January 10th, 2008
05:52 PM ET

Immunity & destroyed CIA tapes?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

No testimony without immunity. That's the word to Congress from the former CIA official who's said to have ordered the destruction of tapes showing controversial interrogations.

Jose Rodriguez was asked to testify before the House Intelligence Committee next week, but his lawyer wants to play "Let's Make a Deal" first.

Several high-ranking officials inside the Bush Administration, including the President's counsel, Harriet Miers, as well as a federal judge ordered the tapes not to be destroyed. They reportedly showed two key al Qaeda terror suspects being subjected to controversial interrogation techniques including waterboarding, which is considered torture by many.

Another CIA official, John Rizzo, who opposed the destruction of the tapes, has agreed to testify freely before the committee. The CIA, both houses of Congress and the Justice Department have all launched their own investigations.

Meanwhile, in a ruling yesterday, that U.S. district judge put off an inquiry into allegations that the Bush administration defied his order to preserve evidence which may have included those tapes.

Here’s my question to you: The former head of the CIA’s covert service, Jose Rodriguez, wants immunity in the destroyed tapes investigation. Should he get it?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Richard from Canfield, Ohio writes:
Jack, he should be granted immunity only if his testimony would bring evidence of a larger conspiracy so Congress could put the big scoundrels in jail!

Jerry from Port Royal, South Carolina writes:
It is crazy that we are even having this discussion and hearings. I don't care if the CIA used electrical cords, jumper cables, cattle prods or pliers on the terrorist. If it got the information that was needed, to stop another terror attack on the USA it was necessary. You can't fight terrorist playing by Mr. Goodies.

Greg from Pennsylvania writes:
I'd rather waterboard the man to get the truth out of him, but we supposedly live in a civilized nation that doesn't condone torture. Most likely, what he has to say will directly implicate both the president and vice President. I say, grant him immunity so we can finally be rid of Bush and Cheney by impeachment.

Ryan writes:
We all know that with the power establishment in place, this guy will never go to prison. However, there is no immunity in the courtroom of public opinion. So essentially how rough this guy gets it is up to you guys in the media... I say let him have it!

Troy from Indiana writes:
Yes he should. These guys are doing their best just like our military to protect this great country from terrorism. Had this been in October 2001 just after 9-11, this would not be a question. It would be expected.

Chris writes:
At what point do we need to start holding our government and government employees accountable for their actions? Let me give you hint...it's long overdue.

Filed under: CIA
soundoff (155 Responses)
  1. Lee

    Probably -but aren't the allegations of voter fraud in New Hampshire a more important issue?

    January 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
  2. Bert D

    No, he is being set up as the fall guy. Give him immunity and everyone walks when he takes all the blame. I say send him to jail until he's ready to talk.

    January 10, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
  3. Paul

    Sure, go ahead. We all know, that America is a fascist state, lets just make it official and get over with.

    January 10, 2008 at 2:48 pm |
  4. Stan

    Yes, give him immunity and get to the bottom of this.

    January 10, 2008 at 2:51 pm |
  5. David,San Bernardino,CA.

    No! As potentially important as his testimony is,immunity is off the table. Someone,or several someones,is responsible for ordering the destruction of evidence in a criminal investigation. This is extremely serious and a threat to our democracy. If the Bush cabal gets away with this travesty,then there is no justice and no United States!

    January 10, 2008 at 2:52 pm |
  6. Joe


    Law Enforcement (state, federal, general crimes and counter intelligence) use tapes all the time. Most agencies have rules that tapes must be kept for 2, 5 or 10 years...or "forever".

    No immunity for this...the guy committed a crime.

    Even the Bush Administration told the CIA not to destroy the tapes...and that administration has a pretty low ethical standard!

    January 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm |
  7. Rich Kaminski, McKinney Texas

    Lets wait and see what we find out from the justice departments investigation before we cross that bridge. The CIA acknowledged that it destroyed videos of officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two suspected Al Qaeda members so that is no great mystery. Congress needs to back off until Justice has completed its investigation. The tapes are gone and the truth will come out with or without Rodriguez. Offering a free ride to someone that you don't know what he is guilty of if anything at all is foolish. In their haste for a pound of flesh congress just might end up with several tons of what comes out the other end of the horse.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:09 pm |
  8. Ruth

    Jack I love your bold questions.
    No I don't think he should get immunity, but who am I. I don't think any of the lying and misleading people the came before, i.e. Bush, Cheney and others should get immunity. Do you think I would have a chance of immunity if I commited a crime against my employer and company. His employer is the one and only George W. (and people of the USA) and his people can do no wrong including him.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
  9. Gino

    Should Jose Rodriguez get immunity for testifying at the hearing regarding the CIA destroyed tapes investigation? If his testimony would permit to get after some heads in the present Administration who do not follow the Constitution, grating Mr. Rodriguez immunity could possibly do some good. If giving someone immunity and we are assured that it would help getting to the bottom of the tapes “secrecy,” well, so be it, as long as he will not be the head honcho blamed for everything!

    January 10, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
  10. Scott

    hell know, bush will pardon him before the sentenceing if he's convicted of something, the only people who do time in this adaministration are innocent boarder patrol agents
    scott missouri

    January 10, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  11. bnthdntht

    If it is possible to get any truth out of the last seven years I say give anyone involved in government during this administration immunity.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:23 pm |
  12. Will K

    Does it matter?

    Give him immunity and he'll take all the blame and walk. If he doesn't get immunity then he can still take the blame and then have Bush pardon him. Either way nothing happens, no accountability, business as usual.

    Any hope that this congress was going to actually do it's job of oversight was shattered long ago.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:24 pm |
  13. Amnesty is Treason

    "NO"! two border patrol agents in jail for protecting the country; libby scooter and cohorts not a day in jail for a treasonous act; so yes he'll get it!

    January 10, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  14. Terry

    NO ONE should get immunity in this investigation, especially the head of the CIAs covert service. If anyone is guilty of " what he knew and when did he know it " this guy is. There shouldnt be immunity for anyone connected with this fiasco !

    January 10, 2008 at 3:25 pm |
  15. Bizz

    If he can prove that his testimony will lead to bigger fish to fry. Then I would give him immunity from prosecution. He would have to name names or go to jail with Bubba.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:26 pm |
  16. D Moore

    I’ll make a deal: If he can get immunity for those destroyed tapes, give me immunity for destroying my tax returns, and the speeding tickets I’d like to tear up.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:28 pm |
  17. Adrian

    Immunity, sure why not jack. We have bigger fish to fry don't we? This is like the Wizard of Oz. The Congress and President have the glass slippers and we are the tin man without oil, stuck no matter what we do.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
  18. Daniel From Tempe AZ


    Does it really matter? Someone who is buddy buddy with someone in the right "click" will get W to either commute, or pardon him if he has really done wrong. The American people are sick and tired of hearing about who in, how many, and how often this administration has broken the law, nothing ever happens to them anyway, so why keep wasting taxpayers money to investigate a corrupt political/judicial system?

    January 10, 2008 at 3:38 pm |
  19. suzieperlstein@hotmail.com

    I think he first needs to testify in a closed door hearing, under oath, and if he is really in a position to point the finger at "Al-burt-O", or Cheney, or Bush or Rove, not just some other poor mid level guy who did what he was told, or ordered to do, then he should get immunity, but if he is just falling on his sword, or pointing to some other low or mid ranking guy, then forget it. He's useless.
    Either he does a "John Dean" or nothing. And John Dean didn't get immunity. He went to jail and lost his Bar Card.
    Besides if this guy really knows something, he may need Witness Protection more than immunity.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:41 pm |
  20. Greg from PA

    I'd rather waterboard the man to get the truth out of him, but we supposedly live in a civilized nation that doesn't condone torture. Most likely, what he has to say will directly implicate both the President and Vice President. I say, grant him immunity so we can finally be rid of Bush and Chaney by impeachment.

    January 10, 2008 at 3:57 pm |
  21. Patricia

    Here's the problem with giving immunity to people, they are able to get away with every other crime they've committed. For all intents & purposes we know who ordered those CIA tapes to be destroyed, President George Bush told Vice President Dick Cheney, who told CIA Director Porter Goss and/or George Tenant who told Chief of Covert Services Jose Rodriguez. This ain't rocket science. It's just that it's not worth the time or money to impeach or fire or prosecute any of the above names, because no matter what happens in the next election most of these people will not be in the offices they now hold.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:04 pm |
  22. john

    No immunity unless he was ordered to destroy the tapes. I would, however, read him his miranda rights and remind him even though he found ever reason and justification to violate some of the most sacred values we have and hold dear, we would still grant him the unalienable rights he has as an American.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:05 pm |
  23. Stephen

    For the life of me I just can't understand why in the hell the liberal Democrats in washington as well as the national media seem to have so much concern for all of these terriorist that have sworn to kill as many Americans as posible. Who cares about some tape. If they used water-boarding on so of these terriorist, well I say good and so what ! at least they are still alive. When the terriorist catch one of our people do you really think for a minute that they stop and say, Oh, we need to follow the geneva convention rules? NO THEY DON'T ! These people are nothing but animals, barbarrains so wake up America, we have too many other things to worry about then waisting all this time and money having hearing after hearing in congress and when it's all said and done not a thing will have changed. Trust me it never does. This is nothing but the Democratic leadership in Congress trying to look good for the TV cameras. One more thing to those who think Barack Obama will change all this, I just say go to http://www.congress.org and look up his voting record.( that is when he showed up ). He talks a good talk, But walks another walk. So don't be fooled by all the fresh paint and glemmer because under neath is all the old rust.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:08 pm |
  24. Ryan Farrar

    We all know that with the power establishment in place, this guy will never go to prison. However, there is no immunity in the courtroom of public opinion. So essentially how rough this guy gets it is up to you guys in the media... i say let him have it!

    January 10, 2008 at 4:12 pm |
  25. Donna in ID

    NO !!!!!!! They won't let out the 2 Border Patrol agents that are in prison for doing there jobs. People in this administration has had way to many breaks. It has gotten very ridiculous. They should have been impeached last term. But there are to many in the Good Ol' Boys Club and just as many that are afraid of the Bush dynasty. What I would like to see is everyone that has been part of this admin. over the years (from Pres. Bush right down the line) have "War Crimes" charges and put them on trial like they did in Nuremberg.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  26. Jonathan

    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:13 pm |
  27. darlene mikowski

    you can make a poll say any thing you want and the media wanted Obama

    January 10, 2008 at 4:21 pm |
  28. Judy

    No – This is just one of many transgressions against the american people by our so-called "elected officials". Unless he will name names and give information that can be used to prosecute this band of outlaws, he should be investigated and prosecuted just like any other citizen. It is mind boggling how these clowns keep landing on their feet. Enough is enough!

    January 10, 2008 at 4:23 pm |
  29. Ed Reed

    Yes, but they shouldn't make the same mistake they made with Olliver North. There should be no immunity if, during his testimony, he lies to Congress

    January 10, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  30. Sammye

    He should get as much immunity as Bush operatives gave Campos and Ramos. It is about time that the American public be given the truth from Mr. Bush's administration on that and everything else that they have been stonewalling about.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:27 pm |
  31. Cheryl F.


    When is anyone who makes any kind of decision in Washington, D.C. going to start being held accountable for their actions? I mean, if this guy really believes that he did the right thing, acted according to CIA policies & procedures and within the law, why would he need immunity?

    My fear is that this is going to turn into another scandal like that at the Justice Department–everyone knows the decision was made; but no one owns up to it. Immaculate tape destruction?

    January 10, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
  32. edwin b

    Of course he should be held accountiable for his actions, so should BUSH,CHANEY,RICE,RUMSFELT,ect.... They all should be held accountiable,but for whatever reason the congress feels reluctant to pursue one of there own.I can wait for the '08 elections, we will finally get a different course of action and a new direction. A prefect punishment for these characters(have them go too the frontline of the war they created and serve until the elections).

    January 10, 2008 at 4:31 pm |
  33. C. Farrell, Houston, Tx

    Yes, after Cheney and Bush go to trail for their war crimes.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:41 pm |
  34. Gary

    We all have made mistakes,And payed for those mistakes.
    Maybe i am old fashioned,but if you have made a mistake and can't admit,
    it Good chanch you will do it again.

    January 10, 2008 at 4:53 pm |
  35. Ed

    If he was granted immunity nobody would be found guilty. He acted on his own contradicting orders from his superiors, so granting him immunity should be out of the question. Why give him immunity to confirm that in testimony?

    January 10, 2008 at 4:55 pm |
  36. Jerry Wilson

    Jack, Logic tells us that one doesn't need immunity if a crime hasn't been commited. So the real question is, why Jose is requesting immunity, and that question has yet to be answered satisfactorily. So until a reasonable justification for destroying the tapes is produced, immunity should be off the table.

    Jerry Wilson

    January 10, 2008 at 5:02 pm |
  37. Tom Bulger

    If it means we finally impeach and rid ourselves of Bush and Cheney, absolutely. Bush can do a lot of harm in the next 12 months.

    Look what he's trying to jack up in Iran. He's put white out on the Gulf of Tonkin ruse and typed in Iran. We fall for it every time. Well Hillary does.

    January 10, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
  38. Samantha in WI

    This is one of those lose-lose situations that this administration is coming to be known for. I'm not one for giving immunity to someone who has committed a crime, but Congress may need to choose the lesser of two evils. We all saw what happened with Scooter Libby. Maybe taking a different approach will lead to those who really should be held responsible to actually be held responsible.

    Given the current atmosphere of the country, though, no matter what they decide to do, Congress will be damned for giving immunity, or damned if they don't.

    January 10, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
  39. William - Indiana

    It is important that he testify, and testify truthfully. If is was willing to testify "who" instructed Him to destroy the tapes, it is a no brainer; immunity given. BUT, if
    he does not testify, and most people believe He issued the instructions to destroy the tapes, than no immunity should be given, and He should be put on trial.

    January 10, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
  40. William - Indiana

    It is important that he testify, and testify truthfully. If He is willing to testify “who” instructed Him to destroy the tapes, it is a no brainer; immunity given. BUT, if
    he does not testify, and most people believe He issued the instructions to destroy the tapes, than no immunity should be given, and He should be put on trial.

    January 10, 2008 at 5:09 pm |
  41. Jack From WV

    Tapes missing again never saw that coming! I just can't understand why even think of giving imunity until the investigation is complete. Personally I really don't care if some tapes are missing concerning a terrorist interrogation. Let those liberals get a close up of what terrorists do to American's when they capture one of our own, trust me, we are soft here. Until American's get this through our heads terrorists don't really care about the Ganeva Convention they just want to torture you and get it on TV to show the American public what they did to another citizen! We need to wake up here these people are serious about torturing American's who cares about another missing tape hopefully the CIA remembers hour to get the information we need to protect our land.

    January 10, 2008 at 5:11 pm |
  42. Leo from Oklahoma

    With Kerry's Endorsement of Obama. ..It will cause more of Hillary Clintons supporter's to lean toward Obama and that will split the democrativ party....This in turn will leave the Race wide open for the Republican party to Win the White house again.....

    January 10, 2008 at 5:15 pm |
  43. Louie

    Senator Kerry's endorsement of Senator Obama for President, is just another example of Senators Kerry's flip flopping reputation......It's interesting that Senator Kerry thought that former Senator Edwards was qualified enough to replace him as President in the event of some kind of unfortunate circumstance four years ago. But he doesn't feel that after surviving Senator Kerrys defeat to a clearly incompetant President that Senator Edwards is still qualified....come on. But he didn't throw the medals back.....right!

    January 10, 2008 at 5:16 pm |
  44. James

    Anyone who practices common sence knows someone guilty of destroying evidence shold face the full extent of the law. However I think we are all aware of Lord Bush's decree when it comes to investigating his administration. No tapes, no transcripts, and anything they say and do will not be held against them in a court of law. Get with the program Jack, all loyal Bushies deserve immunity and if need be, pardons!

    January 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm |
  45. Jerry

    Lets see what he has to say, maybe he was told by bush or cheyney to destroy the tapes to protect them from criminal charges or IMPEACHMENT!!!!!!

    January 10, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
  46. Allen L Wenger

    No. It sounds like he knows he broke the law, but no-one in this administration has been held accountable for anything. If he is found guilty of something, he'll get a pardon as long as he doesn't tell the truth. I guess that's the legacy of the Bush Administration, "If you don't tell the truth, you won't be punished."

    January 10, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
  47. Vick Welsh

    No No No. This guy is just another Bush administration crook, He knows he is in deep stuff and figures that he wont get a pardon ( he doesn't know enough).

    January 10, 2008 at 5:46 pm |
  48. Natasha

    Libby Scooter already got immunity due to yet another one of Bush's major oversights, why is it that this guy feel like he should get a free pass too? More importantly though, we need to get to the bottom of this issue and try to undertand if we as Americans are really treating our prisoners of war as those tapes might indicate!

    January 10, 2008 at 6:02 pm |
  49. Mike

    Offer him immunity, then after his testimony, shred the immunity documents. Ahh
    poetic justice.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:05 pm |
  50. Ken

    There is enough evidence to indicate that Jose Rodriguez is only an accomplice to the crime, he did not act alone. It's like they say on "Law and order" when the bad guy asks for immunity..."it depends on what he's got to say".

    January 10, 2008 at 6:06 pm |
  51. Brian Pound

    If the only way to get to the 'Real Facts ' of this case,by all means,grant him immunity.
    They`ve hung him out to dry one too many times. Jose was in Colombia,fighting drugs and corruption,but they said he was not 'aggressive enough'.Then they shipped him to Mexico City,before bringing him back to do their 'dirty deeds'. Now they are done with him. We need to hear his story. This country has been " Bush-whacked' long enough.It`s high time for 'accountability' and justice.No more Cover-ups and lies behind the veil of 'executive privilege'! Nobody is above the law,not even high-level criminals.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:09 pm |
  52. Jason

    No, Rodriguez is too high in the Chain of Command to just allow a free pass. He knowingly violated a court order. What would happen to us if we did the same?

    January 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm |
  53. Tyler

    As a future law student, I understand an attorney’s need to defend his client with the utmost fervor. However, as a 19-year-old political science major, and more importantly as a young American citizen who will be forced to bear the burden of this country’s current ills, I believe that it is time that the American people demand some disclosure from this government that has led us so far astray. If we are refused that disclosure then it is our duty to show that we no longer intend to put up with this administration’s tactics. We must refuse to talk about any type of criminal immunity with Rodriguez until after he has taken the stand, and if he refuses to do so, then let him witness the true power of the United States judicial system. If we have any hopes of regaining this so-called “moral superiority” then we must know the truth about the ways in which we treat those that we deem morally inferior. It is time for the American people to stand up and say, “Yes, we are better than this, and we demand change!”

    January 10, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
  54. Frank

    I don't think the CIA should even exist , and to answer your question No One Is Above The Law.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  55. Franco Caliz

    Heck no! We need some real investigations to start in Washington! How many scandals have there been in the past three months in this investigation? I wish the Democrats would show some guts and hold hearings.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  56. shan

    No he should not get immunity.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  57. phillip r

    Too much immunity....hang them all....they were wrong all along!

    January 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  58. Mike

    We're not talking about petty crime here....we're talking about violations of the U.S. Constitution! A few people I could name should be impeached. Let's not rush to hand out immunity until after we get a better idea of the scope of the crimes.

    Mike from Ohio

    January 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
  59. john harrison

    Waterboard him. It isn't torture.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  60. Donald, Butte Montana


    I'm sicked and damn tired on hearing deals being cut to get tot he truth in this corrupt Administration.

    With all the high-paid, supposedly well-qualified lawyers on the payroll of the federal government I say throw the book at them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. NO DEALS, NO PLEA-BARGAINING, NO PAROLES, NO PARDONS, NOTHING, BUT HARD PRISON TIME, FINES, AND FELONY CONVICTIONS!!!

    Its about time the law was obeyed, enforced, and respected by all parties.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
  61. Faiza, Los Angeles, CA

    He who laughs, laughs last. Give him immunity and that's exactly what will happen. So basically an empathic NO!

    January 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  62. Terry W

    It depends I guess, he may have been the one who said destroy the tapes but I'm sure someone told him to do so. If Cheney can get taken down by giving this guy immunity I say go for it. But I want to know his reasons for wanting immunity other than obvious guilt.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  63. Kyle

    Yes, just to get a full confession but then charge him with obstruction of justice anyways.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  64. Joe

    he shouldn't get it, but he will get it, just like Bush has amazingly received from heaven immunity from impeachment.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  65. Gary Walker

    Rodriguez can always claim the 5th. You can't force him to testify, so your question is stupid in the first instance.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  66. Tom D

    NO to immunity. YES to contempt charges!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    January 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  67. Jess Edison

    I say give him immunity from prosecution. If Bush and Cheney go to prison as a result, Pelosi can simply declare him an enemy combatant. He won't be prosecuted, but he can be kept in jail indefinitely.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
  68. Johnny

    No Jack,
    nobody operating in that capacity should receive immunity prior to answering for his actions.
    Thats another problem with this country, we encourage, more than any other society, a nation of snitches.
    we need to put these people on notice that they will be held accountable for their actions, once and for all. Now THATS "change for this country".

    January 10, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  69. Joe M

    No. Just declare him an enemy combatant, and then throw away the key. Maybe a little waterboarding will make him talk.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  70. tom

    Wouldn't immunity mean he could personally take the rap with impunity – thereby giving the real initiator(s) "plausible deniability"?

    January 10, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  71. Lee

    It's nothing more than a smokescreen. Granting immunity will not mean that he will tell the truth. Under oath, that means nothing anymore.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:15 pm |
  72. Pat

    Give him immunity. Who cares about terror suspects, they arent even humans, who cares if they were tortured or whether or not tapes of it were destroyed.

    Why does this damn country have a love of trying to protect people who intend to kill us, but they throw the people, just doing their jobs (Excellent work by the way), to the wolves.

    If the tapes were destroyed, and someone lied about it, I say good work to those who destroyed them and lied, you've done a great job for America...now if these bleeding hearts would just shut up and focus on the real problems in the world, we might be able to pull this country's head out of its ass.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  73. butch chailland

    why not george bale him out anyway

    January 10, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  74. George Harbin

    HELL NO, he shouldn't get immunity! Bush and his henchmen have been getting away with murder for 7 years! We need some transparency. Hopefully these CIA probes will bring on the much needed congressional action for impeachment of 2 criminals, Bush and Cheney! It's never too late!

    January 10, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
  75. Chris

    At what point do we need to start holding our government and government employees accountable for their actions? Let me give you hint...it's long overdue.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  76. Brian Williams

    Seems to me there are only two choices here. One is to refuse to testify and possibly be held in contempt. Put away until he testifies or Two. Do what others in political office do and just claim "I take responsibility" and nothing will happen and he will recieve his immunity.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  77. Mike Ray, Hoquiam Wa.

    No, They should load him, Bush, Chaney and the rest of those criminals in a plane and lock them up at the Gitmo Hotel in Cuba. They all want to fight
    terrorists well here is their chance....

    January 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  78. Steve

    No, but I'll bring the water.


    January 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  79. Troy

    Yes he should, these guys are doing their best just like our military to protect this great country from terrorism. Had this been in October 2001 just after 911, this would not be a question. It would be expected.


    January 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  80. Jeff

    Immunity? Hell no.......I say we strap him down and waterboard him until he tells us the truth!

    January 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  81. Timmy Moncrief

    I think there should be no immunity.. let the fact finders do their job..If he is being setup as the fall guy let his testimony show it and let the investigators make the decision. The American people are tired of people getting freed of all charges before an investigation begins(scooter libby). With high position comes a higher authority and they knew this could happen when they took the job.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
  82. Ivan

    Immunity, does it matter? Rodriguez is just another person Bush can pardon.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  83. Jerry

    It is insane that we are having these hearings. I don't care if the CIA, DIA or whoever used jumper cables, water boarding, electrical shock or cattle prods on the terrorist. What people don't understand is, you can't fight terrorist by playing by the same rules you use on the average criminal. You fight terrorist by taking the gloves off, and using the same rules they do...NO RULES! I think the CIA, DIA, etc need the be told, "Go get Al Quead and Osama, there are no rules, only one thing..try not to hurt innocent people."

    January 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  84. Daniel

    If he is given immunity he forfeits his 5th amendment protections and also has no reason to hide anything. I say give it to him and see if we can finally get to the bottom of something in this administration. 376 days Jack, 376 days

    January 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  85. John M. Huberty

    Congress should first gather as much information as it can without giving Mr. Rodriguez immunity. If they absolutely need Mr. Rodriguez's testimony in order to see how high the tapes destruction goes, then and only then should he be given immunity. The immunity should be conditioned on him telling the whole truth and not omitting or hiding facts. If he is given immunity now, he could conceivably assume full responsibility, saying he made a command decision when the destruction had not been officially prohibited by his superiors. Regardless, I am sure Mr. Rodriguez has a nice, cushy, well-paying, Republican-provided job waiting for him when this is all done, especially if he falls on his sword as it seems he intends.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  86. Jon Traudt

    Now is the time for Americans to once again have a nation of laws, not runagades

    January 10, 2008 at 6:18 pm |
  87. Eric

    One word... NO!

    4 words... No way in hell.

    This guy does not get anything. Either he gives his testimony free and clear or subpoena him. He refuses to come and testify throw him in jail for refusing the subpoena.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:19 pm |
  88. Diane Woods

    Ya GOTTA be kiddin' me! Immunity to testify? Ooops, I forgot, this is Bushco and everyone gets immunity whetther they testify about something or just "can't recall". My Bad. Silly me, I think of this country as it SHOULD be, not the way that actually IS. And like I wish it was again. I think that those "smart old dead guys" did pretty good job of putting this country together what with the Constitution and all. Not to mention that revolution that they held to get us here.

    Diane, Houston

    January 10, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  89. Fred Schaefer

    No immunity unless he received orders to destroy the tapes ,and identify, under oath, the person/s giving the order.

    If it was his decision – prison.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  90. rick elderbaum

    jack, are you kidding? that is a funny question, gave me a good laugh! throw all these clowns in jail thats where bush and his puppets belong maybe waterboard them, see if they talk then.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:20 pm |
  91. Mark S.

    I think that anything he did was in the best interests of our country. Everyone wants anwsers, but they dont see that to get the anwsers takes certain tactics. Tactics that I don't even like myself, but these things must happen. We might not like it, but I feel good knowing that someone is doing it in the interests of my safety.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  92. George DeSerres

    Water board him. If it will get the truth from them, it will work for us.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  93. Thomas Stephens

    Dear Jack,How can we expect any truth out of a society that still believes a 757 hit the Pentagon? Maybe they should give CNN reporter Jamie Macintyre imunity to tell the truth about what he saw that day and therein begin a cascade of truthiness into what got all this crap started? Find the source Jack and it will all fall asunder.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  94. Juan Carlos Alicea

    Whatever happened to "the buck stops here?" When someone commits a crime in the course of most jobs, he or she will not only be fired, but will go to prison. Instead, Rodriguez retired and wants to walk away without consequences. What job allows someone to do something illegal and then not get in trouble for it? I guess Rodriguez is just following the President's lead.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  95. Tom Santone

    If this is the only way to get to the bottom of this, then yes. Give him immunity, but only as a last resort.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  96. chuck

    Are you kidding me?

    January 10, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  97. eric

    Jack: If this dweeb want's immunity, obviously by telling the truth, he'll implicate others. I'm sick and tired of seeing all these investigations go nowhere, and it appears this one will also. Hell yes, give him immunity...I would love to see him give testimony that would lead to the 'pulling of Cheney and the flushing of Bush'.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:22 pm |
  98. Malcolm from San Diego

    Well of course he should. While were at it why not give every murderer, burglar, rapist, child molester, and kidnapper immunity too. Heck, why not just throw out the entire system of law and give everybody a free pass. For Mr. Rodriguez to receive immunity for blatantly breaking the law on such a gross scale is prepostorous. Someone needs to tell him and his attorney that he did the crime, now he must do the time. It's called justice, oh wait, that's not his department.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  99. Danny

    Jack, this is a little bit off topic but, why does Wolf Blitzer look so serious ? He reminds me of the Terminator, all serious, doesnt smile and moves like a robot... does he go out or is he always in the Situation Room 24/7 ? If so give the man a break...

    January 10, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  100. Jay

    He should absolutely not get imunity. People in postitions of authority or public office need to be held acountable to the utmost highest standards. We the people need to let it be know that our public offices and positions of authority are not to be usurped by dishonesty greed and other not so honerable intentions.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  101. Troy

    What’s the point of refusing immunity? Bush will pardon him, if he is actually convicted of a crime. As long as Bush has his ‘pardon pen’ handy, Republicans get a ‘Get Out Of Jail Free Card’ and are therefore above the law.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
  102. George Overton

    The "president" is the President and the President ONLY. He is not and was never elected (or slolen) to be the "KING". Therefore neither he nor his lackies are above the law. You do not get favorable "deals" after you take it upon yourself to break the Constitutional laws of this country. Torture is toture and that is against our laws. And in the leadership positions they are in their, actions just might be considered as "TREASONISH". Or at least worthy of either empeachment of a stint in REGULAR jail with all other criminals.
    A free pass to tell us the truth as to what happened..?????.....HELL NO.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:24 pm |
  103. David Fuller

    Destroying evidence is, in my opinion, an admission of guilt and therefore immunity should not be granted. It is common-sense that if the average American would detest the method of interrogation, no matter the results, then we should not condone its use by those we elect, or whom our elected officials appoint, in our name. I find it deplorable that being an American abroad is often more of an indictment than an honor. Such is the result of our inability to hold ourselves to the same standards we seem to attempt to hold others. Immunity is not a negotiable item. If you do the crime, you do the time. Being an American should be an honor, not an excuse.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
  104. Jim Jensen

    Sometimes it is prudent to give a little fish immunity so that you have the needed information to go after the big fish. I see nothing wrong with giving Rodriguez immunity.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm |
  105. eugene,maryland

    jack,i think the person who needs immunity is you for never reading my mails

    January 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm |
  106. jeff

    let congress waterboard him

    January 10, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
  107. Brian

    Giving immunity will only perpetuate the systemic and situational problems with the chain of command. Torture is not a necessary action to gain "actionable intelligence." Soldiers that were given tacit approval in Abu Ghraib to "break down" their detainees are serving their time. Why shouldn't this covert employee? No immunity, reprimand immediately and harshly.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:28 pm |
  108. Mark

    Definitely not! If congress grants immunity to him, then it will only be a matter of time before anybody brought before Congress will snub their nose at them. Congress needs to learn that accountability is a GOOD thing. It makes our country stronger, and makes us all feel a little bit more.... patriotic.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  109. Stephen

    Not only should he get amnisity but the Democratic leadership and the liberal press should forget the whole thing. Why are these Americans concerned about some Islamic terrioriest who has sworned to killing all the Americans they can. I say if some were subjected to water-boarding then good. At least there still alive, which is more then can be said for all the Americans that have been captured by these barbaric animals. This is only an attempt from the Democratic leadership to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Of course their good at that.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  110. Jonathan Diehl

    Absolutely not. He contradicted people all the way up to the President's council, all for what sounds like avoiding an "awkward moment," politically speaking. That man needs immunity like a shark needs satellite radio.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  111. George

    Let him refuse to talk.

    Just waterboard him till he does!

    We have ways...

    January 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  112. bobby clyde

    If this CIA official wants immunity, he should contact the Attouney General of West Texas, Johny Sutton. He gave immunity to a known drug smuggler plus a free border pass allowing him to continue to smuggle. But his immunity is about to run out when caught the third time. The moral of the story is; immunity today, no trust and job tomorrow.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:29 pm |
  113. Rebecca

    Jack I am sure he will get immunity and no he should not have it. If I did something like that do you think for even a second I would get immunity? Nope they would throw me in jail till I talked.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm |
  114. pam

    no he should not.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm |
  115. Bodhisattva

    If we can break every bone in his hand first? Sure!

    January 10, 2008 at 6:33 pm |
  116. Sean S.

    Of course give him immunity! How often do get the chance to peak behind the curtains of the CIA? Especially in our present circumstance – the post-9/11 world – we should be following leads concerning the CIA and Al Qaeda as far as possible. Although I suspect that ultimately we won't be allowed to hear him if he has anything truly significant to tell...

    January 10, 2008 at 6:37 pm |
  117. Joe Greer

    The American people are sick and tired of this administration's relentless disregard for the truth. It seems no one is willing to testify without immunity and some are only willing to testify so long as it's not sworn testimony.

    We have erased emails, destroyed video tapes, and smoking guns of cover-ups everywhere. Perpetrators of these crimes against the people must be held accountable or we are setting a precedent for a future of unparalleled abuse.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:45 pm |
  118. Vinnie Vino

    Only people who have something to hide want immunity for thier testimony. If the Congress has to play let's make a deal to get fruitful information out of him to prove a bigger crime then by all means they should grant it. However they should implement a deal like they used to judge a person on the gong show. The better the act was the better the sorce in his case the more useful his testimony is to the case the better the immunity deal.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
  119. diane

    Americans are being used and abused by George H. Bush. He has controlled this country since 1979. There was no Ronald (the actor Reagan) and Bill Clinton and George W. were as we all know plants to be controlled by George W.
    Do not allow him to do it again get Bloomberg in. Our only chance he cannot be bought.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  120. Allen, Hartwell GA

    If the country can put this to bed and get on with getting on, why not?

    January 10, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
  121. Sean S.

    Oh, and he's CIA, so really he's already got 'immunity' anyway. Let's be honest with each other here: the CIA is above the law, and perhaps this is necessary. At least we may be able to shed some democracy-strengthening light into that spy club long enough to learn something vitally important.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:49 pm |
  122. sam

    Why does America always and has always hid behind laws that are outmoded and outrun by the new face of islamic fundamentalists violating our constitutional rights by violence and destroying the fate of our world ofr our children and our children's children .The fate of this country is at stake whether we like it or not , the america of yester years is long gone a new beginning is yearned and sought by the america people and the new wave of talk about change in the ongoing elections attest to that .
    I feel strongly that the president in his wisdom just has always wanted to do right by the america people and in doing so he has violated so many laws when he should at first and formost tried to change some of theselaws to reflect our times.
    no immunity, it is too late

    January 10, 2008 at 6:49 pm |
  123. martha

    Are the candidates getting their paycheck as usual, because they are not working in their states

    January 10, 2008 at 6:52 pm |
  124. Tam Warner Minton

    Is there ever an end to the illegalities of this administration? Certainly he should have a "deal" IF he has information that can lead to the dismissal and conviction of those who would actually condone torture in the USA>

    January 10, 2008 at 6:53 pm |
  125. dickie stowell

    Jack: Letrs stop being so nice describing such job descriptions put out by the deceivers. for example the constant use of "lobbyist" there is nothing productive about these miscreants, their employment cant possibly be called a "JOB" actually they are go betweens for the corporations and the politicians (I use the term loosely) much the same as the go between a "John" and a lady of the night, and that spells P I M P in anybody's book.
    Sic Em Jack

    January 10, 2008 at 6:53 pm |
  126. Jim

    All of this talk about experience seems to be more of the same thing that negative advertising promotes. Whoever becomes president will have to put together a cabinet of qualified individuals who will have have a staff of capable individuals who will have to get the ball rolling, or negotiating and brokering deals. The president will need the ability to appoint experienced people more than his own experience.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:54 pm |
  127. Tom Clark

    The ultimate nasty political move would be to have a well known, rich republican (i.e. Bloomberg) change party to Independent. Being unchallenged, he would make it to the general election ballot where he would draw just enough votes away from the democrat candidate for a republican victory in November.

    January 10, 2008 at 6:56 pm |
  128. ed

    Does it really matter Jack ! I mean immunity or not he"ll just end up with a pardon. Just like all the other Bushes cronies and political allies

    January 10, 2008 at 6:57 pm |
  129. Kathleen

    Yes, because he's a small player in this whole thing. We need to hear the truth about what really happened to those tapes and why. If giving him immunity will h will guarantee that we hear the truth, then giving him immunity is worth the price.

    January 10, 2008 at 7:06 pm |
  130. Joseph Alvores

    I can't believe the American people. I'm almost ashamed to be american anymore. Civilized............tell that to the victims of the beheadings....Here you go for being civilized.....Pull out all americans in Iraq, come ahome and then drop nuclear weapons till they surrender and then send in Isreal to do the door to door cleanup in the insurgents and terrorists and then make it the United States of Iraq. Im sick of hearing the dummies talk about the torture meathods and the war in general. Im tired of it. The 911 attack and the beheadings and Osama bin Laden, all that crap is more than enough excuse and reason to find out information about their secrets. What happened to this country? When we dropped 2 Atomic bombs on Japan you couldnt walk down the streets of New York because of the celibrations.....What the Hell happened, we won and Japan didnt....I say exterminate with extream prejudiceJoseph

    January 10, 2008 at 7:11 pm |
  131. Michael M Phx AZ

    Immunity, of course not. He defied Congressional requests to leave the tapes alone. Is he a fall guy, or someone who was acting on his own. I don't think he acted on his own, but was blindly following orders like the rest of them. Anyone who willingly decieves the Congress and especially the citizens must pay the price, and this inludes everyone associated with Bush and Cheneyl (especially Cheney).

    January 10, 2008 at 7:12 pm |
  132. Dottie

    Isn't immunity always given whenever it is to protect the lies of this Administration, I do not think they even have to ask for immunity anymore it is automatic.

    January 10, 2008 at 7:25 pm |
  133. Gary Mosse

    Hi Jack,
    Why make a deal with a crook?
    Reporters are put in jail until they talk. Why is an official working for "We the People" allowed to stonewall?
    Judges who side with KING GEORGE in obstruction of justice should have their name & picture in the news eveery day.

    January 10, 2008 at 8:08 pm |
  134. carla

    ya know, i don"t believe in immunity for people that commit serious crimes, but in this case, i would say , yes, as long as he could get a conviction for the man at the top.

    January 10, 2008 at 8:21 pm |
  135. carla

    I like Edwin B's last sentence

    January 10, 2008 at 8:25 pm |
  136. Doug Pierson

    Whats to question? No he should not get immunity...not only no, but hell no. Somewhere in this administration there needs to be some accountability. It needs to start someplace so why not here. Come on folks this is not in the same league as a mistake. Maybe somewhere a chink in the administrative armor will open up and all the nasty, dirty, underhanded misuse of power will become visible to the public.

    January 10, 2008 at 9:20 pm |
  137. Willie

    Has anyone mentioned that Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (Billary) had some of the worse interactions with congress? Has anyone mentioned that Bill Clinton is an impeached president? Has anyone mentioned that he lied to a federal prosecutor and defiled the office of the presidency? Why does anyone still listen to him? Can you imagine the hostility in Washington if Billary is elected? You think nothing is getting done now....

    January 10, 2008 at 10:08 pm |
  138. schellot lamisere

    i think it is now time for all the republicans to take sometime off. because they had done enough crazy things to this country.
    so lelt let the democrat do what s best for america at this moment
    schellot from boston

    January 10, 2008 at 10:41 pm |
  139. Bernie B.

    Ron Paul has my vote: Response to tonight's Presidential Candidate's Debate
    Bernie B.
    Wildwood, NJ

    January 10, 2008 at 10:49 pm |
  140. Rick

    No, he shouldn't be granted immunity....just like there shouldn't even be an investigation.

    Judge Kennedy ordered the administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

    The tapes in questions were not made in GITMO, they were not made on US soil and they were not made at US facilities. The court order had nothing at all to do with the interrogations that were taped. The court order did not mention, hint, suggest or require maintaining any other evidence, just that relating to GITMO.

    This is why we need a poll-test....idiots who have no clue can vote.

    January 10, 2008 at 10:51 pm |
  141. Len Albuq New Mexico

    Jack, What else is new? Look how many of these guys have been served a subpoena and did'nt even show up or testify. All of these guys think that they are above the law. Jose and Alberto are Bush's appointee's and they are not going to roll over on him. But there not sure he won't pardon them if they tell the truth. If you're not guilty or don't have anything to hide, why would you request immunity? I think pretty soon Bush and Cheney will be scrambling for the exits. It won't be as nice of a send off like Richard Nixon got. The American people have had about as much as they are going to take.

    January 11, 2008 at 12:39 am |
  142. Jaf from Connecticut

    During last night republican debate, did Fred Thompson with his comment about Iran mean that he would be a "Commander In Chief" who would head a military force going to countries raping virgins?

    Comments as such are simply the problem of us understanding how to approach dealing with Middle East mentality!

    January 11, 2008 at 1:25 am |
  143. Claudia

    Charge him with 'war crimes' and let him participate in his own defense. And make sure he doesn't get a pension!

    January 11, 2008 at 2:41 am |
  144. Richard

    New One: Progressive Insurance in Cleveland, OH. After laying off there whole IT, customer service department right before Christmas. Now after the new years is going to pay 1 million per year to buy the naming rights of the Cleveland baseball stadium. If this is not BIG Corp and there treatment on the middle class workers. And, back in 2007 Sept, there were named best place to work in Cleveland.

    January 11, 2008 at 7:55 am |
  145. Joe Tyrrell

    Only if he has ifo that is important and cannot be obtained from othr sources. He vry well might bring BUsh down.

    (This is not a duplicate.)

    Joe in Delware

    January 11, 2008 at 8:23 am |
  146. JC Topeka, KS

    Absolutely not, if he is innocent of being involved in crimminal activites then he does not need immunity. If he acted either on his own or on behalf of higher ups that he knew were wrong, then he might want to start thinking of working a deal for information, but blanket immunity never.

    While I am all for supporting the decisions of individual holding difficult positions requiring that they make the tough decisions, the decision to destroy the tapes does not fall into this category. Had they been worryed about the identities of the interogators, the tapes would either not have been made to begin with, or steps would have been taken to conceal their idenities. Someone in the CIA or the adminstration were worried that these tapes would get out not to the bad guys, however I guess that a matter of interpetation, but to the media, the Congress, the American people, and they were not prepared to face the wrath that would have fallen upon them if the tapes had ever been made public.

    If the material upon the tapes was truley classified, we have procedures in place that will prevent anyone deemed not having a need to know that information from ever seeing it. This was more than just a routine matter to protect the identies of the interigators.

    January 11, 2008 at 9:24 am |
  147. Leona

    Hi Jack,

    I do not think he should get immunity. I also think that Bush should be impeached. I have sat back and watched how we let this administration get away with so much. It almost make me ashamed. The world must think we are really stupid. When people voted for Bush and not Kerry...........I knew it was a mistake. I hope we do not do this again. I hope we have more of a say in the next adminstration , at the least he or she will listen to the people. That adminstration needs to be charged and go to trail vs the People

    January 11, 2008 at 9:48 am |
  148. AJ

    It's time we started holding our Government officials to a HIGHER standard than we do everyone else, not a lower standard. These folks are the ones that are protecting our liberties and upholding the constitution. Our government officials help shape policy that define our way of life and policy that tells the rest of the world what it is to be an American. It is a sacred trust that we the people bestow upon our officials and we should always be able to know without a shred of doubt that these individuals are doing the right thing and making us proud. We, as Americans should be able to walk anywhere in the world with our heads held high with the knowledge that we are citizens of the greatest, most honorable nation in the world. When our officials commit acts that are less than honorable, they need to be held accountable, for those acts stain the honor of us all.

    January 11, 2008 at 9:52 am |
  149. Leona

    I mean trial...........lol I love you Jack. I think you are great!! I have been listening and watching you for a long time. Again , They all need to face the process like we little people do. How often do you hear about immunity in every day life , for every day people. Not often I am your fan

    January 11, 2008 at 9:52 am |
  150. Chuck

    Jack; NO!..I don't think he should get immunity. WATERBOARD HIM! If he still doesn't want to talk.....WATERBOARD HIM SOME MORE! (I oft times wonder,...is D.C. where they got the idea for the show LET'S MAKE A DEAL?)

    Chuck OH

    January 11, 2008 at 10:21 am |
  151. William Spivey

    Jack why am i not surprised. You have to rember that he is a Bushman.

    January 11, 2008 at 10:45 am |
  152. DOUG

    As I watched the Republican debates last night something struck me. One of the Republican's referenced the Decmoratic party, I believe it was Thompson. He spoke of the democrats as if they we the enemy of the Republicans. The enemies of the Republican party, is Bin Laden, A poor economy, inadequate schools, the sub-prime meltdown, weak border partols, job loss, corporate scoundrels, special interests and a broken health care system, not the Democrats and vice-versa. And no-one has spoken about the so called war on drugs, which has ravaged the lives of many people in America especially in my neighborhoods. It's time for America to understand the real enemy here. We are not independants, republicans or democrats we are Americans First and this message needs to be promoted amoung the candidates. You guys should have a segment called "the average American" where you get the flavor of how the average Joe such as myself is feeling about the political state of America.

    January 11, 2008 at 12:02 pm |
  153. Linda Sturch

    I was finally able to get your book. I just wanted to tell you how much I am enjoying it. It is so down to earth and I love a lot of your comments. I enjoy watching you every night on the Situation room. Keep up the good work and I will be looking forward to your next book.


    January 11, 2008 at 1:02 pm |
  154. Sam Elakkad

    give him the immunity, we need the entire truth so we know what our government is doing so we can elect Ron Paul.

    January 11, 2008 at 4:33 pm |
  155. Jay

    No action in any organization occurs without the approval or cooperation of the people in change.
    If these people tortured without approval of Rumsfeld, Cheney and (Assistant president) Bush, then they should be aggressively sought out and punished by the administration and the justice department. If they were under orders, then they need to be aggressively sought out and prosecuted, with their bosses, by congress. If they distroyed this evidence, we should consider this to be treason, and punishable by death.

    The reason we have 3 branches of government is to assure checks and balances. It is time for this to work. Congress needs to act. The Judiciary needs to order compliance. Bush needs to cover his A.... there are incoming..... from Congress. The court needs to order the Exec Branch to comply.

    If we don't hurry, Cheney will have resigned and moved to Bahrain and we won't be able to extradict him for trial!!!

    Our public outcry needs to be, "take them down!!!!!"

    January 11, 2008 at 5:21 pm |