Decision to destroy documentation of this criminal conduct—rests squarely with Bush (Scott Horton)

[kpete]

Judgment and Torture
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED December 30, 2007


The Times story reflects the latest Administration effort at damage control, and it has to be understood in that light, which is to say, very skeptically. Is it true that the decision to tape and the decision to destroy the tapes was taken far down the ranks within the CIA and that the White House had no involvement in it? Note how they carefully sprinkle in the reference to the suggestion that “Bush agreed” that he should not be briefed on the location of the black sites. They are really working very hard to put whatever distance they can between Bush personally and the criminal decisions in play here.

And in the end, the effort is completely unconvincing. We know that the White House knew about the existence of the tapes. Four of the president’s leading lawyers were deeply involved, and one of them, almost certainly Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington, was advocating destruction of the tapes, and thereby offering apparent White House authority for the act of destruction. It’s highly probable that individuals inside the White House, and in all likelihood the president himself, actually watched some of the tapes, most including the tapes of Abu Zabaydah, who was tortured by waterboarding.

Now they desperately want to pin everything on second and third tier officials at the CIA. That would be a farce. Responsibility for all of this—the decision to torture, the specific approval of specific torture techniques on specific individuals, the decision to record and document all of this, and the decision to destroy documentation of this criminal conduct—rests squarely with George W. Bush and the senior echelons of his administration. It’s time to confront all efforts to obscure this with friendly leaks with the skepticism and, indeed, contempt that they deserve.

The Times piece closes on an appropriate note. They interview former CIA Deputy Director John Gannon, and describe his analysis of the situation:

Mr. Gannon said he thought the tapes became such an issue because they would have settled the legal debate over the harsh methods. “To a spectator it would look like torture,” he said. “And torture is wrong.” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/washington/30intel.html?ei=5088&en=5192c167aca48ff4&ex=1356670800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

It is not a matter of “looking like torture,” of course, the process of waterboarding and other harsh techniques that Bush has authorized (indeed, shoved down the throat of a skeptical intelligence community) is torture. It’s a crime under American law which will be enforced again when law enforcement is restored to the agenda of the Justice Department.

more at:
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90002060

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[ThomWV]

2. The key is Porter Goss

The only direct link between Rodriquez, an employee of his and apparent custodian of the tapes at CIA and Bush, who he was in daily contact with. If Bush saw the tapes it was through Goss and if there was direction to destroy the tapes from the White House it had to go back to the CIA via Goss as well.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. Perhaps they can gather all this stuff up & try the bastard after he

leaves office.