Administration officials are reporting that the CIA not only destroyed the tapes of the two suspects at the center of torture scandal, but they also did not allow transcripts to be made. This a very irregular practice given the importance of the suspects and further evidence to support a conspiracy to avoid or destroy evidence of torture.
The Administration has always stressed that it only ordered waterboarding for the most important suspects. Yet, after taking these extraordinary measures, they now claim that all tapes were destroyed and no transcripts made. This is particularly curious when they claim the interrogations were full of useful information.
In the meantime, Democrats appear to be struggling to avoid discussion in the criminal act before the obstruction and particularly the criminal actor. The original crime was torture and the man who ordered it was the President. Yet, Democrats are once again framing the controversy to avoid addressing torture, which is not only a war crime but most obviously an impeachable offense. They seem to be getting a great deal of support from the mainstream media, which continues to focus on the obstruction and avoids reference to torture — despite the fact that waterboarding is clearly defined as torture by U.S. and international courts.
The Democrats seem to want to investigate a cover-up while avoiding the crime being concealed — or at least ignoring its commission. This is akin to investigating the conspiracy to destroy evidence of murder but never discuss the homicide. After saving Mukasey from a showdown on torture, however, this may be more difficult for the Democrats despite disclosures recently that leading Democrats knew of the waterboarding.
I just have a question for the good professor. If you could please reply to my email I would greatly appreciate it: iranianajax@yahoo.com
Here is my question: I don’t buy for a second that John Kiriakou is coming out and talking about the CIA tapes on his own. I say this for several reasons:
1. the Agency may be doing this in a public relations ploy to better its image: Kiriakou has not put the agency in a bad light.
2. It may be beneficial to let the Al Qaeda leadership know that Zubaydah has talked – and gave up “corroborated” information – this may be targetting their operational security.
3. Kiriakou – if you listen to him carefully – is equivocal about waterboarding (sounds like a sport, to me). He doesn’t come out and say, YES IT IS BAD…..he says, yes it is torture but that is not to say that I disagree with what we did to Zubaydah.
Do you think that he has “not had contact with the CIA” as he said on the Abrams interview on MSNBC?
Hope you are well.
=Iranian Ajax
It’s hard when everyone’s hands are dirty. Do you think Pres. Bush has the chutzpah to call for an independent prosecutor? After all, what are the democrats going to do? Hold hearings? For what? I don’t see the presidential candidates saying anything — not even the obligatory lip service — to the larger issues at play: the abuse of power by the government.