Judge orders hearing on CIA torture tapes.
By on Dec 18th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Judge orders hearing on CIA torture tapes.
AP reports:
A federal judge has ordered a hearing on whether the Bush administration violated a court order by destroying CIA interrogation videos of suspected terrorists.
U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy rejected calls from the Justice Department to stay out of the matter. He ordered lawyers to appear before him Friday morning.
In June 2005, Kennedy ordered the administration to safeguard “all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
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.
ArchivesBlog Roll
IMPEACH!!!
http://www.wexlerwantshearings.com/
OVER 90,000 SIGNATURES NOW!!!
December 18th, 2007 at 11:34 amIraq cannot gain full sovereignty under Chapter 7 status when the UN Security Council issued Resolution 661 following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Al-Maliki said the lifting of Chapter 7 status will enable Iraq to “end the presence” of multinational forces by the end of 2008.
Resolution 661
Says Chapter 7 will be removed when Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbours
TURKEY IS STOPPING THIS HAPPENING – TURKEY IS WORKING FOR THE US TO STOP IRAQ GAINING FULL SOVEREIGNTY , WHICH MEANS IRAQ HAS TO RENEW THE UN MANDATE FOR FOREIGN TROOPS
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/12/2C4F103F-5B73-4926-827D-1A6701C35B26.html
December 18th, 2007 at 11:36 amJudges don’t like being told FU by litigants who have matters before them. They are touchy that way. Let’s see if this one has the fortitude to follow up and do the right thing.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:36 amHe ordered lawyers to appear before him Friday morning.
Wouldn’t you just love to see the lawyes not show up, claiming executive privilege?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:37 amlawyes ? meant lawyers… jeebus.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:38 amMerry Christmas!!! Ho… ho… ho…
It’s just so… heartwarming… to see where the paranoid, delusional dry drunk in the WH and his band of criminal incompetents have managed to drag the entire country in just seven short years…
Unchecked domestic spying, endless war, enormous crushing deficits, torture, unprecedented attempts to politicize all branches of the govt and govt functions, no more habeas corpus, secret trials w/ secret evidence and witnesses… it goes on and on. Anyone who dissents is “aiding the terrorists”. “Mushroom clouds” any day now.
We must attack… we must attack… we must attack…
But BillO won “the War On Christmas” and Tony Snow is so happy he can say the word “God” on stage… I’m gonna puke.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:46 amHas there ever been a case that’s moved up to the Supreme Court to AVOID being heard by a lower court? Because that’s what it’s going to take to circumvent a hearing now.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:46 amHERE COME THE PATRIOTS, AND BOY, ARE THEY PISSED!
December 18th, 2007 at 11:47 am#
#
Iraq cannot gain full sovereignty under Chapter 7 status when the UN Security Council issued Resolution 661 following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Al-Maliki said the lifting of Chapter 7 status will enable Iraq to “end the presence†of multinational forces by the end of 2008.
Resolution 661
Says Chapter 7 will be removed when Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbours
TURKEY IS STOPPING THIS HAPPENING – TURKEY IS WORKING FOR THE US TO STOP IRAQ GAINING FULL SOVEREIGNTY , WHICH MEANS IRAQ HAS TO RENEW THE UN MANDATE FOR FOREIGN TROOPS
http://www.rferl.org/ featuresarticle/ 2007/ 12/ 2C4F103F-5B73-4926-827D-1A6701C35B26.html
Comment by Bush Cover Ups — December 18, 2007 @ 11:36 am
Almost correct – but Turkey and the US are both working for Israel.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:47 amThe Justice Department is ordering Judge Kennedy to “stay out of the matter”? Wow — Mukasey is losing no time in trying to implement his own brand of corruption on the system of justice in this country.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:48 amOh my, Bush’s neocon criminals broke another law, do tell.
Are they still in office?
Are they still destroying the country?
Are they still wasting our money in Iraq?
Are they still wasting money on their abstinence only program?
Are they still torturing people?
Are they still corrupt and incompetent?
And yet there they are, still laughing at us, with that stupid snicker of his. Man I just hate these repukian neocon scum and their neanderturd supporters.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
December 18th, 2007 at 11:49 amHey Nancy!! Got Table?
I guess it’s gonna take catching Bush red handed with a dead girl or a live boy in order for “Table Phobic” Pelosi to let impeachment move forward
December 18th, 2007 at 11:56 amThanks #1! Impeachment time is drawing nigh!! Hoorah Hoorah!!
December 18th, 2007 at 11:57 amI wonder how the Cheney-Bush team will undercut, assault, and sully him now?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:58 am#12 Table Phobic Pelosi needs to step down due to her complicity in this tape issue/debacle. Then she can stay down as far as the people are concerned. Good riddance, Pelosi!
December 18th, 2007 at 11:58 amP.S. Take Herr Reid with you, too, while you’re at it!
So you’ve got Congress (Kennedy) and the judicial system telling them to maintain and safeguard evidence – so who gave the “destruction order” ?? I’ve got my guess – what’s yours?
December 18th, 2007 at 11:59 amSwift boating of judge in 3, 2, 1 … Has a transvestite lover in secret chamber in chambers, drives drunk and drugged while naked, etc…
December 18th, 2007 at 12:06 pmSwift boating of judge in 3, 2, 1 … Has a transvestite lover in secret chamber in chambers, drives drunk and drugged while naked, etc…
Comment by RUCerious
Now, that is my type of judge!
December 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pmAG Mukasey has a conflict of interest problem already, and should recuse himself and appoint a Special Prosecutor.
Jose Padilla”s lawyers argued before the Florida Federal Court that Abu Zubaydah was tortured into saying Padilla was an al Qaeda associate. The DOJ dismissed Padilla”s allegations as “meritless,” asserting Padilla”s legal team could not prove that Abu Zubaydah had been tortured. Well, it”s clear now that they certainly COULD have, if the tapes of the interrogations of Abu Zubaydah had been made available!
Now here is where Mukasey”s role comes into question. U.S. District Judge Mukasey, now attorney general, was the one who signed the warrant used by the FBI to arrest Padilla in May 2002. Court records show the warrant relied in part on information obtained from Abu Zubaydah”s interrogation. So we have a problem Houston.
The Attorney General can only issue a warrant based upon legally obtained evidence, and confessions under torture are certainly not “legally obtained”. So either Mukasey was misrepresented the evidence, and would be liable to be potentially a party in those who were presented with “perjured evidence”; or he knew that torture was used in obtaining the confession and ignored it.
In either case he is unsuitable to run an investigation, as it will, inevitably, involve himself. Thus a Special Prosecutor is necessary… Odds that this will happen? Zero percent.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pmWouldn’t you just love to see the lawyes not show up, claiming executive privilege?
Comment by RUCerious — December 18, 2007 @ 11:37 am
If those lawyers know what’s good for them (and their careers) they wouldn’t even consider not showing up.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pmRUCerious and Zooey – I love the scenario. But knowing how much Gonzo snubbed Congress and how folks were willing to take the fall for the Plame affair, there’s a part of me that wonders if the WH isn’t willing to play a game with the courts on one side and Presidential Pardon power on the other.
Oh, and about the Turkey thing – the secrecy of the WH makes it easy for me to consider accepting the conspiracy theories. I’m not quite there yet, but I’ve got to admit, I can’t understand why the US would tell Turkey to bomb Iraq and not let the Iraqis in on the secret. Surely, the Iraqis would feel some sense of “personal” over someone bombing their country ?
December 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pmMistress Z ~
December 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pmWhat if the Bushits, dipping into their infinite supply of stupid, instruct the attorneys to no show?
What would they do?
MapleSugarStreet ~
December 18th, 2007 at 12:29 pmThe US isn’t actually behind the Turkish attacks, they just have zero leverage to do or say squat. Most of the supplies and provisions for the troops in Iraq come thru Turkey.
Should have added – From Memory – I believe it was Andrew Jackson when ordered by the Court to do something, said that justice somebody has made their decision. Now let’s seem him enforce it.
Of course, this led to his Trail of Tears which was also a travesty of human rights with the governmnent taking private property by force for the benefit of the businessmen of the day.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:29 pmFrank M,
How do you know they are all terrorists?
December 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pmhave been implicated in acts against NATO/Coalition troops? What do you care?
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
because we’re Americans, frank, not bushco stooges like you and your handful of traitors.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pmi just don’t get it.
Why do these people (and you) are so concerned over the treatment of a bunch of terrorists or terrorist affiliates who’ve been captured in Afghanistan or in Iraq and have been implicated in acts against NATO/Coalition troops? What do you care?
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Your first sentence says it all about you. But, let’s move on. Since ted stevens has been implcated in antiAmerican activities, why isn’t he clapped in a cell and held for 6 years? or Dick Cheney? or you?
December 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pmWe wouldn’t bother detaining them if they had not been implicated in acts against NATO/Coalition troops.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
Truthfully, you don’t know this and can’t prove it one way or the other, and that’s the problem w/ both doing it, and having a corrupt wind sock like you defend it.
“We won’t bother…” the de facto assumption is that SINCE we did it, they must be guilty, and SINCE they must be guilty, we can do whatever we want.
Ugly, Frankie, very ugly.
Secret trials, secret witnesses, secret evidence, no defense lawyers… and you endlessly defend this insanity.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:59 pmUgly, Frankie, very ugly.
Secret trials, secret witnesses, secret evidence, no defense lawyers… and you endlessly defend this insanity.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 18, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
frank m hates the USA, it’s that simple. he’s a traitor.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pmFrank, if, as you say, you “don’t get” why we are dead-set against torturing ANYONE, dead-set against imprisoning ANYONE without a fair trial — well, you’re obviously a sociopathic moron.
We are Americans, Frank – AND THAT USED TO STAND FOR SOMETHING GOOD: freedom, justice, liberty – for ALL people.
Because of sociopathic morons like you, America now stands for torture, for injustice, for barbarity, stupidity, bigotry and cruelty.
I loathe you and all those like you.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:14 pmWhy do these people (and you) are so concerned over the treatment of a bunch of terrorists or terrorist affiliates who’ve been captured in Afghanistan or in Iraq and have been implicated in acts against NATO/Coalition troops? What do you care?
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Folks, the sad thing is that if Frank M is an American, he could be called for jury duty. All he needs to be convinced of someone’s guilt is if that person has been arrested and charged with something. Yep — if the police make an arrest, it can only be because that person is guilty. Why bother with all the fuss of a trial?
December 18th, 2007 at 1:23 pmDecember 18th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
WATERBOARD FRANK M!
December 18th, 2007 at 4:04 pm19Comment by Mr JJ
December 18th, 2007 at 4:38 pmVery well said!!!!!!!!
We wouldn’t bother detaining them if they had not been implicated in acts against NATO/Coalition troops.
Comment by Frank M
December 18th, 2007 at 4:41 pmYOU WOULDN’T BE DETAINING THEM IF YOU WEREN’T INVADING AND OCCUPAYING THEIR COUNTRY. AND DON’T TELL ME THAT THEY ATTACKED YOU BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. UNDER TORTURE ANYONE WOULD SELL THEIR MOTHER!
#33 We are Americans, Frank – AND THAT USED TO STAND FOR SOMETHING GOOD: freedom, justice, liberty – for ALL people.
Well said. The World Community used to look at the USA precisely for that reazon. I must stress here the “used to”. And even though we sometime say ugly things about the US of today, or more precisely since the period post WWII. freedom, justice, liberty!!!!!! All of which are in great danger under the current USA’s JUNTA.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:47 pmbush to judge: ‘no…cuz I’m the prez-nut’.
December 18th, 2007 at 5:47 pmi just don’t get it.
Comment by Frank M — December 18, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
correct
December 18th, 2007 at 7:16 pm