by D. Cupples | On November 29, a "high-value" Guantanamo detainee said that he had suffered “state-sanctioned torture” in secret prisons and asked a court to order the CIA to preserve evidence of the torture (NY Times-1). That was more than a week before we learned that the CIA had (in 2005) destroyed video tapes of torture sessions conducted in 2002.
News that the CIA had destroyed the evidence surfaced a few days ago. Already, congressional committees, the CIA and the Justice Department have launched investigations. The New York times reports:
"The agency operative who ordered the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the chief of the C.I.A.’s national clandestine service, known as the Directorate of Operations until 2005. On Saturday, a government official who had spoken recently with Mr. Rodriguez on the matter said that Mr. Rodriguez told him that he had received approval from lawyers inside the clandestine service to destroy the tapes....
"Military defense lawyers said the fact that interrogation tapes were destroyed could provide a way to challenge other cases that may be based on information from Abu Zubaydah [a tortured terror suspect], though such challenges would face major legal obstacles under the current rules for military prosecutions.
"They said the defense could argue that the tapes might have raised questions about whether the information was believable or whether Abu Zubaydah had invented it simply to stop aggressive interrogation [i.e., torture] techniques. Col. Steven David, the chief military defense lawyer for the Guantánamo war crimes cases, said at a trial, 'The inference is they destroyed it because it was bad for them....' (NY Times-2)
Yes, leaving the tapes intact certainly might have been bad for CIA employees. The federal crime of torture carries a penalty of up to 20 years' imprisonment if death doesn't result (it's worse if the subject dies).
CIA Director Michael Hayden's response to news is troubling: he claims that the torture tapes were destroyed (instead of shown to those government entities seeking that evidence) so as to protect the torturers and their families against "retaliation from al Qaeda and its sympathizers" -- a phrase, incidentally, that White House Spokesperson Dana Perino later borrowed verbatim. (NY times-3)
First, the tapes could have been given to other government investigators under seal. Second, the CIA presumably had the technology to black-out the faces of those operatives on tape who conducted the torture sessions.
Is the CIA always concerned with protecting agents and their families from retaliation? Not only did Bush Administration officials reveal the covert identity of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, but when Mrs. Wilson asked for extra protection after receiving credible threats, the CIA reportedly refused without giving an explanation.
See Memeorandum-1 and Memeorandum-2 for other bloggers' commentary.
Related BN-Politics' Posts:
* Military Interrogator: Torture isn't Operationally Effective
* CIA Airs Dirty Laundry ("Family Jewels")
* White House Blocked Fitzgerald's Cooperation re: Plame
* Ex-White House Aide Says he Gave False Info about Plame
* Another Expert Explains Waterboarding to Congress
* Bush Administration Blocked Critic Who Experienced Waterboarding
* Boeing Sued over CIA's Secret Abductions
* White House Whines about Congressional Oversight....
* More confusing Statements about Iraq War
* Under the Rug: Whatever happened to the 190,000 Missing Weapons?
Comments