Hayden, who became CIA director last year, acknowledged that the questions raised about the tapes’ destruction, then and now, are legitimate. “One can ask if it was a good idea, or if there was a better way to do it,” he said. “We are very happy to let the facts take us where they will.”

Good. Let it lead to the Cheney/Bush Torquemad torture brigade being placed in a dank prison cell for the rest of their miserable fucking lives. That is where it should lead.

If the sentence structure were “and he was now providing information” then it would suggest he was not providing info when they were taping him.

However, the anonymous quote does not say that–making this quote a non sequitur as far as I can tell. The source does not provide a logical explanation why the taping was no longer used.

“Since 2002, the CIA wanted to destroy the tapes to protect the identity and lives of its officers and for other counterintelligence reasons,” Bennett said in a written response to questions from The Washington Post.”

I believe the first part (foreign threats and domestic (i.e., the US Constitution) threats, but other counterintelligence reasons?

The Chief of the Clandestine Service did his job.

Kept the tapes Clandestine!!

One passage from the new WaPo Warrick/Pincus article immediately jumped out at me.

“By December 2002, the taping was no longer needed, according to three former intelligence officials. “Zubaida’s health was better, and he was providing information that we could check out,” one said. ”

(does this seeming non sequitur imply that previously when Zubaida’s health was worse, he needed to be tortured to speak? (for example, maybe they were stepping on or probing his gunshot wounds to make him speak?). Then when his wounds healed they couldn’t think alternative methods to squeeze out his terrorism know how except for untaped interviews that could be fact checked?)

As for the side matter about Fitzgerald’s scope, ew had some interesting discussion of that prospective widening as the weeks after the initial news elapsed and some reporters were talking about the SP moving to new more capacious offices; the threads with those interchanges predated the election in which Prodi won; but it seemed fairly clear PF was keeping resources directed toward what could make it to trial timely. Yet, some of the initial factfinding may be of interest yet.

As for the politics of the next few years, I cast my vote for Obama in our early primary, by mail, hoping the office will make the candidate as much as his insight and optimism promise a refreshing new way of managing the country’s affairs. He seems to skip the trivia and seeks to capture the ideals.

…ok,..I’ll give y’all some much demanded silence from my part.

later

ha-ha-…that’s a good one.

I never suggested any conduct by Fitz or McNulty to be anything less than professional and dedicated…it’s the Ledeens of the world that I don’t trust…so, if you’re here, let me say it straight up…I don’t trust you.

My point was that a professional, such as Fitzgerald, would not disclose any info to the press that he didn’t want the press to spread. I consider that a compliment to his skillful technique. It’s the same as the late visit to the office of Rove’s attorney that could have been done unoticed…if we’re allowed to be aware…or if anyone is allowed to be aware, it happens for a good reason….and I trust them. I would assume it was a move to make some other folks nervous…trouble was, nobody had his back…*disclaimer* – meaning that no one could move within the GWB DoJ to do their job at full potential, due to the control of the GWB cabal.

now…lol…thanks for the insults.

That, plus he’s bound by OLC determinations on things like whether or not waterboarding is torture; whether or not the activities which might have been on the tapes were legal and authorized; whether or not Bush can come and whisper explanations of the law in Bull’s ear; whether or not the destruction constituted violation of various statutes, etc.

BTW, not only are the CIA lawyers not being mentioned, but after the original mention, just how super duper quiet has it been on the DOJ lawyers being advised front?

BTW – I’m not that sure that, in the end, Fitzgerald’s investigations remained free from main justice constraints. Some of the Rove handling was a little on the “too bizarre” front, including the fact that Luskin never released the “all clear” letter he says he got and all the many shots testifying. And even without direct interference, his mandate was so narrow that it formed its own, pretty suffocating, constraint IMO. I think he did an excellent job with what he had and still can’t believe that he was able to get the info about Bush directly authorizing the NIE leaks into the public record, unsealed.

45 – but my sense is that J-Rod is a far more likely pawn in this story, than Armitage That makes two centssenses.

The issue now is electing a president who understands the need to dedicate some serious resources to holding the bastards accountable in her or his first term. If I thought there were any real possiblity of that happening, I’d be paying more attention. I’m very sure it won’t with Clinton. The threads are already there that too many of actions like extraordinary rendition and warrantless domestic surveillance will, if investigated aggressively, keep bringing Bill’s name out – the recent story that tied back to his warrantless domestic surveillance program for So. America, his ties to the extraordinary renditions of the Algerians sent to Egypt, etc.

And Obama – well, I don’t get the feeling that this kind of thing is high on his radar. On the Republican front, well, there isn’t much to say there, is there? They will just put cement shoes on the bodies. It’s only in a world devoid of imagination that they aren’t all preceded by black wafts of smoke surrounded by muttered recitations of something wicked this way comes.

38 – Rumi, I don’t think there’s a big tie on the Italian front, but James Sharp was the lawyer you were thinking of in 38 and I have wondered if Plame was a good excuse for Bush consulting with him, when there might have been some more direct issues at play. By June of 2004, Arar’s lawsuit was filed, Padilla’s case was up with the Supremes with the surprise that Scalia might not be on board, DOJ was doing its “review” for the Padilla presser, and you have to think that Bush’s role in torture has to have been somewhere on someone’s mind.