Rodriguez may seek immunity in torture tapes probe.
By on Dec 23rd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Rodriguez may seek immunity in torture tapes probe.
Jose Rodriguez, the CIA official who reportedly ordered the destruction of the torture tapes, “has indicated he may seek immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying before the House intelligence committee.” Rodriguez is “determined not to become the fall guy” for the White House, according to intelligence sources.
UPDATE: TalkLeft has more.
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
Can you feel the desperation here? It is so palpable and getting worse every day.
There is blood in the water and the sharks are circling around. Get the popcorn folks! Between the wingers unbelievably bad presidential candidates and the scandals that continue to unfold…
You just can’t make this stuff up!
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pmIf the CIA were really good at their job, don’t you think Rodriguez would be worm food by now?
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pmThe little bird sings, so we can catch the big vulture.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 pmWhat’s he worried about? Brusch will just pardon him.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:11 pmYeah, only 7 years of Bushism and the top tiers of the federal government are jockeying to avoid Nurmeberg style prosecutions.
The triumph of Compassionite Conservatism.
-G
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm#2 Comment by Badmoodman — December 23, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Now, now,… give them time. They are working up to the waterboarding. They have to go by the book and get permission to do that stuff. And when they do, why in 35 seconds he will be spilling his guts.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:15 pmGive him immunity. He won’t be the first one to clam up tight once immunity has been procured.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 pm.
.
.
.
.
.
.
But they do say water boarding works………. Shouldn’t we try it in this case and find out for sure?
Shouldn’t we try it in this case and find out for sure?
Comment by Abby — December 23, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Hmmm… you might be onto something there. Worth looking into, I say!
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pmRodriguez is a scapegoat–given him us immunity for solid information on White House involvement.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pmThat’s give him use immunity
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 pmIt would be refreshing to hear the truth for a change. If Rodriguez destroyed the tapes because of pressure, real or implied, then he should tell us this. I for one do not think a person in his position would do such a thing without consent or encouragement from his superviion.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pmmodo slams hillary in her ny times column today!
(sorry, i just thought i’d spoil jas’ fun)
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:00 pmIf I didn’t know any better, I’d say the CIA is out to get Buschco. Yippee.
December 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pmJose, if you need a dime to drop, I’ve got a shitload of them for YOU!
December 23rd, 2007 at 11:13 pmAs the clock winds down on the Bush administration we could see more of this. I hope.
It’s getting to the point where the convictions won’t come in time for a pardon. Plus they’re running out of people to “throw under buses”. I mean, is there ANYBODY left who wants to “spend more time with their families”?
Other encouraging signs would include: the leaking of the “stray nukes” story, the dwindling of the “coalition of the willing”, and the fiasco of Condi arriving just in time for a Turkish foray into Iraq.
I’m with Merlin. I have a huge bag of popcorn handy. What was the phrase?
December 24th, 2007 at 12:02 amOh yeah! “Bring ‘em on”!
I’ve seen ‘use immunity’ in action before.
December 24th, 2007 at 12:34 amIt’s not like the person that it’s offered to has some kind of get of jail free card.
If there’s any time you had better tell the whole and complete truth it’s at that time.
They are on you in a very serious way and ready to charge you with contempt in a hot second.
At least, that’s what I’ve seen.
He wants immunity?…ok…AFTER ….he sings, and we find out it’s true.
December 24th, 2007 at 1:16 amQuick, Bush! Classify the heck out of everything to do with those tapes!
Have Dana Perino announce, “I’m sorry, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any central intelligence agency.”
December 24th, 2007 at 1:52 amOff poiint perhaps, but when Congress acquiesces to the Bush line, they fail to balance their duty as legislators against his power as the executive, co-equal; when Bush brands judges as legislatory and the people buy, he castrates the judiciary, something neither the judiciary nor Congress should tolerate. Bush advocates a literal interpretation of the law and Constitution (except when it comes to him, his family, administration or lobbyists). He accuses the courts of legislating from the bench and the bench founders. It shouldn’t. The American Constitution comprises a careful assessment of the common law, the law of the case, laws that became such based upon a case by case assessment. Stare Desisus. Bushreads, but he doesn’t want the courts to decide any case based upon the judges’ assessment of the facts and witnesses in any individual case. If it ain’t written in “the letter of the law” (which he has tried very hard to circumscribe and write into concrete), a judge, in his view, should have no discretion . . . not to decide, not to determine an appropriate punishment or sentence . . . Well, unfortunately, dub’ya is not a student of history, and every time he got busted, the Secret Service slipped him out the back door of the clink.
The true beauty of the law is that it evolves while the Constitution remains a beacon, beautiful in its resiallence. It’s withstood tyrants and fools . . . whose-ever God you pray to . . . pray that both can withstand this idiot.
Group grave roll . . .Jefferson, Franklin, King . . .
Ola, shrub . . . see’ya in Paraguay . . . Boxer’s Day 2009.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:13 amShould have put “legislatory” in quotes. It’s a Bushism.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:22 amCookie cutter justice may appease Ma Barbara Bush, but as Decider in Chief, you’re a half-baked child.
Leaders cultivate knowledge and thereby the nuances of humanity. Your humane illiteracy is the source of your depravity. . . and as the chips scortch, you’re debacle.
Idiot.
December 24th, 2007 at 5:46 amI would like to see our media talk more about what Zubaydah supposedly said during those investigations, and not how they got him to talk. (They tortured him, and then claimed torture works.) They claim that they got the name Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from these interrogations. But they also got the names of three members of the royal Saudi family, too. And when we told the Saudi’s who Zubaydah gave up, those family members were dead within a week. I believe that is the real reason the tapes were destroyed.
December 24th, 2007 at 8:54 amNow that Rodriguez has indicated he is willing to tell the truth to the committee, he better start watching his back. Perhaps congress should find him a safe house.
I have no problem giving this low-level flunky immunity from prosecution in exchange for his telling the truth. I also have no problem giving the telcoms immunity if they also agree to testify and tell what really happen. That’s the purpose of an immunity deal. To get something in return for granting immunity, not to let someone or something off scott free for having committed a crime.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:29 amIran intends to build 19 NPPs
Comment by ccokz
So, how many nuclear power plants do we have in this country? Why are we allowed to have nuclear power and Iran isn’t? Who appointed us god?
December 24th, 2007 at 9:32 amWhat’s he worried about? Brusch will just pardon him.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Maybe, just maybe, he wants to do the right thing and tell the truth. How refreshing that would be.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:33 am“convictions won’t come in time for a pardonâ€. You don’t need a conviction. The President can pardon you pre-emptively for something you haven’t been convicted of.
Comment by Frank M
You know Francine, you really are a moron. A pardon only applies to a crime that has been committed. The only way you can determine a crime has been committed is by a trial and a sentence. So, there is no way that Bush can “preemptively” grant a pardon.
How about you link to something that proves what you are saying is true? That would show some balls and you may be granted your rightful name back.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:40 amDidn’t we grant immunity to Gonzo’s flunkies and all they said during their testimonies was “I can’t recall”?? Altruistically, I’d love to believe that Rodriguez wants to do the right thing but the track record of this administration is abysmal to disgusting at this point.
Why shouldn’t he be forced to tell the truth and then take whatever punishment he deserves?
I think this immunity concept is just another hijacking method of our rule of law.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:42 amGranting immunity in the past has definitely not brought us any closer to the truth about anything, has it? If there were just one case where we granted immunity which resulted in bringing us closer to the truth, I’d be all for it. The track record doesn’t bode well on the immunity side of things.
Obviously, Rodriguez broke Federal law in destruction of evidence; maybe it’s time to hold these capricious individuals to the letter of the law?
December 24th, 2007 at 9:45 amOops….just discovered Frank M is dirtying up the thread. Adios and Happy Holidays to all!
December 24th, 2007 at 9:46 amComment by bilbobaggins — December 24, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Hate to agree with Frank, but Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon was preemptive, before any charges were filed.
Frank is right in this case.
December 24th, 2007 at 9:52 amFrank is right in this case.
Comment by Wayne
The first, last and probably only time for him on this thread. So, Frank, you have temporarily earned your rightful name back. But, the next time you take a hike when someone asks you to prove your point or answer a question, you are back to Francine.
It would be morally reprehensible for Bush to preemptively pardon anyone. But, knowing Bush that is exactly what he will do. It will be quite a job, though, since the list of criminals around him is so long. And, who is going to pardon him? Certainly not the new Democratic President.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:06 amThe first, last and probably only time for him on this thread.
Oops, I meant to say “on this site”.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:14 amIt would be morally reprehensible for Bush to preemptively pardon anyone. But, knowing Bush that is exactly what he will do. It will be quite a job, though, since the list of criminals around him is so long. And, who is going to pardon him? Certainly not the new Democratic President.
Comment by bilbobaggins — December 24, 2007 @ 10:06 am
That would be too much work for Bush, he is too intellectually lazy.
And as far as Frank being right on pardons…. even a broken watch is right twice a day. heh
December 24th, 2007 at 10:15 amDidn’t we grant immunity to Gonzo’s flunkies and all they said during their testimonies was “I can’t recall�?
I’m fairly sure that Gonzo’s flunkies were offered immunity. But they knew they didn’t need it. They knew they could have faulty memories and get away with it, considering the fact that the Democrats have proved themselves to be spineless.
December 24th, 2007 at 10:16 amIf they grant him immunity…
December 24th, 2007 at 10:25 amthen he simply admits that he did it, with no coersion or prompting from anyone, and everyone goes scot free.
How’s that for proof?
Comment by Frank M
I thought you guys didn’t care about proof.
You invaded a country without one.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:30 amJose Rodriguez is a very close friend of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes. At a ceremony in El Paso last summer, Reyes praised Rodriguez and presented him with a flag that had flown over the U. S. Capitol.
In announcing hearings, Reyes said that their purpose was to prevent “anyone” from becoming a scapegoat in the CIA torture tape destruction scandal. If Rodriguez does not give useful information in his testimony before the Committee, if he does not “name names” and identify those who ordered or approved destruction of the torture tapes, then those hearings will just be another whitewash of the Bush regime’s malfeasance.
December 24th, 2007 at 11:39 amHowdy all. Sorry I screwed up and delivered a point to Frank. My bad. That’s what happens when one gets distracted.
While it’s true that a President may grant a “preemptive pardon”, said pardon is specific to a crime/crimes. For example: if Nixon had been implicated in a murder, separate from the Watergate scandal, said crime would not have been covered by the Ford pardon. I’m pretty sure a blanket pardon can’t be granted “just because”. I don’t think that Bush can pardon Cheney for “any and all hypothetical crimes”, for instance.
A pardon also implies a presumption of guilt. Such being the case, it would be foolish (I admit, that rarely stops Georgie) to “preemptively pardon” someone accused of conspiring with George. I think it would prove to be damning evidence against Herr Bush.
All of which is irrelevant to the real point I was trying to make: that wrongdoers connected to this administration are beginning to realize that the neocon’s days are numbered and they soon won’t be in a position to protect the guilty. Plus, as I stated earlier, Bush is running out of people to “throw under buses”.
December 24th, 2007 at 2:23 pmOMG!
1. Congress find him a safe house? Congress can’t keep a secret in congress without some flunky “leaking” it, how safe do you think this guy is gonna be?
2. Immunity? From what? For what? Something he MAY have done? What happens if they give him immunity, and he steps forward and said he did it, it was his decision?
This is SOOOOO Stupid.
Congress needs to take care of real business first, then take care of petty crap like this.
December 25th, 2007 at 10:01 am