CIA eliminates incriminating evidence, destroys interrogation tapes

Given the last seven years, expectations are already low for the administration that’s never seen justice it didn’t want to obstruct. But intentionally destroying evidence of a possible crime, in the midst of ongoing legal inquiries, suggests the Bush gang’s contempt for the rule of law can’t get much worse.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed, it arguably does more than just “raise questions”; it may point to actual criminal wrongdoing, intended to cover up more criminal wrongdoing. As Sullivan put it, “What defines [a banana] republic? How about an executive that ignores the rule of law, commits war-crimes and then destroys the actual evidence? … We live in a country where the government can detain indefinitely, torture in secret, and then secretly destroy the tapes of torture sessions to protect its own staff.”

It’s that bad and more.

The NYT has reportedly been working on the story for weeks, and sought comment from the CIA on Wednesday about the story that was poised to run. In response, CIA Director Hayden hoped to take some control of the revelations yesterday, issuing a statement to the agency’s employees about the administration’s decision to destroy evidence.

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.” […]

In his statement, General Hayden said leaders of Congressional oversight committees had been fully briefed about the existence of the tapes and told in advance of the decision to destroy them. But the two top members of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 said Thursday that they had not been notified in advance of the decision to destroy the tapes.

The explanation is neither helpful nor accurate. First, destroying evidence to protect CIA officials from terrorists is absurd.

Tom Malinowski, Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said General Hayden’s claim that the tapes were destroyed to protect C.I.A. officers “is not credible.”

“Millions of documents in C.I.A. archives, if leaked, would identify C.I.A. officers,” Mr. Malinowski said. “The only difference here is that these tapes portray potentially criminal activity. They must have understood that if people saw these tapes, they would consider them to show acts of torture, which is a felony offense.”

Second, Hayden’s argument about congressional oversight is apparently bogus. The leading Republican on the House Intelligence Committee at the time was, according to his spokesperson, “never briefed or advised that these tapes existed, or that they were going to be destroyed,” and believes Congress “should have been informed and consulted before the C.I.A. did anything with the tapes.” Likewise, the top Democrat on the Committee said she urged the CIA not to destroy any evidence, asking, “How in the world could the C.I.A. claim that these tapes were not relevant to a legislative inquiry?”

Ultimately, the Bush administration hid the evidence from lawmakers, federal investigators, a federal court, and the 9/11 Commission — and then destroyed it. Just when it seemed this administration couldn’t possibly get worse, it gets worse.

Given this report, it’s hardly unreasonable for Congress to demand a criminal investigation by the Justice Department of the CIA and anyone in the White House who may have authorized the destruction of evidence. It’s a no-brainer — the Bush administration appears to have committed a crime in order to cover up another crime.

Will Attorney General Michael Mukasey rise to the challenge, or will he be Alberto Gonzales?

The central argument from the administration has been that what they were doing was 1) totally legal, and 2) extremely valuable in extracting information.

*IF* that were true, the tapes would be a valuable resource. The information gleaned from the suspected terrorists would need to be preserved in the records, and the tapes could even be used as training for proper/legal interrogations.

But if the activity on the tapes were illegal, and/or the information of no probative value, well, then all the better to get rid of them…

  • Maybe they have a limited supply of videotapes. I know that’s what I do whenever I need to record something. I go to my stack of old tapes and record over the ones I don’t need anymore — for TV shows I know own on DVD, tapes “no longer had intelligence value.”

    I’m sure that’s what happened at the CIA. “You need those old ‘Seinfelds’? ‘Cause I’m busting Habib’s balls and I wanna record it to show at the Christmas party.”

  • i know pelosi and reid won’t agree with me, but isn’t it really time to put impeachment back on the table?

  • This needs to be deeply investigated. If the tapes are destroyed in 2002, that evidence is gone, and ALL of America will conclude they were destroyed to hide the evidence of felonies. There are many many associated aspects to the Bush administration’s authorization of torture by the CIA in particular but other agencies as well.

    The ACLU has gathered thousands of documents pursuant to its investigation of the American torture of foreign individuals, and a couple of emails, with senders and receivers heavily redacted, refer to Bush’s “Executive Order” permitting the CIA to conduct torture, I believe at Guantanamo. I recall that one of the emails was from someone in the FBI trying to get clarification about what they were permitted to do vis a vis what the CIA was doing that involved much more “severe” techniques than what the FBI was allowed. The responsibility for this illegal torture needs to be laid bare.

    The first torture memos were written in response to a CIA request to the Justice Department for guidance on how far they could go in interrogating a prisoner they believed had valuable information. At the time, the CIA was apparently very concerned about the legality of their options. The “torture memos” pretty much gave the CIA a free hand, though as we see now, the memos apparently didn’t alleviate their concerns about the legality of the methods they were using. Someone must have insisted on getting Bush’s imprimature on the program, and it appears from those emails that he gave it through that Executive Order, unless Rumsfeld just told everybody Bush had signed one.

    Anyway, what, exactly, can the House Intelligence Committee do if the tapes are destroyed? Maybe the CIA actors who destroyed the tapes can be severely disciplined or even prosecuted, but the videotaped proof of torture is now gone.

    I just wish Congress would tackle the problem of torture itself rather than getting hung up on missing proofs, though I suppose they must do something so there will be consequences for the destruction of evidence. Maybe someone will have to go to jail for obstruction of justice. But won’t Bush pardon that person, just as he did Libby?

    What America is learning is that the government can continue to flout the law by flouting it thoroughly.

    =====

    Also, FWIW, I mentioned in one of yesterday’s threads that Osama bin Laden was not on the FBI’s most wanted list for 911 because there’s no evidence he was. The Times piece today says this:

    In a speech last year, President Bush said that information from Mr. Zubaydah had helped lead to the capture in 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

    Sorry, America, but Bush is now saying that OBL DIDN’T mastermind 911. Maybe this is why his rhetoric about OBL shifted from “Wanted, Dead or Alive” to “I don’t even think about him any more”. So why is the US in Afghanistan?

    =====

    I dunno, the web of lies is evil, it’s huge, and it issues from the top of the heap down through the ranks.

    The big question now is what Congress will do. Will they just authoritatively criticize the CIA, or will they actually get to the real source of who authorized the illegal torture and prosecute them? Will Congress ever experience enough outrage that they’ll do something effective to bring justice to government thugs and liars?

  • This is the Administration trying at this late date to become fiscally responsible. Ya see, if those videotapes had become public knowledge then the inquisitors would’ve been exposed as criminals. Being criminals would make them eligible for promotion to a higher paying job in the Bush administration (aka crime family). Isn’t it nice they’re saving us money?

  • What is it about republican presidents and tapes? Or, more correctly, the erasure of tapes. At least Nixon said it was an accident. Wow. When the current administration starts making Nixon look good, we are in deep doo-doo (oh, wait, that was Reagan).

  • Like they couldn’t block out the faces of those doing the ‘interrogating’ like is done on all sorts of low budget reality-based TV shows these days.

    This also calls into question the entire 9/11 report. It may be time for this new Congress to establish a new group to fully investigate 9/11 AND the acts of this Sadministration in its efforts to cover up its intentional wrongdoing and other general incompetence.

  • Of course destroying the tapes protects them from terrorists…Democrats and lawyers, that is. Haven’t the Republicans been claiming all along that Democrats are allied with terrorists? Now we know why, because they are terrified by Dems.

  • “officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risk.”

    Guilty as sin. The CIA is acknowledging that the charades of the Bushies will eventually end and they will be found guilty once a new administration comes into power.

  • Like bubba said, they could have blocked out the faces on the released tapes, so their lame excuse doesn’t hold water AT ALL. I’d say it’s also probable that the interregators were wearing ski masks anyway so that the detainee couldn’t see who they were. Being tortured by masked men. Can you imagine?

    And let’s not forget that a lot of prisoners were simply a way for various warlords to make money, as we were handing out bricks of cash to anyone who would hand over an Arab and tell us a scary story. One more thing… a lot of the detainees died during these sessions of “enhanced interrogation”.

    Each outrage makes me feel like we’re spiraling faster and faster towards the drain. We have become very much like the Nazis, who we of course put on trial for doing things just like this. Do we not care what the world thinks of us? Are we so afraid of a few thugs that we have to become a nation of criminals? Are we so stupid that we think this kind of criminal behavior is going to reduce terrorism?

    If Pelosi and Reid let this stand then we’ll deserve what the Nazis got. A place in infamy.

  • Carol: “they are terrified by Dems.”

    You gotta be kidding me.

    Pelosi and Reid are so worthless it makes me puke. You watch, all those assholes will skate.

  • How, exactly, do we go about holding Harman and Rockefeller accountable? This, from Marty Lederman (emphasis in the original) :

    Except that one thing should be emphasized: According to Hayden, “the leaders of our oversight committees in Congress were informed of the videos years ago [they didn’t ask to see them?!] and of the Agency’s intention to dispose of the material. In a news release that he put out this evening, Jay Rockefeller claims that the Intel Committees were not “consulted” on the use of the tapes “nor the decision to destroy the tapes.” But he does not deny that he was informed of the agency’s intent to dispose of the tapes, and he acknowledges that he learned of the destruction one year ago, in November 2006. And this is the first time he has said anything about it. Jay Rockefeller is constantly learning of legally dubious (at best) CIA intelligence activities, and then saying nothing about them publicly until they are leaked to the press, at which point he expresses outrage and incredulity — but reveals nothing. Really, isn’t it about time the Democrats select an effective Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one who will treat this scandal with the seriousness it deserves, and who will shed much-needed light on the CIA program of torture, cruel treatment and obstruction of evidence?

    [UPDATE: Pam Hess reports that Jane Harman also knew of the intention to destroy the tapes, and she at least “urged” the CIA in writing not to do it. (Where were her colleagues?) But when she found out the CIA had destroyed the tapes, where was Harman’s press conference? Where were the congressional hearings?]

    http://balkin.blogspot.com/

  • racerx

    I think America has already won the Nazi prize, and the Congressional refusal to stop Bush (Democrat and Republican alike) has chisled it in stone.

    I wonder how many Americans have silently wept, agonized, and reeled in shock over the Bush administration’s destruction of America’s spirit and integrity, imperfect as it might have been? But still not smashed until Bush et al came to do the job.

  • What Anne said.

    And Mr Rockefeller is the guy who was SO angry about all the foot dragging on the Phase II report, you know, the one about what Bush did with the Iraq intelligence he had, how he lied us into the war. We’re still waiting, Jay.

    We’ve been sold out, and I think we need publicly financed elections to get rid of the bastards in our own party who have allowed the Bush crime spree to continue.


  • Grumpy: “You need those old ‘Seinfelds’? ‘Cause I’m busting Habib’s balls and I wanna record it to show at the Christmas party.”

    I just thought this deserved a rerun.

  • Remember during the Padilla trial, the government “lost hundreds of hours of video taped questioning”? Hmmmm, methinks Grumpy was right, except it was Seinfeld and WestWing and Gilmore Girls they needed to tape.

    Nancy, is it back on the table yet? Don’t you people( in the Congress) realize that when the war crimes tribunals occur, you will also be tried. But come on, until we get up off our booties en masse, are we not also culpable in this?

    I think if one of the Dem presidential candidates took the last 7 years, the destruction of evidence and the new Iran NIE, Hillary would not be inevitable at all.

  • A friend of mine has suggested that Pelosi has kept impeachment off the table because she knows that Republicans are not the only ones whose dirty laundry would get an embarrassing airing if she moved forward – and I think Harman’s and Rockefeller’s year-old knowledge that the CIA was looking to destroy these tapes is just one more example of how dirty the laundry might be and that the Dems have as much to fear as the GOP.

    I don’t doubt for a minute that these committees have been held hostage and threatened with charges of treason for disclosing classified information that has been “briefed” to them, and I do hold the Bush administration responsible for creating conditions that allowed them to operate with impunity for the last seven years – and for selectively leaking classified information when it has suited then, but where are the heroes who would risk charges of treason in order to save their country?

    We have no heroes. Just cowards. People who no longer know what truth is. Greedy, self-interested shills for corporate interests. People whose real profession is not in question, only how much they will charge.

    Disgusting and sad.

  • Okay, maybe I’m late to the party since I barely watch TV, but MSNBC was showing a simulated version of waterboarding today while discussing this issue. Have they been showing this video for a while? It seemed like a) the best way to educate people on what waterboarding really is and b) a fari way to allow people to decide for themselves if they’d enjoy this form of torture being performed on themselves. The only downside was that they didn’t show the simulated victim vomiting.

  • Anne said:
    A friend of mine has suggested that Pelosi has kept impeachment off the table because she knows that Republicans are not the only ones whose dirty laundry would get an embarrassing airing if she moved forward – and I think Harman’s and Rockefeller’s year-old knowledge that the CIA was looking to destroy these tapes is just one more example of how dirty the laundry might be and that the Dems have as much to fear as the GOP.

    You really think that there would be enough votes to impeach? You really think Bush wouldn’t dangle the clemency card at enough Republicans to get his way? Why not wait till he’s out of power and then send the whole former administration to jail?

  • Well, now that we’re only a year away from an election, the argument against impeachment is that it’s almost over, so why bother?

    Why bother.

    One of the saddest and most cowardly phrases ever.

    “Why bother” says that when people break the law, it doesn’t mean anything, that it’s not worth the time or the effort or the trouble to address it.

    Do I think there would be enough votes to impeach? Is that the standard now? Are we at the point where this president and this vice president, in collusion and collaboration with untold members of the administration, have already committed so many crimes that our tolerance for them is such that “why bother?” is the best we can do?

    That’s just sad.

    And as he goes out the door, I have no doubt that pre-emptive, blanket pardons will be issued for everyone, thereby blocking any attempt to hold any of these people criminally responsible for their actions.

    The best reason I know of for impeachment is to draw the line; right now, there is no line, no limit to executive power. In recently declassified documents, we see that the president has held that he is the sole authority on what his authority is. He claims the right to ignore or deviate from executive orders as he chooses. Say hello to l’etat, c’est moi – the hell with Marbury v. Madison, right?

    That’s the legacy he leaves, the power he hands over to the next president, and if not addressed, to all succeesing presidents. I can’t speak for anyone else, but that is not what I would like to see happen.

    That’s why we should bother.

  • Anne-
    Maybe I’m naive. Can he hand out blanket pardons if no one’s been charged with anything until AFTER he’s out of office?

    Given the choice between a potential lost impeachment and a better than even chance at a post-presidential prison term, I’d choose the latter. Especially when pardoning is off the table and you’ve got a choice of flipping or going to prison.

  • Comments are closed.