70 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

This brings up some very important issues, excerpt:"So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.’s general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more important in our view, asked for details about the translation process in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees’ stories; the particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information; the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning; the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes."-----------------------------------------------------When lawyers are involved and you essentially have alleged obstruction of justice, (as charged in the article) you have to wonder about the potential ramifications of that obstruction and the role it played in derailing any investigations into the matter of torture. If the White House authorized criminal activity (torture) as a method of interrogating POWs / enemy combatants captured in the Iraq War and had the justice department get involved to hide this fact, isn't that more than just obstruction? I understand the mainstream media can't speculate or go in too deep due to its corporate sponsors, but think about what this allegation means. The White House may have committed a war crime and lawyers may have 'obstructed' justice in order to HELP the White House avoid legal entanglements on the torture issue. The obstruction would amount to conspiracy and make the lawyers and CIA agents involved accomplices. Meanwhile, the media is being played like a fiddle by politicians by allowing the water-boarding issue to remain up in the air as to its legality. The nation is so polarized politically that the White House can pretty much count on Republicans being defensive about the issue and assist in the public cover-up that is taking place before our eyes.

• Reply