"Those tapes must have depicted pretty gruesome evidence of serious criminal conduct."

[ProSense]

Friday, December 07, 2007

Why'd They Do What They Did?

Marty Lederman

After all, haven't they learned from the experience of the past 35 years that it's not the crime but the cover-up that'll get you?

Yes, they have. Let's not lose sight of the big picture. This was not something they did on the spur of the moment. They vetted it with Rockefeller and Harman, for goodness' sake, and then destroyed the tapes after Harman urged them not to do so. And right after Judge Brinkema's orders started hitting close to home and Dana Priest broke the black sites story. (Check out this great timeline from emptywheel -- pay close attention to all that's going on in October/November 2005.) I retract what I said earlier: This was the CIA. They must have gotten DOJ approval (Gonzales, anyway) for the destruction. And the POTUS and/or VP, too. And all of these folks they knew full well what the fallout might be. And they knew about criminal laws involving obstruction. Most importantly, they were actually destroying what might be incredibly valuable evidence for future uses -- valuable for criminal trials, for intelligence investigations, for training purposes, and, most importantly, as a key tile in their vaunted, hallowed "mosaic" of evidence developed to construct an accurate story about al Qaeda.

And yet they chose to destroy anyway, after what must have been a lot of internal debate. Which goes to show that . . . the cover-up is not worse than the crime, and they knew it. Those tapes must have depicted pretty gruesome evidence of serious criminal conduct. Conduct that would be proof positive of serious breaches of at least two treaties. Conduct approved and implemented at the highest levels of government.

Remember, this was late 2005. By this point, they all knew damn well that "the Commander in Chief has the constitutional authority to violate the Torture Act and the Geneva Conventions" would not be viewed as a very compelling defense. Worse yet, their other defense would have been: "A 35-year-old deputy assistant attorney general by the name of John Yoo orally advised me that this was legal."

Obstruction of justice, and the scandal we're about to witness, was a price they concluded was well worth paying.

[madokie]

1. the spiral at which the bush/cheney cabal is going down is gaining speed

its only a matter of time until the pitchforks, rakes and torches are broke out. Here shortly people will be in the streets demanding of our congresscritters do their job. I have faith in that. I have faith that America is still mostly Good People not a bunch of rogue criminal elements. We gonna win this one

[Independent_Liberal]

4. Glad you feel that way Madokie.

I wish there were more like you around here.

[TahitiNut]

6. I really wish I felt that way.

Once upon a time, I might've ... no more. :cry:

[ProSense]

2. Kick! n/t

[Disturbed]

3. Before someone posts that Water Boarding is simulated

drowning & am pre-empting that by stating that it is, in fact, actual drowning.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

5. As has been stated in other threads,

it is the information indicting the Saudi's, and the subsequent deaths of the 4 named persons, that is the meat of this transgression.

[Truthiness Inspector]

7. Yawn.

I love the part that says "must have depicted pretty gruesome evidence of serious crimial conduct."

[HCE SuiGeneris]

8. Thank God you rushed in

with your enlightened commentary. This thread wouldn't have had any value without you. :applause:

[orleans]

9. lol! n/t

[The Stranger]

10. Try them -- then hang them from the lamp posts.