home

ACLU: CIA Admits Destruction of 92 Interrogation Tapes

The ACLU has been engaged in a long lawsuit seeking to obtain videotapes of CIA interrogations of detainees abroad. Today the Government filed a letter with the court acknowledging that 92 interrogation tapes were destroyed.

"This letter provides further evidence for holding the CIA in contempt of court. The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systemic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order. Our contempt motion has been pending in court for over a year now – it is time to hold the CIA accountable for its flagrant disregard for the rule of law."

A copy of the letter is here (pdf). An AP report is here.

< Timeline Of the War on Drugs | Supreme Court Hears Arguments in DNA Innocence Case >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    92 tapes...unbelievable. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    To excerpt from an older NYT article about the tapes...

    "The investigations over the tapes frustrate some C.I.A. veterans, who say they believe that the agency is being unfairly blamed for policies of coercive interrogation approved at the top of the Bush administration and by some Congressional leaders. Intelligence officers are divided over the use of such methods as waterboarding. Some say the methods helped get information that prevented terrorist attacks. Others, like John C. Gannon, a former C.I.A. deputy director, say it was a tragic mistake for the administration to approve such methods.
    Mr. Gannon said he thought the tapes became such an issue because they would have settled the legal debate over the harsh methods.

    'To a spectator it would look like torture,' he said. 'And torture is wrong.'"

     [emphasis supplied]

    If you read "The Dark Side" you can get a sense of what they may've seen on these tapes - complete humiliation and abuse of the detainee.  Example:

    JANE MAYER: Well, obviously there are a lot of psychologists who are very defensive about this role, and there's a reason why. Starting in the summer of 2002, there were psychologists from the SERE program going down to Guantanamo and supervising and advising on the interrogations there, which included the interrogation of Mohammed Qahtani, the so-called twentieth hijacker, who was put through the most unbelievable program of psychological abuse. I don't really know how anybody could defend it. Some of the transcripts have come out.

    He was subjected to fifty-four days of only four hours of sleep a night. He had bags of fluid put into his veins, so that he had to urgently go to the bathroom; they wouldn't let him get up and go, so he had to urinate on himself. They put, you know, the bra on his head. They made him do dog tricks. They put a birthday hat on his head and sang "God Bless America" to him. I mean, looking at the--they told him to bark like a dog. They told him that he was lower than a dog. I mean, it goes on and on and on. People have to see these transcripts to believe it.

    Who watched these tapes and thought this could possibly comply with domestic & international law?

    The CIA is apparently putting together a list of people who either saw or possessed the tapes.  I would very much love to know what these moral zombies thought of what they saw, and I would love to hear it in a courtroom setting.


    Letter from (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by SOS on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:01:14 AM EST
    an entire government body that for 8 years created legal shelters to protect its members from accountability.

    Grounds to disband this... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    criminal enterprise if you ask me.

    Obviously, what is on the tapes, as described by Mayer, is treatment that is unconscionable.  But, beyond that, I don't think there is any question that destroying these tapes was a criminal act.  The CIA absolutely KNEW that those tapes were relevant to a number of legal proceedings, both criminal and civil, and they destroyed them anyway.  Their ridiculous excuse that they needed to destroy them to protect the identities of the interrogators is ludicrous on its face.  Obviously, the CIA has some super-secret, super-secure vaults within the belly of their headquarters where they can keep such things.  What do they do with all their other super-secret, highly classified information?  Whoever gave the order to destroy the tapes needs to be prosecuted.  It is not even a close case.

    My POW father was shamed by our torturing nation (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Palli on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:43:50 PM EST
    Oh come now! Of course they made tapes.  They had to show proof to the higher ups like Ashcroft, Cheney, Bush and all..  Torture is sadistic pornography.  It is unnecessary and does not work.  It has no purpose but to entertain, relieve  & satisfy impotent sociopath leaders. Besides the anger and pain that these crimes were done in our name to human beings,there is that the Torturers are now among us.  

    There is a reason that there are more suicides among the militart during this immoral war than in past conflicts.

    Learning their lesson (none / 0) (#3)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 11:44:17 AM EST
    from the Nixon tapes.  Destroying 18 minutes on one tape wasn't enough to save him.

    The most cdommon comment I heard at the time was, "Why didn't he destroy those tapes?!?"

    As I recall, Nixon was asked about that but my memory doesn't clearly supply his response...something about 'history' and help in writing his memoirs?

    Why would the CIA willingly record (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    their own illegal actions?

    The only surprise is (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    that there were tapes to begin with. Certainly not surprised they were destroyed.

    Parent
    Training purposes perhaps? (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:34:53 PM EST
    Teach the new recruits how to put the screws to somebody.

    Parent
    I guess. The logic escapes me. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:37:34 PM EST
    Hayden: (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 12:49:30 PM EST
    Hayden told agency employees Thursday that the recordings were destroyed out of fear the tapes would be leaked to the press and reveal the identities of interrogators. He said the sessions were videotaped to provide an added layer of legal protection for interrogators using new, harsh methods. Bush had just authorized those methods as a way to break down the defenses of recalcitrant prisoners.
     [CBS]

    To serve that purpose, they would kind of have to have been ...oh, not destroyed?

    Parent

    Sounds to me like they believed they (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    believed they were recording legal interrogations.

    Parent
    Weird.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    How do I protect myself in case the sh*t hits the fan over waterboarding and other forms of torture aka harsh methods of interrogation?

    I got it, let's tape the torture sessions!

    No wonder they say Central Intelligence and Military Intelligence are oxymorons:)

    Parent

    is it really a problem (none / 0) (#13)
    by howcome on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:43:46 PM EST
    There are terrorists cutting people's heads off so are we really concerned if the CIA splashes a little water in someones face?

    because (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Mon Mar 02, 2009 at 03:51:25 PM EST
    we are supposed to be better than the terrorists.  Or else - what's the point.

    Yes, I am really concerned.  And if the tapes were destroyed - how do you know it was just them splashing a little water?

    Parent

    Forgive them Lord... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue Mar 03, 2009 at 09:15:04 AM EST
    they know not what they do.

    Parent