Comments on: What Did Helgerson Do with the Torture Tapes?

By: klynn

klynn — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:00:39 +0000

Thanks for your comment. This could really use some more debate and inquiry. Because, if I am correct, then teleco immunity HAS to be off the table or all of this regarding the tapes could be cooked.

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 05:22:43 +0000

I’m sure this is hopelessly EPU’d by now, but I think Klynn may well have a point — IF the telcos were not merely serving as data conduits, but also hoovering-up recordings of all data transmissions (as many people suspect), and later deleted said recordings. Further, if telco immunity kills this class of suits, then it also prevents all discovery in this area, where assertion of the state-secret privilege (the fave ploy to date) is likely to carry less weight.

By: Leen

Leen — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 21:43:56 +0000

Fingers and toes crossed!

By: klynn

klynn — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:58:53 +0000

So, the actual taping of the torture and the viewing of the torture tapes are not a crime as part of the MCA?

I thought during Nuremberg, those that recorded the violent torturous actions against Jews in concentration camps (on film) were also considered guilty?

Sorry, I’m beating a dead horse. You are so kind to help me out with my lack of understanding here. Many thanks.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:39:15 +0000

I don’t think so. Immunity–at least as SSCI has described it–would extend only to the telecoms (Bush tried for more, but didn’t get it). And the crimes in question here are (first) the torture and (second) the destruction of evidence of hte torture. The collection of information about it would not seem to be a crime.

That said, the CIA has already gotten retroactive immunity for torture, as part of the MCA.

By: klynn

klynn — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:30:38 +0000

EW,

I still may be off base hear but after reading the noted document and one of the Justice Department list of post 9-11 accomplishments and then going back and reading the sections of FISA cited, I’m seeing an interesting use of the terms “intelligence gathering and transfer” verses “surveillance” in regards to internet , satellite and cable access for said purposes as well as the coordination of information gathered and transferred on such media between agencies.

Forgive me if I am not making sense. I’ll keep trying to research this. Basically, it appears in sections of FISA, immunity would cover the transfer of any gathered intelligence (which I assume would include torture sessions video conferenced). If I am right on this,then the transfer of intelligence via conduits that are covered under immunity would make the information transferred and who it was teleconferenced to even protected under law? Thus, potentially protecting anyone who viewed and/or produced the tapes?

I think I’m crazy, but it seems possible. I’ll keep checking the language on this. I realize FISA is about the gathering of information and surveillance but there is a great deal of language about the transfer of information. Thus, my question.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:55:32 +0000

If I get the gist of this correctly, the thought is that telcos need immunity because they were the conduits of the streaming torture video feeds or something similar to that. eh, I dunno. Even assuming there were such feeds and that they were conducted via telco cables and equipment (which I think is unlikely), they would have been encrypted and the telcos would not have been in on the whole deal; just encrypted data flowing through their toobs like it likely does every day form a whole bunch of sources in the business world. They don’t need immunity for that.

By: emptywheel

emptywheel — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:44:59 +0000

klynn

I’ve glanced through the document–but I think I’m missing your point on telecom immunity. Can you explain in more depth?

By: klynn

klynn — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:26:57 +0000

Well, I suspected by no one answering, my question at 117 was considered “stupid.

So I did some research on my own to try and answer my own questions and came across this federal document with many redactions titled:

Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Efforts to Improve the Sharing of Intelligence and Other Information Report No. 04-10, December 2003 Office of the Inspector General.

Here’s the link:

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/repor.....dings3.htm

Do I think retroactive immunity on FISA is tied to all of this? After reading this, yes. Especially of interest, the date of the document…

I would summerize, but it’s a great read for all.

Have you read this EW?

By: JohnLopresti

JohnLopresti — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:23:25 +0000

There is a family tone letter from Luttig May 6, 2006 to Bush resigning from the federal bench. Noticeably more loose was the Luttig written December 21, 2005 opinion denying the government’s petition that he vacate his September 9, 2005 order which had been the military-confinement justification in re Padilla. The December 21 text mentions the ‘government’s (fretting) about sensitive evidentiary issues that might arise at (the) hearing’. Although corporate counsel work for Boeing might be the exciting alternative Luttig’s note described, the problems with ‘evidence’, even in the SC brig, might be something to which he was trying to draw attention. The issue December 21, historians recall, was SCourt pending review and government’s effort to end military confinement and POW genre charges, substituting civil confinement in FL and a civil action.