Blatant CYA at the CIA
I'm not sure if I've ever seen a more brazen example of an agency trying to cover its own ass than the CIA's destruction of its interrogation tapes just as the controversy over the Bush administration's use of torture techniques was reaching a crescendo. As Emptywheel's comprehensive timeline demonstrates, these tapes were destroyed in late 2005, just as 1) the Washington Post was reporting that the CIA maintained a secret overseas network of torture prisons, 2) a federal judge in the Zacharias Moussaoui case was requesting such tapes and 3) the McCain torture amendment was rapidly moving through Congress with overwhelming approval.
The CIA's official explanation--that the tapes were destroyed because they posed a security risk to the officers who appeared in them--is clearly pretextual. These tapes were locked in a vault for years, and the CIA maintains all sorts of information much more sensitive than this about all of its officers. If storing these tapes amounts to some sort of unacceptable risk to security, why did they hold on to them for three years? And why did their destruction just happen to coincide with a dramatic increase in judicial, legislative, and media scrutiny of the administration's interrogation techniques?
As intelligence officials have admitted to the New York Times, the real reason these tapes were destroyed (obviously) was because "officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy."
As Marty Lederman writes:
It's one thing when the New York Times or Washington Post cites anonymous sources stating that the U.S. has engaged in officially-sanctioned torture. It's a whole nother thing to have that officially-sanctioned torture broadcast for all to see. A picture speaks a thousand words and video speaks a million. They just couldn't have that happen.
The current administration's approach to this issue is to declare in unequivocal terms that the U.S. doesn't torture people and then to refuse to answer any questions about specific interrogation techniques. That approach wouldn't work if the news stations were repeatedly broadcasting footage of U.S. officials (acting under orders) engaged in obvious acts of torture. Waterboarding sounds pretty innocuous to those who have little familiarity with it. But I think seeing it actually carried out would shock the conscience of most Americans: the victim strapped to a board, the cries for mercy, the vomiting, the gagging, the sounds of anguish. Suddenly the torture debate wouldn't be nearly so abstract.
Make no mistake, this administration weighed the consequences and decided that whatever flak they might take for destroying key pieces of documentary evidence (and raw intelligence), it was a price they were willing to pay to prevent anyone outside of this administration from ever seeing what was on these tapes. Marty's right: the cover up is not worse than the crime.
The CIA's official explanation--that the tapes were destroyed because they posed a security risk to the officers who appeared in them--is clearly pretextual. These tapes were locked in a vault for years, and the CIA maintains all sorts of information much more sensitive than this about all of its officers. If storing these tapes amounts to some sort of unacceptable risk to security, why did they hold on to them for three years? And why did their destruction just happen to coincide with a dramatic increase in judicial, legislative, and media scrutiny of the administration's interrogation techniques?
As intelligence officials have admitted to the New York Times, the real reason these tapes were destroyed (obviously) was because "officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy."
As Marty Lederman writes:
This was the CIA. They must have gotten DOJ approval (Gonzales, anyway) for the destruction. And the POTUS and/or VP, too. And all of these folks they knew full well what the fallout might be. And they knew about criminal laws involving obstruction. Most importantly, they were actually destroying what might be incredibly valuable evidence for future uses -- valuable for criminal trials, for intelligence investigations, for training purposes, and, most importantly, as a key tile in their vaunted, hallowed "mosaic" of evidence developed to construct an accurate story about al Qaeda.This is a situation where senior administration officials knew that what they were doing--destroying evidence--would look terrible when it was eventually exposed (and they knew it would eventually be exposed), but they went ahead and did it anyway. You only do something that brazen when the evidence itself is really, really, really bad. These officials must have concluded that the fallout from having ordered the destruction of the tapes would pale in comparison to the fallout from someday having to turn these tapes over to a judge or having a future administration release them to the public.
And yet they chose to destroy anyway, after what must have been a lot of internal debate. Which goes to show that . . . the cover-up is not worse than the crime, and they knew it. Those tapes must have depicted pretty gruesome evidence of serious criminal conduct. Conduct that would be proof positive of serious breaches of at least two treaties. Conduct approved and implemented at the highest levels of government.
It's one thing when the New York Times or Washington Post cites anonymous sources stating that the U.S. has engaged in officially-sanctioned torture. It's a whole nother thing to have that officially-sanctioned torture broadcast for all to see. A picture speaks a thousand words and video speaks a million. They just couldn't have that happen.
The current administration's approach to this issue is to declare in unequivocal terms that the U.S. doesn't torture people and then to refuse to answer any questions about specific interrogation techniques. That approach wouldn't work if the news stations were repeatedly broadcasting footage of U.S. officials (acting under orders) engaged in obvious acts of torture. Waterboarding sounds pretty innocuous to those who have little familiarity with it. But I think seeing it actually carried out would shock the conscience of most Americans: the victim strapped to a board, the cries for mercy, the vomiting, the gagging, the sounds of anguish. Suddenly the torture debate wouldn't be nearly so abstract.
Make no mistake, this administration weighed the consequences and decided that whatever flak they might take for destroying key pieces of documentary evidence (and raw intelligence), it was a price they were willing to pay to prevent anyone outside of this administration from ever seeing what was on these tapes. Marty's right: the cover up is not worse than the crime.
posted by A.L. at 3:06 PM
12 Comments:
How about the Clinton administration's frequent use of "rendering?" Were they open and above-board about that practice, as some would say is required in a democratic society? Or were they furtive and deceitful, as those who know that "tough choices" must be made would advise?
When, if ever, did the administration of FDR disclose its use of torture of seven German POW's to extract confessions (as opposed to gathering actionable intelligence)?
Didn't JFK's SecDef, Robt. McNamara, acknowledge that he had lied under oath to congress in the interest of national security? As I recall it, his lies concerned concessions the US had made concerning removing missiles from Turkey as a quid pro quo for Soviet missiles being removed from Cuba. Good God, shouldn't someone have been impeached?
When did we get so prissy? Has it only happened since George W. Bush became president?
This destruction also puts the lie to the claim that torture is necessary because the information is so valuable to the security of the country. In this case, it was apparantly worthless, as they did not bother keeping it.
Once you have it, why keep it on videotape? It's not going to be used in a trial, it's going to be used to catch murderers and prevent further attacks--and it seems to have served that purpose very well. The videotape can never be used to help you, only to hurt you. They acted very wisely in destroying it.
If you're going to live in a culture where everyone with an axe to grind can release the most sensitive information with impunity, and can expect that information to be published world-wide by some sympathetic organ somewhere, one of the many prices you will pay is that people will go to great lengths to keep that information from leaking out. Welcome to the modern world.
The whiners should come to grips with the fact that for more than sixty years our intelligence services have done some extraordinarily unpleasant and unwholesome work in defense of the country, and that for very good reason their efforts have not been disclosed. Now that political "gotcha" gains can seem to be had by outing such activity, and by pointing fingers, the entire nation is going to be the loser. Watch and learn.
yep. All the prissiness started with the election of GWB. 'Cause that Ken Starr, he was a regular fucking John Wayne.
Based, in large part, on the timing of the destruction of the tapes, it's pretty clear, even to fence-sitters & many Bush supporters, that somethin' just ain't right.
The only possible reason for the destruction of the tapes is, you're right, the cover up is not worse than the crime they were covering up.
The question is: will the Democratic majority in Congress stick to their guns, demand answers and dig their heels in and demand accountability, or will they buckle, hem & haw, and move on?
I've lost faith in the Democratic leadership, and I'm certain I'm not alone. Pressing the administration nonstop on this gravely serious obstruction of justice and the issue of the criminality of torture would restore that faith, but sadly we've seen the Democrats capitulate tooo many times.
Serious hearings showing the gravity of what has happened, investigations, and, ultimately, prosecutions and/or impechment is called for, but I won't hold my breath on any of those happening.
The frustrating thing, personally, about this latest revellation is that I strongly suspect it will have no effect on the administration and that there will be no consequences to them. Commission of torture by the executive branch is one of many impeachable offenses committed by these lawless thugs. But the Congress will simply not take any meaningful action. Bush and his fellow thugs can't surprise me any more. But the Congress is deeply, deeply disappointing.
The
I agree with Casual Observor, not only that there will be no effect or accountability, but that the Administration understands this instinctively, which is why I suspect their approach to such matters - the destruction of evidence say - is FAR more cavalier than A.L. or Marty Lederman would like to believe. I suspect they also understand deep down the point that Neutral (inadvertantly) makes, which is that for every seven Americans who are prissily horrified at the idea that our agents are torturing suspects, there are three who actually think it's kind of cool, and part of the reaosn they're willing to pay their taxes - that is, around 30% of Americans believe that A FEW GOOD MEN is about the righteous martyrdom of the Jack Nicholson character at the hands of that pansy-ass Harvard boy.
"All the prissiness started with the election of GWB. 'Cause that Ken Starr, he was a regular fucking John Wayne."
Actually, it started long before GWB--think about that sweetheart Frank Church, for example (and blow him a few jailhouse kisses for me). And so far as I can recall, Ken Starr had not a word to say about how one should or should not treat with murderous terrorists. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
No one will be held "accountable" for the destruction of these tapes, because no one in a position of responsibility, including the most addle-headed Democrats now sitting in Congress or running for president, really wants actions of this kind to be precluded in the future. The closer one gets to really being responsible for the security of the nation's people, the closer one comes to actual adulthood. And adulthood is not a virtue to be found amongst the moonbats.
"Commission of torture by the executive branch is one of many impeachable offenses committed by these lawless thugs."
As Gerald Ford famously said, an impeachable offense is whatever the Congress says it is. Nothing this administration has done is impeachable, because even this nutball Democratic congress declines to say it is. And they run as if from heated Limburger at the mention of the subject from the strange space alien Kucinich whenever he raises the subject. Those of you who are aligned with Mr. Kucinich, please identify yourselves so we can cackle.
In the meantime, the incumbent adults will continue to do the best they can with their electoral mandate, and folks like me can laugh uproariously at the frustration of the helpless dopes on the sidelines. Keep yammering about impeachment; it fills our hearts with glee.
Having broken the law other times in the past and having gotten away with it does not make the destruction of evidence that could verify our suspicions of law-breaking okay. Sometimes you get caught and sometimes you don't but if there is video of it and whoever okayed not only the act but the destruction of the tapes have broken laws and, as Lederman said, broken treaties. What does it take to get an independent investigation nowadays? A blowjob earned one some years back, isn't torture and the destruction of evidence of torture in the name of the United States worthy of a "Ken Starr"?
This from today's Washington Post (Dec. 9) is of great interest to me, but is not a surprise at all:
"In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
"Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview two months ago that he had informed congressional overseers of 'all aspects of the detention and interrogation program.'
"'The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,' said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
"Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.
"Yet long before 'waterboarding' entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.
"With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan)."
Whether or not those who destroyed the videotapes in question broke the law depends on the language of any outstanding subpoenas or other requests at the time of the destruction. If the tapes were indeed called for, on its face the destruction would constitute obstruction of justice, and someone may well fall on his sword for it. But there's little doubt in my mind that the tapes, once in the hands of the congress or the 9/11 commission, would have made it to CNN, Al Jazeera and the world. And it's an unambiguous good for this country that that did not happen.
In any event, the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party leadership on this matter is truly breathtaking.
It is with the most exquisite delight that I quote the estimable Mr. Glenn Greenwald, as follows:
"Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen...
"The Washington Post reports today that the Bush administration, beginning in 2002, repeatedly briefed leading Congressional Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees -- including, at various times, Jay Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, and Jane Harman -- regarding the CIA's 'enhanced interrogation methods,' including details about waterboarding and other torture measures. With one exception (Harman, who vaguely claims to have sent a letter to the CIA), these lawmakers not only failed to object to these policies, but affirmatively supported them.
"This information was almost certainly leaked to the Post by intelligence officials who are highly irritated -- understandably so -- from watching the manipulative spectacle whereby these Democrats now prance around as outraged victims of policies to which they deliberately acquiesced, when they weren't fully supporting them. Numerous liberal bloggers are already drawing the only conclusions that can be drawn, and expressing their outrage and horror at the Democratic Party leadership. Those sentiments are indisputably appropriate, and I just want to add a few more points to them."
Oh, this is rich--"prancing around as outraged victims" seems quite apt, doesn't it?
I suppose we'll have to call it a bipartisan torture regimen from here on out, won't we?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home