For more information and sources refer to my earlier post here, which covers the issue in more detail.
The Rundown
- The CIA taped interrogations of two Al-Qaeda suspects in 2002.
- According to the CIA officials that leaked the information about the tapes, they displayed harsh interrogation techniques, which including waterboarding.
- The 9/11 Commission repeatedly requested the CIA for all information concerning Al-Qaeda.
- The CIA never gave the tapes, or informed the commission of their existence despite publicly stating they waited until the 9/11 Commission ended to destroy them.
- A U.S. District Judge ruled in 2005 that all information pertaining to torture, abuse, or interrogations at Guantanamo Bay must be protected.
- In 2005 the tapes were ordered to be destroyed, allegedly by CIA Director Jose Rodriguez
- The CIA defended the destruction by saying the 2005 ruling did not apply to the tapes because the interrogations took place in secret CIA prisons, not Guantanamo Bay. They also stated the tapes had little intelligence value and could have compromised their agents.
- Attorney General Mike Mukasey has appointed a federal attorney to lead the investigation and not a special, or outside, prosecutor.
Why were the interrogations of these particular Al-Qaeda suspects destroyed?
The White House has publicly acknowledged prisoners have been killed during interrogation at various secret CIA prisons. This excerpt from a 2005 ACLU article describes the torture and death:
The American Civil Liberties Union today made public an analysis of new and previously released autopsy and death reports of detainees held in U.S. facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom died while being interrogated. The documents show that detainees were hooded, gagged, strangled, beaten with blunt objects, subjected to sleep deprivation and to hot and cold environmental conditions.The network of prisons outside of U.S. territory allows them to operate outside of U.S. law. What could have been on these tapes that would cause CIA officials to leak information about their destruction? If the tapes only presented 'legal' torture used to gain information that would protect the lives of American citizens, which Bush is always sure to make clear, why would the CIA risk destroying them? Rep. Jane Harman (D), a top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, recently made public a 2003 classified memo she sent to then CIA counsel Scott Muller warning him about the backlash of destroying the tapes. She later said it sounded like "the cover-up of a cover-up." It is also reported that CIA Counsel John Rizzo and former Deputy Attorney General Harriet Miers warned the CIA not to destroy the tapes.
So we have CIA destroying tapes with 'little value' despite the warnings of scandal and inquiry, CIA officials jeopardizing their careers by leaking information about their destruction, and our President who ordered the tortures claiming that to his "recollection" he was only aware of the tapes a month ago (11/07). What are they trying to hide?
What does this say about the use of waterboarding to gain information from suspects if the tape had no value?
On one hand the CIA stated the tapes had little intelligence value, on the other hand they held on to them in case the commission needed the tapes. It is also important to know that Bush himself authorized the use of waterboarding, or any other form of harsh interrogation (Bush does not consider it torture) used. Bush allowed the waterboarding to gain valuable information, yet the CIA considered the hundred's of hours of interrogation on the tapes to have little value.
Why would the CIA not give information to the 9/11 Commission?
When thousands of American lives are lost to a terrorist attack I think it would be safe to assume that they should have access to all pertinent information. This was not a matter of the commission failing to follow up on their requests or not being specific enough. The CIA stated they waited until 2005 to the destroy the tapes because the 9/11 commission may have needed them, yet they refused to disclose the existence of the tapes to the commission. The chairman and co-chairman went as far as to state that the CIA obstructed their investigation into the 9/11 attacks.
Should Mukasey have appointed a special prosecutor?
This one is a toss up. By selecting an internal attorney the Department of Justice is in a sense investigating itself. The federal attorney, John Durham, answers to U.S. Attorney General Mukasey, who in turn answers to President Bush. This comes down to how impartial you think the investigation is going to be. The tapes could implicate Bush, Cheney, or members of White House staff in the scandal, and in a worst case scenario, they could influence the direction of the investigation. Bush has asked congressional committees and federal courts not to pursue any investigation because it may interfere with the DoJ. Is it easier, or in his best interest, for Bush to have a prosecutor who already answers directly to him? Why would federal, congressional, or outside inquiry negatively affect the DoJ investigation?
What Does It All Mean?
One of the main questions is why did the CIA officials decide to leak the existence, and subsequent destruction, of the tapes? It appears that there is an internal struggle over information or direction within in the CIA. For instance, in 2004 the CIA was forced to bar it's own agents from being present at interrogations in which the prisoners were under duress. The article went on to state: "They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen." The identity of the CIA officials or agents were never made public, so it isn't known what faction within the CIA chose to step out. The leaking of the tapes is another indicator that there are still internal rebels hiding within the agency. How will this policy schism affect the Department of Justice investigation into the tapes?
|