Former CIA Lawyer: ‘If A Tape Is Not Safe In The CIA, We’re In Trouble’
Former CIA Lawyer: ‘If A Tape Is Not Safe In The CIA, We’re In Trouble’
After he was informed that the New York Times was about to publish an article on torture tape destruction, CIA Director Michael Hayden told his employees that the CIA destroyed the tapes in part to protect the identities of CIA interrogators:
[T]he tapes posed a serious security risk. Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qa’ida and its sympathizers.
The White House reiterated this line in defense of the tape destruction, claming, “The President doesn’t have any reason to doubt” Hayden’s response.
In a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today, former CIA Assistant General Counsel John Radsan, who served under George Tenet, said this excuse is bogus since there are plenty of options for protecting intelligence. “It doesn’t make sense to me that the tapes needed to be destroyed to protect identities,” Radsan said:
There was no indication that they wanted to share this with anybody. If they are worried about a leak, the CIA protects a lot of classified information. If you have tapes in an overseas location, then have the tapes moved back to headquarters as Ms. Jackson-Lee said, put it in a safe in the Director’s office. If a tape is not safe in the CIA, in the office of the Director of the CIA, we’re in trouble.
Watch it:
Radsan said such methods have historical precedent. During the Bay of Pigs invasion, the CIA Director did not want a classified internal investigation from “leaking,” so the Director personally kept a copy of the report, put it in a safe, and it “was safe for a long period of time.”
Earlier this month on CBS, a “well-informed source” informed the network that the CIA destroyed the interrogation tapes to “protect CIA officers from criminal prosecution.” “You’d have to burn every document at the CIA that has the identity of an agent on it under that theory,” said Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) of Hayden’s excuse.
Transcript:
REP. COHEN: Does anybody on the panel believe that the tapes were destroyed to preserve the anonymity of CIA operatives? Do you think you might buy that at all, Mr. Rivkin?
RIVKIN: I would only buy that with the following observation which I made several times today.
It is not that you as Congress would reveal this information; but in a time when everything leaks, and that’s not an overstatement, having those tapes posted in the Internet — leaked the same way the Abu Ghraib tapes were — in a situation where individuals doing the interrogation were shown, these individuals were overseas — would either destroy their careers or may well put their lives in jeopardy.
REP. COHEN: But wasn’t it possible to block out their face or their identity and still have the tape but to secure the anonymity of the CIA operative?
Well, again, this assumes that one could guarantee that an unredacted tape would not be leaked, or even it was somehow the identity was obscured that it would not be restored. And that is a big assumption given what else has happened with the most secret of programs that this government has employed in the last several years.
COHEN: Than you sir. Professor?
RADSAN: With respect, I disagree with Mr. Rivkin. It doesn’t make sense to me that the tapes needed to be destroyed to protect identities. You’ve alluded to one possibility of redacting, but the other basic possibility, there was no indication that they wanted to share this with anybody.
If they’re worried about a leak, and the CIA protects a lot of classified information, if you had tapes at an overseas location, then have the tape moved back to headquarters, as Ms. Jackson-Lee said, put it in a safe in the director’s office. If a tape is not safe in the Central Intelligence Agency, in the office of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, we’re in trouble.
A historical note, as you remember with the Bay of Pigs, there was a very controversial Inspector General investigation that was done internally. The Director of Central Intelligence at that time didn’t want this leaking and didn’t want it well-known. The Director of Central Intelligence said, ‘We’ll take back the copies of the report, I’ll keep one, I’ll put it in the safe,’ and it was safe for a long period of time.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Geez — they picked THAT freeze frame to begin the video?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pmFormer CIA Lawyer: ‘If A Tape Is Not Safe In The CIA, We’re In Trouble’
- – Welcome to our world, pal.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pm“If A Tape Is Not Safe In The CIA, We’re In Trouble”
The TRUTH is not safe with this administration.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:18 pmThe concept of concern over the identities involved was such bogus bullsh!t from the outset. If the White House glommed onto the ridiculous excuse, it had to be pure bullsh!t.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:21 pmIt sounds like mutiny here against the Bush administration – the CIA and FBI are in contretempts with them; the american people are against them; what’s left?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:22 pmCheck Cheney’s safe!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:22 pmWhy are progressives so concerned about outing Plame, whose covert status is debatable, but not at all concerned about outing of the CIA agents on the tapes, whose covert status seems very plausible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Really, they’re using covert agents to conduct interviews of suspected terrorists on behalf of the CIA? Guess that’s another reason why we can never release these people.
Do you think before you type?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pmWhy are progressives so concerned about outing Plame, whose covert status is debatable, but not at all concerned about outing of the CIA agents on the tapes, whose covert status seems very plausible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
If the CIA agents involved were committing criminal acts of torture, this evidence needs to be preserved for an internal investigation if not a criminal trial, both of which can be conducted in a manner that does not reveal their identity to the general public. There is no reason to destroy the tapes except to cover up evidence of wrongdoing.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:23 pmThere is no reason to destroy the tapes except to cover up evidence of wrongdoing.
A statement so important, it needed repeating.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pmThere is no reason to destroy the tapes except to cover up evidence of wrongdoing.
A statement so important, it needed repeating.
Comment by Peter C — December 20, 2007 @ 4:25 pm
And repeating
December 20th, 2007 at 4:27 pmI see now they’re getting rid of the evidence the old way, by just burning the whole office.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:28 pmThere is no reason to destroy the tapes except to cover up evidence of wrongdoing.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:29 pmWhy are that guy’s eyes crossed and bugging out of his head? Just asking.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:29 pmWhy are progressives so concerned about outing Plame, whose covert status is debatable, but not at all concerned about outing of the CIA agents on the tapes, whose covert status seems very plausible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
You seem to be under the impression that there were only two options — destroy the tapes or make the tapes public. There are some of us who believe it’s possible to keep classified information secure without destroying it. And the CIA, of all agencies, should know how to do this. If our government can’t secure classified information, obviously we need to destroy it ALL.
Nobody wants to see any CIA agents outed. Don’t be ridiculous.
We do have some questions, though. Why were the tapes made in the first place? If they were required as part of an official interrogation procedure, then they should have been preserved unless the procedure specifically spelled out when and how they should be destroyed.
Were they not required as part of any written procedure, but made for some special purpose, such as agent training? If that’s the case, it seems reasonable to me that they could have been disposed of as soon as they had fulfilled their purpose. However, if this is why the tapes were made, why has this not been mentioned?
All the BS surrounding this issue — the secrecy, the finger-pointing, the general vagueness of it all, and the refusal to answer any questions about it seem to point to one thing. And that is that the tapes incriminated somebody in the act of doing something illegal. If not, why is everybody acting so guilty?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:30 pmGuys, I’m not so sure the CIA ever wore the white hat, but this is criminal.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm“having those tapes posted in the Internet — leaked the same way the Abu Ghraib tapes were ”
Were the Abu Ghraib tapes posted on the internet? Does anyone know?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pmWhy are progressives so concerned about outing Plame, whose covert status is debatable, but not at all concerned about outing of the CIA agents on the tapes, whose covert status seems very plausible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Let’s compare and contrast, shall we?
Plame WAS COVERT, no question about that AND she was working on WMD programs reportedly within Iran (you know, the axis of evil, Iran). On the other hand, the CIA folks were commiting felonies in our name.
Ya know, Cap’t. That doesn’t sound remotely similar to me. Does it to you?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:38 pmWhy are progressives so concerned about outing Plame, whose covert status is debatable, but not at all concerned about outing of the CIA agents on the tapes, whose covert status seems very plausible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
So CM, I guess that Hayden is a liar, then. Because he told an investigating committee that Plame was definitely a covert agent.
Plus no one here is advocating outing the agents, we are just angry that they tried to cover up the fact that they were torturing detainees, which is against about a dozen laws. If the CIA didn’t want the torturers identified, they could have had any 10th grade film student blur their faces, it’s done all the time.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:46 pmWhy are progressives so concerned about outing Plame, whose covert status is debatable, but not at all concerned about outing of the CIA agents on the tapes, whose covert status seems very plausible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
The covert status of Plame is not debatable, it was the CIA that referred the case to the DOJ and Fitz was assigned to the case.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pmRead Fitz’s conclusion for the Libby trial.
Is Langley Burning?
December 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“[T]he tapes posed a serious security risk. Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qa’ida and its sympathizers.”
Why are progressives so concerned about outing Plame, whose covert status is debatable, but not at all concerned about outing of the CIA agents on the tapes, whose covert status seems very plausible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Lame! Really lame excuses!
First of all, if they were that concerned about leaks and outing agents, they would not have taped them in the first place, or done so in a manner to protect their identity. I’m sure the CIA has a library of tapes that if in the wrong hands could pose a security risk yet they have no intention of destroying them. Secondly, do you really think that true al qaida operatives are that selective in choosing their targets?
Bunch of fu(king rubbish!
December 20th, 2007 at 4:55 pm“having those tapes posted in the Internet — leaked the same way the Abu Ghraib tapes were â€
Were the Abu Ghraib tapes posted on the internet? Does anyone know?
Comment by Peter C — December 20, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Abu ghraib was exposed by cellphone pictures, not CIA tapes. Figures the wingnuts wouldn’t have a clue.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:57 pmYou are one foul creature.
Comment by Charles James Napier — December 20, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
’nuff said chuck, ’nuff said.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:58 pmWhy are that guy’s eyes crossed and bugging out of his head? Just asking.
Comment by krazeeinjun — December 20, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Probably because he has undiagnosed Graves disease (hyperthyroid). Be considerate when you make such comments if you don’t mean them to be intentionally pejorative.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:00 pmComment by eCAHNomics — December 20, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
he does.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:02 pm“…why was Libby indicted?”
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:12 pmOK, take the tapes BLOCK OUT the faces of the intergaters….DUH…no,that’s not the lame reason. They’re hiding the naked truth of how sick waterboarding really is. WE do not torture,BS,we DO and the tapes would prove it, and embarras lil chimpy. Crooks, liers, all of them.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:12 pmYou have a reasonable post, (and I agree with much of it) but if it’s ridiculous to believe that someone would want to out a CIA agent, why was Libby indicted?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
She probably meant “no one decent, like a progressive.”
December 20th, 2007 at 5:13 pm“…why was Libby indicted?â€
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements.
i forgot one – blind loyalty to the big dick and hot karl rove.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:17 pm“…why was Libby indicted?â€
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements.
Comment by LividLib — December 20, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
###
I have a question to add to this. Libby was indicted for all of the above mentioned crimes, in relation to an investigation of the outing of a CIA agent. The Director off the CIA testified before congress that Plame was covert, but that is besides the point. Outing a CIA agent at all is a really bad idea, especially when it causes the destruction of a vital nuclear proliferation watchdog. Just imagine if Harry Reid had outed her, what the response would have been.
My question is this – Why did Bush commute his sentence? He felt the punishment was too severe (I doubt he was singing that same song when Clinton was facing perjury charges), but he ordered the execution of 154 people when he was Gov. of Texas, and didn’t think that was too harsh.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThere are a lot of partisan politicians today that would sell this country’s security for a boost in the polls or an election year talking point.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
you got that right!
December 20th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThere are a lot of partisan politicians today that would sell this country’s security for a boost in the polls or an election year talking point.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
When do you think this began and why?
December 20th, 2007 at 5:19 pmWhy are progressives so concerned about outing Plame, whose covert status is debatable
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Let’s hear the debate then. Her own boss testified before Congress that she was indeed “covert”. Do you know more than he does? Or are you just spouting out BS that you heard from Rush and Sean?
but not at all concerned about outing of the CIA agents on the tapes, whose covert status seems very plausible?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
I don’t think that anyone is insisting that these tapes should be seen by the public. They certainly should have been preserved for the inspection of certain individuals and select committees, within the government, with proper security clearances.
On top of that, I suppose that you, and the CIA, have oddly enough never heard of blurring (or blacking out) peoples faces on video, and modifying their voices. I’ve seen it done countless times on news shows, when they are trying to protect peoples identities. I guess that this technology is beyond the ability of the CIA
These excuses just DO NOT WASH. Sorry, it’s just a bunch of BS… plain and simple.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:23 pm†I’m sure the CIA has a library of tapes that if in the wrong hands could pose a security risk yet they have no intention of destroying them.â€
In today’s ‘partisanship at any cost’ atmosphere, that library is probably being reconsidered.
There are a lot of partisan politicians today that would sell this country’s security for a boost in the polls or an election year talking point.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
Like ramping up rhetoric to push for an Iranian war?
December 20th, 2007 at 5:25 pmCaptainMantastic,
Why do the Hose and Senate both have Select Intelligence Committees with top secret security clearances?
I’ll just bet that if Sandy Berger had stolen copies of these tapes Rush and Hannity would demand they be shown on live TV.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pmThere are a lot of partisan politicians today that would sell this country’s security for a boost in the polls or an election year talking point.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:14 pm
And if they were found to be leaking classified information, they could be prosecuted for it. Are you suggesting that the government should burn every classified document in its archive just because some politician might use it?
December 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pmIf the CIA agents involved were committing criminal acts of torture, this evidence needs to be preserved for an internal investigation if not a criminal trial, both of which can be conducted in a manner that does not reveal their identity to the general public.
Comment by toasterhead
I wouldn’t mind at all to have these torturers publicly humiliated and lynched by the families of those they tortured.
It is called justice.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:26 pmLaw, my @ss.
what do they have to fear? If they have nothing to hide then they shouldn’t be worried. Hear that before?
December 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pmThe tapes posed a serious security risk. Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qa’ida and its sympathizers.
These are the only two items, in the possession of the CIA, that would pose a security risk if leaked?
WOW!!!
December 20th, 2007 at 5:30 pmCap’n Manny, why would you burn the tape of your child’s birthday party? Unless the end of the tape showed you doing something naughty…
December 20th, 2007 at 5:31 pmIf waterboarding is indeed just like a brisk morning swim in the good old swimming pool, why would anybody want to retaliate against the people administering it?
The President said the the US does not torture.
What’s the problem then?
December 20th, 2007 at 5:34 pmI wouldn’t mind at all to have these torturers publicly humiliated and lynched by the families of those they tortured.
It is called justice.
Law, my @ss.
Comment by Juan C. — December 20, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
I think it’d be even more interesting if it turns out the tapes contained no torture at all, but rather Abu Zubeida naming names that certain parties in the House of Bush or House of Saud don’t want us to hear.
That’s another reason for someone to want those tapes destroyed…
December 20th, 2007 at 5:35 pm†I’m sure the CIA has a library of tapes that if in the wrong hands could pose a security risk yet they have no intention of destroying them.â€
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Then why don’t they go ahead and destroy the whole damned library then.
Why focus on a just couple of tapes?
The more you try to explain, the more you dig yourself into a hole. The logic DOES NOT WASH.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:36 pmHow about this for a solution…congress can pass a law giving all of the torturers, oops I mean enhanced interrogators retroactive immunity, but only if they testify truthfully before congress telling them everything and provided that what they say can be corroborated with more than one source? Because really the problem is not with the grunts who are following orders, the problem is with the whole chain of command issuing the orders.
I know following the standard international practice you are not supposed to follow illegal orders. But for a person at the cutting edge of the sword it is extremely difficult to say no. I would guess that some of these guys are truly honest and patriotic about what they do. I would imagine that some of them approach this in a clinical manner, but I would also imagine that some of them just plain like doing what they do. I would put Bush, Dirty Dick and all of their enablers into the category of doing it simply because they think they can get away with it. But congress might get much further offering immunity under these conditions. Everything would be kept pretty secret of course, until they find out that laws were broken, then they have to make it transparent.
Libby was indicted for lying and obstructing justice, he impeaded the investigation into plames outing. He is the guy who fell on his sword for Who? Dirty dick is my guess.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:40 pmThat’s another reason for someone to want those tapes destroyed…
Comment by toasterhead — December 20, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
I think you may be right, toasterhead. The Press has had NO REACTION to Gerald Posner’s story about what Abu Zabaydah actually said on the tapes. No mention of the three saudi princes and the Pakistani Air Force General, all conveniently deceased, and their role in financing 911. If this story has credibility, I can fully understand why our goverment wanted it destroyed. I haven’t heard this angle mentioned on ANY News story.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:48 pmHELLO?
We’re talkin’ the CI mutha-fukkin A. The masters of the Secret Government and perpetrators of it’s agenda.
A pet rock isn’t safe with the CIA.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:49 pm“Progressives in the CIA like me….”
Geez, I didn’t know, Swilly…………………. don’t torture me, OK?
December 20th, 2007 at 5:58 pmYou have a reasonable post, (and I agree with much of it) but if it’s ridiculous to believe that someone would want to out a CIA agent, why was Libby indicted?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 20, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
You have an excellent point. I should have qualified my statement somewhat.
How’s this — “Nobody wants to see a covert CIA agent outed except for somebody who wants to punish a political enemy.”
December 20th, 2007 at 6:01 pmComment by toasterhead — December 20, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
I wonder that myself. Were the tapes destroyed because of the actions of interrogators, or, the answers provided?
On a related note: Reuters ran another interesting piece about who we’re really fighting in Iraq. It sure sounds like our “good friends”, the Saudis, are in it up to their eyeballs.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1962918820071220?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews
December 20th, 2007 at 6:06 pmComment by Badger — December 20, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
This is an angle I hadn’t even thought of. I had assumed that the tapes were destroyed to hide evidence of torture. It never occured to me that they could have been destroyed to hide what Abu Zabaydeh said during the interrogation. If what you say is really true, that would have potential for even greater political damage.
Good catch!
December 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pmI never thought about the answers being the implicating ones…like always:
Toasterhead hit the nail.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:10 pmmissmolly here’s the link:
December 20th, 2007 at 6:10 pmhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html
My question is this – Why did Bush commute his sentence? He felt the punishment was too severe (I doubt he was singing that same song when Clinton was facing perjury charges), but he ordered the execution of 154 people when he was Gov. of Texas, and didn’t think that was too harsh.
Comment by Chris L — December 20, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
No double standard here — I doubt if any of those 154 people had taken a hit for Bush or any member of his administration, let alone be in a position to spill information about it.
I suspect that Bush kept Libby out of jail to buy his silence, but didn’t pardon him because that would meant he could never plead the fifth if he was asked anything embarrassing under oath.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:13 pmYou only do stuff like this if you did something illegal, and you know, just about everything this corrupt administration has done has been illegal so it is safe to say that, yes, indeed they are covering up illegal activities.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
December 20th, 2007 at 6:19 pmIt is indeed interesting that the CIA, the world’s most vaunted intelligence agency, admits that it might not be able to maintain the secrecy of some videotapes in its hand. Normally any clandestine service worth its salt should be able to secure some videos….unless someone very close to the case, or very high up in the service, was threatening to leak them in order to expose war crimes authorized at the highest levels of government. Word reaches the White House that they’ve got a Jack Ryan-type on their hands threatening to blow the whole secret interrogations policy wide open and the tapes are ordered destroyed. So yeah, in a sense it was an attempt to keep the identities of the interrogators secret: they were committing war crimes on the order of the President of the United States. You bet they were concerned with their identities being leaked. By whom is the question.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:20 pmWhy is it that Republican trolls don’t care if crimes are committed by Republicans?
December 20th, 2007 at 6:21 pmCheney-Bush covering up the impeachable?
December 20th, 2007 at 6:21 pmThey’re managing to keep the secrets surrounding John F. Kennedy’s assassination under wraps all these years……………
December 20th, 2007 at 6:22 pmAs a Drone.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 20, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
###
It wouldn’t surprise me if Billy is in the CIA
December 20th, 2007 at 6:30 pmFull pardon for Libby! Do it for his two young children.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pmok, hello, folks…….all this is the same reason why j. edgar hoover is on our justice building….what a f. joke. one of the most crooked men in our government gets the fed. building named after him. why would it be any different when the very folks who run our country and own our country own them to. the zionists……their fingerprint is on the media, banking system, and our government, all branches. impeaching cheney, lol…..won’t crap come of it. that would mean the zionists, this administration would be exposed of the worst in state terrorist attack ever on our soil. these folks will neva eva, eva eva neva, neva eva eva see treason papers, or any sort of war crimes of any sort….the zionists wont let that happen.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:04 pmComment by bs — December 20, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
I stopped reading at “zionists”.
Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:07 pmComment by tombaked — December 20, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
your another one of those that think it’s the puppets in the whitehouse that masterminded this lol thats funny…please…….the puppeteer has the control and i listed it above.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:12 pmThe unnamed sources all seem to be coming from either the CIA or the Whitehouse legal office. Both are saying they counseled against destruction of the CIA tapes. David Addington was part of those weighing in and nobody has come forward from Cheney’s office leaving the strong impression that Cheney’s office was somehow behind the order to destroy the tapes. But this leaves unanswered who the decider was. Would the Whitehouse legal office allow Cheney to give the order? This is increasingly looking like Cheney took his case directly to Bush who in turn had Addington put in charge of handling the tapes issue, i.e. having them destroyed.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:16 pmMy question is this – Why did Bush commute his sentence?
are you serious…..come on now you know. let me ask this why wouldn’t he??????
December 20th, 2007 at 7:17 pmEither that or the KFC.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 20, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
What problem do YOU have with KFC? It is possible to go from associate fryer to CEO, you know?
December 20th, 2007 at 7:18 pmWould the Whitehouse legal office allow Cheney to give the order?
the darth is in charge he needs no order to do anything……he has proven that in 7 yrs.
This is increasingly looking like Cheney took his case directly to Bush who in turn had Addington put in charge of handling the tapes issue, i.e. having them destroyed.
isn’t he the true ‘president’!!!
December 20th, 2007 at 7:21 pmComment by bs — December 20, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
It was meant to take little steps to avoid the mass outrage explosion, I suppose. On one hand, it saved Libby from going to prison while preventing the dems from doing a full-fledged pick-up as a campaint point. Whether dems or reps win in 2008, Bush can just issue the pardon shortly before turning in the keys, costing him no more outrage then Clinton received for his last-minute pardons.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:25 pmLet me get this straight. Mantastic thinks it would be wrong to make these tapes public because the identities of CIA agents who were arguably engaged in illegal activities MIGHT be made known because of visual and audio evidence, but he thought it was acceptable to actually PUBLISH the name of a covert CIA agent engaged in lawful CIA operations associated with curbing the spread of nuclear technology and the name of her CIA front company in a national publication.
Do I have that correct, Captain or did I misunderstand your position?
December 20th, 2007 at 8:16 pm“You’d have to burn every document at the CIA that has the identity of an agent on it under that theory,â€
CIA says good idea, but they will use the shredders to save on the pollution and minimize global warming.
We are no longer a country where the rule of law applies to those in government. They can do anything they want, the critters have evolved from citizens to consenters. Congress is a bunch of criminals and criminal co-conspirators themselves. Law is a tool to keep the critters under control.
We have 5% of the worlds population, and 25% of the worlds prisoners. The incarceration rate in the US is 0.7%, while those we have in prison in Iraq is 0.1% of the population-same as China’s prison incarceration rate. Go figure.
December 20th, 2007 at 8:20 pm.
So, it was necessary to destroy the tapes to shield the criminals from identification; So that unredacted COPIES don’t make it to the internet.
HUGH???
.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:13 am.
If keeping the identities of the crimes and criminals was important, then why are the perpetrators coming forward… PUBLICALLY?
.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:16 amWhy is everyone hung up on the destruction of these “tapes”. I think we are being conned. This is like 2003. Who uses tapes? I’ll bet they had digital camcorders just like everybody else in the US and that the video is sitting on a dozen servers around DOD and the CIA. Tapes? Duh ….
December 21st, 2007 at 1:41 amroksob, you might have a point if it weren’t prohibitively expensive for digital camcorders. I mean, if it costs $1000.00 for a toilet seat…
December 21st, 2007 at 2:03 am…and repeating!!!! I’m with you!
December 21st, 2007 at 3:27 amIts already been proven that waterboarding and tough interrogations saved lives. Get over it. Clearly your whinig is not changing policy because the American people are not pansies like you and understand that tough times call for harsh methods against terrorists.
Meanwhile real torture continues, and yet the left is of course silent:
December 21st, 2007 at 6:59 pmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/21/wqaeda121.xml