On November 14, 2007, a report from McClatchy told us that tapes of "harsh" interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects had been made. Their existence first became known during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.
...The disclosure that the government taped some interrogations of high-value detainees could invite fresh scrutiny of the CIA's treatment of so-called "enemy combatants" who were held at secret prisons or U.S. bases overseas.
According to a McClatchy report, government prosecutors told two judges of the tapes' existence in mid-September -- after the trials. One of the two judges was Judge Leonie Brinkema who presided over the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.
Today, December 7, the New York Times carries the story forward.
The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.
The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.
Materials of this kind involving the interrogation of suspected 9/11 participants should have been turned over to the 9/11 commission.
The destruction of the tapes raises questions about whether agency officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the program.
This morning, a dolorous, recalcitrant Philip Zelikow, was interviewed on NPR. Zelikow, executive director of the 9/11 commission, is someone who would tend to be protective of the Bush administration. He described how the commission asked for all relevant materials to be handed over to the commission and the tapes were not in the net.
The New York Times also interviewed Zelikow.
"The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,' said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and later as a senior counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."
Withholding and then destroying evidence is defended by the current CIA director, Michael Hayden.
In a statement to employees on Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, said that the decision to destroy the tapes was made “within the C.I.A.” and that they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value.
General Hayden’s statement said that the tapes posed a “serious security risk” and that if they had become public they would have exposed C.I.A. officials “and their families to retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.”
Current and former intelligence officials said that the decision to destroy the tapes was made by Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., who was the head of the Directorate of Operations, the agency’s clandestine service. Mr. Rodriguez could not be reached Thursday for comment.
Two former intelligence officials said that Porter J. Goss, the director of the agency at the time, was not told that the tapes would be destroyed and was angered to learn that they had been.
"The safety of undercover officers" and "serious security risk" is one way of describing it. The most serious risk for CIA agents who participate in illegal interrogations is prosecution. The tapes probably showed illegal forms of "harsh interrogation." Torture is the likely reason for the destruction of the tapes. Waterboarding is suspected.
But carrying this forward into some kind of investigation and eventual prosecution depends on Congress. Where is Congress on this issue?
The disclosures about the tapes are likely to reignite the debate over laws that allow the C.I.A. to use interrogation practices more severe than those allowed to other agencies. A Congressional conference committee voted late Wednesday to outlaw those interrogation practices, but the measure has yet to pass the full House and Senate and is likely to face a veto from Mr. Bush.
Of course, once again we may have to watch from the sidelines as the whole matter is allowed to slide and ultimately buried, in spite of -- or rather because of -- its implications for the White House.
Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.
If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.
The Washington Post has this:
The waterboarding ban was added to the 2008 intelligence authorization bill through an amendment offered by one of the few Democrats to support Mukasey, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Under the amendment, no prisoner in U.S. custody "shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual."
The Army field manual on interrogations was amended last year to explicitly prohibit eight aggressive and controversial interrogation tactics, including some methods used on military prisoners at the Abu Ghraib detention facility in Iraq and the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The manual also singles out the use of waterboarding.
"The national debate over torture will end if this amendment to place the CIA under the Army Field Manual becomes law," Feinstein said in a statement.
But Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) accused Democrats of trying "to kill an important tool in our efforts to fight terror."
Comments