Mr. Roberts:
The tapes had to be destroyed, from the perspective of the Bush administration.
If Congress can retroactively immunize criminal behavior by Bush functionaries, then a potential future Congress, more inclined to adhere to the Constitution, could retroactively void the immunity. If the ex post facto prohibition is invalid for the first case, it is equally invalid for the second; one way or the other, torturers could be prosecuted under a future administration if the evidence were to survive. Even without the tapes, a future administration could indict one person for obstructing justice, then charge peripheral persons for destroying evidence. Bush's home boys are not out of the woods, yet; but a future administration would need the will to find the truth and the cooperation of a Congress with loyalty to the Constitution. And, of course, a new Attorney General and new U.S. Attorneys would be needed.
As to the bin Laden "confession tapes", you surely remember Bush's post-9/11 meeting with a group of Hollywood film executives and producers, all of whom pledged to do whatever they could to support Bush's "war on terrorism". It is entirely possible, maybe even likely, that they produced and directed a bin Laden special.

I am responding generally to PCR. I am not sure why he is asking this question. I fear that the ultimate
purpose is to advance the total lunatic theory that the CIA/FBI/Bush JD actually planted explosives in the
tower, and hired the terrorists (or maybe it was patriotic Americans) to fly the planes into the towers. I do
not want to pursue this.
My highest complement to PCR is his argument in support of the Kansas Board of Education decision to
drop evolution from the curicculum back in 1999. My response was: Two cheers for WSJ; Three cheers
for PCR. That was 8+ years ago.
Since going internet his discussion of our police state does register with me with some reservation:
First, it is not George W. Bush's police state; the problem seems to me to be fundamental to European
law. My ideal is the law of Moses, where there is no imprisonment, involuntary service,yes, but no
prison system. I found an interesting verse in Deuteronomy 23, I believe it is verse 13,14 or 15.
The commandment is You shall NOT return an escaped slave to his master. I have asked one legal
expert whether this verse was used to defend the underground railroad back in the days of American
slavery -- he did not know. It is a perfect fit. Furthermore, I is an example of how the law of Moses
is superior to European law. When I was asked in the past whether I am homophobic, I would answer
Are you Mosephobic? Now I realize that most people assume that having the death penalty for sex
crimes ( including adultery and sodomy) is unrealistic; however, in a completely libertarian society,
where we would essentially have no hired guns representing the Law, but each man or woman having
his 2nd Amendment rights to protect him or her self ( as well as having the right NOT to bear arms),
we would be free from an overbearing police force, and we would be free of such things as sting operations.
I believe that sodomy is a crime against God, a crime against nature, and a crime against humanity,
however, for example, I side with Senator Craig even if he did in the past masterbate with other men
in airport restrooms. Furthermore, I must separate myself from my beloved Florida AG Bill McCollum
and say, I do not think we can afford to fight sexual predators by training a host of young deputies to
spend their days in front a screen pretending to be 8 year old boys.
I quit here, I will write later of my hyper-Zionist position on foreign affairs. I will just write that I
go beyond the Bush doctrine of pre-emption, and espouse the Francis Scott Key doctrine: And conquer
we must, WHEN OUR CAUSE IT IS JUST, AND THIS BE OUR MOTTO; IN GOD IS OUR TRUST,
and the Star-Spangled banner in TRIUMPH shall wave...
Happy 97th to Sir Ronald.