Rockefeller on tapes hearing: ‘Useful’ but not complete.
After today’s closed-door Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the torture tapes, Chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) called the 90-minute session with CIA Director Michael Hayden “‘a useful and not yet complete hearing‘ and vowed the committee would get to the bottom of the matter. Among lingering questions: who authorized destruction of the tapes, and why Congress wasn’t told about it.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
48 Responses to “Rockefeller on tapes hearing: ‘Useful’ but not complete.”
Register
RSSLogin
View Most Popular
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Reports
In depth studies on select topics
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Beck
Bolton
Bush
Cheney
Clinton
Drudge
Earmarks
Economy
Environment
Ethics
Feith
Fox News
GI Bill
Global Warming
Gore
Graham
Hagee
Health Care
Housing
Immigration
Impeachment
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Hanlon
O'Reilly
Obama
Petraeus
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Siegelman
Sports
Third Bush Term
Torture
Women's Rights
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Unless it leads to the bottom of the festering stinkpile where Bush and Cheney slither, it’ll be another nasty letter writing campaign…
December 11th, 2007 at 6:42 pmUseful at covering up Bush crime family treason…
December 11th, 2007 at 6:47 pmGetting to the bottom of all this is going to take longer to finish than the interstate highway system, the Crazy Horse memorial and all the verses to “American Pie.“
December 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pm“Among lingering questions: who authorized destruction of the tapes, and why Congress wasn’t told about it.”
This is stupid! We are talking about the CIA here! They probably destroy documents on a daily basis. Are they supposed to tell the Senate every time they shred a piece of paper?
December 11th, 2007 at 6:56 pmUseful at covering up Bush crime family treason…
Comment by Oval12345678 aka James K. Sayre
Yeah, and he got a free cup of coffee, too. That’s useful.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:03 pmAre they supposed to tell the Senate every time they shred a piece of paper?
Comment by mandolin
Um…when it exposes their illegality, yes they do. Why is that hard to understand?
December 11th, 2007 at 7:04 pmYou assume a crime was commited.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:07 pmwho authorized destruction of the tapes, and why Congress wasn’t told about it.â€
Uh, wouldn’t these be the first two questions asked. And if no answer, why go on for another 89 and a half minutes?
December 11th, 2007 at 7:09 pmYou assume a crime was commited.
Comment by mandolin
We are talking about a technique which has been regarded as a crime for a long, long time. We even prosecuted a soldier for it. The only thing that changed was an idiot named W who brought with him all sorts of sychophants willing to do anything for ‘dear leader’ - even spit on all of our treaties and international obligations.
So yeah, I - and the entire planet - assume a crime was commited. You don’t?
December 11th, 2007 at 7:16 pmRockefeller is the worst
December 11th, 2007 at 7:18 pmIf even Bush’s Harriet Meirs advised that they not be destroyed you must assume that the CIA had an agenda. If they took it all the way to the WH this was no ordinary destruction.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pmBilly’s been into the cough syrup again.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:21 pm#11 Comment by Billy Hill — December 11, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 7:21 pmThis is an excuse for looking the other way as regards to humanity.
Rockefeller should uphold his oath to support the Constitution or resign. Period.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:28 pmI see that liberal nut jobs treat the Geneva Conventions like they treat the Constitution. Every time a liberal finds a law he doesn’t like, he simply changes the meaning of it. The Geneva Conventions were never meant to protect the people at Gitmo.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:28 pm“Rockefeller should uphold his oath to support the Constitution or resign. Period.”
What does any of this have to do with the Constitution????
December 11th, 2007 at 7:29 pmDump Rockefeller and put a real American with gonads in the chairmanship.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:31 pmAnd why would we bother responding to an idiot like you mandolin?
You Reichtards don’t have the capacity to learn or to question anything, so explaining stuff to Fascists is like explaining something to a rock, it can’t learn and we can’t make it learn.
So, no, I don’t bother responding to scum, I just get to point out that you are an idiot, and that is sorta fun, cause you guys have such moronic retorts.
Buck Fush
December 11th, 2007 at 7:37 pm“You Reichtards don’t have the capacity to learn or to question anything, so explaining stuff to Fascists is like explaining something to a rock, it can’t learn and we can’t make it learn.”
All of this is coming from someone who thinks the Constitution prevents the CIA from waterboarding military combatants.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:41 pmA crime was committed traitor.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:42 pmBy the way Buckie Boy, just so you never misuse the word “fascism” again, let me explain it to you. A fascist regime is a government that tries to control all industry and commerce, which I might add is very similiar to the Democratic Party platform. Look it up.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:45 pmhmmm….let me guess….
“I Can’t Recall” was used alot?
December 11th, 2007 at 7:50 pmThe Geneva Conventions were never meant to protect the people at Gitmo.
Comment by mandolin — December 11, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Yes, they were. You are wrong. As you are wrong about fascist, the very perfect description of the current Republican government. as you are wrong about the Constitution, which is entirely relevant because it states that treaties signed by aemrica become American law, no different from the Constitution itself.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are a lousy excuse for an American, and don’t deserve your citizenship.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:53 pmMilitary combatants are not protected by the geneva conventions because they wear no uniforms and they blend in with the public.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:56 pmUm no, here’s the proper definition:
The American Heritage Dictionary instead describes Fascism as:
You see, it’s when corporate interests and the economic elite seize the reigns of control over government, manipulate the economy in their own interest and exercise control of the public by stripping away civil liberties, cracking down on dissent and pursuing wars of agression. Of course, the far right and corporate interests have been busy redefining the term to serve their own interests.
“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
~George Orwell
“When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
December 11th, 2007 at 7:58 pm~Sinclair Lewis
“treaties signed by aemrica become American law, no different from the Constitution itself. ”
A treaty would become like statutory law, not Constitutional law.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:59 pm“You see, it’s when corporate interests and the economic elite seize the reigns of control over government”
That’s Backwards
December 11th, 2007 at 8:00 pmI see that liberal nut jobs treat the Geneva Conventions like they treat the Constitution. Every time a liberal finds a law he doesn’t like, he simply changes the meaning of it. The Geneva Conventions were never meant to protect the people at Gitmo.
Comment by mandolin — December 11, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Wow. the irony content of this post is astronomical.
Pay attention, class, this is top-flight trolldom: mandolin accuses liberals of changing the meanings of laws they don’t like, and then in the very next sentence, changes the meaning of a law it doesn’t like.
This is not for the unskilled troll to attempt. This is some industrial-strength projection that really needs to be supervised.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:02 pmGeorge Orwell predicted mandolin’s dictionary in “1984.”
War is peace
December 11th, 2007 at 8:09 pmFreedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
“You see, it’s when corporate interests and the economic elite seize the reigns of control over governmentâ€
That’s Backwards
Comment by mandolin — December 11, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
No, you’re just badly informed or willfully ignorant.
Try reading a little bit about the Nazis and German corporations, or even about Nazis and certain American corporations that couldn’t wait to get on board.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 pmThis is not for the unskilled troll to attempt. This is some industrial-strength projection that really needs to be supervised.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — December 11, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Are you being cleaver again?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:10 pmSo what do you call it when corporate interests and the economic elite seize control of government?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:11 pmSo what do you call it when corporate interests and the economic elite seize control of government?
Comment by Snowball — December 11, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
He calls it paradise.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:13 pm“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:15 pmEvery time a liberal finds a law he doesn’t like, he simply changes the meaning of it. mandolin
Sorry, for a minute there, mandy, I thought you were talking about George W. Bush and his signing statements. Please, continue talking out of your ass…
December 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pmSorry, for a minute there, mandy, I thought you were talking about George W. Bush and his signing statements. Please, continue talking out of your ass…
Comment by jurassicpork — December 11, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 8:47 pmWell said.
Bush just signed his first since 2006 since Dems took over Congress, but reserving the right to bypass 11 provisions in a military appropriations bill under his executive powers.
I see that liberal nut jobs treat the Geneva Conventions like they treat the Constitution. Every time a liberal finds a law he doesn’t like, he simply changes the meaning of it. The Geneva Conventions were never meant to protect the people at Gitmo.
Comment by mandolin — December 11, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Try taking your head out of your a$$ sometime and actually reading the Constitution, you ignorant twit.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pmAfter you clean the sh!t from you eyes first, of course
The tapes weren’t destroyed….
They are now a part of the Vice President’s snuff-film library.
And just what was he doing at the time he had that ‘irregular heartbeat’?
Crude? Disgusting? Offensive? Yup - so’s waterboarding.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:06 pmAre they supposed to tell the Senate every time they shred a piece of paper?
Comment by mandolin
No but they should have given these tapes to the Moussaui trial judge who, just days before these tapes were destroyed, petitioned to see any video tapes that the CIA had regarding al Qaeda interrogations. IANAL but I’m smart enough to realize that that qualifies as Obstruction of Justice which is, in fact, a crime.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:12 pm29. I see that liberal nut jobs treat the Geneva Conventions like they treat the Constitution. Every time a liberal finds a law he doesn’t like, he simply changes the meaning of it. The Geneva Conventions were never meant to protect the people at Gitmo.
Comment by mandolin — December 11, 2007 @ 7:28 pm
Wow. the irony content of this post is astronomical.
Pay attention, class, this is top-flight trolldom: mandolin accuses liberals of changing the meanings of laws they don’t like, and then in the very next sentence, changes the meaning of a law it doesn’t like.
This is not for the unskilled troll to attempt. This is some industrial-strength projection that really needs to be supervised.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — December 11, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
Add Karma Recommend (1) |
Very funny indeed. I am sad that I do not have the patience or the interest to try to “educate” these trolls… I really do wonder how they ever got through high school (maybe) or college (gasp). But if Ms. Dana Perino (Bush mouthpiece, latest V.) can get through HS and college without studying the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, then many mind-boggling things are possible.
Cheers.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:33 pmThe Modern Bush Republicanâ„¢ slices through legal precedent, historical accord, and common sense like a Ginsu knife infomercial.
The Modern Bush Republicanâ„¢ remains piously oblivious to that which is repeatedly placed directly in front of them without so much as blinking.
The Modern Bush Republicanâ„¢ is resolute in their commitment to fealty above principle, while using principle to justify fealty - a feat that should never be attempted by the sane.
Hmmm. This is sorta fun… Maybe I’ll start using it as Troll Spray…
TROLL: “Immigration…. Liberal… Whackjobs… Media…. Political Witchhunt… Bible…. Gore… Hillary… Terrorists…. Safe….”
The Modern Bush Republicanâ„¢ prefers torture-induced confessions with a side of retribution instead of actionable, admissible evidence con carne.
http://www.FEARandSMEAR.com
December 11th, 2007 at 11:19 pmRocefeller, Feinstein, Harman, Pelosi. some of the worst Democrats of ALL TIME!!! Now we see why the administration gets away with whatever they want, The Compliciter’s are on his team, thats why theres all of the shock and augh coming from the Dem’s, they’re in on the joke and the punchline is us, all of us.
Traitors, all of them.
RIP
December 11th, 2007 at 11:27 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
At today’s ass-covering-and-excuse-making conference, Dana Purina was wearing enough tourquoise to outfit an entire gay pride parade contingent. Where do these Righty gals get their fashion sense?
December 12th, 2007 at 12:08 am“Roc[k]efeller, Feinstein, Harman, Pelosi. some of the worst Democrats of ALL TIME!!! Now we see why the administration gets away with whatever they want . . . ”
I feel your pain . . .
What is it that the republicans have on democratic congress people that results in the abandonment of democratic principles by the officials that we elected based upon their campaign promises to the effect that they have backbones and will defend and protect our democratic values?
#1 PELOSI & ROCKEFELLER:
Pelosi denounces impeachment . . . Rockefeller sees no harm in waterboarding or destroying evidence that Democrats demand . . .
[S]he voted to confirm Michael Mukasey, President Bush’s nominee to be attorney general, despite Mr. Mukasey’s refusal to declare waterboarding — making someone believe they are in imminent danger of drowning — to be torture. Ms. Feinstein was the only Democrat on the Judiciary Committee other than Charles Schumer of New York, who first suggested Mr. Mukasey for the job, to support him.
Ms. Feinstein’s critics note that unlike Democratic Senators from red states, she is not under political pressure to support the Bush Administration. It seems clear that she cast these votes simply because she wanted to.
#3. HARMON:
State control of the internet and restricting the First Amendment are favorite pastimes of radical, pro-Iraq war lawmakers like Rep. Jane Harman.However, if . . . . . she had, Harman would’ve discovered the U.S. already has extensive laws on the books that address criminal conspiracy and since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Justice Department has been applying broadly (many civil liberty advocates say far too broadly), in President Bush’s so-called war on terror.
The definitions in H.R.1955 swerve dangerously into thought crime territory.
. . . .Under H.R. 1955, if you engage in certain, very standard american activities, “you’re automatically a homegrown terrorist . . .Under H.R. 1955, you become an enemy of the state. Or maybe you fly a “Bring the Troops Home†flag in your frontyard? Or you have an “Impeach Bush†button on your backpack? Under H.R. 1955, you’re a homegrown terrorist.”
[Who has a problem?] Lawmakers like Rep. Jane Harman.
This is a bit disjointed, but it’s simply intended to offer examples of Democrats who might possibly be impeding the agenda that most Democrats and many Independents advocate. . . an end to Iraq, impeachment, prosecutions of Bush Administration wrongdoers, an end to the power of lobbyists and duplicity . . . Good Lord . . . we must clean house, these folks are impeding/blocking progress . . . whether they are opportunists or bought politicians . . . they have got to go. . . if for no other reason but that we need to scare the crap out of our elected officials . . . we expect results . . . if we don’t see results . . . you WILL BE FIRED. If we can’t promise that, we can expect nothing more than more of the same.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:09 amHarmon, Jane, is a California Democrat.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) recently sponsored H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which reads in part:
“(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf’ violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.â€
In it’s reading it’s convoluted . . . what does it mean? . . . in its impementation . . . it’s sufficiently vague that it could snare the entire American public and all foreigners in its net.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:14 amOpps, just read: It’s deliberately, overly vague legislation.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:30 am. . . . open to any kind of interpretation and therefore implementation . . . .without recourse.
Every piece of legislation that has been passed in the past seven years has either been severely vague . . . or subjected to signing statements . . . only when a clear violation of precedent and policy has arisen has any legislation or policy been tested . . . and in those cases (torture, distruction of evidence, financial malefeasence, electronic surveillence) have those precedents and laws been scrutinized . . . and the result has been . . . executive allegations of overly vague law, insufficient evidence under the law, executive privilege, state secret, state immunity, “The Office of the VP is a super-governmental office that falls under neither the executive or legislative branch of government” or any other such nonsense. This is crap.
We can’t elect Clinton. She has mastered political non-speak.
To hear this administration speak, the Office of the VP is the most powerful in government . . . it’s Putinesque. . . Cheney should appoint the next Premier. . . . a hair ball please . . . I feel the need to hack.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:55 amYesterday CNN had this article in huge letters:
Ex-CIA agent: Waterboarding ’saved lives’
Today, they have the same article, with this headline in tiny type:
Ex-agent: Waterboarding not needed
There’s that liberal media again.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:59 am