Justice Department to investigate destruction of CIA tapes

Socrtease

Socrtease

Verified User
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Federal prosecutors will investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes showing agents interrogating terrorism suspects, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Wednesday.

Prosecutors and FBI agents will try to determine whether laws were broken. A preliminary inquiry found enough evidence to pursue possible criminal charges.

The CIA said last month it videotaped the questioning of al Qaeda suspects Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002.

The tapes reportedly showed rough interrogation techniques, including the use of "waterboarding," which simulates drowning.

Mukasey said he has appointed John Durham, a prosecutor from the U.S. attorney's office in Connecticut, to lead the investigation.

The U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, home of the CIA, typically would investigate, but Mukasey said he tapped Durham because federal prosecutors in the Virginia district already are investigating the intelligence community.

The CIA "will of course cooperate fully with this investigation as it has with the others into this matter," said Mark Mansfield, a spokesman for the agency.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/02/cia.tapes.probe/index.html for the rest of the story.
 
So the Attorney General decided he had a conflict of interest so he didn't appoint a Fed Prosecutor from DC to investigate. Instead he appointed a Fed Prosecutor from Connecticut. A guy that ALSO works for the AG so that would still be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Not only that but as those that defend the last defender of justice Gonzales are so fond of telling us, this guy works at the pleasure of the president and if he starts to get to close to the white house on this deal that might incure the DISpleasure of the president. Next thing you know another Saturday night masacre. If you don't know what that is look up Nixon, Archibald Cox and AG Elliot Richardson.
 
Socrtease said:
Just dubious? I have outright contempt for this mock investigation.
Click to expand...


We'll see how it goes. It seems by all appearances that the guy they tapped to conduct the criminal investigation is a career prosecutor with no specific loyalties to Bush and his mis-administration. The real issue, however, is why they didn't appoint a truly independent prosecutor that did not report to the AG. Hell, they could have appointed the same guy.

I'm skeptical but I'm not writing the whole thing off just yet. I'll wait for the results before I decide whether to be outraged.:)
 
John Conyers ain't buying it:

Nothing less than a special counsel with a full investigative mandate will meet the tests of independence, transparency and completeness. Appointment of a special counsel will allow our nation to begin to restore our credibility and moral standing on these issues.
Click to expand...
 
Dungheap said:
We'll see how it goes. It seems by all appearances that the guy they tapped to conduct the criminal investigation is a career prosecutor with no specific loyalties to Bush and his mis-administration. The real issue, however, is why they didn't appoint a truly independent prosecutor that did not report to the AG. Hell, they could have appointed the same guy.

I'm skeptical but I'm not writing the whole thing off just yet. I'll wait for the results before I decide whether to be outraged.:)
Click to expand...

Maybe.

But it looks like a classic BushCo. move. It serves their interests in several ways:

1) It precludes congress from doing their own investitation. Congress won't be able to subpeona anyone, becuase DOJ will say it an ongoing criminal investigation.

2) DOJ narrowly tailored the scope of the investigation, to examine possible crimes in the destruction of the tapes. NOT, the torture itself. Torture is a war crime, and the orders may have come from the white house itself.

3) The DOJ prosecutor is a Bush employee. The mere appearance that this guy is subject to political influence, is a possibility in and of itself.
 
Socrtease said:
So the Attorney General decided he had a conflict of interest so he didn't appoint a Fed Prosecutor from DC to investigate. Instead he appointed a Fed Prosecutor from Connecticut. A guy that ALSO works for the AG so that would still be a CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Not only that but as those that defend the last defender of justice Gonzales are so fond of telling us, this guy works at the pleasure of the president and if he starts to get to close to the white house on this deal that might incure the DISpleasure of the president. Next thing you know another Saturday night masacre. If you don't know what that is look up Nixon, Archibald Cox and AG Elliot Richardson.
Click to expand...

Nicely explained. It’s such a shame that the “liberal media” who is always plotting for the downfall of all Republicans, hasn’t explained it at all. Rather, they have gone with headlines and stories seeming to indicate that this is actually in investigation. As if, something could come from it.
 
This is why they Packed the DOJ with right wing idiots who could not get into real law schools. They will do anything the Bush team tells them to do.
 
Desh said:
This is why they Packed the DOJ with right wing idiots who could not get into real law schools. They will do anything the Bush team tells them to do.
Click to expand...
Wow Desh you are on a roll today. So know the lawyers that work for the DOJ that went to ABA accredited law schools went to "fake" law schools. Please for those of us in the unwashed masses tell me what a REAL law school is? Harvard vs South Texas? Yale vs. Washburn Law School? Berkley vs. University of Kansas? Which of these are real and which are fake and what is your guage of that? Just curious.
 
Socrtease said:
Wow Desh you are on a roll today. So know the lawyers that work for the DOJ that went to ABA accredited law schools went to "fake" law schools. Please for those of us in the unwashed masses tell me what a REAL law school is? Harvard vs South Texas? Yale vs. Washburn Law School? Berkley vs. University of Kansas? Which of these are real and which are fake and what is your guage of that? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Regent University School of Law the Robertson-founded school, is the one she is referring to. Might not be "fake" but it's very poorly regarded, no?
 
Ever notice that when a republican gets into trouble with the law - scooter libby, duke cunninghan, rush limpbaugh - they always hire lawyers from harvard, yale, or ACLU...but, not from Regents "Law School"
 
Darla said:
Regent University School of Law the Robertson-founded school, is the one she is referring to. Might not be "fake" but it's very poorly regarded, no?
Click to expand...
My managing partner graduated from Regent. Was an assistant DA that NEVER lost a case and is now an outstanding lawyer. Desh's lack of knowledge about law schools and about the profession in general is colored by her elitism
 
Regent is ranked a "tier four" school by US News & World Report, the lowest score and essentially a tie for 136th place

I'm sure there are individual lawyers from regent who are competent.

But, there's no reason for the United States Department of Justice to suddenly go on a massive hiring spree at Regent, after 2001.
 
Socrtease said:
My managing partner graduated from Regent. Was an assistant DA that NEVER lost a case and is now an outstanding lawyer. Desh's lack of knowledge about law schools and about the profession in general is colored by her elitism
Click to expand...

Anyone who boasts he never lost a case is not trying enough cases. Or he is not trying any close calls, just slam dunks. I pride myself on being willing to go to trial on close cases, but I admit, I loose some of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top