CIA destroyed torture tapes despite court order

Upton · #1 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:39 AM

The Bush administration doing something illegal? What a surprise. This administration promised to bring "honesty and integrity" back to government, instead they've done the exact opposite.

Quote:

CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders

Associated Press Wed Dec 12, 6:53 AM ET

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.

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.

CIA destroyed tapes despite court orders - Yahoo! News

ONEWHITEDUCK · #2 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:42 AM

Cia Is Faggots

Oedipus Rex · #3 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:43 AM

Nice hit piece. Too bad its inaccurate. The court order only covered Club Gitmo... not prisoners in other countries. Try again.

Badmutha · #4 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:48 AM

Damn you Bush! Why couldnt you get those tapes to CNN or PMSNBC. Why do the CIA and FBI have to operate secretly--it isnt fair! Who cares what happens to the agents conducting the interrogations--Al Queada needs help!

Upton · #5 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oedipus Rex

Nice hit piece. Too bad its inaccurate. The court order only covered Club Gitmo...

Read it and weep.

Quote:

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."

ONEWHITEDUCK · #6 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:56 AM

BUSH and ther CIA are no freind of the soldiers either

YOU SPIT ON SOLDIERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU LITTLE FUCKER

SPIT ON ME SOME MORE

I'LL SEND MIA

semper psi
__________________
If you don't KNOW where you come from...you WILL wind up going nowhere.

That goes for Ideas, institutions as well as individuals :-I

YouTube - - You CAN Handle The Truth - TRANCE Form America - 3of7

FedUpAmerican · #7 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:58 AM

The FACT that this happened under bushies watch does not surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that these idiot cunt trolls here defend their lying cunt president.

Smitty0311 · #8 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:58 AM

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOLD THE CIA NOT TO DESTROY THE TAPES! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT LIBS!

ABC News: White House: Miers Told CIA to Save Tapes

ABC News has learned that at least one White House official knew about the CIA's planned destruction of videotapes in 2005 that documented the interrogation of two al Qaeda operatives: then-White House counsel Harriet Miers.

Three officials told ABC News Miers urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

Intelligence officials say the decision to destroy the tapes was made by Jose Rodriguez, former head of the CIA's covert-operations division. Even former CIA director Porter Goss did not know the tapes were destroyed. The White House said today President Bush didn't know either.

Congress is now demanding to know why the CIA destroyed those tapes, just as its interrogation methods were facing intense public scrutiny. To some prominent members of Congress there's only one explanation: a coverup.

Democratic Senate leaders compared the CIA's actions to the Watergate scandal.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., asked, "What would cause the CIA to take this action? The answer is obvious -- coverup." "What is at stake here goes to the heart of the rule of law and justice in America," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

This afternoon, Durbin wrote Attorney General Michael Mukasey urging him to investigate a possible "obstruction of justice."

Members of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission also expressed concern. Co-Chairman Tom Kean said the Commission had demanded all information about the interrogations and was never told about the tapes.

"They knew what they had and they didn't give it to us," Kean said.

In a message to employees Thursday, CIA Director Michael Hayden made no apologies for the tapes' destruction insisting the decision to destroy them was "in line with the law."

In 2002, the CIA videotaped the interrogations of two terror suspects, including top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. The tapes showed what the CIA calls "enhanced interrogation techniques," methods which critics call torture.

In February 2003, the CIA says it told the leaders of congressional intelligence committees about the tapes and that it planned to destroy them.

Badmotha · #9 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upton

Read it and weep.

So what if it is against the law?
We support criminals like Bush...didnt you know that ?

ONEWHITEDUCK · #10 (**permalink**) 12-12-2007, 11:02 AM

So what if it is against the law?
We support criminals like Bush...didnt you know that ?

I DID......we supported the clintons too :-O

SO IT'S TOO OBVIOUS :-)