DESTROYING TAPES: The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top terror suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.
SHARP REACTION: The disclosure brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group.
WHY TAPING: CIA Director Michael Hayden said the CIA began taping the interrogations as an internal check on the program after President Bush authorized the use of harsh questioning methods.
WASHINGTON — The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top terror suspects in 2002 and destroyed the tapes three years later out of fear they would leak to the public and compromise the identities of U.S. questioners, the director of the agency told employees Thursday.
The disclosure brought immediate condemnation from Capitol Hill and from a human rights group which charged the spy agency's action amounted to criminal destruction of evidence.
The Senate Intelligence Committee promised a full review of the situation.
CIA Director Michael Hayden said the CIA began taping the interrogations as an internal check on the program after President Bush authorized the use of harsh questioning methods. The methods included waterboarding, which simulates drowning, government officials said.
"The Agency was determined that it proceed in accord with established legal and policy guidelines. So, on its own, CIA began to videotape interrogations," Hayden said in a written message to CIA employees, obtained by The Associated Press.
The CIA decided to destroy the tapes in "the absence of any legal or internal reason to keep them," Hayden wrote. He said the tapes were destroyed only after it was determined "they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries."
"The tapes posed a serious security risk," Hayden wrote. "Were they ever to leak, they would permit identification of your CIA colleagues who had served in the program, exposing them and their families to retaliation from al-Qaida and its sympathizers."
Hayden said House and Senate intelligence committee leaders were informed of the existence of the tapes and the CIA's intention to destroy them. He also said the CIA's internal watchdog watched the tapes in 2003 and verified that the interrogation practices were legal.
Rep. Jane Harman of California, then the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, was one of only four members of Congress in 2003 informed of the tapes' existence and the CIA's intention to ultimately destroy them.
"I told the CIA that destroying videotapes of interrogations was a bad idea and urged them in writing not to do it," Harman said. While key lawmakers were briefed on the CIA's intention to destroy the tapes, they were not notified two years later when the spy agency went through with the plan. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the committee only learned of the tapes' destruction in November 2006.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from August 2004 until the end of 2006, said through a spokesman that he doesn't remember being informed of the videotaping program.
"Congressman Hoekstra does not recall ever being told of the existence or destruction of these tapes," said Jamal D. Ware, senior adviser to the committee. "He believes that Director Hayden is being generous in his claim that the committee was informed. He believes the committee should have been fully briefed and consulted on how this was handled."
Jennifer Daskal, senior counsel with Human Rights Watch, said destroying the tapes was illegal. "Basically this is destruction of evidence," she said, calling Hayden's explanation that the tapes were destroyed to protect CIA identities "disingenuous."
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.
Hayden said a secondary reason for the taped interrogations was to have backup documentation of the information gathered.
"The Agency soon determined that its documentary reporting was full and exacting, removing any need for tapes. Indeed, videotaping stopped in 2002," Hayden said.
The CIA is known to have waterboarded three prisoners since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but not since 2003. Hayden banned the use of the procedure in 2006, according to knowledgeable officials.
The disclosure of the tapes' destruction came on the same day the House and Senate intelligence committees agreed to legislation prohibiting the CIA from using "enhanced interrogation techniques." The White House Thursday threatened to veto the bill.
Hayden's message was an attempt to get ahead of a New York Times story about the videotapes.
"What matters here is that it was done in line with the law," Hayden said. "Over the course of its life, the Agency's interrogation program has been of great value to our country. It has helped disrupt terrorist operations and save lives. It was built on a solid foundation of legal review. It has been conducted with careful supervision. If the story of these tapes is told fairly, it will underscore those facts."
The CIA says the tapes were destroyed late in 2005, a year marked by increasing pressure from defense attorneys to obtain videotapes of detainee interrogations. The scandal over harsh treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq had focused public attention on interrogation techniques.
Beginning in 2003, attorneys for al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui began seeking videotapes of interrogations they believed might help them show their client wasn't a part of the 9/11 attacks. These requests heated up in 2005 as the defense slowly learned the identities of more detainees in U.S. custody.
In May 2005, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the government to disclose whether interrogations were recorded. The government objected to that order, and the judge modified it on Nov. 3, 2005, to ask for confirmation of whether the government "has video or audio tapes of these interrogations" and then named specific ones. Eleven days later, the government denied it had video or audio tapes of those specific interrogations.
Last month, the CIA admitted to Brinkema and a circuit judge that it had failed to hand over tapes of enemy combatant witnesses. Those interrogations were not part of the CIA's detention program and were not conducted or recorded by the agency, the agency said.
"The CIA did not say to the court in its original filing that it had no terrorist tapes at all. It would be wrong to assert that," CIA spokesman George Little said.
The 9/11 Commission referenced the 2002 interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Binalshibh multiple times throughout its report, but cited written documents and audiotapes only.
Wow, someone tell the CIA that thing you do with the blanking of the faces.
The stench of plausible denial is almost as strong as the insult to the intelligence.
Still, treating the population of America like retarded children has worked up till now.
They destroyed it because.
It was evidence that could be used against them.
They could.
Oh well, it's gone now, like the 10 million whitehouse emails, too bad so sad, what movie do you want to see, that patriotic one looks good.
All that can be done is speculate.
They destroyed it because.
It was evidence that could be used against them.
That is your opinion. It sounds like a reasonable possibility, I'll give you that. But there really is no way that you can say with absolute certainty. What this article is leaving out is how and why we are hearing about this. Was there an accusation made by these 2 terror suspects?
Either way, I could care less if they water boarded these @!$%#ers, slapped them around. I JUST DON'T GIVE A CRAP! Why? Well like it says, they got good intelligence from them that lead to the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Now tell me this, who would be treated better; You, as an American, being captured by Bin Laden and friends, or someone like Zubaydah and Binalshibh in the evil hands of the CIA?
I'll take simulated drowning over castration and beheading. BUT, HEY, THAT'S JUST ME!
Who needs rule of law when you've got comparisons like that?
"absolute certainty", I live my life surrounded by it, why only yesterday I was thinking that, [suddenly hit by truck/bus/lightning/cancer/govt hit man because I'm so very very important]
where was I.
Oh speculation, well the gag orders that came with the release of certain Australian gitmo prisoners David Hicks runs out shortly and you know i wouldn't be surprised if they had stories to tell. Stories without corroboration now because.....security reasons.
Gitmo's very existence is primarily to rub the American publics face in the illegality of it, it serves no other rational purpose. It's not about mind control or experimentation, that could be achieved if it already isn't being, in a lot quieter ways than gitmo.
The only other rational explanation I can find is this and I'm not sure I agree with the simple blunt PR angle personally.
The deterrent value of any prison lies in people fearing to go there. Unless people know that it exists, they won't be afraid of being sent to it. Because the target audience for Guantanamo is basically third-worlders without a lot of media access, a certain amount of over-dramatization is needed to get the message across.
Guantanamo doesn't gather intelligence, and only on the surface does it serve as a warehouse to lock up the captured spear-carriers. Interrogations can be conducted perfectly well in the field, and a bullet in the head is a more certain means of preventing recidivism.
Guantanamo is actually more effective at deterring terrorism if a certain amount of the prisoners are just (e.g.) Ahmed the baker, whose cousin lived next door to some terrorists and had them and him over for dinner once. When you arrest people like that, hang on to them for a bit, then release them to tell horror stories about prison, you not only spread the message that prison is a bad place, but that you need to careful not just to avoid overt misdeeds, but also to be careful of appearances, and your associates. That (in theory, at least) reduces the noise to signal ratio, and makes the real terrorists easier to spot.
Gitmo's very existence is primarily to rub the American publics face in the illegality of it
You're correct. The post-9/11 "Shock Therapy" shredding of the Bill of Rights under the Bush-Cheney camarilla was always intended to bring the American Working-class to heel.
====
This is what happens when a bunch of self-validating vicious insects start taking themselves a little too seriously.
====
winsomecowboy
Well the video evidence might be gone but that doesn't preclude other kinds of evidence like the testimony of witnesses, written documents, etc. (And then there's always the possibility that the cleaners missed a few items…)
Heads should role. Hillary should male Valerie Plame the next CIA Director. Give her a free hand to purge the fricken fascistic pigrats.
====
There is a reason it is said that a picture is worth a 1000 words.
So you have to ask, what was on these tape what someone would want to leak them? I'd say probably not routine questioning. Smells real bad.
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.
which means, in a world where the rule of law prevails, they could be prosecuted for obstructing justice.
Remember justice. So very pre OJ and the 2000 elections that concept. Still gets some mileage out there among the breeders though. Placates them nicely.
It's like a long depressing ache in my chest to know that this great abuse took place when we became our, I don't know what to call them, hoods let themselves shelve our laws, in the pretense of protecting our democracy. Spare us from governmental abuses under immunity laws.
They have become the Inquisition.
FTA: "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."
Which means: we committed heinous crimes, including violating the Geneva Conventions so we destroyed the evidence.
I think we (American citizens) are being intentionally desensitized to scandal in government, so when the takeover is complete we'll all be expected to just accept it as one more scandal plaguing the worst administration ever.
It has also crossed my mind that were the tapes to be shown to the unwashed public and the people saw torture occur and then witnessed the confession, the public could believe that torture is not an effective way to get credible information.
Seems like people in the Bush administration invoke patriotism only when it's convenient! I trust the rest of the Senate and the House to be Americans first before I trust this administration. A security leak has never happened in a Democratic administration. These are fine words from an Administration who leaked the name of a CIA, Social Security numbers of Veterans stolen from the VA administration. Stop working in secret from everyone else, if you serve in Congress I'm sure you have security clearance and can be trusted to exercise it with discretion, I would revoke security clearance on this administration before anyone else.
This is what reads on NPR:
" President Bush does not recall being told of the destruction of CIA videotapes that showed the interrogation of al-Qaida leader Abu Zubaydah and another suspect, the White House said in a statement on Friday.
Press secretary Dana Perino said she had spoken to the president and "He has no recollection of being made aware of the tapes or their destruction before yesterday" when he was briefed by Hayden, she said.
Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat asked the Justice Department to investigate whether the CIA obstructed justice by destroying the videotapes that documented the harsh 2002 interrogations of the alleged terrorists."
I don't know how many of you remember the final years of Nixon but this is almost a quote of the whole story. The tapes were "accidentally" damaged. HMM I can just hear Bush saying, "I am not a crook!"
"No recollection! No recollection! No recollection! Point in time! Point in time! Point in time! Caw caw caw...!"
====
Cat Lady
Jeez and here I was all these years thinking Nixon actually said: "I am not a cook!"
Also...Am I wrong about Clinton saying: "I did not have sex with relations of Ms. Lewinsky..." ???!!!
(Maybe I should get my ears checked...)
====
So Cat Lady,
Nixon was a crook.
Clinton had sex and lied about it.
And Bush what?
Sorry Cat Lady, that should have been directed at Green pagan.
And Bush what?
Take your pick.
====
Bush: Rendition, torture, 500000 dead in Iraq, spying on Americans, oh and I almost forgot, he let 9/11 happen.
I think I have been miss understood. I was comparing the enormity of the Nixon dishonesty, involving the white house tapes, with the recent events surrounding the destruction of the CIA tapes and Bush's probable involvement in the whole thing. Yes, it was Nixon who said, "I am not a crook." I don't know if Bush can string enough words together to make a complete sentence.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |