H
Harry Hope
Guest
There was outrage last week as we learned that in 2005 the CIA
destroyed tapes of the torture of two suspected terrorists, despite
the fact that "federal courts had prohibited the Bush administration
from discarding evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before,"
according to the Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_go_ot/cia_videotapes_courts
So what did the president know and when did he know it?
According to ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/Story?id=3983693&page=2
DUBYA:
My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they
were destroyed was when Michael Hayden briefed me.
There is a preliminary inquiry going on, and I think, I think you will
find a lot more data.
Facts will be coming out in an orderly fashion, and that is good.
It will be interesting to know what the true facts are.
Now why does that ring a bell?
Ah yes - here's what Bush said about the Valerie Plame case back in
2005:
"I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. I would
like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime,
they will no longer work in my administration."
And we all know how that turned out.
In fact, it seems that much like the Valerie Plame case, facts won't
be coming out in an orderly fashion.
According to the International Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/15/america/15intel.php
The Justice Department asked the House Intelligence Committee on
Friday to postpone its investigation into the destruction of
videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005, saying the
congressional inquiry presented "significant risks" to its own
preliminary investigation into the matter.
(snip)
The Justice Department and the CIA's inspector general have begun a
preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney
General Michael Mukasey said the department would not comply with
congressional requests for information now because of "our interest in
avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject
to political influence."
Yes, gee, wouldn't want to give anyone the "perception that our law
enforcement decisions are subject to political influence" now would
we?
By EarlG
Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
destroyed tapes of the torture of two suspected terrorists, despite
the fact that "federal courts had prohibited the Bush administration
from discarding evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before,"
according to the Associated Press.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_go_ot/cia_videotapes_courts
So what did the president know and when did he know it?
According to ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/Story?id=3983693&page=2
DUBYA:
My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they
were destroyed was when Michael Hayden briefed me.
There is a preliminary inquiry going on, and I think, I think you will
find a lot more data.
Facts will be coming out in an orderly fashion, and that is good.
It will be interesting to know what the true facts are.
Now why does that ring a bell?
Ah yes - here's what Bush said about the Valerie Plame case back in
2005:
"I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. I would
like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime,
they will no longer work in my administration."
And we all know how that turned out.
In fact, it seems that much like the Valerie Plame case, facts won't
be coming out in an orderly fashion.
According to the International Herald Tribune:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/15/america/15intel.php
The Justice Department asked the House Intelligence Committee on
Friday to postpone its investigation into the destruction of
videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005, saying the
congressional inquiry presented "significant risks" to its own
preliminary investigation into the matter.
(snip)
The Justice Department and the CIA's inspector general have begun a
preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney
General Michael Mukasey said the department would not comply with
congressional requests for information now because of "our interest in
avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject
to political influence."
Yes, gee, wouldn't want to give anyone the "perception that our law
enforcement decisions are subject to political influence" now would
we?
By EarlG
Democratic Underground
http://www.democraticunderground.com/
Harry
