1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[TORTURE] CIA destroyed videotapes of interrogations.

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by thadeus, Dec 6, 2007.

  1. thadeus

    thadeus Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,313
    Likes Received:
    726
    December 6, 2007
    C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes of Interrogations
    By MARK MAZZETTI

    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 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 from the courts and from the presidentially appointed Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the program. 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 read

    In 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.
    Are Spock Ears required at the Geneva Convention?
     
  2. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,236
    Likes Received:
    10,477
    I'm shocked.
     
  3. pippendagimp

    pippendagimp Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2000
    Messages:
    27,811
    Likes Received:
    22,824
    The detainees probably are during the interrogations, too
     
  4. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,988
    Likes Received:
    36,847
    Now now. They are just put half-naked onto boxes, connected to wires and hooded. Oh, and some of them are half-drowned. Don't get hyperbolic on us!
     
  5. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,841
    Likes Received:
    41,316
    Good of the CIA to be thinking ahead, so that their operatives won't be "outed" by someone in the future. I'm sure nothing of the sort could ever happen, of course. That it also protects not only the operatives, but their superiors, going all the way up to the President, has to be happenstance.



    Trim Bush!
     
  6. El_Conquistador

    El_Conquistador King of the D&D, The Legend, #1 Ranking

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2002
    Messages:
    15,848
    Likes Received:
    6,740
    Why is the NY Times spreading hearsay about the actions of our own country's CIA and portraying them in a negative light? Don't our military and intelligence agencies have enough enemies in the war on terror already? What purpose does this public relations hit job serve, other than helping to erode public support for the war? Can anyone answer that? Is this purely political, and if so, at what cost is it done -- our own country's reputation? If the unthinkable happens and a democrat gets elected, will the NYT still be advancing this negative agenda against our armed forces and intelligence agencies?

    And forgive me for not getting emotional when people who murdered Americans get water poured on their face. Sorry, I guess I'm just insensitive. :rolleyes:
     
  7. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Why is the press reporting accurate information about things that some people in this country think are despicable acts of thugs?

    Shouldn't the press ignore their First Amendment rights and their duty as the Fourth Estate so that the people who ordered our military and intelligence agencies to torture people can get out of this mess without any oversight whatsoever?

    How does revealing that the CIA destroyed evidence that was specifically requested by a judge serve the public good, especally when the only thing that evidence shows clearly is Amercans torturing people.

    This couldn't possibly be anything other than an attack by the Bush haters who want Bush to suffer even if it hurts the country.

    Main stream media is a front for the libpigs who want to make our country a communist state. Watch only Fox News and listen only to AM radio.

    Torture serves this country, we just need to keep it a secret from here on out. The USSR was incredible at keeping their human rights abuses under wraps, with our control of the Internet we should be able to torture anyone we want as long as the traitors like the New York Times keep their stinking pie-holes shut.

    Obviously,the preceding is covered by a few :rolleyes:
     
  8. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,109
    Likes Received:
    3,761
    CIA probably destroys alot of stuff. Like they said it offered no value anymore except to our enemies in their view.
     
  9. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    472
    Do "enemies" include the the law?
     
  10. superden

    superden Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,576
    Likes Received:
    1
    let them do their job by all means necessary! i watch too much 24 :(
     
  11. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,109
    Likes Received:
    3,761

    Yeah Im sure in 2005 the CIA really thought about senate hearings when deciding what intelligence needed to be destroyed for security purposes.
     
  12. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    but we don't have 60 votes in the senate so we can't do anything about this right?

    grow some balls dems. grow some damn balls.
     
  13. MadMax

    MadMax Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 1999
    Messages:
    76,685
    Likes Received:
    25,948
    You honesly don't think they did??
     
  14. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    This is such lovely wordsmithing. It's called torture.


    Isn't this willfull destruction of evidence?

    And the kicker:

    Hard to make use of those tapes in that manner if you destroy them.

    Makes me sick. Well, the fact that the tapes were destroyed is not all that suprising. That people either don't care of willfully defend this type of behavior is revolting.
     
  15. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    472
    These tapes weren’t destroyed for security purposes

    They were destroyed to protect the administration from criminal indictments.

    Plain and simple
     
  16. rhadamanthus

    rhadamanthus Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,304
    Likes Received:
    596
    yup. let's reiterate:

     
  17. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,109
    Likes Received:
    3,761
    And kept forever? I mean how long does it take to review them? Unless they were destroyed the next day then I don't this as a coverup.
     
  18. insane man

    insane man Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2003
    Messages:
    2,892
    Likes Received:
    5
    i have a bridge to sell you. its a great bargain.
     
  19. Bandwagoner

    Bandwagoner Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    27,109
    Likes Received:
    3,761
    Great I'll take it. I am gonna need an indefinite amount of time to review it's integrity and if you sell it to anyone else in the mean time i am gonna sue you for breach of contract.
     
  20. Zac D

    Zac D Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2000
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    46
    I guess you are.

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page