...in what legal system is it proper for the target of an investigation to destroy evidence of crimes? Torture is a criminal act, and the tapes most likely captured evidence of crimes. This evidence would also have been critical for purposes of assessing the reliability of confessions or other information secured from persons who were tortured. The evidence was sought in the New York FOIA litigation and in other court cases, and it would have been essential for any prosecution of the persons covered. But more importantly, it would serve as essential evidence in the forthcoming prosecutions of the Bush Administration torture conspirators.
Yesterday we also learned this:
...the 2002 memorandum one of seven previously undisclosed Bush-era OLC documents released [yesterday] by the Justice Department goes further than simply sanctioning the so-called “extraordinary rendition” program that we already knew about. The memo concludes that there is no legal impediment to torturing suspects held abroad even if they are in U.S. custody, such as at the U.S. prisons at Guantanamo Bay or Bagram air base in Afghanistan.
This was the near-dictatorship favored by some neoconservatives in the war on terror: the abolition of the constitution indefinitely in order to protect the constitution.
Investigate, then prosecute. With all the resources we've got.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.