The Torture Tape Cover-Up: How High Does It Go?

[marmar]

from HuffPost:



Marjorie Cohn
The Torture Tape Cover-Up: How High Does It Go?
Posted December 29, 2007 | 03:20 PM (EST)



When the hideous photographs of torture and abuse emerged from Abu Ghraib in the spring of 2004, they created a public relations disaster for the Bush administration. The White House had painstakingly worked to capitalize on the 9/11 attacks by creating a "war on terror." Never mind the absurdity of declaring war on a tactic. Central to Bush's new "war" was the portrayal of us as the good guys and al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Saddam Hussein as the bad guys.

But the Abu Ghraib photos of naked Iraqis piled on top of one another, forced to masturbate, led around on leashes like dogs shined the light on U.S. hypocrisy.

After the Abu Ghraib revelations, the Bush administration could not tolerate more bad publicity. So in 2005, the CIA destroyed several hundred hours of videotapes depicting torturous interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, probably including water boarding. The former U.S. official involved in discussions about the tapes reported widespread concern that "something as explosive as this would probably get out," according to the Los Angeles Times. This destruction of evidence may violate several laws. And it remains to be seen how high up the chain of command the criminality goes.

Now that the videotape scandal has come to light, Bush and his men are back in damage control mode. CIA Director Michael Hayden minimized the significance of the destruction, claiming the tapes were destroyed "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries." These claims are disingenuous.

The tapes likely portray U.S. officials engaged in torture, which violates three U.S.-ratified treaties as well as the U.S. Torture Statute and the War Crimes Act.

Bush justifies his administration's "harsh interrogation techniques" by maintaining that Zubaydah, under interrogation, fingered Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. But according to investigative journalist Ron Suskind in his 2006 book One Percent Doctrine, it was a "walk-in" who led the CIA to Mohammed in return for a $25 million reward. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/the-torture-tape-coverup_b_78704.html

[Swamp Rat]

1. Bushler and Cheney personally ordered the torture, as well as the the destruction of evidence.

[The Magistrate]

3. You Are Probably Right, Sir

[Swamp Rat]

4. I wish this was all just a nightmare, and you are trying to wake me up.

Btw, happy New Year Magistrate, and I apologize for giving you any extra, unnecessary work. :hi:

[The Magistrate]

9. The Same To You, My Friend!

No apologies necessary.

[EFerrari]

12. If the two highest principals weren't involved, Sir,

there would have been no need for the New York Times to hang it all on CIA as they did yesterday.

The push back is instructive. And, it directly contradicts facts we have in hand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/washington/30intel.html?ei=5088&en=5192c167aca48ff4&ex=1356670800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[The Magistrate]

22. Under The Relevant Laws, Ma'am, They Are Involved Regardless

They bear command responsibility for the actions of their underlings, since, even were one inclined to grant for purposes of argument that they did not give direct orders for the actual torture, there remains abundant evidence they have refused to end it when they knew of it, and have prevented prosecution of their subordinates engaged in it. Thus the only permissible defense, that this was a crime of 'rogue elements' they knew nothing of, and sought to halt once they did, cannot be employed. This means that any evidence of the crime at any level threatens them directly.

[EFerrari]

11. Of course they did or their LAWYERS wouldn't be involved

in the tape negotiations.

Everyone of those lawyers said keep the tape EXCEPT Cheney's.

I'm math impaired but not THAT impaired. :shrug:

[TomInTib]

2. How high does it get?

That should be the question.

I'm guessing Oval Office.

Or maybe Dick really didn't tell the idjit.

[TomInTib]

5. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?"

"Bush justifies his administration's "harsh interrogation techniques" by maintaining that Zubaydah, under interrogation, fingered Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. But according to investigative journalist Ron Suskind in his 2006 book One Percent Doctrine, it was a "walk-in" who led the CIA to Mohammed in return for a $25 million reward.

Zubaydah evidently wasn't a top al Qaeda leader. Dan Coleman, one of the FBI's leading experts on al Qaeda, said Zubaydah "knew very little about real operations, or strategy." Moreover, Zubaydah was schizophrenic, according to Coleman. "This guy is insane, certifiable split personality." Coleman's views were echoed at the top levels of the CIA and were communicated to Bush and Cheney. But Bush scolded CIA director George Tenet, saying, "I said was important. You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" Zubaydah's minor role in al Qaeda and his apparent insanity were kept secret.

In response to the torture, Zubaydah told his interrogators about myriad terrorist targets al Qaeda had in its sights: the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statute of Liberty, shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, and apartment buildings. Al Qaeda was close to building a crude nuclear bomb, Zubaydah reported. None of this was corroborated but the Bush gang reacted to each report zealously."

GWB, Insecure Dickhead Punk

[quigleyunder]

6. I just don't get it? how can Bush get away with this, while others have to

pay the price for crimes?

[Demeter]

7. Not As High As the Stink!

[Didereaux]

8. All the way to President Cheney! you had to ask that?

[Demeter]

10. This Doesn't Have the Cheney Imprint

It's for the Boy Emperor that those tapes were made.

[EFerrari]

13. If you read Paul Thompson's timeline, the program is clearly Cheney's.

First his, then perhaps, Junior's.

[Demeter]

14. Oh the Coverup Is Cheney's

but not the original dipshit idea.

[EFerrari]

16. Cheney was the @sshole pushing this program. n/t

[Demeter]

18. But Would Cheney Have Been Stupid Enough to Videotape Torture?

I don't think so. Besides, he'd rather go and see for himself!

[EFerrari]

19. Imho, it was his idea. n/t

[Demeter]

20. Then You Must Know Dick Better Than I!

[EFerrari]

21. Read the timeliine. His influence bubbles up.n/t

[SpiralHawk]

15. LinK?

Sounds like important information...

[EFerrari]

17. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2488161

[SpiralHawk]

23. Thank you

This link is gold for anyone who cares about America, and getting to the truth.

[EFerrari]

25. Paul is a genius. The information we need really is there

when you put all the pieces together in this way. :)

[ThomWV]

24. This one is not on Cheney - Bush saw the tapes and bush ordered their destruction

The go-between had to be Porter Goss. His employee had custody of the tapes and was the one to destroy they, it was Porter Goss that brought the word to the custodian of the tapes (Rodrequez sp?) to destroy them. It was Porter Goss who was with Bush every morning giving the daily briefing. It was Porter Goss who went to the White House lawyers (Libby, Addington, Miers) for permission to destroy the tapes - all of whom indicated they said no.

So Bush finds out about the tapes, tells Porter to bring them to the White House so he can see them, watches, then tells Goss to get rid of the things. Goss has already been told not to destroy them by the lawyers so he goes back to CIA headquarters and tells the guy who is holding the tapes and wants to destroy them to do whatever he wants with them. Poof, no more tapes.

Give Goss immunity and them put him in front of the Judiciary Committee.