Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - In the Climate of the Bush "Politics of Fear", Democrat Leaders Our Eyes & Ears?

host · 12-07-2007, 10:21 AM

Ranking Democratic Senate Intel Committee member Sen. Jay Rockefeller
"knew something about this", but he said nothing....he should have been our "eyes and ears". Now he is chairman of that Senate Committee. Where are the unreleased parts of the 2004 Intel commitee report on the ways the white house handled Iraq pre-invasion intelligence he had promised to make public?

Ranking Democrat on the house intel. committee until Jan., 2007, Jane Harman, says she vaguely "Knew about it", and "wrote a letter".

Was this enough to meet her obligation to be "our eyers and ears"?

A main white house effort the last four years was <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5411688">to militarize the management of formerly civilian headed intelligence agencies</a>. In addition to key democrats on the two intel committees turing "a blind eye", wasn't it a good idea, in terms of serving the interests of "the people", to appoint civilians to head these agencies? Aren't the largest intel. agencies, DIA, etc., already managed by the military?

Why did democrats vote to approve these appointments by the president of military officers to head key intelligence agencies?

Should defendants in criminal cases in the US receive new trials now that Mike Hayden admits that "evidence" uised against them was "coerced" from third parties by CIA personnel using "techniques" that made them fearful enough to destroy videotaped evidence of?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/wa...nted=1&_r=1&hp
C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes of Interrogations

December 6, 2007
C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes of Interrogations
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A’s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

The C.I.A. said today that the decision to destroy the tapes had been made “within the C.I.A. itself,” and they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value. The agency was headed at the time by Porter J. Goss. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Goss declined this afternoon to comment on the destruction of the tapes.

The existence and subsequent destruction of the tapes are likely to reignite the debate over the use of severe interrogation techniques on terror suspects, and their destruction raises questions about whether C.I.A. officials withheld information about aspects of the program from the courts and from the Sept. 11 commission appointed by President Bush and Congress. It was not clear who within the C.I.A. authorized the destruction of the tapes, but current and former government officials said it had been approved at the highest levels of the agency.

The New York Times informed the C.I.A. on Wednesday evening that it planned to publish an article in Friday’s newspaper about the destruction of the tapes. Today, the C.I.A. director, General Michael V. Hayden, wrote a letter to the agency workforce explaining the matter.

<h3>The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and any other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.

C.I.A. lawyers told federal prosecutors in 2003 and 2005, who relayed the information to a federal court in the Moussaoui case, that the C.I.A. did not possess recordings of interrogations sought by the judge in the case. It was unclear whether the judge had explicitly sought the videotape depicting the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah.

Mr. Moussaoui’s lawyers had hoped that records of the interrogations might provide exculpatory evidence for Mr. Moussaoui — showing that the Al Qaeda detainees did not know Mr. Moussaoui and clearing him of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, plot..... </h3>

...Staff members of the Sept. 11 commission, which completed its work in 2004, expressed surprise when they were told that interrogation videotapes existed until 2005.

“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and later as a senior counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said.

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

General Hayden said the tapes were originally made to ensure that agency employees acted in accordance with “established legal and policy guidelines.” General Hayden said the agency stopped videotaping interrogations in 2002.

“The tapes were meant chiefly as an additional, internal check on the program in its early stages,” his statement read....

Quote:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/12/w...-you-need.html
Thursday, December 06, 2007

Where's Rose Mary Woods When You Need Her?

Marty Lederman

Think they couldn't top the Ashcroft hospital encounter? The waterboarding and removal of Daniel Levin?

Well, how about a good, ol'-fashioned case of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/washington/06cnd-intel.html?hp">obstruction of justice</a>?

Truly remarkable. When the Times told the CIA that it was going to run this story, Mike Hayden quickly sent out a letter to the CIA, reprinted below. (Hat tip to John Sifton for the letter.) Hayden's explanation for the destruction was the need to protect the identity of CIA agents. As though the CIA destroys all its documents that contain identifying information about its agents. Unfortunately for Hayden, but not surprisingly, the Times reports that the tapes were destroyed "in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy." Says who? Says <h3>several officials</h3>.

There is a lot to parse in that letter, but unfortunately I can't this evening, other than to briefly annotate the letter itself.

Except that one thing should be emphasized: According to Hayden, "the leaders of our oversight committees in Congress were informed of the videos years ago [they didn't ask to see them?!] <h3>and of the Agency's intention to dispose of the material</h3>. In a news release that he put out this evening, Jay Rockefeller claims that the Intel Committees were not "consulted" on the use of the tapes "nor the decision to destroy the tapes." But he does not deny that he was informed of the agency's intent to dispose of the tapes, and he acknowledges that he learned of the destruction one year ago, in November 2006. <h3>And this is the first time he has said anything about it</h3>. Jay Rockefeller is constantly learning of legally dubious (at best) CIA intelligence activities, and then saying nothing about them publicly until they are leaked to the press, at which point he expresses outrage and incredulity -- but reveals nothing. Really, isn't it about time the Democrats select an effective Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, one who will treat this scandal with the seriousness it deserves, and who will shed much-needed light on the CIA program of torture, cruel treatment and obstruction of evidence?

[UPDATE: <a href="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyL3au-RZxEcch2P9ymXaJ9mroogD8TCAIDO0">Pam Hess reports</a> that Jane Harman also knew of the intention to destroy the tapes, and she at least "urged" the CIA in writing not to do it. (Where were her colleagues?) But when she found out the CIA had destroyed the tapes, where was Harman's press conference? Where were the congressional hearings?]

<h3>Message from the Director: Taping of Early Detainee Interrogations</h3>

The press has learned that back in 2002, during the initial stage of our terrorist detention program, CIA videotaped interrogations, and destroyed the tapes in 2005. I understand that the Agency did so only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative, or judicial inquiries--including the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. [What about the 9/11 Commission? What about the failure to tell the Moussaoui judge about these tapes? What about the obvious future legislative and judicial inquiries? (Note that the destruction likely occurred just after Dana Priest broke the story of the CIA black sites in 2005.)] The decision to destroy the tapes was made within CIA itself. The leaders of our oversight committees in Congress were informed of the videos years ago and of the Agency's intention to dispose of the material. [Yes, and what did they say about that?]/ Our oversight committees also have been told that the videos were, in fact, destroyed.

If past public commentary on the Agency's detention program is any guide, we may see misinterpretations of the facts in the days ahead.

With that in mind, I want you to have some background now.

CIA's terrorist detention and interrogation program began after the capture of Abu Zubaydah in March 2002. Zubaydah, who had extensive knowledge of al-Qa'ida personnel and operations, had been seriously wounded in a firefight. When President Bush officially acknowledged in September 2006 the existence of CIA's counter-terror initiative, he talked about Zubaydah, noting that this terrorist survived solely because of medical treatment arranged by CIA. Under normal questioning, Zubaydah became defiant and evasive. It was clear, in the President's words, that "Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking."

That made imperative the use of other means to obtain the information-means that were lawful, safe, and effective. To meet that need, CIA designed specific, appropriate interrogation procedures.

Before they were used, they were reviewed and approved by the Department of Justice and by other elements of the Executive Branch [why other "elements" of the Executive branch? Which ones? And doesn't this confirm that OLC approved the CIA techniques -- probably orally -- even before the 08/01/02 Torture memo was promulgated?] Even with the great care taken and detailed preparations made, the fact remains that this effort was new, and 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 tapes were meant chiefly as an additional, internal check on the program in its early stages. At one point, it was thought the tapes could serve as a backstop to guarantee that other methods of documenting the interrogations-and the crucial information they produced-were accurate and complete. The Agency soon determined that its documentary reporting was full and exacting, removing any need for tapes. [Can you imagine? No need for actual video and audio recordings of this vital gathering of "crucial information." No need for future trials, future investigations, future training, future investigations, etc.] Indeed, videotaping stopped in 2002.

As part of the rigorous review that has defined the detention program, the Office of General Counsel examined the tapes and determined that they showed lawful methods of questioning. The Office of Inspector General also examined the tapes in 2003 as part of its look at the Agency's detention and interrogation practices. [And it "determined," what, exactly? Did the IG say?: "Yeah, sure, go ahead and destroy the only primary evidence of my investigation."] Beyond their lack of intelligence value-as the interrogation sessions had already been exhaustively detailed in written channels [think about that -- the U.S. government claiming that video "lacks value" once it is described in detail in a written version. Let's just hope that's not business-as-usual at the CIA. Yup, Jim, I've written down what was in those photos; you can throw them out now."]-and the absence of any legal or internal reason to keep them [hmm . . . legal or internal . . . interesting use of adjectives], the tapes posed a serious security risk. 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-Qa'ida and its sympathizers. [Surely such identities could be redacted or hidden, no? Is it SOP for the CIA to destroy all its records containing agents' identification, because of the prospect that they might one day be leaked?]

These decisions were made years ago. [Note the passive voice.] But it is my responsibility, as Director today, to explain to you what was done, and why. What matters here is that it was done in line with the law. [And where, exactly, is that law explaining how an agency can destroy evidence of possible wrongdoing?] Over the course of its life, the Agency's interrogation program has been of great value to our country. It has helped disrupt terrorist operations and save lives. It was built on a solid foundation of legal review. [Oh, so that's what they call the August 2002 OLC torture memo.] It has been conducted with careful supervision. If the story of these tapes is told fairly, it will underscore those facts.

<h3>Mike Hayden</h3>

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3969154
ABC News
Justice Asked to Probe Tape Destruction
Senate Official Seeks Investigation of CIA Destruction of Terror Suspect Interrogations
By PAMELA HESS
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON

The Senate's No. 2 Democrat on Friday asked the Justice Department to investigate whether the CIA obstructed justice by destroying videotapes that documented the harsh 2002 interrogations of two alleged terrorists.

A day after CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden told agency employees the tapes were destroyed in 2005, members of Congress, human rights groups and lawyers for accused terrorists said the tapes may have been key evidence that the U.S. government had illegally authorized torture.

In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois asked for a probe of "whether CIA officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their existence from official proceedings violated the law."

In a speech on the Senate floor, Durbin dismissed the CIA's explanation that it was trying to protect the identities of the interrogators.

"We know that it is possible and in fact easy to cover the faces" of those who appear on camera, Durbin said. "This is not an issue that can be ignored."

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said his committee would conduct a full review of the matter. Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton, D- N.Y., also called for a full investigation.

"We've got to really clean house here and get to the bottom of what's been going on in the last years," she said Friday.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which coordinates the work of all attorneys representing U.S. prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, says the CIA may have destroyed crucial evidence it requested in 2004.

I think that democrats who enabled the crimes of the Bush administration to be obstructed or covered up, should be prosecuted along with those who ordered and obeyed orders to commit crimes....abuse of prisoners, withholding of evidence from defense lawyers, and destruction of evidence are a few.

Do you think that the CIA videotapes could have been destroyed if Rockefeller and Harman were adequately representing "the rest of us"? Do you think that they have committed crimes by not objecting to a coverup and destruction of evidence? Weren't they aware that Moussaui was on trial and evidence used against him came from coerced interrogations?

Do "the politics of fear", created as a smokescreen and an excuse by the Bush/Cheney for their abuses of human rights, in any way exonerate Rockefeller and Harman?