Posted by Damozel | A "senior intelligence offiicial," sympathetic to designated scapegoat Jose Rodriguez, says that the CIA's own lawyers gave written approval to the destruction in 2005 of the interrogation tapes.
Lawyers within the clandestine branch of the Central Intelligence Agency gave written approval in advance to the destruction in 2005 of hundreds of hours of videotapes documenting interrogations of two lieutenants from Al Qaeda, according to a former senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the episode...(NYT).
The anonymous source says that he is concerned that Rodriguez is being "unfairly singled out" (scapegoated) for destroying the tapes.(NYT)
He seems to think that the CIA branch was never given a direct order not to destroy them, while conceding that in fact White House lawyers and Justice Department lawyers advised against their destruction.(NYT). The CIA kept pressing for authority to destroy them and at some time the Directorate of Operations seems to have decided it did have written authority. (NYT)
In 2005, Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Washington ordered the government to "preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment and abuse of [Guantanamo] detainees.” (NYT) And this was just one of several such orders. (NYT)
Oliver Willis is skeptical of any assertion from the Bush Administration tending to support the inference that it didn't have a hand in this. (Bush White House Wasn't Exactly Adamant About Destroying CIA Interrogation Tapes) I'm skeptical too.
But as, per usual, I'm just not as certain as others seem to be of the Bush Administration's direct involvement, even though I wouldn't exactly be surprised to see this established down the line. It's not as if Bush and the CIA are on excellent terms. Maybe officials within the Directorate of Operations were afraid that exactly what did happen would happen: the specifics of the program would get out and the Bush Administration would turn out to be very willing to let CIA agents (e.g., Rodriguez) be hung out to dry. Maybe they decided it would be better to risk being hung out to dry for a destroyer of evidence than for a war criminal/torturer/violator of international law.
This may be completely implausible. One person (a commenter at JustOneMinute) has dubbed it "pretzel twisting," presumably on the theory that I am a lefty who will find a way to blame the Bush Administration for the tapes no matter what. It's true I think the Bush Administration is ultimately to blame---for the policies if not for the missing evidence of them. So yes, it's true; for me, all roads relating to interrogation policies lead back to the White House, though I'm prepared to allocate a fair share of blame to any Democrats who sat back and let it happen. (That Republicans go on defending this presidency no matter how many times Bush & Co. make it clear they don't consider themselves accountable to anyone anywhere
is what I find amazing.)
To return to the (allegedly) destroyed tapes: Maybe the Bush Administration was directly involved. If so, I bet no one will ever be able to prove it. The Bush Administration has thrown up so many stone walls in the path of oversight and has created such a culture of secrecy and "deniability" that at this point I am quite prepared to believe that (particularly post Abu Ghraib) they'd say, "No, no, no" with their lips, but "Yes, yes, yes" with their winks and their nods and their crossed fingers and toes. Haven't they demonstrated time and again that there's nothing anyone can do to stop them as long as no one actually sees them holding the smoking gun?
Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly makes the case for skepticism.
Let me get this straight. The White House had been in the loop for two years. The CIA had received letters from both the Justice Department and congressional leaders arguing that the tapes shouldn't be destroyed. The CIA's top lawyer had been involved for the entire time. And yet we're supposed to believe that, in 2005, a mid-ranking agency lawyer suddenly decided the tapes could be destroyed and the head of the clandestine branch then gave the order to do so without anyone else being involved? Really? Does anyone actually believe this story? (Kevin Drum)
Well, yes; Christopher Hitchens seems to. He takes pains to point out the bad blood between Bush and the CIA, prior to demanding the abolition of the CIA for "mutiny and treason." (Slate) Hitchens is furious with the CIA for---as he sees it---deliberately and with glee aforethought attempting to subvert the President's mideast policy (Slate)
So Hitch---while still serving as apologist for/defender of the Bush Administration--- is quite prepared to shred the CIA into little pieces and dance on the remains in his bovver boots.
At a time when Congress and the courts are conducting important hearings on the critical question of extreme interrogation, and at a time when accusations of outright torture are helping to besmirch and discredit the United States all around the world, a senior official of the CIA takes the unilateral decision to destroy the crucial evidence. This deserves to be described as what it is: mutiny and treason....[T]he CIA cannot rid itself of the impression that it has the right to subvert the democratic process both abroad and at home.....(Slate)
Why should the CIA assume it's held to a higher standard than the rest of the Bush Administration?
Oliver Willis sums up the feelings of a lot of observers: “The #1 Rule for the Bush Administration: If they say something, don’t believe them.” (Oliver Willis) But---to paraphrase one of my favorite writers---the fact that a person habitually lies is no guarantee they won't once in awhile tell the truth. Of course, there would be a certain satisfying irony in having an issue such as the missing tapes be the straw that breaks the Bush Administration's back---like having a dangerous outlaw with so many fall guys, hide-outs, escape routes, and alibis that you don't have a hope in hell of proving anything against him in court finally arrested and jailed for tax evasion.
The following additional blogs have weighed in on the unfolding story: : The Swamp, TPMmuckraker, Think Progress, Los Angeles Times, The Strata-Sphere, Crooks and Liars, Firedoglake, The Raw Story, Daily Kos, Salon, Hot Air, Prairie Weather, PrairiePundit, On Deadline, Greatscat!, ScrappleFace, Corrente, The Reaction and War and Piece Memeorandum has lots more here.
__________________________
UPDATE. At No Quarter, intelligence expert Larry Johnson points to a potentially interesting piece of correspondence dug up by journalist Larisa Alexandrovna:
[T]he torture tapes were not destroyed in 2005. Just take time to read the letter U.S. Attorneys, Novak and Raskin, sent to the Federal Court on 23 October 2007.
Especially check out page 2, paragraph2 of the letter. The U.S. Attorneys “viewed the video tape and transcript . . . of the interview” in September 2007.
.....How can you watch a destroyed tape? (What Destroyed Torture Tapes?)
Hmmmm. At JustOneMinute, Tom Maguire wondered if the tapes might be tapes of "non-enhanced interrogations" and said that if he had to guess, he'd bet these were conventional interrogations. "So why weren't they destroyed for "security reasons" as well? Who knows?" (Watching The Detectives Watching Videotape)
If I were the wagering sort, my money would be on Maguire's theory. But as Maguire says, who the hell knows? Not me.
In a separate article at No Quarter, Larry Johnson sets out a projected timeline of "Tapegate" (come on, you knew "Tapegate" was coming). It's well worth a look. In it, Johnson writes:
After querying former intelligence officers and reviewing the letter from the U.S. Attorney’s in Richmond, Virginia, I can clarify some issues surrounding what’s what with respect to the question of the “destruction” of interrogation tapes and speculate on others.
The bottom line is: Jose Rodriguez, the recently retired Deputy Director of Operations, has been fingered as acting unilaterally, but that is not true. He did check with both the IG [Inspector General] and the DO’s assigned Assistant General Counsel before destroying the DO’s copies of the tapes. Although Jose is a lawyer, he made the mistake of trusting fellow lawyers, and now is likely to get chopped up in the political meat grinder while trying to clear his name and reputation.
Why destroy the tapes? It appears that the June 2005 decision of the Italian judge to issue arrest warrants for C.I.A. officers and contractors involved in the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in 2003 may have been the precipitating incident convincing Jose Rodriguez that Agency must destroy video tapes of terrorist interrogations. That operation was conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the Italians. If the Italians could flip on us that meant anyone could. (Read more: Disentangling Torture Tapegate)
He notes that this "is not the first time that Jose has had his tit in a wringer." He also ran up into a bit of trouble during Iran-Contra . (Read more: Disentangling Torture TapeGate)
Johnson concludes:
And last but not least. The top two Democrats and Republicans on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees–the so-called “gang of eight”–were fully briefed in interrogation techniques several times during 2002-3. They concurred unanimously that the interrogation techniques were OK. This means that Democrats as well as Republicans backed this process. (Disentangling Torture TapeGate)
___________________
*BN-Politics used the photograph(s) in this post under a Creative Commons license that allows commercial use and sharing. Before copying the photo(s), follow the link to the owner's page and consult the licensing terms. Photo owners do NOT necessarily endorse views expressed in this post.
"Necessary Torture": The Interview of John Kiriakou (Updated)
Investigations Launched re: CIA's Destruction of Torture Tapes
Captain Ed: "An Executive Branch that Can Do Whatever It Pleases"
Bush: No Recollection of Being Made Aware of Any Tapes (Updated)
LINKED
The Scapegoat (Harper's)
Comments