Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Talks about destruction of evidence extended to Miers, Gonzalez

Old 12-19-07, 05:21 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: DE
Posts: 1,070
Talks about destruction of evidence extended to Miers, Gonzalez

@@@@@@@@@

Last edited by darkessenz; 02-24-19 at 09:32 PM.
darkessenz is offline  
Old 12-19-07, 06:41 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lower Gum Curve
Posts: 18,881
Surprised? Hardly.

Sadly, even if they had them on videotape themselves talking about it, no one would care.
Jason is online now  
Old 12-19-07, 07:00 PM
  #3  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Egads. They should know from Sandy Berger that they could get hit with a fine.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-19-07, 07:48 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,500
wishbone is offline  
Old 12-20-07, 12:05 PM
  #5  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by darkessenz
Stretch analogies much?


One destroyed secret documents from the national archives and admitted committing a crime. The others destroyed tapes to keep CIA interrogators identity a secret.

Let me just say here again. I am so happy that the tapes were destroyed so that our media can't leak the contents to their allies in the Mid East.
bhk is offline  
Old 12-20-07, 12:25 PM
  #6  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...d_the_des.html
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Today in "The New York Time's," it says conversations took place about the destructions of tapes, and it names Mr. Gonzales, Harriet Miers, David Aldington, and John Bellinger as being involved.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just this morning, in a regrettably familiar pattern, we learned that the involvement of senior administration officials seemed to be more significant than it appeared from their official denials.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: Well, in fact, they didn't make any initial denials. All that the White House ever said was that the president didn't find out about the tapes or destruction of them until much later, about the time all the rest of us found out about them.

Dana Perino, the press secretary to the President, called out "The New York Times" about this and demanded a correction. The article that Senators Kennedy and Leahy seized upon is this one, and the subhead, as you can see there, "White House role was wider than it said" was the offending passage.

Apparently the story didn't back up that part of the headline, and "The Times" has said that yes, it will make a correction of some kind.
It claims to have done so already online although we looked for it and couldn't find it.

So I guess you could say that "The Times" has done the right thing. But what gave rise to this? And I guess the Kennedy and Leahy comments show you that the impact of "The New York Times"" can have on the scene in Washington.

BARNES: They jumped right on it, no question about that. But I agree with it. I agree that Senator Leahy said this was a regrettably familiar pattern of "The New York Times"" attacking the Bush administration unfairly in its news column.

HUME: I don't think that's what he meant.

BARNES: I don't think that is what he meant either, but it was a good quote. I thought I could seize on it, too.

Anyway, it's not clear to me that there was a crime committed. I don't think they know that. They treat this as a scandal. Without doubt, I think in the normal course of events, the CIA would have and should have destroyed those tapes. If they had gotten into the wrong hands they could be very harmful to the United States. And let's wait and see, but--

HUME: The only reporting that was done, and it wasn't based on anything that the White House put out, was to the effect that Harriet Miers who was then on the White House staff before she became the counsel, had counseled against the destruction of the tapes. This story does not say otherwise.

BARNES: One other thing that's interesting, though, is how aggressively the Bush White House, feeling stronger now than it has in many, many months, I think, aggressively jumped all over "The New York Times"" and went after them, I think rightly so.

LIASSON: Well, it was pretty cut and dried. "The New York Times"" said that the White House said something, but the White House hasn't said anything, as Dana Perino tried to explain. She is the voice of the White House, and she hasn't talked about it. As a matter of fact, she's refused to talk about it.
Again, as par for the course, the NYT making things up.
bhk is offline  
Old 12-20-07, 12:54 PM
  #7  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by darkessenz
If you can't see how the destruction of evidence of torture, possibly ordered by this administration is different then the Berger incident, then well
That's just it. The NYT retracted the part of the story you posted. And no, even if the admin ordered it destroyed, it was done as part of the process after legal counsel and review. Cheney didn't sneak into the CIA headquarters and walk out with the tape stuffed in his socks or pants. Can you see the difference?
bhk is offline  
Old 12-20-07, 03:09 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
They shouldn't have destroyed the tapes, then we could listen to people bitch about how they leaked them to give out the identity of people like Plame. Then we could destroy them, so we could listen to people bitch about how they were destroyed.

Wait....I see their game.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 12-20-07, 05:23 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: looking for mangos in the jungle
Posts: 4,065
Originally Posted by bhk

The others destroyed tapes to keep CIA interrogators identity a secret.
riiiiiiiiight... because there would be no way to hide the identity of people on a video tape. We don't have that technology. Best to just destroy the tapes.
monkeyboy is offline  
Old 12-20-07, 09:42 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by bhk
I am so happy that the tapes were destroyed so that our media can't leak the contents to their allies in the Mid East.


Just when I thought the sad pathetic republican paranoia about the media had hit it's peak, the bar is raised once again.

Last edited by cinten; 12-20-07 at 10:00 PM.
cinten is offline  
Old 12-21-07, 07:41 AM
  #11  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by darkessenz
If you can't see how the destruction of evidence of torture, possibly ordered by this administration is different then the Berger incident, then well

Honestly it's not worth the time or effort to try to explain the difference. King Bush and his administration has shown over and over their disrespect and contempt for things like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the laws of this country. People defending the actions of this administration are far more loyal to Bush than they are their own country. If this happened a few years ago I would be surprised but nothing with the most corrupt and morally bankrupt administration in history surprises me anymore.

Last edited by cinten; 12-21-07 at 07:44 AM.
cinten is offline  
Old 12-21-07, 10:11 AM
  #12  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by cinten
Honestly it's not worth the time or effort to try to explain the difference. King Bush and his administration has shown over and over their disrespect and contempt for things like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the laws of this country. People defending the actions of this administration are far more loyal to Bush than they are their own country. If this happened a few years ago I would be surprised but nothing with the most corrupt and morally bankrupt administration in history surprises me anymore.
When I see a lib rant like this post above, I know somewhere, something in the world is going correctly.

Just when I thought the sad pathetic republican paranoia about the media had hit it's peak, the bar is raised once again.
Not based on paranoia at all but based on history(in case you have forgotten: top secret terrorist international phone tapping and banking info analysis being done were leaked by the NYT to their Al Quida allies in the MidEast.)
bhk is offline  
Old 12-21-07, 12:13 PM
  #13  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by bhk
When I see a lib rant like this post above, I know somewhere, something in the world is going correctly.
Yes thing are going correctly for those who are more loyal to King Bush than they are to America. Things are going correctly for those who don't believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, checks and balances or American law. So i can see why you would be happy.


Originally Posted by bhk
Not based on paranoia at all but based on history(in case you have forgotten: top secret terrorist international phone tapping and banking info analysis being done were leaked by the NYT to their Al Quida allies in the MidEast.)


The NYT is allied to Al Queda, I would find that funny, except for the fact that some people actually believe that. The delusions about the media working with AQ are actually quite funny.

By your standards the Bush administration is far more of an ally to AQ for leaking Plame an undercover agent name. Oh wait that act of treason was ok because it was committed by the master.

Last edited by cinten; 12-21-07 at 12:17 PM.
cinten is offline  
Old 12-22-07, 11:47 AM
  #14  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by cinten
Yes thing are going correctly for those who are more loyal to King Bush than they are to America. Things are going correctly for those who don't believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, checks and balances or American law. So i can see why you would be happy.
Another rant, another day of something correct in the world.




The NYT is allied to Al Queda, I would find that funny, except for the fact that some people actually believe that. The delusions about the media working with AQ are actually quite funny.

By your standards the Bush administration is far more of an ally to AQ for leaking Plame an undercover agent name. Oh wait that act of treason was ok because it was committed by the master.
They were warned not to do the story because it would hurt efforts against Al Quida and might result in the death of Americans but they leaked the top secret info anyways. They, like so many here, let their malignant Bush Derangement Syndrome get the better of them. They were so enthusiastic adn taken up with trying to hurt Pres. Bush, that they didn't mind that they were also helping Al Quida.

The only persons that should have been charged in the Plame case is her husband, lyin' Joe Wilson for lying to Congress about who sent him. And she wasn't an undercover agent. That idea is ludicrous
bhk is offline  
Old 12-22-07, 11:52 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,037
Originally Posted by bhk
Another rant, another day of something correct in the world.
What do your rants mean?
Draven is online now  
Old 12-22-07, 11:54 AM
  #16  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by Draven
What do your rants mean?
I(usually) have enough self control not to get upset when discussing people, events, and politics on internet forums.
But when I get upset, it means that I haven't gotten enough sleep. If I start making really bad jokes and puns, it means I've gotten less than 3 hours of sleep.
bhk is offline  
Old 12-22-07, 05:45 PM
  #17  
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 969
Originally Posted by bhk
I(usually) have enough self control not to get upset when discussing people, events, and politics on internet forums.
cinten is offline  
Old 12-23-07, 11:46 AM
  #18  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Originally Posted by cinten
I'm glad you're entertained. And care enough to post.

The title of this thread isn't exactly correct since the NYT withdrew or corrected the part of this story that the title is based on.
bhk is offline  
Old 12-23-07, 11:54 AM
  #19  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,676
Knock off the back and forth personal comments guys.
X is offline  
Old 12-23-07, 08:27 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 468
Originally Posted by bhk
That's just it. The NYT retracted the part of the story you posted.
The retraction:

Correction: The subheading with a front-page headline on Wednesday for an article about discussions between four top White House lawyers and the Central Intelligence Agency over whether to destroy videotapes showing secret interrogations of members of Al Qaeda referred imprecisely to the White House's position thus far on the matter. While Bush administration officials have acknowledged some discussions leading up to the destruction of the tapes in November 2005, as the article noted, the White House itself has not officially said anything on the subject, so its role was not "wider than it said."
Which is not a retraction of the involvement of senior White House officials in discussions about the destruction of the tapes. The "wider than said" comment wasn't even included in the article the OP cited.
TimJS is offline  
Old 12-23-07, 09:52 PM
  #21  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 468
Here is the relevant, "unretracted" portions of the NY Times article:

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

It was previously reported that some administration officials had advised against destroying the tapes, but the emerging picture of White House involvement is more complex. In interviews, several administration and intelligence officials provided conflicting accounts as to whether anyone at the White House expressed support for the idea that the tapes should be destroyed.

One former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said there had been “vigorous sentiment” among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes. The former official did not specify which White House officials took this position, but he said that some believed in 2005 that any disclosure of the tapes could have been particularly damaging after revelations a year earlier of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Some other officials assert that no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes. Those officials acknowledged, however, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to preserve the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal.
Newsweek reported this week that John D. Negroponte, who was director of national intelligence at the time the tapes were destroyed, sent a memorandum in the summer of 2005 to Mr. Goss, the C.I.A. director, advising him against destroying the tapes.
The officials said that before he issued a secret cable directing that the tapes be destroyed, Mr. Rodriguez received legal guidance from two C.I.A. lawyers, Steven Hermes and Robert Eatinger. The officials said that those lawyers gave written guidance to Mr. Rodriguez that he had the authority to destroy the tapes and that the destruction would violate no laws.
Current and former officials said the two lawyers informed the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, John A. Rizzo, about the legal advice they had provided. But officials said Mr. Rodriguez did not inform either Mr. Rizzo or Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, before he sent the cable to destroy the tapes.

“There was an expectation on the part of those providing legal guidance that additional bases would be touched,” said one government official with knowledge of the matter. “That didn’t happen.”
Three days before the Times article...

"“It smells like the cover-up of the cover-up.” Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, is interviewed with Harman and is extremely critical of the leaders of the US intelligence community, calling them political, arrogant, and incompetent. “They’ve clearly demonstrated through the tapes case that they don’t believe that they are accountable to Congress.”

A good source on this topic may be found here .
TimJS is offline  
Old 12-23-07, 11:15 PM
  #22  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 468
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Egads. They should know from Sandy Berger that they could get hit with a fine.
Some Republican leaders have speculated that he took the documents because he was trying to conceal material that could be damaging to the Clinton administration. But Noel L. Hillman, who leads the Justice Department's public integrity section, said after the hearing on Friday that the department's investigation had found no evidence that Mr. Berger had intended to hide anything from the Sept. 11 commission. Indeed, the commission had access to all the original reports on the 2000 threat assessment, Mr. Hillman pointed out.
If the Republicans controlled House Senate & WH in 2004 & 2005, why would they let the DOJ lawyer statement stand as the last official word? They could have easily gotten a 'special prosecutor' appointed if there was anything substantive to the speculations of Rush Limbaugh, Fox's Gibson, & 'able danger' fanatics.
TimJS is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 09:24 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Lyon Estates
Posts: 10,795
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Egads. They should know from Sandy Berger that they could get hit with a fine.

Originally Posted by kvrdave
Egads, reminds me of Hillary saying she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary. These people decide what would sound good, then decide it happened to them. On the bright side, I have Romney very low on my list.


Too much egadding!
dick_grayson is offline  
Old 12-24-07, 08:57 PM
  #24  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 468
CIA Chief to Drag White House Into Torture Cover-Up Storm
By Sarah Baxter
The Sunday Times UK

Sunday 23 December 2007

The CIA chief who ordered the destruction of secret videotapes recording the harsh interrogation of two top Al-Qaeda suspects has indicated he may seek immunity from prosecution in exchange for testifying before the House intelligence committee.
Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, said it was impossible for Rodriguez to have acted on his own: "If everybody was against the decision, why in the world would Jose Rodriguez - one of the most cautious men I have ever met - have gone ahead and destroyed them?"
The House intelligence committee has subpoenaed Rodriguez to appear for a hearing on January 16. Last week the CIA began opening its files to congressional investigators. Silvestre Reyes, a Democrat who is chairing the committee, has said he was "not looking for scapegoats" - a hint to Rodriguez that he would like him to talk.
Johnson says Rodriguez got his fingers burnt during the Iran-contra scandal while working for the CIA in Latin America in the 1980s. Even then he sought authorisation from senior officials. But when summoned to the FBI for questioning, he was told Iran-contra was "political - get your own lawyer".
He learnt his lesson and recently appointed Robert Bennett, one of Washington's most skilled lawyers, to handle the case of the destroyed interrogation tapes. "He has been starting to get his story out and was smart to get Bennett," said Johnson.
"It looks increasingly as though the decision was made by the White House," said Johnson. He believes it is "highly likely" that Bush saw one of the videos, as he was interested in Zubaydah's case and received frequent updates on his interrogation from George Tenet, the CIA director at the time.
TimJS is offline  
Old 01-02-08, 10:55 PM
  #25  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 468
The op-ed in today’s New York Times by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairmen of the Sept. 11 commission, was a clarion call for just such an investigation. Here you have the bipartisan pronouncement that, in no uncertain terms, both the CIA and the White House obstructed the commission’s work and lied about it: “[G]overnment officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the [sic] greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.”
Slate.com
TimJS is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.