Comments on: Hayden’s Letter

By: rincewind

rincewind — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 19:43:26 +0000

Why assume that Hayden’s telling the truth now? Whether it’s careful parsing — “tapes have been destroyed” (but not the disks or hard drives) — or flat-out lying, why is he/are they believable now? What better way to shut down any further efforts to force production of interrogation tapes than to “fess up” to destroying them? IF (huge conditional there) anybody ever has the guts to pursue this, just compare the potential penalties for obstruction of justice to those for war crimes and see if it doesn’t make sense that they made a calculated decision to CLAIM they destroyed the evidence.

By: bobschacht

bobschacht — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:08:51 +0000

MadDog December 7th, 2007 at 8:57 am @19:

”Just what have they got on Jello Jay that makes him so obviously craven?”

Uncle David?

Bob in HI

By: eCAHNomics

eCAHNomics — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:04:28 +0000

http://www.harpers.org/archive…..c-90001868

By: bmaz

bmaz — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:30:26 +0000

Well, there is that; but more significantly, I have a hard time seeing how a tape made of a duly gathered interrogation and confession falls within the scope of the ban of propaganda photos/videos of detainees. I don’t see that as applicable here.

By: MadDog

MadDog — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:10:19 +0000

EW, just a OT heads-up on another juicy bit. From Pat Lang’s place:

“Senate Republicans are planning to call for a congressional commission to investigate the conclusions of the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran as well as the specific intelligence that went into it, according to congressional sources…”

~snip~

Pat himself then says: “The “jungle telegraph” in Washington is booming with news of the Iran NIE. I am told that the reason the conclusions of the NIE were released is that it was communicated to the White House that “intelligence career seniors were lined up to go to jail if necessary” if the document’s gist were not given to the public. Translation? Someone in that group would have gone to the media “on the record” to disclose its contents.”

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:04:57 +0000

TheraP

Go back and look at the photograph stuff in the TImeline closely. They don’t agree that it is a war crime, particularly in the case of High Value Detainees, which these two would be.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:04:11 +0000

Not that it excuses Jello Jay (who I think is just the product of the kind of atrophy that sets in when you’re too damn wealthy), but note the timing. Jello Jay did not learn they had destroyed the tapes until AFTER they had passed MCA.

By: TheraP

TheraP — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:03:41 +0000

It’s a war crime to photograph or film a captive, right? So, if they admit now that they had “tapes” - and that the tapes were “seen,” then we know they’re not talking audio but video. So, regardless of whether they destroyed the evidence, they’ve admitted filming captives. To me that admission is incriminating right there.

On top of it, just question whoever viewed the tapes. They can verify captives were filmed… and they describe what they saw.

Then you’ve got the whole chain of documents which should be there. If they’re not there, more obstruction.

This is going to take years of sleuthing and prosecutions. But no statute of limitations.

By: merkwurdiglieber

merkwurdiglieber — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:02:41 +0000

They don’t need anything on Jello Jay, he is a Rockefeller after all,
Democrat or not… shades of uncle Rocky. Also, Hayden at confirmation
denied there was probable cause affirmed by a judge in the 4th amendment.

By: scribe

scribe — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:58:36 +0000

Go read EW’s post on Whitehouse’s speech in the next thread.
All of a piece, it is.