|
CIA Tapes
As the the NYT and others reported yesterday, the CIA in 2005 destroyed hours of video tapes which documented the torture interogations of two alleged ‘Al-Qaida operatives’.
This is obviously obstruction of justice as well as obstruction of the inquiries by the 9/11 commission. This by the CIA as well as the Justice Department which earlier denied the existence of such tapes in front of a federal court.
The White House, the Justice Department and Congress committee members now say they adviced the CIA not to destroy the tapes. The CIA assures us that this was a lone decision taken against such advice by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the chief of the agency’s clandestine service, in 2005. Rodriguez is now retired.
As usual, the coverup is the crime that breaks the case. The torture itself was a crime against humanity, wellknown and so far legally untouched. To destroy the tapes is obvious obstruction of justice that will likely have consequences.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the C.I.A., claimed this week that the relevant Congress committees were informed, after the fact, about the destruction of the tapes. Committee leaders form both parties deny this. Hayden’s statement is not yet criminal, but as soon as he is asked under oath …
Congress wants to look into this. But with Senator Rockefeller as the relevant Senate committee chairman, nothing will come out. The House may have a better chance to get more information.
Two points:
1. There are always copies of such tapes.
2. The White House somewhat denies any presidential knowledge on the issue by a very carefully worded statement:
Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said Friday that President Bush “has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction” before this week.
Nice try and obviously not a clean denial. What did the president know and when did he know it? Did he really forget how he laughed at those screams?
I recommend a thorough search through Bush’s private video collection. Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s private archives also deserve some scrutinity. A rerun of the relevant scenes might refresh their memories.
There’s a hell of a thread over at Dailykos right now regarding this.
“It’s Not Torture They’re Covering Up, It’s the Results”.
And it suggests the reason the tapes were destroyed is not because they showed extreme torture, but because they probably showed something similar to this:
The automatic assumption about the CIA’s destruction of the interrogation tapes of Abu Zubaydah is that the tapes exposed methods everyone would agree amounted to torture, and they were destroyed to prevent that proof being exposed. It’s quite likely that what was being covered up was the results of that torture.
Gerald Posner has a piece at HuffPo drawing from his 2003 book that is worth a read:
Instead, when confronted by his “Saudi” interrogators, Zubaydah showed no fear. Instead, according to the two U.S. intelligence sources that provided me the details, he seemed relieved. The man who had been reluctant to even confirm his identity to his U.S. captors, suddenly talked animatedly. He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would kill him. He then asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the Saudi royal family. And Zubaydah provided a private home number and a cell phone number from memory. “He will tell you what to do,” Zubaydah assured them
Quote:
The automatic assumption about the CIA’s destruction of the interrogation tapes of Abu Zubaydah is that the tapes exposed methods everyone would agree amounted to torture, and they were destroyed to prevent that proof being exposed. It’s quite likely that what was being covered up was the results of that torture.
Gerald Posner has a piece at HuffPo drawing from his 2003 book that is worth a read:
Quote:
Instead, when confronted by his “Saudi” interrogators, Zubaydah showed no fear. Instead, according to the two U.S. intelligence sources that provided me the details, he seemed relieved. The man who had been reluctant to even confirm his identity to his U.S. captors, suddenly talked animatedly. He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would kill him. He then asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the Saudi royal family. And Zubaydah provided a private home number and a cell phone number from memory. “He will tell you what to do,” Zubaydah assured them
The comments get very interesting …
American interrogators used painkillers to induce Zubaydah to talk — they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet. They also utilized a thiopental sodium drip (a so-called truth serum). Several hours after he first fingered Prince Ahmed, his captors challenged the information, and said that since he had disparaged the Saudi royal family, he would be executed. It was at that point that some of the secrets of 9/11 came pouring out. In a short monologue, that one investigator told me was the “Rosetta Stone” of 9/11, Zubaydah laid out details of how he and the al Qaeda hierarchy had been supported at high levels inside the Saudi and Pakistan governments.
He named two other Saudi princes, and also the chief of Pakistan’s air force, as his major contacts. Moreover, he stunned his interrogators, by charging that two of the men, the King’s nephew, and the Pakistani Air Force chief, knew a major terror operation was planned for America on 9/11.
Considering that “Zubaydah is the only top al Queda operative who has secretly linked two of America’s closest allies in the war on terror,” it would be pretty embarrassing for the CIA if they had these people killed solely based on something Zubaydah came up with to save his life.
Holy shit, some of the Daily Kos people there actually have balls and an intellect?
Usually all I see for years is endless, endless gatekeeping and the usual American liberal “shut up about 9/11 theories” spewage.
This is the REAL reason the torture tapes have been destroyed, by what they reveal
_________________
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 8 2007 12:00 utc | 4
prior to becoming president, roosevelt served as assistant secretary of the navy where he was much involved in the 19-year illegal u.s. occupation of haiti in a variety of way. for instance, in getting major smedley butler & another marine a congressional medal of honor for capturing fort riviere.
The medals were awarded at the behest of Assistant Secretary of the Navy Franklin D. Roosevel, who visited the site of Fort Riviere in January, 1917. Roosevelt was much impressed by Butler’s account of the battle, and noted in his travel diary that Butler and 18 companions had killed over 200 cacos at Fort Riviere, whereas the official Marine Corps casualty list reported 51 killed. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Trip to Haiti and Santo Domingo, 1917,” unpublished travel diary; Roosevelt MSS, RG10, Box 155.
i’m quoting here from hans schmidt’s excellent the united states occupation of haiti 1915-1934.
no mention of whether roosevelt kept any pictures of dead cacos in his drawer.
schmidt continues w/ a bit of context on the incident roosevelt was impressed with,
In other respects, the capture of Fort Riviere was typical of marine campaigns against the cacos, who were difficult to hunt down but easily defeated once cornered. At the 1921 Sentate Hearings on the Occupation of Haiti, General George Barnett, commandant of the Marine Corps from 1914 to 1920, was questioned about offensive operations against the cacos:
General Barnett: One particular one was the capture of Fort Riviere. That was really quite an affair.
Question: That was the affair when there were 51 Haitians killed but no casualties on our side?
General Barnett: It was quite an affair. The Haitians were not well armed, but they stood up and fought to the best of their ability. [continues, reading the field commander’s report of the engagement] All companies were in their position at the time specified and Butler and Low’s companies made the assault, supported by five other companies. Hand-to-hand conflict in the fort lasted ten minutes. Twenty-nine killed and 22 jumped parapet, but all were killed by fire from the automatics, all avenues of escape being blocked.
Question: Was that operation fairly characteristic of the operations in general conducted by our forces against the natives?
General Barnett: I should say that was a sample. They had a little better protection there than they would have ordinarily, it being an old fort on a high mountain.
No prisoners were taken. One marine officer who took part in the engagement, recalling that the only American casualty was a man who was struck in the face with a rock and lost two teeth, remarked that “we were fighting a people who did not know what sights were for, and in a tight spot they threw away their rifles and reached for rocks.” [pp. 84-5]
those medals obviously weren’t awarded for exemplifying any acts of courage or bravery.
on that 1917 visit that roosevelt made to haiti, schmidt writes that future president “did little more than give an unqualified endorsement to marine activities, engage in ceremonial functions, and investigate possibilities of investment in Haiti for his own personal enrichment” [p. 108].
providing another glimpse of roosevelt’s racist mindset,
The elaborate observance of protocol by Roosevelt and his party was not always backed by corresponding private sentiments. Roosevelt recorded in his travel diary that his fried and traveling companion, John A. McIlhenny of New Orleans, who later became the occupation’s leading American civilian official, had been unable to eat much at a luncheon given in honor of [client-President] Dartiguenave because he was fascinated by the robust Haitian minister of agriculture who was sitting opposite him. McIlhenny told Roosevelt, “I couldn’t help saying to myself that that man would have brought $1,500 at auction in New Orleans in 1860 for stud purposes.” Roosevelt appears to have relished the story, and retold it to American Minister Norman Armour when he visited Haiti as President in 1934. [pp.110-1]
and on roosevelt’s plans to set up his own plantation,
While in Haiti, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Roosevelt took the opportunity to pursue a private investment scheme whereby he hoped to set up an agricultural plantation. In making investigations about possible sites for agricultural development, Roosevelt was anticipating the passage of the American-sponsored Constitution of 1918, which contained the foreign landownership clause designed to encourage an influx of American capital. Indeed, Roosevelt later claimed to have written this constitution, which was in the process of being drafted at the time he visited Haiti.
roosevelt was a liar too, as, while he may have had some input, he certainly did not write the constitution. anyway, WWI sidelined any biz ventures temporarily, but after the war roosevelt & mcilhenny continued to explore investment opportunities though they never, obviously, launched their own stud farm.
Posted by: b real | Dec 9 2007 7:45 utc | 19
|
