12-13-2007 Articles re: CIA torture tapes

[Solly Mack]

Just an early morning quick search/round-up of articles. It's almost 11 AM here in Germany, making it almost 5 AM on America's east coast. So I'm sure more articles are to come.







Probing the CIA Tapes — Carefully

12-13-2007

"Without elaboration, the former interrogator John Kiriakou maintained that the waterboarding had been approved by the White House. The Administration has commented, "It's no secret the President approved a lawful program in order to interrogate hardened terrorists" — leaving unclear whether waterboarding falls within the Bush White House's definition of lawful interrogation. Torture is forbidden under U.S. law, but attorney general Michael Mukasey has repeatedly refused to say whether waterboarding is torture."



Mukasey on the Spot

12-17-2007 issue

"But such an investigation could ultimately touch on some of the most sensitive secrets of the Bush administration: the use of aggressive interrogation techniques—such as waterboarding—that critics say amount to torture. The methods were approved at the highest levels of the White House, and Mukasey himself almost saw his nomination derailed when he refused to say whether waterboarding was illegal. Last week Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Senate Democratic leader, wrote to Mukasey requesting a probe into whether the CIA violated any laws by destroying the tapes. "The CIA apparently withheld information about the existence of these videotapes from official proceedings, including the 9/11 Commission and a federal court," Durbin said."



The CIA tapes

12-13-2007


"Congress is appropriately indignant about the revelation that the CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogation sessions at which suspected terrorists were subjected to "enhanced" techniques that may have included the simulated drowning known as waterboarding. That outrage needs to be channeled into legislation that would prevent the agency from engaging in the sort of behavior captured on those tapes.


In defending enhanced interrogation tactics, President Bush has tried to have it both ways, avowing that "we do not torture" while exempting CIA interrogators from the Army Field Manual's ban on waterboarding, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures and other controversial techniques. To its discredit, Congress endorsed this loophole when it passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005."



Torture's blame game "Who done it?"


12-13-2007




"Not our national Decider, who insists, via White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, that he didn't decide anything whatsoever, because he has "no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction." That's in contrast to former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, who apparently knew all about the tapes but didn't bother to share the news with her boss.

When it was his turn to pass the buck, current CIA Director Michael V. Hayden helpfully reminded Congress that he wasn't even at the CIA in 2005 and therefore had no idea who ordered that the tapes be destroyed, though he naturally intends to look into it.

But in many ways, the question of who ordered that the tapes be destroyed completely misses the point.... In this case, as blogger and Georgetown professor Marty Lederman reminds us: "The cover-up is not worse than the crime, and they knew it."

If I had to guess, the tapes were destroyed because obstruction-of-justice charges are no big deal compared to war crimes charges....After we find out who authorized the destruction of the tapes, the true who-done-it will remain: Who gave the CIA the green light to use interrogation methods that the agency surely suspected were criminal? Who decided to let the U.S. adopt the interrogation methods of a hundred tin-pot dictators?



















Elf relegated to the very bottom due to distraction from serious articles.

[malaise]

1. I'm betting that Bussh's lawyer told him he'd

better not have any recollection re these tapes.

[Solly Mack]

2. Me too

[Solly Mack]

3. ....

[countryjake]

4. Thanks for rounding up all of these, Solly!

My favorite out of all of them is this paragraph from the LATimes:

"Unidentified administration sources assure us, though, that Miers recommended that the CIA preserve the tapes. (It's not hard to imagine her words: 'Gee, if these interrogation tapes just happened to be lost or destroyed, it would sure make it tough for anyone to bring future war crimes or torture prosecutions against anyone in this administration, so I hope the CIA will take really good care of those tapes.')"

I watched former Sen. Bob Graham being interviewed earlier today on CNN's American Morning and he said that whenever they called for covert Gang of Four briefings it was when the president needed "deniability" for some action that the US was involved in (meaning deniability for the USA, not just the prez, for some exceptionally dirty dealings, I assume). Graham was the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee then, but was not included in any briefing on the subject involving those tapes.

He said that not only should he have been included in those briefings, but it was not any sort of covert operation, so the entire Intelligence Committee should've been informed. And that it was a regular practice of this administration to cover-up what it was getting done..."ongoing pattern" is the term I believe he used.

Of course, John Roberts managed to stick his damn clip of Kiriakou (former CIA torturer) into the interview, bleating that "torture saves lives" and "leads to other suspects", too. CNN has ran just that part of Kiriakou's interview over and over, excluding the end of it where he stated that waterboarding was a form of torture and should not be used (tho it was "unpleasant but important" and "necessary" to use on the likes of Abu Zubaydah). I almost broke our tv at 5:30 Tuesday morning when Roberts did that piece with Kiriakou! He & CNN are shilling for TORTURE!

[Solly Mack]

5. I loved that part too!

"...whenever they called for covert Gang of Four briefings it was when the president needed "deniability" for some action that the US was involved in (meaning deniability for the USA, not just the prez, for some exceptionally dirty dealings, I assume)."


I think that's true.

the "torture saves lives" BS is just another avenue of escape for the guilty.