CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders

[geronimotwo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_go_co/cia_videotapes_courts

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 13 minutes ago
 


WASHINGTON - The Bush administration was under court order not to discard evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before the CIA destroyed videotapes that revealed some of its harshest interrogation tactics.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
Normally, that would force the government to defend itself against obstruction allegations. But the CIA may have an out: its clandestine network of overseas prisons.

While judges focused on the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and tried to guarantee that any evidence of detainee abuse would be preserved, the CIA was performing its toughest questioning half a world away. And by the time President Bush publicly acknowledged the secret prison system, interrogation videotapes of two terrorism suspects had been destroyed.

The CIA destroyed the tapes in November 2005. That June, U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. had ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler issued a nearly identical order that July.

At the time, that seemed to cover all detainees in U.S. custody. But Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the terrorism suspects whose interrogations were videotaped and then destroyed, weren't at Guantanamo Bay. They were prisoners that existed off the books  and apparently beyond the scope of the court's order.

Attorneys say that might not matter. David H. Remes, a lawyer for Yemeni citizen Mahmoad Abdah and others, asked Kennedy this week to schedule a hearing on the issue.

Though Remes acknowledged the tapes might not be covered by Kennedy's order, he said, "It is still unlawful for the government to destroy evidence, and it had every reason to believe that these interrogation records would be relevant to pending litigation concerning our client."

In legal documents filed in January 2005, Assistant Attorney General Peter D. Keisler assured Kennedy that government officials were "well aware of their obligation not to destroy evidence that may be relevant in pending litigation."

For just that reason, officials inside and outside of the CIA advised against destroying the interrogation tapes, according to a former senior intelligence official involved in the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because it is under investigation.

Exactly who signed off on the decision is unclear, but CIA director Michael Hayden told the agency in an e-mail this week that internal reviewers found the tapes were not relevant to any court case.

Remes said that decision raises questions about whether other evidence was destroyed. Abu Zubaydah's interrogation helped lead investigators to alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Remes said Abu Zubaydah may also have been questioned about other detainees. Such evidence might have been relevant in their court cases.

"It's logical to infer that the documents were destroyed in order to obstruct any inquiry into the means by which statements were obtained," Remes said.

He stopped short, however, of accusing the government of obstruction. That's just one of the legal issues that could come up in court. A judge could also raise questions about contempt of court or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."

Kennedy has not scheduled a hearing on the matter and the government has not filed a response to Remes' request.

should oversea detainee's be given the same rights as american citizens?

should the cia be accountable to our courts? our constitution?

does the "need" for information supercede the rules of war laid out by the geneva convention?

[ilbob]

how did anyone even find out about them if they are being held in secret?

my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.

[geronimotwo]

my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.

so i take your answer as saying we should be torturing them, but it should remain hidden....behind closed doors...swept under the rug.....

[Len Budney]

so i take your answer as saying we should be torturing them, but it should remain hidden....behind closed doors...swept under the rug.....

I'm no fan of Lincoln, but to paraphrase him: "Whenever I hear someone defending torture, I have a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

[ilbob]

my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.

so i take your answer as saying we should be torturing them, but it should remain hidden....behind closed doors...swept under the rug.....

something like that. its not as if this is anything new or different then what has been going on for 1000s of years. to pretend otherwise is just silly. IMO, making rules about just how much and how you can torture someone borders on the asinine. Just do what you have to do, get it over with, and move on.

[geronimotwo]

something like that.

what i don't understand is, why try to hide it then. let's do it on main street, make an example of what will happen to those who oppose us. we certainly shouldn't sign agreements that say we will not do it.

[Jamisjockey]

something like that.

what i don't understand is, why try to hide it then. let's do it on main street, make an example of what will happen to those who oppose us. we certainly shouldn't sign agreements that say we will not do it.

By condoning such behavior, we become those who oppose us.
What's next, Torture on American citizens?  Of course not you say...we have rights! 
Uh, yeah...sure we do.  Read the constitution....inalienable rights....g*d given....hhhmmmmm, you think the founding fathers meant "You have rights unless you're not a citizen...then we should torture you"?
Oh, have any of you been tortured?  Its easy enough to believe that its like the movies.  Rough up the bad guy, he spills his guts, and the information is all real and correct.
If someone was waterboarding me, I'd probably confess to Nazi warcrimes, Sept 11th, and taking candy from babies. Anything to make you stop.
I've known my fair share of Vietnam vetran POW's.  Many were tortured.  Many confessed to war crimes and made statements against the war and the United States.  And these were trained men who believed in themselves.   Everyone has thier limit.   

[HankB]

People like Harry Reid and Joe Biden want the tapes for one reason, and one reason only: they see it as a way to hurt Bush, either through subverting US interrogation efforts (which have yielded info to stop terrorist plots) or to inflame foreign opinion against America - which, being currently led by Bush, makes his task even more difficult. (Not that he's exactly been doing a sterling job . . .    )

Their reasons begin and end with hurting Bush - if something hurts the country, well, sometimes worthwhile goals (like hurting Bush) have collateral damage.

I can just imagine jihadis laughing themselves silly at Americans taking their side so overtly in public . . .

[ilbob]

I am not so much in favor of torture as an instrument of policy, as I am resigned to accept that it is there, has been there, and will be there for any foreseeable future.

It is something that has been going on pretty much since there have been human beings on the earth. The reason is that it can be pretty effective. Its not 100% effective, nor is it fool proof, but it has a long history of having some level of effectiveness that cannot be denied.

Its likely that agents of every country on earth have used torture, and on a regular basis.

I am opposed to regulating it because it gives it the cachet of legality.

Its something I don't really even want to know about. And the only reason the far left cares is because they think it is usable against Bush. If they are so opposed to torture, why aren't they outraged at the hundreds, maybe thousands of American citizens tortured over the years by the Chicago police department. The reason they don't care is because it can't be used against Bush.

I am not so sure that there is any real moral quandary involved either. Forcibly extracting information from people who deliberately murder innocents to further their twisted and sick cause does not bother me all that much for some reason.

[BridgeWalker]

What I don't get is why tapes were madein the first place.

I am against torture in pretty much all its forms, but clandestine operations shouldn't result in videotape.  They should rsult in as little recird as possible. 

[ilbob]

What I don't get is why tapes were madein the first place.

I am against torture in pretty much all its forms, but clandestine operations shouldn't result in videotape.  They should rsult in as little recird as possible. 

I think they probably recorded them so that whatever information was gained would not be lost.

Maybe for training purposes as well.

If you are going to torture people, might as well learn to do it correctly.

[Jamisjockey]

I can just imagine jihadis laughing themselves silly at Americans taking their side so overtly in public . . .

The why matters not.
The Jihadis are animals.  We are not animals.  We should not be sucked into this trap.  Its a slippery slope of creeping incrementalisim.  Accepting the torture of others will eventually lead to the torture of us.

[geronimotwo]

I am not so sure that there is any real moral quandary involved either. Forcibly extracting information from people who deliberately murder innocents to further their twisted and sick cause does not bother me all that much for some reason.

i feel i could take a life to protect my family, but i could no more be the torturer than the torturee. i don't have the mentality, or the stomach, for it. i find that odd in that to take a life is much more a finality than torturing someone.

[wooderson]

I am not so sure that there is any real moral quandary involved either. Forcibly extracting information from people who deliberately murder innocents to further their twisted and sick cause does not bother me all that much for some reason.

You seem awfully sure of the guilt of everyone who might be targeted by the state.

[gunsmith]

They waterboarded Abu Zubaydah and got good intell, he didn't confess to stealing candy, he ratted out comrades, told the interviewers about new plans/operations and the waterboarding was a success.
We got good intell.

The whole frowning thing had no effect on him I guess.

When Clinton targeted civilians and hospitals and schools, the same people whining about waterboarding were cheering on the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

[Jamisjockey]

They waterboarded Abu Zubaydah and got good intell, he didn't confess to stealing candy, he ratted out comrades, told the interviewers about new plans/operations and the waterboarding was a success.
We got good intell.

The whole frowning thing had no effect on him I guess.

When Clinton targeted civilians and hospitals and schools, the same people whining about waterboarding were cheering on the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

Getting good intel from a few people doesn't make it right.
Did I come out in support of Komrade Klinton?  Don't lump me in with those people.
Torture is torture is torture.  We lose our moral superiority by participating in such things.  Its not right, its not American, its not Constitutional.

You seem awfully sure of the guilt of everyone who might be targeted by the state.

Zactly.  Just because the Government says they know something or did something.....

Does anyone here trust the IRS?
 
The BATFE?

The FBI?

But somehow the CIA and the Administration get a pass when they decide someone is an "Enemy combatant" and deserves torture to see what they know......

[ilbob]

They waterboarded Abu Zubaydah and got good intell, he didn't confess to stealing candy, he ratted out comrades, told the interviewers about new plans/operations and the waterboarding was a success.
We got good intell.

The whole frowning thing had no effect on him I guess.

When Clinton targeted civilians and hospitals and schools, the same people whining about waterboarding were cheering on the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

If a few thousand innocents have to be killed to further the left's goals, they could care less. Especially if they are in a far away place.

The far left in this country is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our citizens through the laws and policies they enforce. They do not care one whit. They are responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of unborn Americans. They do not care. As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make.

[roo_ster]

Here we go, again, defining torture down. 

Waterboarding is not torture.  Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.

Man did gunsmith nail it:
"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."

[roo_ster]

how did anyone even find out about them if they are being held in secret?

my guess is there is one or more terrorist sympathizers involved leaking classified information who should be locked up for the rest of his/her life.

Amen to that.  We need a thorough cleaning out of the Augean Agencies. 

[wooderson]

If a few thousand innocents have to be killed to further the left's goals, they could care less. Especially if they are in a far away place.

Funny, I don't remember the 'left' cheering that on at all. But what do I know, I am after all, merely a leftist myself. (who thinks Clinton should get a spot in the Hague alongside Kissinger and Dubya...)

[Len Budney]

Waterboarding is not torture.  Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.

Will you volunteer to be water-boarded and post the results on YouTube?

"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."

Like innocent Muslims enduring water-boarding so you can feel safe? Remember, the folks captured and tortured are accused of involvement in terrorism, but we already know that many of them are completely innocent. Which is why due process was invented...

--Len.

[Jamisjockey]

Here we go, again, defining torture down. 

Waterboarding is not torture.  Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.

Man did gunsmith nail it:
"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."

How is it not torture to hold someone down and make them feel they are drowning?  That's what it does to the body, is force it into a physical panic.  Its torture. 
And, so, if its not torture.....would you approve your local Police department to use it as an interrogation technique? 
If your local PD can't do it, your Federal Government damn well shouldnt be doing it.

[roo_ster]

Waterboarding is not torture.  Before we know it, our boys won't be able to use harsh language or give them the stink eye.

Will you volunteer to be water-boarded and post the results on YouTube?

"As long as their policy issues are advanced, no sacrifice is too much for other people to make."

Like innocent Muslims enduring water-boarding so you can feel safe? Remember, the folks captured and tortured are accused of involvement in terrorism, but we already know that many of them are completely innocent. Which is why due process was invented...

--Len.

Len, I have had what I would describe as "vigorous compliance techniques" used on me in the past that I would rate as more, ahh, vigorous than waterboarding.  This happened before the advent of youtube and I don't recall tape rolling during that not-so-fun time.  Youtube will forever have to wait.

You have likely seen some of these techniques in action on video, but are ignorant as to how vigorous they are.  Enlist, volunteer several times over for various schools & units, and you can also have some perspective on such techniques.

So, when I hear that three of the folks we have captured in the GWOT (or whatever it is called this week) have been waterboarded and gave up *expletive deleted*it-hot information, I wonder, "Why have they used it only three times?"


jamisjockey:

Finding & killing militant muslims abroad is not a police function. 

The next absurd thing you might write could be:

...would you approve your local Police department to use close air support?
If your local PD can't do close air support, your Federal Government damn well shouldnt be doing close air support.

(1)should oversea detainee's be given the same rights as american citizens?

(2)should the cia be accountable to our courts? our constitution?

(3)does the "need" for information supercede the rules of war laid out by the geneva convention?

(1)  There are possibly situations where that might be the case, but for the great majority, the answer is NO.

(2)  Depends on what you mean by "accountable" and which courts.  Yes, the CIA ought to be accountable in the general use of the word, to the COTUS.  Folks in #1, I would say they ought have no recourse to American courts.  I would go further and say that US Citizens ought to have recourse to sue the CIA or any fed.gov entity for leaking classified information and forcing the fed.gov to track down the leaker and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. 

(3)  Which conventions & accords?  I would abide by the letter of only those we have signed on to.  BTW, terrorists are not covered by any the USA has signed.  They can be shot out of hand, on the spot.  If you can kill them, you can certainly ask them questions in a "vigorous" manner.

[Jamisjockey]

Military action is not a police function.  What the Police, Military, CIA and our Politicians share, however, is an oath to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION and laws of our nation.
Would you want the CIA waterboarding you if they suspected you of being a terrorist?  Remember, terrorists come in all shapes and sizes.  Eric Rudolph was a Christian terrorist. 
Would you support a White Christian American Citizen being waterboarded?
Do you think that your Government can blur the line without crossing over the line?  I actually am not against torture in certain instances.  However, I also believe that the Constitution and Bill of Rights do not allow our government to inflict such techniques on people of this country, so why should it be allowed on anyone else?  And how long until "Gee, it worked so well in Gitmo...maybe we should use it on Murder suspects.  Maybe we should use it on any suspect of a violent crime."
Remember...Hitler didn't start Gassing the Jews immediately. 

[Len Budney]

should oversea detainee's be given the same rights as american citizens?

I didn't notice the fallacy until jfruser quoted you. The Constitution doesn't give anyone rights. It restricts government from infringing pre-existing rights. For example, the 2A forbids the government to disarm anyone. The can't disarm citizens, they can't disarm non-citizens, they can't disarm sentient lichen from the planet Zort.

--Len.