US launches criminal probe into destruction of CIA tapes
US News
Jan 2, 2008, 22:28 GMT
Other features coming soon.
Talkback
page: 1
(Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the 9/11 commission.)
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion
'The commission’s mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A. destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the C.I.A. — or the White House — of the commission’s interest in any and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11 plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.'
Another pointless investigation by a Congress that should be taking care of much more serious problems. Terrorism, Leaky Borders, Medical Care come to mind.
This is NOT a Congressional investigation - it's going to be conducted by a prosecutor selected by the DOJ, and the Attorney General will run it.
Why can't people READ???
There was action from both parties in Congress asking for this investigation, and Mukasey responded to the pressure. The White House will try to roadblock this every way that they can, with claims of 'national security' and 'executive privilege', and only a DOJ investigation (not 'Congress') can obtain results - not that they'll be easy to come by. If the 9/11 Commission, under Presidential orders, could not get the tapes (and who knows what OTHER evidence has been hidden?), Congress would be impotent as well.
It's a big stink that will take over a year to conclude, leaving the GOP candidates to explain it.
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/washington/02cnd-intel.html?hp
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Wednesday that the Justice Department had elevated its inquiry into the destruction of Central Intelligence Agency interrogation videotapes into a formal criminal investigation to be headed by an outside prosecutor.
The announcement is the first sign that investigators believe C.I.A. officers, possibly along with other government officials, may have committed criminal acts in their handling of the tapes, which depicted the interrogations in 2002 of two Al Qaeda operatives and were destroyed in 2005.
The tapes were never provided to the Sept. 11 commission or to the courts, and the question of whether to destroy them was for nearly three years the subject of deliberations at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Mr. Mukasey assigned an outside investigator, a federal prosecutor from Connecticut, to lead the criminal inquiry in tandem with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The prosecutor, John H. Durham, is likely empanel a grand jury to hear testimony to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring criminal charges, which could include obstruction of justice.
First of all, wht does Al Queda interrogations have to do with the 9/11 committee? They are not germaine to any issues the 9/11 commission was supposedly investigating, and had nothing to do with 9/11 since the interrogations happened in 2002(?)
Second, if the facts are not in contention and a law has been violated, why do they need tapes to prosecute?
That being the case, if it was not against the law to interrogate them, why would it be against the law to destroy them?
The only thing dumber is the fact that someone actually taped it...
Does anyone suppose Alberto Gonzales would have launched one? I doubt it!
osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/01/and-speaking-of-justice-u-s-attorney.ht ml#links
Round up the usual suspects. Hold hearings. Waste a couple of million dollars. Find nothing, except more shredded and burnt documents. Business as usual in the land of the free.
SP4 is such an idiot that this time I am not going to bother to answer his questions. The poor sod is in such need of an education that he should go back to primary school and start all over, rather than wasting time searching for answers on the web.
(Listen to this crap ... )
'First of all, wht does Al Queda interrogations have to do with the 9/11 committee? They are not germaine to any issues the 9/11 commission was supposedly investigating, and had nothing to do with 9/11 since the interrogations happened in 2002(?)'
===========
The 9/11 commission, created AGAINST Bush's original wishes:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
' ... CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11. Mr. Bush said the matter should be dealt with by congressional intelligence committees. ... '
... were chartered to look into ANYTHING to do with 9/11 itself, as well as guarding against future attacks. I think you'll find general agreement that al Qaeda qualifies. If members are interrogated after capture, what they would have revealed falls likewise under the purview of the 9/11 commission. Information gained under torture is more suspect than information gained by other means, so details of how the information was gained was relevant, as well as what the information itself was. This gets tossed under the 'national security' blanket, making it very difficult to know just what was said (or not), and even who said it.
www.9-11commission.gov/
'The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Commissioners_suspected_the_Penta gon_was_deceiving_the_Commission
In their book 'Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission' on their experience serving as co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton devoted the first chapter on how they believed the Commission was set up for failure. Hamilton listed a number of reasons why they thought this, including the late start of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed; the insufficient funds, 3 million dollars, initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested and received additional funds, but the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who did not want the Commission formed; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; and the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. 'So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail.'
...but, again, what does the 9/11 commission have to do with bitch slapping a couple of suspected Al Queda wags?
Hey......Sherlock.....THEY DID IT! They caused the towers to fall! They even said so!
CIA....KICKED THE SH-T OUTA THEM! No one is denying anything!
None of the facts are in contention! Now, we are supposed to believe it takes more than 10 seconds for a lawyer to determine if they were obstructing justice?
Jesus.....have you ever read anything so moronic?
Wanna dig into the 9/11 commission? '...go see a mahn nama sahndy bergarah, with lahge pahnts!'
I understand he writes in crayon, since they won't give him anything sharp.
(We've had too many excuses made, over too many years, justifying some behaviors by this Administration that were either criminal, or unethical. Scooter Libby took the fall for others, and then Bush put him in a position where he cannot testify further, rather than granting a pardon where he could have been forced to testify. The public is sick and tired of these go-arounds, and unfortunately the CIA people are in the spotlight this time - this may expose problems in the White House insofar as who told who in the CIA to destroy evidence. This will drag on likely into 2009, past the point of indicting some people while in office.)
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/washington/03intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin< br />
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey said Wednesday that the Justice Department had elevated its inquiry into the destruction of Central Intelligence Agency interrogation videotapes to a formal criminal investigation headed by a career federal prosecutor.
The announcement is the first indication that investigators have concluded on a preliminary basis that C.I.A. officers, possibly along with other government officials, may have committed criminal acts in their handling of the tapes, which recorded the interrogations in 2002 of two operatives with Al Qaeda and were destroyed in 2005.
C.I.A. officials have for years feared becoming entangled in a criminal investigation involving alleged improprieties in secret counterterrorism programs. Now, the investigation and a probable grand jury inquiry will scrutinize the actions of some of the highest-ranking current and former officials at the agency.
The tapes were never provided to the courts or to the Sept. 11 commission, which had requested all C.I.A. documents related to Qaeda prisoners. The question of whether to destroy the tapes was for nearly three years the subject of deliberations among lawyers at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
Justice Department officials declined to specify what crimes might be under investigation, but government lawyers have said the inquiry will probably focus on whether the destruction of the tapes involved criminal obstruction of justice and related false-statement offenses.
'Justice Department officials declined to specify what crimes might be under investigation'
...I'll be they did...! How about cruelty to animals?
RE: '...I'll be they did...! How about cruelty to animals?'
-----------
I guess that's your personal concern, living under a rock.
Any prosecutor does not reveal all charges until the case is ready to go to trial, since at that point all charges are to be presented. This investigation will dig up more and more illegalities, each of which goes to reinforce the others.
Mukasey cannot afford to bury this mess, and the prosecutor he chose has a reputation for toughness - that was necessary to deflect calls for a Special Prosecutor outside of the DOJ's direct control.
blog.washingtonpost.com/benchconference/2008/01/tapegate_probe_will_out last_bush_presidency.html?nav=rss_blog
'With his choice of veteran prosecutor John Dunham to lead the investigation into Tapegate, Attorney General Michael Mukasey has shown that he takes this matter seriously. And by naming Dunham, a bulldog who is more professional than partisan, Mukasey also ensures that the investigation will be ugly and long-lasting.
So now we wait -- for subpoenas and other requests for information and documents sent by the Justice Department to the CIA. And for the assertion of executive privilege and the 'state secrets' doctrine and other national-security related defenses from the CIA -- and, probably, the White House. We wait for court hearings and backroom negotiations. We wait for recusals by Justice Department officials who offered legal opinions about the destruction of the tapes before they were destroyed. We wait for congressional whining about the pace of the investigation. And we wait for the sort of political posturing that comes with an election year.
Whether Dunham, a U.S. attorney in Connecticut, can undertake a thorough investigation within the confines of the executive branch is an open question. The CIA says it will cooperate. But that's what investigatees always say. Moreover, the CIA cannot compel one of its officials to participate in a criminal investigation against his or her will. (Remember: people go to jail, agencies do not.) Each person called before Durham's investigators will have the constitutional right to cooperate or remain silent.
Then there is the 'internal legal defense' angle. If CIA (and Justice Department) lawyers ginned up a rationale for destroying the tapes, and CIA officials then followed that legal advice, how can those officials ultimately be charged with a crime? How can the Justice Department charge executive branch lawyers with providing faulty legal advice?'
www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4138
Capitol Hill Blue reports that Bush was so livid that Attorney General Makasey is pursing the CIA tapes case investigation that he wanted to fire him. If he knew who Mukasy selected to lead a full-scale criminal investigation was he'd have gone into an apoplectic rage.
Even without the vast powers of a special prosecutor, federal prosecutor John H. Dunham could be a barbed harpoon in Bush's side for the rest of his presidency and beyond. He's the career prosecutor U.S. Attorney General Janet C. Reno appointed to investigate allegations that FBI agents and police officers in Boston had been in bed with the mob.
(Without a Special Prosecutor being appointed with sweeping powers, this could end up one more farce; but Bush cannot fire Mukasey at this point after backing his appointment. Bush's tenure has been a disgrace, and someone needs to pry open the lid and expose the rot within)
www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4135
Angry Bush will stonewall CIA probe January 3, 2008 - 7:28am
Orders White House aides to stall investigators
While the administration may put on a public face of cooperation, the White House will take a tough stance from prosecutors who will seek interviews with current and former administration officials who participated in a meeting where destruction of the videotapes was discussed.
White House insiders describe the President’s mood as “dour” and “resigned” to the implications of a Justice Department investigation but legal observers in Washington believe the administration can successfully stall the probe and doubt the effectiveness of an administration trying to examine its own criminal behavior.
Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, says a special prosecutor independent of the Justice Department is needed to fully investigate the destruction of the tapes. A Justice Department probe, Turley adds, can and most certainly will be hindered by the Bush Administration, which has a long and proven history of manipulating examinations of its wrong doing.
They already KNOW what happened.
They already KNOW if it is a crime or not.
No, you charge a person, based on the accusation and the evidence present.
You see, they already know thaey cannot make a case for the interrogation, and since, it is unlikely illegal, the only thing they can do is sweat someone into saying they did it to avoid prosecution.
That's it. Another Skooter case, except, having already DONE that, I suspect NO one will go into a grand jury without a lawyer this time, huh?
page: 1
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Fort Hood gunman conscious (Extra)
- 2. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (2nd Roundup)
- 3. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting (Roundup)
- 4. Senior US senator demands 'terrorism' probe into army killings
- 5. Fort Hood offers prayers for victims of mass shooting
USA
Your Talkback on this Story