Comments on: What Lies Underneath

By: linda

linda — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:16:16 +0000

oh… i bet there are more than a few boxed sets gifted out to the torturers’ nearest and dearest.

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:49:23 +0000

But it really does say that Paul’s dead, doesnt it?

By: Spencer Ackerman

Spencer Ackerman — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:34:16 +0000

Sorry, it’s a joke — that line is delivered by Rorschach in the Watchmen comic book. I was about to see the movie when I wrote this post.

By: lesserdevil

lesserdevil — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:17:03 +0000

The CIA will never be held accountable for what happened, and neither will the Bush Administration. They have too many supporters that believe torture is acceptable in the face of possible terrorist attacks on United States soil. Torture advocates don’t need anything like a majority to stop justice from being done. They only need one or two people in key positions to grind the wheels of any investigation to a standstill. Quite obviously there are plenty of people in place in Washington willing to do just that, and there are Democrats among them (just to add extra sting).

I’ve never before so strongly hoped I was wrong about something than about this. We’ll see. Yoo referred to the United States Constitution as irrelevant and unnecessary, and Obama seems to have picked up fighting against the rule of law right where Bush left off (on a number of fronts).

By: sptatt

sptatt — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:52:03 +0000

Cheney uses then as porn along with the tape of Saddam’s execution.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:39:43 +0000

More than that…whoever ordered it did so for all the interrogations. Which means that the 92 tapes destroyed are essentially all the original evidence of those interrogations. It’s not, as some surmised, videos of the individuals in their cells (though there may be tapes of that as well). But what they have done is eliminated any original images of confessions or statements by the detainees. It’s essentially “trust us…this is what they said”.

And it looks as if the Office of General Counsel reviewed first, with the Inspector General doing so later. The following material after the review by the attorney from OGC likely represents an action s/he suggested, or further review of issues. Then “As a result…the OIG reviewed the tapes…”But I would caution against interpreting that this “occurred” in May 2003. That was my first conclusion. But if that was true then one might expect the date to either immediately precede or follow the subject…i.e.

“In May 2003 the OIG reviewed the videotapes and….” or “The OIG reviewed the videotapes in May 2003, and…”

But there is redacted material of at least several words between the subject and the date. Maybe it says something like “The OIG reviewed the videotapes, [and notified DCIA Tenet], in May 2003″????

It’s also a curious gap where it says “interrogators administered…..the waterboard to Al Nashiri.” It’s a relatively short break. Could that be a reference to a time period For example “20 minutes of”???

When did Ramirez supposedly destroy the tapes?

By: Petrocelli

Petrocelli — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 04:02:25 +0000

Thanks for the reminder.

BTW … ygm

By: newtonusr

newtonusr — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:57:35 +0000

damn
dugg

By: Hmmm

Hmmm — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:57:00 +0000

“Tape and rewind” could, perhaps, be read to imply a routine where interrogations are done and taped during the day, and then the day’s tape is transmitted back to HQ that night. (Or copied, and the copies shipped off.) So maybe “Tape and rewind” is death-jazz for “Please be kind, Rewind!”

By: VictorLaszlo

VictorLaszlo — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:49:36 +0000

Spencer, how did you get that redacted quote?

What did the redactions conceal? This quote by a CIA instructor: “Hurm. Just give me time and man’s index finger. Will get information. Never compromise. Even in face of armageddon. Never compromise.”