JAGs warned in 2001 at POW working group meetings, in memos sent to DOJ OLC, that ICC could adjudicate war crimes against civilians for prisoner abuse. Finally, Addington is good friends with DoD General Counsel Haynes: It's unlikely OVP was "out of the loop" on the tape destruction "discussion"; Addington and CIA should have well known ICC interest, belieing CIA assertion that all "outside" interest in 2005 was over; the issues of prisoner abuse on the tape likely include DOD's involvement with the rendition effort.

On another note: We're asked to believe that there were "deliberations" from 2002, when the tape was made, to 2005 when the tape was destroyed. Yet, the recent Judicial Ruling -- in re civil case brought before the court for prisoner abuse at Guantanamo -- the court used "foreseeable" many times: That torture was, in the word of the court "Foreseeable". Recall also, Addington is alleged to have hesitated in moving prisoners from Eastern Europe because it would be an admission the prisoner treatment did not meet the requirements. Further, Geneva is silent on torture, but explicitly prohits _all abuse_.

Given the court's assertion that torture was "foreseeable," and CIA-Addington likely discussions with the OLC in re JAG concerns on ICC interest, it is unlikely that the tape was destroyed to hide "valuable" information. Valueable information would be preserved, not, as it has been done, destroyed: CIA tape, WH Emails, OVP refusing to permit reviews of data retention despite 32 CFR 2800. Once the President made the _decision_ to treat prisoners "according to Geneva, despite the Bybee Memo" there is no longer any "deliberation". It appears more likely the 2002-2005 "deliberation on the tape destrution" is a ruse: It appears to be the opposite: An illusory ssertion of "deliberation" to shield information that is _outside_ the deliberative protection, and subject to FOIA.

There should be the following:
- Discussions between Addington, DoD GC, DOJ OLC memoranda related to the _post Presidential decision_ how to treat prisoners;
- OVP GC discussions with OLC, DoD, and CIA on JAG concerns after 2001 that the ICC would _still_ have an interest;
- How to reconile the "foreseeable risks of torture" with the _non-plan_ to ensure the prisoners were _not_ sujbect to _any_ abuse;
- Method to coordinate with _Congressional leadership_ their assent to "harsh" interrogation, despite knowing that the purpose of the "coordination" was to induce Congressional assent to abuse which did not meet Geneva prohibition against _all abuse_;
- _Post decision_ discussion how to thwart oversight/access to data, and deflect attention from 32 CFR 2800 data retention requirements;
- DIscussions between OVP, DoJ, CIA, WH-EOP counsel on allegedly fabriating a "delibertive shield bewteen 2002 and 2005" for things that were not in question, but _foreseeable_, certain, clear, and undebatable: Prisoners were not being treated per Geneva, and the JAGs had been silenced;
- What to do once PBS Frontline broadcast former WH Counsel comments related to Rendition, and whether that "belief of legality" was genuine, or a ruse;
- Coordination with outside counsel steps to "comply" with the data retention requirements, despite alleged agreement to "not retain" this "valuabe" information as required by the national security act;
- Coordination with civilian outside counsel effort to identify sources of "illegally disclosed information" which was, in fact, from open sources for purposes of suppressing pubulic discussion of alleged illegal efforts of WH EOP-OVP-DOJ-CIA-DoD to hide evidence of alleged war crimes by destroying evidence, invoking "deliberative" shields _after_ the deliberations were over, and shielding information behind a ruse "deliberative shield 2002-2005" despite repeated JAG concerns that the ICC would have access to these _post decision_ discussions.
- WH EOP-OVP coordination with outside counsel on data retention "requirements", yet no evidence those requirements of statute were effectively satisfied with the existing WH-OVP software products; and
- Evidence US government contracting officials knew, or should have known, the WH=EOP-OVP data retention programs were not effectively audited, htere was not basis to continue awarding "award fees" to software developers/contactors for software products that did _not_ meet the _known_ software specifications, which outside counsel-auditors knew, or should have known, did not meet the data retention requirements the JAGs well discussed ICC would require per a war crimes review;
- Coordination between OVP, DoJ OLC, EOP, and outside contractors methods to, in light of this "foreseeable risk of torture, without a plan to comply with Geneva," legislative language in the MCA to provide US govt funds to all US persons involved with this actiity, who would appear before international tribunals in re alleged war crimes.

EdNSted wrote on January 15, 2008 12:43 PM:

ROTFLMAO!

Is this not exactly what I said would happen?

Everyone who is surprised, raise your hands. Oh well, just 12 more months of this ridiculous posturing and it all becomes moot.

judyinnm wrote on January 15, 2008 2:35 PM:

Remember, back when everybody in the Clinton Administration was being investigated, for one reason or another, and Congress made members of the executive branch testify? I wonder if we could get C-SPAN to compile a set of tapes of Congressional hearings during the 1990s, as "training film" for the Democrats in Congress to learn the how the STINKING GAME IS PLAYED!