Andrew Sullivan: "The Torture Tape Fingering Bush as a War Criminal! (A Must Read)

KoKo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-23-07 11:37 AM
Original message

Andrew Sullivan: "The Torture Tape Fingering Bush as a War Criminal! (A Must Read)

Edited on Sun Dec-23-07 11:38 AM by KoKo01

(Sullivan's article puts a perspective on what's going on that's well worth the long read...I couldn't even snip enough of how good it is)

----
From The Sunday Times
December 23, 2007
The torture tape fingering Bush as a war criminal
Andrew Sullivan

And now we have found out that all the tapes have been destroyed.

See what I mean by Hollywood? We know about the destruction because someone in the government told The New York Times. We also know the 9/11 Commission had asked the administration to furnish every piece of relevant evidence with respect to Zubaydah�s interrogation and was not told about the tapes. We know also that four senior aides to Bush and Dick Cheney, the vice-president, discussed the destruction of the tapes - including David Addington, Cheney�s right-hand man and the chief legal architect of the administration�s detention and interrogation policies.

At a press conference last Thursday the president gave an equivocal response to what he knew about the tapes and when he knew it: �The first recollection is when CIA director Mike Hayden briefed me.� That briefing was earlier this month. The president is saying he cannot recall something - not that it didn�t happen. That�s the formulation all lawyers tell their clients to use when they need to avoid an exposable lie.

-snip-

But this case is more ominous for the administration because it presents a core example of what seems to be a cover-up, obstruction of justice and a direct connection between torture and the president, the vice-president and their closest aides.

Because several courts had pending cases in which testimony from Zubaydah�s interrogation was salient, the destruction of such evidence triggers a legal process that is hard for the executive branch to stymie or stall - and its first attempt was flatly rebuffed by a judge last week.

Its key argument is a weakly technical one: that the interrogation took place outside US territory - and therefore the courts do not have jurisdiction over it. It�s the same rationale for imprisoning hundreds of suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba - a legal no man�s land. But Congress can get involved - especially if it believes that what we have here is a cover-up.

What are the odds that a legal effective interrogation of a key Al-Qaeda operative would have led many highly respected professionals in the US intelligence community to risk their careers by leaking top-secret details to the press?

What are the odds that the CIA would have sought to destroy tapes that could prove it had legally prevented serious and dangerous attacks against innocent civilians? What are the odds that a president who had never authorised waterboarding would be unable to say whether such waterboarding was torture?

What are the odds that, under congressional grilling, the new attorney-general would also refuse to say whether he believed waterboarding was illegal, if there was any doubt that the president had authorised it? The odds are beyond minimal.

Any reasonable person examining all the evidence we have - without any bias - would conclude that the overwhelming likelihood is that the president of the United States authorised illegal torture of a prisoner and that the evidence of the crime was subsequently illegally destroyed.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece