C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes of Interrogations in the midst of

Metrophobe · #1 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A’s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The Sept. 11 commission releasing its report on July 22, 2004.
The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

The C.I.A. said today that the decision to destroy the tapes had been made “within the C.I.A. itself,” and they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value. The agency was headed at the time by Porter J. Goss. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Goss declined this afternoon to comment on the destruction of the tapes.

The existence and subsequent destruction of the tapes are likely to reignite the debate over the use of severe interrogation techniques on terror suspects, and their destruction raises questions about whether C.I.A. officials withheld information about aspects of the program from the courts and from the Sept. 11 commission appointed by President Bush and Congress. It was not clear who within the C.I.A. authorized the destruction of the tapes, but current and former government officials said it had been approved at the highest levels of the agency.

The New York Times informed the C.I.A. on Wednesday evening that it planned to publish an article in Friday’s newspaper about the destruction of the tapes. Today, the C.I.A. director, General Michael V. Hayden, wrote a letter to the agency workforce explaining the matter.

The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and any other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.

C.I.A. lawyers told federal prosecutors in 2003 and 2005, who relayed the information to a federal court in the Moussaoui case, that the C.I.A. did not possess recordings of interrogations sought by the judge in the case. It was unclear whether the judge had explicitly sought the videotape depicting the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah.

Mr. Moussaoui’s lawyers had hoped that records of the interrogations might provide exculpatory evidence for Mr. Moussaoui — showing that the Al Qaeda detainees did not know Mr. Moussaoui and clearing him of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, plot.

General Hayden’s statement said that the tapes posed a “serious security risk,” and that if they were to become public they would have exposed C.I.A. officials “and their families to retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers.”

“What matters here is that it was done in line with the law,” he said. He said in his statement that he was informing agency employees because “the press has learned” about the destruction of the tapes.

General Hayden said in a statement that leaders of Congressional oversight committees were fully briefed on the matter, but some Congressional officials said notification to Congress had not been adequate.

“This is a matter that should have been briefed to the full Intelligence Committee at the time,” an official with the House Intelligence Committee said. “This does not appear to have been done. There may be a very logical reason for destroying records that are no longer needed; however, this requires a more complete explanation. “

Staff members of the Sept. 11 commission, which completed its work in 2004, expressed surprise when they were told that interrogation videotapes existed until 2005.

“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.

“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.

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 Al 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.

General Hayden said the tapes were originally made to ensure that agency employees acted in accordance with “established legal and policy guidelines.” General Hayden said the agency stopped videotaping interrogations in 2002.

“The tapes were meant chiefly as an additional, internal check on the program in its early stages,” his statement readIn October, federal prosecutors in the Moussaoui case were forced to write a letter to the court amending those C.I.A. declarations. The letter stated that in September, the C.I.A. notified the United States attorney’s office in Alexandria, Va., that it had discovered a videotape documenting the interrogation of a detainee. After a more thorough search, the letter stated, C.I.A. officials discovered a second videotape and one audio tape.

The letter is heavily redacted and sentences stating which detainees’ interrogations the recordings document are blacked out. Signed by the United States attorney, Chuck Rosenberg, the letter states that the C.I.A.’s search for interrogation tapes “appears to be complete.”

There is no mention in the letter of the tapes that C.I.A. officials destroyed in 2005. Mr. Moussaoui was convicted last year and sentenced to life in prison.

John Radsan, who worked as a C.I.A. lawyer from 2002 to 2004 and is now a professor at William Mitchell College of Law, said the destruction of the tapes could carry serious legal penalties.

“If anybody at the C.I.A. hid anything important from the Justice Department, he or she should be prosecuted under the false statement statute,” he said.

A former intelligence official who was briefed on the issue said the videotaping was ordered as a way of assuring “quality control” at remote sites following reports of unauthorized interrogation techniques. He said the tapes, along with still photographs of interrogations, were destroyed after photographs of abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib became public in May 2004 and C.I.A. officers became concerned about a possible leak of the videos and photos.

He said the worries about the impact a leak of the tapes might have in the Muslim world were real.

It has been widely reported that Mr. Zubaydah was subjected to several tough physical tactics, including waterboarding, which involves near-suffocation. But C.I.A. officers judged that the release of photos or videos would nonetheless provoke a strong reaction.

“People know what happened, but to see it in living color would have far greater power,” the official said.

Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey, a Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, has been pushing legislation in Congress to have all detainee interrogations videotaped so officials can refer to the tapes multiple times to glean better information.

Mr. Holt said he had been told many times that the C.I.A. does not record the interrogation of detainees. “When I would ask them whether they had reviewed the tapes to better understand the intelligence, they said ‘What tapes?’,” he said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/wa...i5SOUKK+0Rdr+w

I think this is kind of a big deal. The timing of the destruction, the "reasoning" --if you can call it that-- behind their destruction, and the outright claim that they did not exist when various commisions requested them is all really questionable. Either Bush knew about all of this, or he knew about none of it. Neither answer is acceptable.

JP5 · #2 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 04:59 PM

"The CIA only taped the interrogation of the first two terror suspects the agency held, one of whom was Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah, under harsh questioning, told CIA interrogators about alleged 9/11 accomplice Ramzi Binalshibh, Bush said in 2006.

Binalshibh was captured and interrogated and, with Zubaydah's information, led to the capture in 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the purported mastermind of the 9/11 attacks."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/..._videotapes_13

And KSM also gave up valuable information that led to more terrorirsts and saved more innocent lives.

So---let us recap for the bleeding hearts here: This harsh interrogation method that lasted only seconds or minutes at most......led to the capture of these three biggies: Zubaydah, Binalshibh, and KSM. As well as many others. It SAVED lives.

Also---recapping for you: KSM was the person who personally slashed the throat of WSJ reporter, Danny Pearl--as well as others that we witnessed on film ourselves. That was after torturing him and making him say on camera he was the son of a Jew. KSM was also the mastermind of 9/11. Would any of you care to recap how those innocent peopel on 9/11 died? They weren't just tortured for a few seconds-----they freakin' died a horrible, agonizing death----and it lasted for hours before it was all over for them. Same with the passengers on those planes who KNEW they were going to DIE.

So, please stop with your bleeding hearts here. Consider the REAL people who were tortured here. And give us all a break!!

It worked. And I'm only sorry that all the bleeding hearts caused the CIA procedure to be banned. I hope the NEXT innocent victims as a result of this banning aren't mine!

glitch · #3 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

It worked. And I'm only sorry that all the bleeding hearts caused the CIA procedure to be banned. I hope the NEXT innocent victims as a result of this banning aren't mine!

Well said. Those on the left have always seemed to care more about the comfort of the evil than the protection of the innocent.

nonsqtr · #4 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

"The CIA only taped the interrogation of the first two terror suspects the agency held, one of whom was Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah, under harsh questioning, told CIA interrogators about alleged 9/11 accomplice Ramzi Binalshibh, Bush said in 2006.

Binalshibh was captured and interrogated and, with Zubaydah's information, led to the capture in 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the purported mastermind of the 9/11 attacks."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/..._videotapes_13

And KSM also gave up valuable information that led to more terrorirsts and saved more innocent lives.

So---let us recap for the bleeding hearts here: This harsh interrogation method that lasted only seconds or minutes at most......led to the capture of these three biggies: Zubaydah, Binalshibh, and KSM. As well as many others. It SAVED lives.

Also---recapping for you: KSM was the person who personally slashed the throat of WSJ reporter, Danny Pearl--as well as others that we witnessed on film ourselves. That was after torturing him and making him say on camera he was the son of a Jew. KSM was also the mastermind of 9/11. Would any of you care to recap how those innocent peopel on 9/11 died? They weren't just tortured for a few seconds-----they freakin' died a horrible, agonizing death----and it lasted for hours before it was all over for them. Same with the passengers on those planes who KNEW they were going to DIE.

So, please stop with your bleeding hearts here. Consider the REAL people who were tortured here. And give us all a break!!

It worked. And I'm only sorry that all the bleeding hearts caused the CIA procedure to be banned. I hope the NEXT innocent victims as a result of this banning aren't mine!

I understand your sentiment, JP5.

KSM is a horrible, horrible human being.

On the other hand, that doesn't justify the torture.

And the "valuable information" doesn't justify the torture either.

Here's where I stand on this, JP (and this is my "actual feeling", I'm not saying this to be political or anything) - if you're my Prez, and you want to torture someone, then don't tell me about it, right? Make sure it's a matter of "national security" or something, so that information never sees the light of day. For sure don't make it a matter of official United States policy, that we're going to torture anyone we think might have "valuable information". That would be about the stupidest, most bone-headed thing any responsible Commander-In-Chief could do.

Are you hearing me? I mean, I understand, that there are situations like that trio you're talking about, where the "powers that be" are gonna need to do whatever they're gonna need to do. And I mean, this has been going on "forever", right? It's not like it's anything new under Bushie. Johnson and his clowns were doing the "Chemical Interrogations" during Vietnam, when they first found out that some of these "mind-altering drugs" could be useful that way, so I mean, yeah - you use the tools you have, but I mean, you gotta be careful that way, right? It's like, every time you use a fake passport, you're taking a risk, so you don't do it often, and you for sure don't tell anyone you're doing it, right?

But, you know, politicians are wierd people to begin with, and Bushie is an especially strange form of politician, so I mean, maybe he felt he had to make some kinda statement to the rest of the world, you know, like, "okay guys, you think you can mess with us - watch, we're now gonna start torturing people, and see how you like them apples" - .... you know, I "think", if I'm not mistaken, that this is kinda part of what people mean when they say "cowboy diplomacy".....

(except, you know, it's the more "refined" form of "we're gonna tie your legs to the bull's legs, and then we're gonna zap the bull's nuts with a cattle prod, and then we're gonna open the gate, and we're gonna watch you go for the ride of your life"....

) -

But you see what I'm saying right? I mean, the whole idea of making torture a part of US National Policy is just idiotic, I mean, it contravenes the Geneva Conventions and every other meaningful international treaty regarding the mutual treatment of "detainees" (call them "prisoners" or whatever other euphemism you want to use - "detainees" will work just fine) -

So I mean, you know, if you're gonna make a guy disappear out of the prison camp, you better make (*)(*)(*)(*) sure you have a plausible excuse, right? 'Cause if the rest of the prisoners see the guy going into Dr. Mengele's office and he doesn't come out, they're gonna know something's up, right?

TarBaby · #5 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

So, please stop with your bleeding hearts here. Consider the REAL people who were tortured here. And give us all a break!!

I could write out a long eloquent response to this, but I'd rather keep it short and sweet.

My mother always told me, as I'm sure yours must have, that two wrongs don't make a right. Its a very simple concept to understand. If someone does something detestable, it doesn't give you an excuse to do something awful as well. While the actions of these men are certainly reprehensible, we shouldn't stoop to their level. America was founded with the idea of being a "city on a hill" and this sort of action is below us.

...Not to mention, that if we are going to advocate torture for some barbaric reason, the least we can do is be open about it and not destroy pertinent evidence. For shame.

Metrophobe · #6 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

"The CIA only taped the interrogation of the first two terror suspects the agency held, one of whom was Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah, under harsh questioning, told CIA interrogators about alleged 9/11 accomplice Ramzi Binalshibh, Bush said in 2006.

Binalshibh was captured and interrogated and, with Zubaydah's information, led to the capture in 2003 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the purported mastermind of the 9/11 attacks."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/..._videotapes_13

And KSM also gave up valuable information that led to more terrorirsts and saved more innocent lives.

So---let us recap for the bleeding hearts here: This harsh interrogation method that lasted only seconds or minutes at most......led to the capture of these three biggies: Zubaydah, Binalshibh, and KSM. As well as many others. It SAVED lives.

Also---recapping for you: KSM was the person who personally slashed the throat of WSJ reporter, Danny Pearl--as well as others that we witnessed on film ourselves. That was after torturing him and making him say on camera he was the son of a Jew. KSM was also the mastermind of 9/11. Would any of you care to recap how those innocent peopel on 9/11 died? They weren't just tortured for a few seconds-----they freakin' died a horrible, agonizing death----and it lasted for hours before it was all over for them. Same with the passengers on those planes who KNEW they were going to DIE.

So, please stop with your bleeding hearts here. Consider the REAL people who were tortured here. And give us all a break!!

It worked. And I'm only sorry that all the bleeding hearts caused the CIA procedure to be banned. I hope the NEXT innocent victims as a result of this banning aren't mine!

Here you are defending torture when the issue is the CIA actively obstructing justice-- presumably to cover someone's ass. You can lead a horse to water...

JP5, a little advice; turn off your TV, it's rotting your mind.

nonsqtr · #7 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metrophobe";p=&quot

Here you are defending torture when the issue is the CIA actively obstructing justice-- presumably to cover someone's ass. You can lead a horse to water...

JP5, a little advice; turn off your TV, it's rotting your mind.

But that's the whole point....

*Poster requested removal of his name.*-

That's what the CIA does, right? They create and destroy evidence "at will", I mean, that's what they're supposed to do, right? That's what we pay 'em for.

I mean, my question is more along the lines of, "why do we even know about this stuff in the first place"? You know, like, if the CIA is going to off and torture someone in the name of US national security, why are they telling We the People about it? What manner of insanity would compel some super-secret spy who's supposedly doing this stuff "only because it's the last resort" (and I mean, you have to have a "licence to kill" to do stuff like that, right?

) - you know, so why is a person like that, deciding to "release to the world", information that they could be tossed into Leavenworth for?

See what I'm sayin'? Why are they telling me about it?

What do they want from "me" in that regard? Are they trying to convince me that it's "justified" and that I should go along with it? And that I should somehow "accede" to making this a part of US national policy?

'Cause that'll never happen, I'll never go along with that. No matter how many good excuses they come up with.

So I mean, I don't even care about the CIA shredding "evidence". That's like, fully expected, authorized, you know.... yadda yadda. Those guys do what they gotta do, subject only to Presidential directives and the law and all that, so I mean, unless there's some specific law i'm not aware of, against the CIA shredding evidence, then I got no problem with it.

I do have a problem with the torture thing though. That I have a problem with.

TarBaby · #8 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

so I mean, unless there's some specific law i'm not aware of, against the CIA shredding evidence, then I got no problem with it.

Umm, obstruction of justice? Maybe something relating to the freedom of information act. I'm pretty sure that isn't legal. Especially in the middle of an investigation.

nonsqtr · #9 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarBaby";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by nonsqtr";p=&quot

so I mean, unless there's some specific law i'm not aware of, against the CIA shredding evidence, then I got no problem with it.

Umm, obstruction of justice? Maybe something relating to the freedom of information act. I'm pretty sure that isn't legal. Especially in the middle of an investigation.

Well.... let's see, I think, if I'm not mistaken, that the Courts have held that "national security" trumps either of those things.

So like, in the first case, "obstruction of justice", the Courts have ruled that the government is not required to produce sensitive documents in cases related to national security, and if for someone reason they are compelled to do so by a judge, it's only in redacted form, and they get to decide what they're gonna redact.

And in the second case, the classification of national security information always trumps the public's right to access the information. So, like, it's basically the Prez's call, it his decision what's classified and what's not, and he can pretty much make any call he wants, in that regard. You know, Bushie has even gone so far as to re-classify some stuff that used to be de-classified, so I mean, yeah, whatever the Prez says on any particular day, is pretty much how that ball rolls.

So yeah, I hear you, I mean, you'd "think", that there oughta be something wrong with something like that, right?

But I'm not sure there is. If there is, I can't pinpoint it exactly. I "think", that the CIA has very broad powers, and I mean, there are "versions" of that, right? Like, if you're just an "analyst", you're covered by one set of rules, whereas if you're an "operative", there's a whole different set of rules, and I mean, the really "important" folks, don't even exist - there's no "rules" attached to those types at all -

And I mean, you know, this agency, and other un-nameable three-letter "dark" government organizations, are theoretically under civilian control, which means, it's the Prez who gets to make the political appoints for like, the head of the CIA, or NSA, or whatever. And he trusts those guys, pretty much, not to try to take over the government, or I mean, if they happen to end up with a guy like a Hoover in the FBI, whom they can't really remove 'cause he has too much dirt on all of 'em, then they just make sure to keep him "inside the tent pissing out", so they make sure he has some kinda "threat-du-jour" to keep him busy, and I mean, the 60's and Vietnam and Civil Rights provided plenty of terrain for that, right?

So, you know, there are definitely spy-novel-like scenarios in which a guy like the head of the CIA or NSA or whatever, could take over the entire political structure of the United States government, with only "a little" assistance from like-minded individuals, and you know, we hope there are enough checks and balances built into the system to prevent that kind of thing from happening, but all that is very dark, know what I mean? I mean, who knows what's really going on inside all those dark places, 'cause it's like, you can't find out about that stuff until you actually get the security clearance, so there's no way a prospective Attorney General could "prepare" to scrutinize that stuff, 'cause he'd have no idea what to prepare for.

And I mean, this is why a guy like Mukasey, isn't going to make a comment about torture, 'cause I mean, regardless of what the guy may personally feel, his job is to uphold the law, and he can't find out what the law is until he actually gets the clearance, and he can't get the clearance till he gets the job, so he can't really answer the question, right?

So yeah, it seems to me, there's a somewhat broader context for this issue, than the "usual" concepts that apply in the normal civilian world. If we're talking about national security, it's a whole different ball game, and whole different set of concepts apply.

JP5 · #10 (**permalink**) 12-06-2007, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarBaby";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

So, please stop with your bleeding hearts here. Consider the REAL people who were tortured here. And give us all a break!!

I could write out a long eloquent response to this, but I'd rather keep it short and sweet.

My mother always told me, as I'm sure yours must have, that two wrongs don't make a right. Its a very simple concept to understand. If someone does something detestable, it doesn't give you an excuse to do something awful as well. While the actions of these men are certainly reprehensible, we shouldn't stoop to their level. America was founded with the idea of being a "city on a hill" and this sort of action is below us.

...Not to mention, that if we are going to advocate torture for some barbaric reason, the least we can do is be open about it and not destroy pertinent evidence. For shame.

Like I said....it's not anywhere near the same level of treatment. We did NOT stoop to their level. This harsh treatment to make them talk lasted mere seconds. I heard that KSM lasted the longest before he signaled he wanted to talk....and that was 2 1/2 minutes. It's not a "wrong," IMHO. It got the needed results that saved many innocent lives.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode