CIA destroyed tapes of al-Qaeda interrogations: director

[Praxius]

CIA destroyed tapes of al-Qaeda interrogations: director

The CIA videotaped its interrogations of two top al-Qaeda 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 George W. 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-Qaeda 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. 'A bad idea' 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 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 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 attacks, but not since 2003. Hayden banned the use of the procedure in 2006, according to knowledgeable officials. The CIA says the tapes were destroyed late in 2005, a year marked by increasing pressure from defence 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.

One question..... if they feared that the identities of their CIA torturers were at a risk of identification if made public, then why did they record them in the first place?

Evidence?

Then why did they destroy evidence?

Because they determined they contained nothing of importance?

I doubt those tortured would agree.

And besides.... call it a little bit of education in the field of video editing I have, but last I checked, it's not hard to add a few filters to the audio and blob out faces in the original tapes and then make them public.

Lame excuse for performing an illegal act if you ask me

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius One question.....

You've got a lot more than one question...

Quote by: Praxius if they feared that the identities of their CIA torturers were at a risk of identification if made public, then why did they record them in the first place?

When you are extracting information out of someone, what makes more sense - video taping it so that you can review the information as needed or having someone in there trying to write it down? Although audio recording probably could have been used, video would make who said what and any inconsistancies that may arise that much clearer.

Quote by: Praxius Evidence? Then why did they destroy evidence?

The "human rights group" call them evidence...the CIA called them trash.

Quote by: Praxius Because they determined they contained nothing of importance?

I'm sure everything that occurred had been transcribed.

Quote by: Praxius I doubt those tortured would agree.

"harsh questioning methods"

Quote by: Praxius And besides.... call it a little bit of education in the field of video editing I have, but last I checked, it's not hard to add a few filters to the audio and blob out faces in the original tapes and then make them public. Lame excuse for performing an illegal act if you ask me

What was illegal about destroying the tapes?
a "bad idea" doesn't mean illegal and there was "the absence of any legal or internal reason to keep them,".

[Osborn F Enready]

These scumbags involved with destroying evidence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law after a trial finds them guilty.

[another day]

Quote by: Dieval The "human rights group" call them evidence...the CIA called them trash. I'm sure everything that occurred had been transcribed.

Yeah "human rights"...what a silly concept right.

"harsh questioning methods"

Hahaha... Yes, it's not torture, it's "harsh questioning methods"... Nice spin! I bet they have a job for you in washington!

What was illegal about destroying the tapes?

Destroying evidence is illegal.

[Dieval]

Quote by: another day Yeah "human rights"...what a silly concept right.

I didn't say "human rights" were silly. I quoted the article and said it was a "human rights group" calling these tapes "evidence".

Quote by: another day Destroying evidence is illegal.

The only ones that called it "evidence" was the "human rights group"...according to this article, the CIA has done nothing wrong, destroying these tapes.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval You've got a lot more than one question...

One main question... many sub questions for possible answers which may have arose from the main question to save time.

When you are extracting information out of someone, what makes more sense - video taping it so that you can review the information as needed or having someone in there trying to write it down? Although audio recording probably could have been used, video would make who said what and any inconsistancies that may arise that much clearer.

That's true.... but they're destroyed now.

The "human rights group" call them evidence...the CIA called them trash.

So it was a group which specializes in human rights and knows the laws which relates to them.... so therefore not credible?

People love to jump all over the RCMP over tasers, yet the CIA can do no wrong?

I'm sure everything that occurred had been transcribed.

Really? I'm not so sure.

"harsh questioning methods"

AKA Rebound: Torture. It's been torture for centuries and considdered by many around the world as Torture.

"Harsh Questioning Methods" can range from shooting someone in the knee, to border-line drowning, to many other things..... the word twist still means the same thing, esspecially in these cases... Torture.

What was illegal about destroying the tapes? a "bad idea" doesn't mean illegal and there was "the absence of any legal or internal reason to keep them,".

I will redirect you to this in the above article:

CIA Director Michael Hayden said the CIA began taping the interrogations as an internal check on the program after President George W. Bush authorized the use of harsh questioning methods..... ....."The Agency was determined that it proceed in accord with established legal and policy guidelines. So, on its own, CIA began to videotape interrogations,"....... ......The CIA decided to destroy the tapes in "the absence of any legal or internal reason to keep them......" ........The CIA says the tapes were destroyed late in 2005, a year marked by increasing pressure from defence attorneys to obtain videotapes of detainee interrogations.

Bush gave them the ok and told them it was legal to do.... then those techniques became public and later it was determined what they were doing was illegal and now they possessed evidence proving they were performing an illegal act.

There was "Absence of any Legal reason" for them to keep them, but there was plenty of legal reason for those tortured to have them as evidence against the CIA for what they did.... so in order to cover up the level of torture they performed on these two individuals, they destroy the tapes.

Oh but then again illegal enemy combatants.... or is it legal combatants now? Anyways, apparently these guys have no rights to see evidence presented against them and proper representation in court, so I also assume destroying evidence which can help them is ok as well.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius So it was a group which specializes in human rights and knows the laws which relates to them.... so therefore not credible?

"knows the laws"? interesting way of trying to give them credability... The tapes were deemed to be of no legal value, hence they are not "evidence".

Quote by: Praxius People love to jump all over the RCMP over tasers, yet the CIA can do no wrong?

I didn't jump all over the RCMP for tasing anyone(and this sounds a bit like a red herring to me)...

Quote by: Praxius AKA Rebound: Torture. It's been torture for centuries and considdered by many around the world as Torture. "Harsh Questioning Methods" can range from shooting someone in the knee, to border-line drowning, to many other things..... the word twist still means the same thing, esspecially in these cases... Torture.

No one was shot in the knee or "border-line" drowned...

Quote by: Praxius then those techniques became public and later it was determined what they were doing was illegal

Which techniques were determined to be illegal?

And did destroying the tapes happen before or after it was deemed illegal?

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval I didn't say "human rights" were silly. I quoted the article and said it was a "human rights group" calling these tapes "evidence".

Potiential evidence of human rights violations..... something which the CIA wanted to avoid. The excuse of protecting the identities of their operatives is a lame one at best, since I know what is required to censoring certain details in video, it's not hard to do.... if they had nothing to hide, they could have gone about this approach, which has been done for many years with police and FBI officials who worked undercover in drug busts, etc.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval "knows the laws"? interesting way of trying to give them credability... The tapes were deemed to be of no legal value, hence they are not "evidence".

I'm sure the CIA specifically focuses on human rights violations and knows what is legal and what is not. Their job is to gather intelligence, not be another division of law enforcement.... what they determined as not evidence, I question.

No one was shot in the knee or "border-line" drowned... Which techniques were determined to be illegal?

You don't know much about waterboarding do you?

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure. Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death. Numerous experts have described this technique as torture.

And did destroying the tapes happen before or after it was deemed illegal?

Hmmm... let's see... considdering Waterboarding has been classified as a form of tortue since 1478 in Spain during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process.... the tapes were destroyed after it was deemed torture and hince illegal by modren society worldwide.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius You don't know much about waterboarding do you?

Actually, I have read before, and can't find the link to it right off hand, that when it is done the person is really protected from actually drowning and,just to be safe, we have medical personal standing by if something were to go wrong, in the 3 times that we've used it.(We're not quite Spain in 1478)

Quote by: Praxius the tapes were destroyed after it was deemed torture and hince illegal by modren society worldwide.

When was it deemed torture and illegal?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Praxius CIA destroyed tapes of al-Qaeda interrogations: director One question..... if they feared that the identities of their CIA torturers were at a risk of identification if made public, then why did they record them in the first place? Evidence? Then why did they destroy evidence? Because they determined they contained nothing of importance? I doubt those tortured would agree. And besides.... call it a little bit of education in the field of video editing I have, but last I checked, it's not hard to add a few filters to the audio and blob out faces in the original tapes and then make them public. Lame excuse for performing an illegal act if you ask me

As the final outcome, the public has nothing except for Hayden words.

The questions :
- what was that (alleged) footage all about, especially since nobody saw it ?
- was there any footage at all ?

The main issue :
- why Hayden released that info
???

It suggests some laid off(s) and/or resignation(s), while that alleged video-tape would be used as an argument.
Does it mean Hayden has enough, already ? and/or wants to get rid of "competition" (within CIA, itself and/or other administrative departments) ?
Private games ? Why not. It works for some over-ambitious guys, especially.
What U.S. Congreess or Senate has in hands to be investigated ?
Nothing.

[Zeebadee]

The "official" CIA reason for destroying this evidence is so transparent as to constitute contempt for anyone with the ability to think coherently. Hayden and his bunch of thugs should be forced out of their jobs for displaying such arrogance.

[Milton Bradley]

I just saw on CNN that Bush has "no recollection" of any tapes.


Those words evolk an image that the orders for such things did come from the very top, and that he is, in fact, complicit.

[Clarence]

perhaps the evidence rendered was not the sort to be heard?

[Jack]

Let’s first focus on this question: Why is this evidence being destroyed? The answer is painfully acknowledged. The CIA leadership and other senior administration officials are fully cognizant of the fact that the use of a number of specific practices which these tapes almost certainly document, to-wit: waterboarding, long-time standing, hypothermia, psychotropic drugs and sleep deprivation in excess of two days, are serious crimes under American law and the law of almost all nations. Consequently, those who have used them and those who have authorized their use will almost certainly ultimately face criminal prosecution at some point in the future. The Administration’s attempts to immunize the perpetrators have failed. Any purported grant of a pardon by President Bush will be legally ineffective, because Bush himself is a collaborator in the scheme. And there is no statute of limitations. Therefore the prospect of prosecution is hardly far-fetched. It is a virtual certainty. So the evidence is being destroyed precisely because it would be used as evidence of criminal acts in a prosecution of administration figures and those acting under their direction. Therefore, this is a conscious, calculated obstruction of justice. The second question is: Where has Congress been throughout this period? The Associated Press now has a story up which raises even more troubling prospects. In it, General Hayden suggests that the Agency notified Congressional oversight and they expressed no objection to the destruction of evidence. CIA Director Michael 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. This raises more issues. Who in the intelligence committees were notified? What did they do that expressed consent? Indeed, if they failed to raise objections, they weren’t performing their oversight function. Chairman Rockefeller has a different description of what happened from General Hayden: “While we were provided with very limited information about the existence of the tapes, we were not consulted on their usage nor the decision to destroy the tapes. And, we did not learn until much later, November 2006 — 2 months after the full committee was briefed on the program — that the tapes had in fact been destroyed in 2005.” Congresswoman Jane Harman also states unequivocally that she warned against destruction of the recordings. The suggestion that the “CIA’s internal watchdog” viewed the tapes and approved in 2003 raises more questions. Does this “watchdog” understand its function as suborning criminality? It certainly looks that way. If it gave a green light, then it was complicit in a criminal act, and it needs to be the subject of an investigation itself. But first let’s note: this was when John Yoo’s torture memorandum, issued out of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel in order to bind the CIA to the Yoo/Addington lunatic notions of torture, was in force. So that determination that they “were legal” is in fact John Yoo’s determination that they were “legal.” And this is as worthless a determination as has ever appeared within a rifleshot of the Potomac. Indeed, if that’s Hayden’s basis for saying it was legal, the proper reaction would not be to be reassured, it would be to be still more concerned. In addition to being evidence of criminal conduct undertaken with official sanction, the tapes would be probative of the value of any “confessions” or “admissions” secured using the techniques. They would establish that any such evidence is worthless. By destroying the evidence, the Bush Administration is laying the foundations for the use of torture-induced “evidence” in court room proceedings, in violation of U.S. law and international commitments. In fact we now have a number of witnesses saying that exactly this is in train, including a JAG colonel whose testimony before Congress Defense Department General Counsel (another of the prime torture conspirators) intervened to block. All of this is clear cut obstruction of justice, a serious federal crime. In the course of the last few years, we have seen a number of wannabe macho federal prosecutors utilize obstruction statutes to go after businessmen (a couple of investment bankers and accountants come to mind) who were a bit too quick to turn to the shredder, usually under circumstances which were extremely ambiguous. The prosecutors used all the power and force associated with their office to attempt to criminalize these acts. This case is quite different. It is openly, clearly and undeniably criminal obstruction. A major question hovers over the conduct of the Justice Department throughout this process. Nowhere does the Justice Department appear to behave like a law enforcement agency. If anything is has adopted the stance of a mobster’s consigliere, and some signs point to the Justice Department’s actual complicity in these criminal acts. Particularly troubling is the Justice Department’s conduct in a high profile prosecution in the Eastern District of Virginia. It now appears that the Department knew of the existence of vital information which it consciously, and wrongfully, withheld from the Court and from defense counsel. This must be investigated and those involved in unethical conduct punished. Further, the CIA and DOJ appear to have collaborated in withholding this information from the September 11 Commission, obstructing and undermining a vital investigation.

(The full article)

18 U.S.C. sec. 1502(c): “Whoever corruptly . . . alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. sec. 1505: “Whoever corruptly . . . obstructs or impedes or endeavors to obstruct or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress. . . Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.”

[Milton Bradley]

I wonder if the is technically a "high crime? In my mind it should be, because in the end it all boils down to perjury, correct?


I shall close with a little prayer.


Darwin, grant people the wisdom to see that Ron Paul is the way out of this mess.

[Jack]

Maybe Huckabee will go to Washington and cast out demons. That would solve two problems. It would remove the evil influences in government, and think of all the job openings it would create.

[thx1138]

When you are extracting information out of someone, what makes more sense - video taping it so that you can review the information as needed or having someone in there trying to write it down? Although audio recording probably could have been used, video would make who said what and any inconsistancies that may arise that much clearer.

audio recordings probably were used as well, do you think the CIA didn't think of using audio as well as video, if not what kind of cracker jack department is it?

You can keep trying to polish this turd but you're not going to make it smell any better.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Dieval What was illegal about destroying the tapes? a "bad idea" doesn't mean illegal and there was "the absence of any legal or internal reason to keep them,"

Well, the White House legal counsel at the time, Harriet Myers, thought the legal issues serious enough to oppose the tapes' destruction. Sincr. When can the CIA act indepently of the executive branch? And how could the president not know about the tapes and his attorney's legal opinion in late 2005 when the waterboardind controversy was in full swing?

[aaronssongs]

Quote by: The Decider Well, the White House legal counsel at the time, Harriet Myers, thought the legal issues serious enough to oppose the tapes' destruction. Sincr. When can the CIA act indepently of the executive branch? And how could the president not know about the tapes and his attorney's legal opinion in late 2005 when the waterboardind controversy was in full swing?

Like Biden said on This Week with George Stephanopoulous, this morning, this administration is grossly incompetent and "out of control".
I think the grounds for impeachment are "overwhelming", for both Bush and Cheney, if the Dems would only have the backbone