Dec 7, 2007 at 9:17 PM by Political Chase
When the story broke yesterday on destroying the CIA interrogation videotapes, why did Attorney General Michael Mukasey not issue an immediate preservation order, mandating that all federal government employees not destroy any evidence?
The administration has had two full days and now the entire weekend to rip, tear, and destroy to their heart’s content.
Update: The Justice Department and the CIA’s Inspector General announced Saturday that they had launched a joint preliminary investigation into the CIA’s destruction of the interrogation videotapes, but to my knowledge, Mukasey has yet to issue a preservation order.
Dec 7, 2007 at 4:55 PM by Political Chase
It is becoming increasingly clear that Sgt. Schultz of Hogan’s Heroes fame occupies the Oval Office rather than an informed, knowledgeable, and in-command president. As you may recall, Sgt. Schultz became famous for frequently stating, “I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!” George Bush is rapidly adopting the bumbling sergeant’s mantra.
In today’s White House Press Briefing, reporters drilled Dana Perino over when the president was informed about the CIA’s destruction of the interrogation videos in 2005.
Q Thanks. On these CIA videotapes, did either the President or Vice President or Condoleezza Rice, when she was National Security Advisor, or Steve Hadley, see them before they were destroyed?
MS. PERINO: I spoke to the President, and so I will have to defer on the others. But I spoke to the President this morning about this. He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning. And as to the others, I’ll have to — I’ll refer you to the Vice President’s office and I’ll see if I can get the others.
Interesting. The CIA allegedly informed a select group of Members of Congress about the destruction of the video tapes in November 2006, but doesn’t tell the President about it until yesterday.
And three days ago, the president declared he knew nothing about Iran stopping its nuclear weapons program until one week before the NIE was released. In fact, he wasn’t even sure who actually told him about the NIE findings.
I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information.
Dec 7, 2007 at 3:34 PM by Political Chase
(Update below)
The Times revealed yesterday the CIA possessed and destroyed videotapes documenting their illegal torture of detainees and all of sudden Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is “really sick of this” and Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) demands “this matter must be promptly and fully investigated.” Why didn’t these Highly Ethical Democratic Leaders get sick and demand an investigation when they first learned of the tapes and their destruction?
The Highly Ethical Democratic Leaders previously knew about the tapes but did nothing. Harman admitted knowing about the tapes In 2003 and allegedly was concerned they would be destroyed. Although Rockefeller did not specifically state he had knowledge of the tapes in 2003, at minimum he learned the tapes were destroyed in November 2006.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee and one of only four members of Congress informed of the tapes’ existence, said she objected to the destruction when informed of it in 2003.
“I told the CIA that destroying videotapes of interrogations was a bad idea and urged them in writing not to do it,” Harman said. While key lawmakers were briefed on the CIA’s intention to destroy the tapes, they were not notified two years later when the spy agency went through with the plan. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the committee only learned of the tapes’ destruction in November 2006.
Since Rockefeller was the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003, it is hard to believe he was not one of the Members of Congress informed of their existence in 2003. In these statements, Rockefeller expresses concern that the tapes were destroyed without his prior knowledge or permission, but there is no denial he was not aware of their existence.
“They destroyed it without letting us know, without asking our permission, without consulting, without informing us in any way,” Rockefeller said. “They just did what the CIA likes to do.”
“…It’s a manipulation of the Congress — the use of two people of the Senate, two people out of the House, because nobody else can be told, including our committee. We can’t even talk to anybody, and they say, ‘Oh, they were briefed.’ ”
Of course there are laws prohibiting the release of classified information, which would amount to treason in certain cases, but surely there is a point when a Senator or Representative must adhere to their Oaths.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Where does it say these Highly Ethical Democratic Leaders must ignore their Oath when Dick Cheney, the Director of the CIA, and the Director of National Intelligence informs them of their illegal activities they have deemed classified for the sole purpose of protecting themselves from prosecution?
Update: Glenn Greenwald answering the question "what was Rockefeller and Harman supposed to do," gave this response.
There are countless mechanisms available to a U.S. Senator or Representative to do something about illegal behavior they discover. Anyone — not just someone in such a position — has mechanisms available to them under whistleblower laws to intiate proceedings to investigate illegal government conduct. Why couldn’t they have done that?
They could have also communicated much more aggressively within the government that unless the illegal behavior stopped, they would invoke those mechanisms. Why couldn’t they have done that?
They could also commence closed door investigations to exert oversight over these illegal intelligence activities. The whole point of the SECRET SELECT INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES is to enable Congress to exercise oversight even over the most secretive governmental conduct, precisely in order to prevent illegal behavior of this sort.
I’m amazed that there are people willing to depict Rockefeller and Harman as some sort of helpless victims who were unable to act. They could have taken numerous steps to impede, if not stop and expose, the criminal conduct of which they became aware. Yet they didn’t — not because they couldn’t, but because they didn’t want to.
Glenn has litigated constitutional law; therefore, his statements reflect an applicable professional basis rather than a layperson’s opinion.
Dec 7, 2007 at 1:44 PM by Political Chase
The New York Times’ revelation yesterday that the CIA in 2005 destroyed videotapes documenting interrogations of Al Qaeda operatives conducted in 2002 has far-reaching implications that span the Bush administration — obstruction of justice, war crimes, and if even possible, further deterioation of the country’s standing in the international community. And as expected, Democrats are on the war path.
First, the 9/11 Commission, a Congressional inquiry begun in 2002, and the judge presiding over the trail of Zacharias Moussaoui both requested interrogation related information. Destroying the evidence and refusing to acknowledge it existed is obstruction of justice. But those are irrelavent according to CIA Director Michael Hayden.
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden acknowledged the destruction of the tapes in a message distributed to the CIA workforce. Hayden said the tapes had been destroyed in 2005 “only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries.”
Does anybody really believe that excuse? Hayden obviously is a graduate of the Dick Cheney School of Government. Congress demanded the information, the courts demanded the information, but Hayden’s decision trumps the Constitutional authority of Congress and the courts. It simply fits the pattern and policies — deception and felonious behavior — that have dominated the Bush administration.
Second, this will be a real test for Michael Mukasey’s integrity. Will he initiate the appropriate investigations or will he cover for the Bush administration as Alberto Gonzales and others have done in the past?
Third, this again raises issues of war crimes committed by the administration — waterboarding is a violation of international laws and treaties. Although the Times piece did not specifically state waterboarding was documented in the videotapes, NBC News citing “officials,” reports the “videos included the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah, the leader in charge of al-Qaida’s training camps.” That is a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Democrats have expressed outraged and called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate the matter. Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), said she “cautioned C.I.A. officials [in 2003] not to destroy any videotapes pertaining to interrogation practices.” (Also see this post)
“This matter must be promptly and fully investigated,” said Ms. Harman, now head of the Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence and terrorism risk assessment. She noted that in early 2003 she received “a highly classified briefing” on C.I.A. interrogation practices from the agency’s general counsel, and that she had expressed “serious concerns” in a letter to the lawyer afterward.
“I call for my letter of February 2003, which was never responded to and has been in the C.I.A.’s files ever since, to be declassified,” the Congresswoman said.
An outraged Ted Kennedy said, “We haven’t seen anything like this since the 18½ -minute gap on the tapes of Richard Nixon.”
