Cafferty: A government watchdog group now says more than 10 million White House emails are missing. Citizens for the Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) described this massive hole in White House email records last April. At that time they thought the number was 5 million - Now they say it is more than 10 million emails. In one of the great understatements of this here Christmas season, the group says that this revised estimate - quote - highlights that this is a very serious and systematic problem at the White House - unquote. Both CREW and another private group called the National Security archive are suing the Bush administration to try to get information about all these missing emails. The White House email problems first came to light during special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity.
It’s worth noting what a critical time period these missing emails represent. Why it’s from March of 2003 to October 2005. That would include the start of the Iraq War right up through the aftermath of Katrina. As the director of one of these groups put it: It doesn’t get more historically valuable than that. Given the way the White House handled both the war and Katrina, it’s also quite convenient that suddenly this mountain of stuff is missing. By the way it’s against the law that these emails be destroyed or lost. They are supposed to be saved. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 mandates White House communications be preserved. Another law broken — Another example of nobody doing a damn thing about it.
Critics complain that the destroyed videos most likely contained evidence of employing methods of torture.
By Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer December 7, 2007
WASHINGTON -- The CIA said Thursday that it had destroyed videotapes of its secret interrogations of terrorism suspects, taking the action at a time when the agency's harsh methods were coming under intense congressional and legal scrutiny.
CIA Director Michael V. Hayden acknowledged the destruction of the tapes in a message distributed to the CIA workforce. Hayden said the tapes had been destroyed in 2005 "only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries."
But the disclosure is likely to rekindle the controversy surrounding the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced" interrogation methods -- which included subjecting detainees to temperature extremes and sleep deprivation, as well as the widely condemned practice of simulated drowning commonly known as waterboarding.
Hayden's revelation came as key members of congressional oversight committees approved a spending bill that would bar the CIA and other agencies from using any harsh interrogation methods and force intelligence agencies to abide by strict rules adopted by the U.S. Army last year.
The destruction of the tapes was condemned Thursday by human-rights groups and questioned by congressional leaders.
"The destruction of these tapes suggests an utter disregard for the rule of law," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security Project. The group has mounted challenges to the government's legal basis for employing harsh interrogation methods. "It was plainly a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence that could have been used to hold CIA agents accountable for the torture of prisoners."
The decision to destroy the tapes and the timing of the disclosure also were questioned by legal teams and other groups that in recent years have sought such records, including the authoritative Sept. 11 commission.
"We believe that we asked for such material and we are sure that we were not provided such material," said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the commission, which investigated intelligence failures leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks. The commission concluded its work in 2004, before the tapes were destroyed.
"We're concerned," said Zelikow, who subsequently served as a senior aide to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. "This information got our attention."
In his written statement, Hayden said that the agency videotaped certain interrogations during 2002 "chiefly as an additional, internal check on the [interrogation] program in its early stages." He added that the agency stopped taping the sessions later that same year. A copy of Hayden's statement was obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
A CIA spokesman declined to say how many tapes existed or were destroyed. The tapes were made under former CIA Director George J. Tenet and were destroyed under his successor, Porter J. Goss.
Hayden said that the CIA's office of general counsel had examined the tapes and "determined that they showed lawful methods of questioning." He also said that the tapes had been reviewed by the agency's office of the inspector general in 2003, but did not say whether the inspector general rendered any opinion on the methods the tapes showed.
The general counsel works for the CIA director. The inspector general by law is an independent watchdog, and in the past has been harshly critical of the agency's actions -- including its interrogation and detention practices. In fact, Hayden currently is investigating the CIA inspector general after complaints from agency employees who felt unfairly targeted by the internal reviews.
Hayden also said that the existence of the tapes was disclosed to congressional oversight committees "years ago," and that the agency later notified the panels of the tapes' destruction.
However, the current chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said he was never shown the videotapes and was given only limited information about their existence. He said the committee was not told until November 2006 that the tapes had been destroyed the year before.
"Our committee must review the full history and chronology of the tapes, how they were used and the reasons for destroying them, and any communication about them that was provided to the courts and Congress," Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said.
At the time the tapes were destroyed, CIA employees involved in the detention program were widely reported to be concerned about potential liability -- raising the question of whether the tapes were destroyed out of concern for the legal exposure of agency officers.
But Hayden said the tapes were destroyed in part because "were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers."
One of the prisoners who was questioned during that period was Abu Zubaydah, an Al Qaeda operative linked to the Sept. 11 plot. He was the first detainee taken into custody by the CIA in the aftermath of the attacks.
"Under normal questioning, Zubaydah became defiant and evasive," Hayden said in his statement. "That made imperative the use of other means to obtain the information -- means that were lawful, safe and effective."
Zubaydah is believed to have been among a small number of detainees subjected to waterboarding. Hayden said that because the CIA was determined to proceed within established legal guidelines, "on its own, CIA began to videotape interrogations."
At the outset of his message, Hayden said that "the press has learned" of the destroyed tapes. The New York Times reported that it had told the agency on Wednesday that it planned to publish a story about the destruction of the recordings.
The CIA abandoned the use of waterboarding and certain other harsh methods as its treatment of detainees became a source of controversy. In July, President Bush signed an executive order meant to bring the CIA's interrogation methods into compliance with the Geneva Convention, which bars the mistreatment of detainees.
On Wednesday, members of the House and Senate intelligence committees reached agreement on a compromise intelligence funding bill. It includes a provision that would force the CIA to follow the Army interrogation field manual.
That manual was drafted and adopted in the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, and bans the use of sleep deprivation, stress positions and other controversial methods.
"It is in our national interest to adhere to one, and only one, clearly defined and effective standard of treatment," Rockefeller said in a statement.
But because of that provision, Senate aides said, the bill may be blocked from coming to a vote on the Senate floor. Republicans have criticized the inclusion of the measure.
"Because of this last-minute amendment, this bill would tie the hands of our terror fighters," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, the ranking Republican on the Senate panel.
Pet Rocks were a 1970s fad conceived in Los Gatos, California by an advertising executive, Gary Dahl. The first Pet Rocks were ordinary gray pebbles bought at a builder's supply store and marketed as if they were live pets. The fad lasted only about six months, ending with the Christmas season in December 1975; but in its short run, the Pet Rock made Dahl a millionaire.[1]
In 1975, Dahl established "Rock Bottom Productions", a company that sold the rocks for US$3.95 each. The pebbles, imported from Rosarito Beach in Baja California, Mexico, were swaddled in excelsior and nestled in a small cardboard box, similar to a pet carrier. A "Pet Rock Training Manual", with instructions on how to properly raise and care for one's newfound pet (notably lacking instructions for feeding), was included. The instruction manual contained several commands that could be taught to the new pet. While "sit" and "stay" were effortless to accomplish, "roll over" usually required extra help from the trainer. "Come" was found to be impossible to teach reliably.
The advent of electronic toys gave a new twist to the idea: a Ragin' Rocky talking rock from Playmates Toys.
Bush doesn't recollect being told of CIA tapes Nick Juliano Published: Friday December 7, 2007
Despite the fact that at least two Democratic lawmakers knew about CIA tapes being destroyed, President Bush is claiming that he has "no recollection" of ever being briefed on the matter.
At Friday's White House briefing, Press Secretary Dana Perino was asked by a reporter, "On these CIA videotapes, did either the president or vice president or Condoleezza Rice, when she was national security adviser, or Steve Hadley see them before they were destroyed?"
"I spoke to the president -- and so I will have to defer on the others, but I spoke to the president this morning about this," Perino said. "He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday. He was briefed by General Hayden yesterday morning. And as to the others, I'll have to -- you know, I'll refer you to the Vice President's Office, and I'll see if I can get the others."
Video of Perino's press conference can be seen at this link.
If true, Perino's assertion would mean Bush was unaware of the CIA's actions even while top Congressional officials were briefed on the agency's actions. The top Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence committees both have said they long knew about the tapes -- which reportedly show CIA interrogators "waterboarding" suspected al Qaeda detainees. One says she cautioned the CIA about the tapes nearly five years before Bush's spokesman claims the president knew anything about them.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) was the ranking intelligence committee in the House, and she now says she sent a classified letter to the CIA in early 2003 urging the agency not to destroy the tapes, as they previously informed members of Congress they would.
"Given the nature of the classification, I was not free to mention this subject publicly until Director Hayden disclosed it yesterday," Harman said. "To my knowledge, the Intelligence Committee was never informed that any videotapes had been destroyed. Surely I was not."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who now chairs the Senate intel committee, says he learned the tapes were destroyed in November 2006 -- more than a year before Bush knew what was going on in his intelligence community -- but was unable to press the issue because of the information was classified.
“I’m really sick of this — OK, I’m angry about it,” Rockefeller said. “It’s a manipulation of the Congress — the use of two people of the Senate, two people out of the House, because nobody else can be told, including our committee. We can’t even talk to anybody, and they say, ‘Oh, they were briefed.
A long time ago when AOL Newsbloggers first started, I had a debate with the Powerline guys about Jose Padilla. One of the elements of that debate was a missing interrogation tape. I was incredulous -- as was the judge in the case -- that a critical interrogation tape simply disappeared. Paul Mirengoff and John Hinderaker, on the other hand, were more than happy to trust the government, as is their nature (as long as the government is a Republican one).
Well, it turns out that the CIA has indeed destroyed several interrogation tapes after all. This was not an honest mistake where the tapes were misplaced. They took evidence and threw it in the garbage. Now, they might be facing obstruction of justice charges. Whoops.
It's almost as if you shouldn't blindly trust what your government tells you. It's almost as if our whole constitution is built on the premise that you shouldn't blindly trust your government.
Now, this case is not the same as the Padilla case. In this instance, CIA Director Michael Hayden is referring to the tapes of two other interrogations. But while Congress is investigating these tapes, they shouldn't forget to ask about the "missing" Padilla interrogation tape, either.
What happened to the Padilla tape? Was it also destroyed? Are the two cases connected? If the Padilla interrogation tapes were destroyed, what implication does that have on his trial?
But, first and foremost, the CIA should tell us what really happened to the tape of Jose Padilla's interrogation.
Well? I'm waiting to get the bullshit rationalizations and excuses from the usual suspects. A good dose of those who dare to question Bush and demand accountability are doing Osama Bin laden's dirty work etc. etc.
Just like the telecom immunity case, why on Earth does someone who did no wrong and has nothing to hide go about trying to give immunity and in this case, destroy evidence that they were LEGALLY REQUIRED to save?
It's way past time to start trying these CRIMINALS. And if necessary , turning in people to the Hauge.
What I don't understand is...if we're going to destroy the tapes to cover up wrongdoing, why not torture the guy, get all the information we can, execute him in a summary fashion and then dispose of the body where it can't be found?
The top Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence committees both have said they long knew about the tapes -- which reportedly show CIA interrogators "waterboarding" suspected al Qaeda detainees.
In other words, the "torture" on the tapes was "waterboarding." However, for all the hue and cry this week about a coverup, according to the Washington Post, top Democratic lawmakers knew about it and did not object to it:
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Not much of a "cover up" if the opposition party was in on it, is there?
.... Not much of a "cover up" if the opposition party was in on it, is there?
The problem with that is it was only a couple of people from the opposition party who may have been briefed but couldn't say anything to anyone including there fellow congressmen because it was all classified. Being briefed & then being given no means to act on it isn't being "in on it" IMHO.
You will note that the "couple of the people from the opposition party" were actually the leaders of said party, including Nancy Pelosi. Furthermore, just because something is "classified" does not mean that a member of congress cannot act on what they see. If, for example, Ms. Pelosi had seen activity that she believed to be illegal she could have pointed that out and/or called for an investigation.
Neither of which occurred. Instead, the Post article indicates, the congressional leaders appeared to approve of the practices.
Again, not much of a "cover up" in such a circumstance.
I don't care what party the people covering up illegality are from. Investigate and prosecute the lot of them I say.
It's not as if the Democratic leadership is actually displaying any opposition or leadership anyways as the whole Chris Dodds need for a fillibuster shows.
White House visitor logs are public documents, a federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting a legal strategy that the Bush administration had hoped would get around public records laws and let them keep their guests a secret.
The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration, which has fought the release of records showing visits by prominent religious conservatives.
We know they will never give them up because that’s how BushCo operates, but I’d love to see them explain why Jeff Gannon visited Karl Rove’s office like 137 times. <snark>
Like I said before, I don't think waterboarding is torture. Our Marines go through more rigorous treatment during basic training. There are certain means of intimidation allowed by the Geneva Convention that don't rise to the level of "torture" (sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, etc.)
And as Richard Lowry said on the PBS News Hour a few weeks ago, a number of journalists have volunteered to have waterboarding done to them. If it were truly "torture", journalists would not be volunteering for the treatment. As Lowry said, journalists wouldn't be saying "Gee, can you rip out one of my fingernails, I'd really like to know how that feels..." (And I also saw a journalist interviewed who volunteered to be waterboarded several times, interviewed just a week ago on CNN with Anderson Cooper, with video shown of the procedure.)
It's a typical liberal stance, condemning your own nation for abstractions of principle on piddly matters, while the enemy saws off people's heads, and these same liberals call them "freedom fighters".
Like I said before, I don't think waterboarding is torture. Our Marines go through more rigorous treatment during basic training. There are certain means of intimidation allowed by the Geneva Convention that don't rise to the level of "torture" (sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, etc.)
And as Richard Lowry said on the PBS News Hour a few weeks ago, a number of journalists have volunteered to have waterboarding done to them. If it were truly "torture", journalists would not be volunteering for the treatment. As Lowry said, journalists wouldn't be saying "Gee, can you rip out one of my fingernails, I'd really like to know how that feels..." (And I also saw a journalist interviewed who volunteered to be waterboarded several times, interviewed just a week ago on CNN with Anderson Cooper, with video shown of the procedure.)
It's a typical liberal stance, condemning your own nation for abstractions of principle on piddly matters, while the enemy saws off people's heads, and these same liberals call them "freedom fighters".
Yeah, and McCain endorsed George Bush in 2004. Are you going to base your opinion of something solely on what McCain believes?
No but that wasn't what I was saying. WB was doing the usual liberal rant & I was just tossing a name out there that isn't liberal plus he's been tortured.
Like I said before, I don't think waterboarding is torture.
As with global warming, just because the conservative party and their supporters decides to live in stubborn denial, it doesn't make their half assed beliefs so.
They can also assert that the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old and that the Earth is the centre of the universe for all I care. Do we really need to constantly treat their idiotic, uninformed and deceptive assertions like if they have any merit or are any sort of intelligent counterpoint to anything?
Like I said before, I don't think waterboarding is torture.
As with global warming, just because the conservative party and their supporters decides to live in stubborn denial, it doesn't make their half assed beliefs so.
They can also assert that the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old and that the Earth is the centre of the universe for all I care. Do we really need to constantly treat their idiotic, uninformed and deceptive assertions like if they have any merit or are any sort of intelligent counterpoint to anything?
Despite your liberal slander tactics, there is still debate over whether waterboarding qualifies as "torture".
In the full context of what I said:
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
Like I said before, I don't think waterboarding is torture. Our Marines go through more rigorous treatment during basic training. There are certain means of intimidation allowed by the Geneva Convention that don't rise to the level of "torture" (sleep deprivation, exposure to cold, etc.)
And as Richard Lowry said on the PBS News Hour a few weeks ago, a number of journalists have volunteered to have waterboarding done to them. If it were truly "torture", journalists would not be volunteering for the treatment. As Lowry said, journalists wouldn't be saying "Gee, can you rip out one of my fingernails, I'd really like to know how that feels..." (And I also saw a journalist interviewed who volunteered to be waterboarded several times, interviewed just a week ago on CNN with Anderson Cooper, with video shown of the procedure.)
It's a typical liberal stance, condemning your own nation for abstractions of principle on piddly matters, while the enemy saws off people's heads, and these same liberals call them "freedom fighters".
You, whomod, are the only one discussing whether the earth is flat. You're the only one discussing the earth being 6000 years old. These are non-sequitor arguments of yours, that have nothing to do with waterboarding, or actual torture.
And whether you like it or not, there is debate about whether or not waterboarding is torture. As I said, a number of reporters have volunteered for this procedure. Something that is actual torture, along the lines of a Nazi concentration camp, Soviet Gulags, or the Hanoi Hilton, is not a precedure any reporter would be volunteering for.
And waterboarding pales beside what any enemy nation in the last 60 years has subjected captured American P.O.W.'s to. Waterboarding is intimidation, not torture.
But of course, you're consistently on the side of our enemy anyway, so why would you care about our ability to get vital information from enemy prisoners to protect the United States?
Upset? No, simply responding factually to your points.
Have fun at the Al Qaida picnic.
These partisan comedians are so bitter in their partisanship that they're about as funny as a dead mouse.
I'll take Jay Leno, Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Steve Martin, Steven Wright, and many others over these guys any day of the week. Leno and Carson in particular know how to make presidential jokes, of both parties, without being partisan or bitter about it.
And Dennis Miller manages to be partisan without coming across as bitter.
These guys you like to post YouTube links to all the time are apoplectic with liberal rage, to the point that they're not even funny.
These partisan comedians are so bitter in their partisanship that they're about as funny as a dead mouse.
..without being partisan or bitter about it.
And Dennis Miller manages to be partisan without coming across as bitter.
These guys you like to post YouTube links to all the time are apoplectic with liberal rage, to the point that they're not even funny.
You're no fun at all.
It's amazing that all you see is "bitter[ness]" and "rag[ing]" in those clips. Not even the "Shocks the Conscience" picture amused you?
I'd make some comment about you projecting your rage and bitterness on the vast majority of people. But man, at this point in the game, it's completely unneccesary.
These partisan comedians are so bitter in their partisanship that they're about as funny as a dead mouse.
they're doing satire. and if you paid attention, they had a lot of jokes about Clinton when he was in office and they've made a lot of jokes about the wimpiness of senate democrats.
Quote:
I'll take Jay Leno, Johnny Carson, David Letterman, Steve Martin, Steven Wright, and many others over these guys any day of the week. Leno and Carson in particular know how to make presidential jokes, of both parties, without being partisan or bitter about it.
the Daily Show is satire, not just a half hour version of weekend update. And Dennis Miller is partisan, and not very funny.
Quote:
These guys you like to post YouTube links to all the time are apoplectic with liberal rage, to the point that they're not even funny.
you just can't stand the fact that the majority of the world, and pretty much all of entertainment disagree with you. the funny thing is that you can't post any counter youtube videos because Bush is such an idiot that just watching him speak is a joke against him. I think your problem with the Daily Show is that they have a little more nerve than "real" news broadcasts. Because they are wrapped in the banner of satire they can act less than dignified and do things like show two speeches from Bush where he says one thing on one day and then another thing on another day. Like the child in the Emperor's New Clothing the Daily Show is often able to address the hard truth of the situation, something you can't stand because you prefer the catch phrases and buzzwords of Fox News' War on Terror.
you just can't stand the fact that the majority of the world, and pretty much all of entertainment disagree with you. the funny thing is that you can't post any counter youtube videos because Bush is such an idiot that just watching him speak is a joke against him.
It's funny, cause awhile ago I tried to google a pro-Bush image (just for irony) and there's wasn't jack shit. Couldn't even find a pro Bush website.
you just can't stand the fact that the majority of the world, and pretty much all of entertainment disagree with you. the funny thing is that you can't post any counter youtube videos because Bush is such an idiot that just watching him speak is a joke against him.
It's funny, cause awhile ago I tried to google a pro-Bush image (just for irony) and there's wasn't jack shit. Couldn't even find a pro Bush website.
obviously the internet and all the people that use it have a liberal bias.
Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man
Originally Posted By: Halo82
Originally Posted By: Ray said
you just can't stand the fact that the majority of the world, and pretty much all of entertainment disagree with you. the funny thing is that you can't post any counter youtube videos because Bush is such an idiot that just watching him speak is a joke against him.
It's funny, cause awhile ago I tried to google a pro-Bush image (just for irony) and there's wasn't jack shit. Couldn't even find a pro Bush website.
obviously the internet and all the people that use it have a liberal bias.
I did however stumble upon this conservative circle jerk-
