Re: Media Misfire on CIA Interrogation Tape Destruction
- From: mg <mgkelson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 05:54:12 -0800 (PST)
As far as I know torture is illegal in this country and so is
destroying evidence.
http://www.projo.com/news/content/TORTURE_REPORT_08-03-07_TM6JRP2.38b7410.html
We need a special prosecutor to investigate and anyone who has
violated the law needs to have their asses thrown in jail.
On Dec 8, 3:35 pm, so...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Media Misfire on CIA Interrogation Tape Destruction
By Jason Aslinger | December 8, 2007 - 13:49 EThttp://newsbusters.org
The media have gone into full frenzy mode the last two days over some
destroyed CIA interrogation tapes. And are you really surprised? The
story has all the ingredients that the mainstream media just can't
resist: 1) waterboarding, 2) allegations of cover up and obstruction of
justice, 3) and the opportunity to ask "what did they know and when did
they know it?"
The story centers around the 2002 CIA interrogations of two al Qaida
operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. In the wake of
9/11, CIA operatives admittedly used aggressive interrogation
techniques, which included waterboarding. The CIA videotaped the
interrogations, and then reportedly held the tapes until 2005 when they
were destroyed. Critics (meaning Democrats and the media) have
complained that the tapes were destroyed just as a public debate was
brewing over torture and interrogation.
When the story first broke this week, the media predictably looked first
toward the White House.
White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday that President
Bush did not recall being told about the tapes or their destruction. But
she could not rule out White House involvement in the decision to
destroy the tapes, saying she had only asked the president about it, not
others.
Perino refused to say whether the destruction could have been an
obstruction of justice or a threat to cases against terrorism suspects.
If the attorney general decides to investigate, "of course the White
House would support that," she said.
In a daily press briefing dedicated almost solely to the topic of
the CIA tapes, Perino responded 19 times that she didn't know or
couldn't comment.
Having no immediate smoking gun against the President, the media happily
reported when Sen. Edward Kennedy tried to equate the story to Watergate
(nevermind the side story of Kennedy and cover ups).
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused the CIA of a cover-up. "We
haven't seen anything like this since the 18 1/2-minute gap in the tapes
of President Richard Nixon," he said in a Senate floor speech.
Clearly, the media was hoping for a scandal which it could ultimately
pin on high-level officials in the Bush Administration, just as it did
with the Valerie Plame epic anti-scandal. But then something unexpected
happened. It turns out that Bush Administration officials counseled
against the destruction of the tapes. The New York Times (which
originally broke the story) reported today:
According to two government officials, Mr. Muller then raised the
idea of destroying the tapes during discussions in 2003 with Justice
Department lawyers and with Harriet Miers, who was then a deputy White
House chief of staff. Ms. Miers became White House counsel in early
2005.
The officials said that Ms. Miers and the Justice Department lawyers
had advised against destroying the tapes, but that it was not clear what
the basis for their advice had been.
Former CIA director Porter Goss also opposed the tapes' destruction.
Former Rep. Porter Goss, R-Florida -- who was head of the CIA when
the tapes were destroyed -- was told about the tapes when he served as
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, a former intelligence
official told CNN. The official said that Goss agreed with Harman that
the tapes should not be destroyed and, when he became director of the
agency in 2004, he let "the appropriate people" know his opinion.
The official said Goss was unhappy when he learned after the fact
that the tapes were destroyed. Goss resigned in May 2006 ...
The decision to destroy the tapes appears to be the unilateral act of
one man, Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr., the former chief of the CIA's
clandestine service, who acted even without the authority of the CIA's
top attorney.
The chief of the agency's clandestine service nevertheless ordered
their destruction in November 2005, taking the step without notifying
even the C.I.A.'s own top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, who was angry at the
decision, the officials said.
Nevertheless, the media is readily reporting congressional Democrats'
anger and fury over the incident. But the media itself is giving the
first signs of backing away from this story, or at least redirecting its
focus away from the Bush Administration.
At 10:00 a.m. (ET), CNN's Kathleen Koch reported of administration
officials who had counseled against the tapes' destruction. Koch said
these reports served as "exculpatory" evidence for the Bush
Administration. A subsequent report at noon by Koch cited to a possible
obstruction of justice prosecution, presumably for the CIA operative.
At 10:45 a.m. (ET), MSNCB's Patty Culhane reported that "everybody" who
knew of the tapes urged that they not be destroyed, and openly
questioned whether this incident was "the actions of just one guy." In a
subsequent report, Culhane said "simply one official" appears
responsible for the tapes' destruction. But still holding out hope,
Culhane spoke of possible criminal charges, and predicted the story's
remaining "potential to be a huge scandal."
As juicy as this story began for the media, it is evaporating just as
quickly. It now appears that Bush Administration officials were on
record against the destruction of the interrogation tapes. Moreover, it
appears that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were not even
aware of the tapes until this week. Unless there are future developments
to the contrary, there will not be a repeat prosecution of a high-level
administration official (as occurred with Scooter Libby). There is
little opportunity to ask "what did they know and when did they know
it." Instead, at best (from the media's perspective), a former CIA
operative might be subject to some criminal liability.
On that point, it will be interesting to see how far the media conitunes
with this story. So far, the story has not appeared near the top of the
"most popular" news stories on Yahoo or Google, which raises the
question as to who is really outraged. Is there real public interest
behind this story? Or is this story just another contrived "outrage" of
the Democrats and the media?
And there is bound to be some measure of public sentiment in favor of
the CIA operative, Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr. The interrogations in question
occurred shortly after 9/11, at a time in which public support would
have likely been in favor of aggressive interrogation techniques. And
these interrogations resulted in the capture of "9/11 mastermind" Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed. We have yet to hear from Mr. Rodriguez, but it is easy
to imagine that his justification for destroying the tapes was to spare
prosecution for the men (heroes) who helped to capture the 9/11
mastermind. In fact, that justification has already been reported by
CBS.
The media and Democrats may be proceeding at their own peril on this
particular story.
--Jason Aslinger is a private practice attorney in Greenville, Ohio.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Bill Clinton Says He Wouldn't Have Kicked the U.N. Inspectors Out
- Next by Date: Re: Homosexual link to Child Abuse Debunked
- Previous by thread: Thoughts on Labeling
- Next by thread: Democrats, ACLU Call For Independent Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Torture and Destruction of Video Tapes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
