Larisa Alexandrovna - Okay, here is the problem with flatland journalism in yet another example of Michael Isikoff playing with facts as though they were opinion:

The CIA repeatedly asked White House lawyer Harriet Miers over a two-year period for instructions regarding what to do with "very clinical" videotapes depicting the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques on two top Al Qaeda captives, according to former and current intelligence officials familiar with the communications (who requested anonymity when discussing the controversial issue). The tapes are believed to have included evidence of waterboarding and other interrogation methods that Bush administration critics have described as torture.

Sorry, Bush critics? Which critics would that be? The Geneva conventions? Seriously, welcome to flatland where the world is no longer round, but may be flat depending whose opinion you present. In flatland journalism, both fact and opinion are presented on equal footing and offered up by the so-called impartial journalist in order to be fair and balanced. Waterboarding is torture. This is not an opinion of Bush critics, but of the world courts and treaties to which the US is a signatory.

Now for the news in the article, which is buried, so I will cut to the chase (emph mine):

Senior officials of the CIA's National Clandestine Service finally decided on their own authority in late 2005 to destroy the tapes—which were kept at a secret location overseas—after failing to elicit clear instructions from the White House or other senior officials on what to do with them, according to one of the former intelligence officials with direct knowledge of the events in question. An extensive paper—or e-mail—trail exists documenting the contacts between Clandestine Service officials and top agency managers and between the CIA and the White House regarding what to do about the tapes, according to two former intelligence officials.

A detailed written transcript of the tapes' contents—apparently including references to interrogation techniques—was subsequently made by the CIA. But the tapes themselves were never brought onto U.S. territory; they were kept, and later destroyed, at a secret location overseas. At one point portions of the tapes were electronically transmitted to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., so a small number of officials there could review them. A counterterrorism source, who also asked for anonymity when discussing this subject, said that there was no reason to believe that any recordings of such an electronic feed still exist.

The reason CIA officials involved the White House and Justice Department in discussions about the disposition of the tapes was that CIA officials viewed the CIA's terrorist interrogation and detention program—including the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques—as having been imposed on the agency by the White House. "It was a political issue," said the former official, and therefore CIA officials believed that the decision as to what to do with the tapes should be made at a political level, by Miers—a former personal lawyer to President Bush and later White House staff secretary and counsel—or someone else directly representing the president.

"CIA officials viewed the CIA terrorist interrogation and detention program... as having been imposed by the White House?" Are you kidding me? Flatland journalism is now the norm at Newsweek.

Seriously, why would CIA officials view the torture program (use the damn word Isikoff) as having been "imposed by the White House?" Did they just all get up one morning and suddenly have this view? Were there no memos written, orders given, legal gymnastics done in order to make the WH dreams of torture a reality?

First of all, after having been told to conduct more aggressive interrogations (torture), the CIA wanted a legal "safety net" in advance, and approached the White House for legal permission.

"The Office of Legal Counsel is the federal government's ultimate legal adviser. The most significant and sensitive topics that the federal government considers are often given to the OLC for review. In this case, the memorandum was signed by Jay S. Bybee, the head of the office at the time. Bybee's signature gives the document additional authority, making it akin to a binding legal opinion on government policy on interrogations. Bybee has since become a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals."

Bush did not hold Bybee accountable and neither did the Senate. Instead, Bybee is now a judge, clearly illustrating that he did what he was told, interpret the law in such a way as to allow torture.

Read all at AtLargley