Why didn't the CIA give the tapes to the 9/11 Commission when asked? Coverup!

Marty Lederman at Balkinization discusses jut how badly the CIA and the Bush administration did NOT want the 9/11 Commission to get the torture tapes.

If the CIA had destroyed its interrogation tapes during the pendency of the 9/11 Commission investigation, that almost surely would have constituted felony violations of 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(1). So they retained the tapes during that investigation. However, as the New York Times reports ..., the CIA very carefully avoided informing the 9/11 Commission of the existence of the interrogation tapes -- which would have been extremely valuable information for the Commission to use. "A C.I.A. spokesman said that the agency had been prepared to give the Sept. 11 commission the interrogation videotapes" . . . but the Commission never said the magic words!: The Commission repeatedly sought "documents," "reports" and "information" related to the interrogations from the CIA -- but "staff members never specifically asked for interrogation videos."

At one meeting, Lee Hamilton told George Tenet that "the C.I.A. should provide all relevant documents 'even if the commission had not specifically asked for them.'" How infelicitous of Representative Hamilton -- you see, a videotape isn't a "document"!

I urge you to read the entire report from Phil Zelikow,, and ask yourself whether the concerted effort by countless government officials, up to and including Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld and Steve Cambone, to assiduously avoid mentioning the videotapes to the 9/11 Commission -- in countless meetings and in response to numerous requests -- when obviously those videos would have been the motherlode of the evidence that the Commission was seeking, can possibly be justified. Zelikow wonders whether this didn't violate 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(1) (prohibiting the knowing and willful concealment of "material facts" in an investigation by any "trick, scheme, or device"). Even if it did not, is there any scenario in which such stonewalling would not have constituted utter contempt for the Commission -- bad faith at a very high and sustained level?

Here's the really amazing bit, however: "Because it was thought the commission could ask about the tapes at some point, they were not destroyed while the commission was active," said a CIA spokesperson. In other words, they knew the tapes were relevant -- indeed, the most relevant evidence possible -- and that they would be required to produce them if only the Commission and its lawyers somewhere down the line used the word "tapes," or "recordings," or "evidence." But they failed to mention the tapes.

This is clearly criminal behavior by members of the Bush administration. There should be a rapid, broad investigation and criminal charges brough quickly.

You want to know that the conservatives will say to defend this criminal behavior? They will claim that bringing charges in court against the criminals who conducted this criminal behavior is criminalizing politics.

Then they will complain that illegal immigrants should be arrested and because they violate the law by their very presence in America, or a tourist who overstayed her visa by three weeks back in 1995 should be arrested in the New York Airport, carried out in chains, held overnight, then deported - again in chains - the next day back to Iceland.

So violations of really important laws should not be criminalized by bringing charges in court if the culprits are conservatives, but a tourist who overstayed her visa by three weeks 12 years ago gets treated like a terrorist.

How in God's name to Republicans live with themselves and sleep at night?

Rumsfeld, Neocons laugh off death of Pat Tillman

M.J. Rosenberg points out the right-wing Neocon attitude towards the death of Pat Tillman:

I always thought that, for all their loathsomeness, the right cares about our men and women in uniform. Yes, I know that they are all too willing to sacrifice them on the battlefield. But that is war and these people believe that all wars are worth dying in.

But now I see that they even have utter contempt for the individual soldier who dies on a foreign battlefield. Donald Rumsfeld and his GOP allies chuckled their way through yesterday's hearing on the death (friendly fire, murder, whatever) of the most famous soldier serving in the 9/11 wars, Pat Tillman. This is the same soldier whose death they used to drum up support for the war, who they made a poster boy for it.

But then he was killed (somehow) and it came out that he opposed the Iraq war, was not a Christian, and, worst of all, came from a family of troublemakers who demanded to know what happened to their boy.

And now Pat Tillman is, in the words of an army chaplain, "worm dirt." And his death, which may have been a murder, is one big joke to these guys. Rumsfeld, leaving the Committee room, dodged Tillman's family, not offering a word of sympathy. They have none. Read the rightwing blogs on the Tillman case. The once fair-haired boy is now a joke, his death just one of those things, his family a bunch of liberals who should shut just shut the f--- up.

Even the Republican criminals currently in charge of this country don't have to also be loathsome gutter-slime, but Rumsfeld and crew work at it.

---

See also:

• Evidence suggests Pat Tillman was murdered
  July 26, 2007
  
• What is the Bush Admin hiding in the Pat Tillman case?
  July 15, 2007

Evidence suggests Pat Tillman was murdered

There is little doubt that the military covered up something about Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan. Now the Associated Press has gotten documents about the medical reports from his body that strongly suggests that Tillman was murdered.

SAN FRANCISCO -

Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away. [Snip]

_ In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."

_ Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.

_ The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.

_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.[Snip]

The documents show that a doctor who autopsied Tillman's body was suspicious of the three gunshot wounds to the forehead. The doctor said he took the unusual step of calling the Army's Human Resources Command and was rebuffed. He then asked an official at the Army's Criminal Investigation Division if the CID would consider opening a criminal case.

"He said he talked to his higher headquarters and they had said no," the doctor testified.

The stories the military told have already varied.

"The military initially told the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by enemy fire. Only weeks later did the Pentagon acknowledge he was gunned down by fellow Rangers."

That means that it took a while for the military to decide on a safe story and coordinate it among various parties involved in the cover-up. It also means that it had to be coordinated at a high level in the chain of command, or someone would have told a different story. It had to be someone high enough to keep the story from the doctor under wraps until recently. And the story that they put out? A friendly fire incident as part of an ambush? Where are the enemy bullet holes in the American military vehicle? Why did the military burn Tillman's uniform and battle armor? Especially, why did the military close down all communications for several weeks from Tillman's unit after Pat's death?

Three rounds from an M-16 in the forehead? The shooter had to be almost close enough to kiss Tillman. The shooter had to know who he was shooting. The "friendly fire" story is a crock.

There is no question that whatever happened to Pat Tillman was known up the chain of command in Afghanistan. What was covered up is closer now to being exposed. There is a question regarding how deeply the White House was involved in the cover-up.

This isn't going away.


[h/t to TRex at Firedoglake.]

What is the Bush Admin hiding in the Pat Tillman case?

The basic story of Pat Tillman is clear, and since he was a professional football player who dropped his football career to join the Army along with his brother after 9/11, he got a lot of press.

After completing Ranger indoctrination Tillman was sent with the second battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment in Fort Lewis, Washington into Iraq in the initial invasion, then sent from Iraq to Afghanistan where he was killed on April 22, 2004 while on patrol. The initial report from the Army Special forces Command said that he was killed by enemy fire in an exchange of fire with the enemy resulting from an ambush. Gen. John Abizaid, the Commander of the troops in Iraq and Iran at that time, awarded Tillman the Silver Star, a Purple Heart and a posthumous promotion from specialist to corporal based on a detailed account of the heroic story of his actions - in a battle that never took place and which was known by the Army Commanders to have not taken place.

The Army Commanders immediately knew that Tillman's death was actually a friendly fire incident. So they put his unit under a communications blackout to prevent any communications with reporters and burned Tillman's body armor and uniform. The initial investigation conducted by Army captain Richard Scott concluded that Tillman's death was the result of a lack of discipline that should have brought serious punishment. The investigations by higher ranking officers that have since followed have reached much less harsh conclusions, so the individuals who actually killed Pat Tillman have gotten mild punishment if any at all, and the higher ranking officers have not taken any responsibility for what was a failure of leadership, more clearly in the aftermath of Tillman's death, but from what I have heard, also during the shooting itself.

As a retired Army officer myself, it looks like the living survivors get a lot more mercy than they deserve, the dead remain very dead and so get no mercy at all, and the commanders who failed to properly control the situation or investigate, judge and honestly report the aftermath continue on in their careers with no real accountability. This looks like a prime example of careerism in the military. Pat Tillman, his family, the Army and the American people all deserve much better.

---

Mark Kleiman properly points out how the Democrats should be dealing with this. Congressional Hearings to determine exactly what happened and why, both on a road outside of the village of Sperah, Afghanistan and later during the investigations and cover-ups.

EmptyWheel at The Next Hurrah adds her always considerable political wisdom to Mark Kleiman's proposals.