This morning, we found out that it wasn’t just Harriet Myers, as top legal counsel to George W. Bush, who knew about the effort to destroy secret videotapes of torture by the CIA. Three other top White House lawyers knew about the torture tapes as well, and knew that the tapes were going to be destroyed. Yet, all four White House lawyers did nothing to stop the obstruction of justice, and some sources say that they actually encouraged it.
The four Bush White House lawyers identified as taking part in deliberations of whether to destroy the secret CIA videotapes of the torture of prisoners are:
- Alberto Gonzales, top legal counsel to George W. Bush and then Attorney General of the United States
- Harriet Myers, top legal counsel to George W. Bush after Alberto Gonzales, and Bush nominee to the Supreme Court
- David S. Addington, top legal counsel to Dick Cheney, and now Cheney’s Chief of Staff
- John B. Bellinger the Third, top legal counsel at the National Security Council while Condoleeza Rice led the NSC
These lawyers were directly serving President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice. It now stretches credulity to claim that Bush, Cheney and Rice knew nothing about the torture tapes. If the investigation into the creation and destruction of the videotapes of torture by the CIA is to be taken seriously, it now needs to include subpoenas for Bush, Cheney and Rice to testify on the matter themselves, under oath.
(Source: New York Times, December 19, 2007)
“Vigorous sentiment” in favor of destroying the tapes by unnamed officials at the White House, sources tell the New York Times.
When the White House, the Justice Department and the CIA have their hands dirty with the matter, it’s not enough for the White House to stonewall and the CIA and Justice to investigate themselves.
It’s time for the process of gathering evidence, filing charges and initiating trials outside the executive branch. This is known as impeachment.
But of course if the Islamic world got its hands on those tapes..can you just see it? I think it would have the power to galvanize the Arab street in a way that words can not. The embassy burnings over cartoons would look like child’s play.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave…” but there would be no problem if there had been no decision to use torture in the first place.
I’m not ready to say impeach just yet though, it has too much the partisan flavor of Alice in Wonderland’s “sentence first, verdict later.”
I’m still giggling over jClifford’s new avatar, though. He appears to be trying to peer out of the screen at libertarians. I always thought the old avatar looked goth, but on my new laptop screen it has more variety of contrast and doesn’t look goth at all. And I’ve always thought Jim looked incredibly hot, but also disturbingly like my brother. Now jClifford is starting to resemble my brother too. The best jClifford avatar ever is still the ranting one from the MySpace site.
To impeach is to investigate and then put on trial. Its not to sentence first and then make a judgment of the facts later.
Right, impeachment. That only applies to sexual transgressions now (oh, and maybe lying about it), doesn’t it? i mean, hrumph, “time of war”, blither, “national security”, ahem, hmm-hmm,
“i’m the decider”. . . .
“Jus’ never you mine about Abu’s Gravy. ” “We need Gitmo to contain these enemy combatums.”