Did the D.O. Lawyer Even Know about Brinkema’s Request?

While it has clear Isikovian blind spots–like the rather obvious coincidence between the terror tapes timeline and the events in Leonie Brinkema’s courtroom–there are some interesting tidbits in this Isikoff-Hosenball article on the "paper trail" of the decision to destroy the torture tapes. Most importantly, it sounds like the Directorate of Operations lawyer who purportedly authorized the destruction of the tapes only said there was no legal reason not to do so.

Included in the paper trail is an opinion from a CIA lawyer assigned to the Clandestine Service that advises that there is no explicit legal reason why the Clandestine Service had to preserve the tapes, according to both former and current officials. The document does not, however, directly authorize the tapes’ destruction or offer advice on the wisdom or folly of such a course of action, according to a source familiar with its contents, who declined to be identified discussing the controversial topic.

Which suggests this lawyer had no fucking clue that Judge Leonie Brinkema had asked the government about such tapes explicitly, within weeks of the time when the tapes were destroyed. I’m guessing that was by design–the only way they could figure out how to get a legal opinion defending the indefensible, the destruction of evidence.

Apparently, the tapes themselves never entered this country.

But the tapes themselves were never brought onto U.S. territory; they were kept, and later destroyed, at a secret location overseas.

But an electronic copy of the tapes did. Isikoff and Hosenball’s source claims there’s no reason to believe that electronic copy still exists.

At one point portions of the tapes were electronically transmitted to CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., so a small number of officials there could review them. A counterterrorism source, who also asked for anonymity when discussing this subject, said that there was no reason to believe that any recordings of such an electronic feed still exist.

Uh huh. Sure there’s not.

The article presents conflicting views on the role of John Rizzo (and it refutes claims made elsewhere that Rizzo was unaware of the tapes’ destruction).

Throughout the same period, said one of the former officials, a senior CIA lawyer, John Rizzo, now the agency’s acting general counsel, was also conducting discussions on what to do with the tapes with White House lawyer Harriet Miers. Two sources said that Rizzo also discussed the issue with officials at the Justice Department, which had issued classified guidelines outlining how the CIA’s interrogation program should operate.

[snip]

Current and former officials familiar with Rizzo’s views said he was never comfortable with the idea of the tapes being destroyed. But Clandestine Service officials involved in the matter believe they never got explicit instructions from him to preserve the tapes.

If I had to wild-arse-guess, I’d say Rizzo is going to take the fall for this. And I think he knows that. After all, it’s always the firewall protecting top aides in the White House who takes the fall.

And in case the CIA’s many leakers this week haven’t already made it abundantly clear that they’re going to pin responsibility on the White House for the torture, they make it explicit here.

The reason CIA officials involved the White House and Justice Department in discussions about the disposition of the tapes was that CIA officials viewed the CIA’s terrorist interrogation and detention program—including the use of "enhanced" interrogation techniques—as having been imposed on the agency by the White House. "It was a political issue," said the former official, and therefore CIA officials believed that the decision as to what to do with the tapes should be made at a political level, by Miers—a former personal lawyer to President Bush and later White House staff secretary and counsel—or someone else directly representing the president. [my emphasis]

I’m really fascinated by this point, because it portrays Harriet’s involvement as political, not legal. Given the timing, that would be the most likely scenario (Harriet didn’t become White House Counsel until 2005, so the early negotiations on this occurred when she was in a non-legal role.) But that raises the question of whether Bush got any legal advise about destroying the tapes. Was AGAG involved, at either the White House or DOJ or both? Or is the destruction of evidence in this Administration considered a non-legal matter?

image_print
  1. LS says:

    Hmmmm…really interesting. As usual all roads lead right to Bush.

    I wonder what the thinking was…

    CIA: Hey Harriet, we found a couple of torture tapes lying around…should we just destroy the evidencethem, because it shows our guys on the tapes, besides they’re taking up room on the shelf…and, if we don’t destroy these tapes, W could be vulnerable to war crimes….

    Harriet: Well, if they are destroyed, and anyone ever finds out, we’d be vulnerable to obstructing justice…

    CIA: Well, W authorized it and signed the orders to torture and if these tapes ever get out of our hands, obstruction of justice would be chickenfeed….

    Harriet: But, no one will ever know about that…just do what you have to do, and don’t tell me about it. I checked with W, and he agrees, and he’s so cute too, did I tell you he wants me to be SCOTUS, blah, blah, blah….

  2. Laura Doty says:

    Larisa Alexandrovna has raised question whether tapes were truly destroyed, based on her reading of a memo from two US attorneys to Judge Brinkema. I’m interested in your take on this, Marcy.

        • emptywheel says:

          Sorry, I think that was sharp–it wasn’t intended to be. I just think that since that link was released with the original article, people assumed the tapes in the article were the tapes in the memo, even though the memo makes it clear they aren’t, and aren’t even the same detainees.

          I do, however, suspect that that’s how Mazzetti (or someone else) first got this story–following up on why CIA didn’t tell DOJ of those three tapes lying around.

  3. JohnForde says:

    “CIA officials viewed the CIA’s terrorist interrogation and detention program—including the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques—as having been imposed on the agency by the White House.”

    I wonder how much media play this gets?

  4. JohnForde says:

    EW, Smart people at CIA. Don’t you think they saw this coming? Don’t you think they have HUGE daggers at the ready for Waterboarding George? Like copies of the missing tapes & copies of the document Waterboarding George signed ordering the torture?

  5. MadDog says:

    And didya notice that the only WH drone zombie staffer ever to be mentioned is Harriet Miers?

    And even though they always mention other WH staffers?

    Wanna bet those other WH staffers include Addington?

    The very same Addington who was assistant general counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency from 1981 to 1984.

    The very same Addington who was Deadeye’s National Security Advisor.

  6. bmaz says:

    You ask excellent questions that deserve solid answers. There are a plethora of other critical questions that also need answers; but short of that, here is what I see. It sure looks like about every step up the food chain had pretty substantial knowledge of the torture tapes and also knew of, and participated to varying degrees in, discussions about destroying them. Including the White House. At some point (and we have long passed that point), it just doesn’t cut it to say “Bush didn’t know”. His job is to know and be responsible for the critical goings on of his government. Willful blindness, not to mention blatantly dishonest denials, doesn’t cut it. I have never been in the CIA etc., but I simply cannot fathom how ANYBODY could think that destroying this evidence is acceptable, appropriate or legal. It is not; and it is really that simple. The ONLY reason for having done so is to mask serious criminal culpability and hide from the proper outrage of the world for egregious and sub-human actions. That is not what America is supposed to stand for.

  7. TeddySanFran says:

    A counterterrorism source, who also asked for anonymity when discussing this subject, said that there was no reason to believe that any recordings of such an electronic feed still exist.

    Where does the Bush Administration get their special servers that keep no backups or copies or records or anything? Anytime anything is transmitted into this country over any media by any means, the NSA makes and stores a copy, right? But we are to believe there’s a CIA exception? That certainly doesn’t comport with my experience with federal agency infighting.

    Of course there are copies of the torture tapes. It’s only a matter of time now.

  8. LS says:

    Hmmm…Libby went to Grenier about Plame…Grenier said he wasn’t used to being pulled out of a meeting with the CIA Director by Libby…

    Grenier/Libby/Grenier/Libby or Libby/Rodriguez/Grenier….Tapes?…Get rid of them…and deny, deny, deny.

  9. Stephen Parrish says:

    You might wish to look at ThinkProgress, since its brief 6:00 pm and 6:40 pm posts pertain to the CIA tapes. (I would provide links were it not for some problems I’m encountering copying and pasting links using Firefox on my iMac.)

    While you’re visiting ThinkProgress, please peruse its brief 7:30 pm post.

  10. Hmmm says:

    Somehow I doubt the CIA would accept an order for something as obviously illegal as this without photocopying the receipt to protect themselves just in case. I’m with Teddy, some fraction (maybe all, maybe not) the recordings probably survived in some form, and if we don’t see the tapes themselves, I bet we’ll see either the authorization trail, or else indirect evidence that either the tapes or the authorization trail exists. Or who knows, maybe they’re already using it and that’s how they got Team Dick to lie down for the NIE release.

    We are the Kinghts who say NIE.

  11. LS says:

    “Secretary of Defense for Policy stated, “in the course of reviewing old stuff [the team] found some things that looked very interesting in the year 2002 that apparently didn’t register with people or were not given great prominence either at the time or in the more recent work.” The OUSDP staffers created a set of briefing slides in the summer of 2002 that criticized the IC for missing links between Iraq and al-Qaida. After reviewing the briefing slides, the Committee submitted questions to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In response, OUSDP provided answers to the questions including a list of cited intelligence reports and a list of suggested additions to Iraqi Supportfor Terrorism.
    (U) The OUSDP staffers presented their briefing to the Secretary of Defense in early August 2002. The Secretary asked them to provide the same briefing to the DCI. On August 15, 2002, the DCI received the briefing with little discussion. However, the DCI requested that the OUSDP staffers to speak with the CTC and NESA experts on Iraq and terrorism. The OUSDP staffers also presented their briefing to members of the National Security Council and staffers from the Office of the Vice President in October 2002.

    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7…../sec14.pdf

    What d’ya bet they tortured those guys to get them to testify that Iraq was involved with planning or financing for 9/11….What d’ya bet they would want to destroy something on film documenting the line of questioning…in order to drum up the case for attacking Iraq….not about looking for OBL at all…..What d’ya bet…

    • emptywheel says:

      LS

      THere is one known incident when that definitely did happen–with Ibn Sheikh al Libi. It even happened in this time period–early 2002. Though we sent al-Libi to Egypt to be tortured, so there’s no indication whether anyone got it on film.

      As to Abu Zubaydah, yes, it’s possible. I’ll have to look back in the SSCI reports to see-I know his name came up…

  12. EvilParallelUniverse says:

    You would think that any attorney, when asked for an “opinion” (formal or otherwise) as to whether they could destroy “company records” (doesn’t matter what they are, and no pun intented in using company) would ask “why do you want to know, and what do you want to destroy.” It’s human nature and even more so lawyer nature (lawyers are very attentive to covering their ass – and you would think a lawyer at the CIA would be extra attentive to ass covering and why he/she is being asked teh “legal” questions. So, that part is, at least to me, unbelievable.

    As for whether the lawyer becomes the scapegoat? I think that’s up to the lawyer. Privilege doesn’t apply when a lawyer participates (even unknowingly) in a crime – the “crime-fraud” exception to be exact (and that would include Executive Privilege (see Nixon Tapes), let alone attorney-client privilege, if the Congress would ever call Chimpco on the point), and at a minimum, the lawyer knows who asked for the “opinion” and who he spoke to about it (Harriet Miers, etc). So, assuming the lawyer isn’t a ChimpCo true believer, why wouldn’t he speak if the law demands it, let alone allows it.

    BTW – Under the maxim that it is very hard to kill information in electronic form (just like Dracula), I’ll bet that copies still exist someplace.

    • MadDog says:

      “Company” lawyers (including The Company” have for been known for the last several years to be on the side of “destroying” documentation.

      Their rationale is avoidance of damaging “discovery” in legal confrontations like lawsuits, criminal trials, etc.

      Stuff like corporation email retention policies in the last several years have been changed from retention to destruction. I would expect this same type of client protection lawyering to take place at the CIA too.

      And if one looks at it coldly (without any concept of Justice or ethical rightness in one’s heart and head), I can follow the head threads of a company lawyer who says “destroy the evidence” since a conviction of obstruction of justice is 1)hard to prove, 2) less painful than a conviction for War Crimes which is where Torture gets you.

      The morality (small m) of many folks is “don’t get caught” rather than “don’t do the bad deed”.

      This is in keeping with that morality that is instead really tawdry, everyday immorality.

  13. selise says:

    I’m really fascinated by this point, because it portrays Harriet’s involvement as political, not legal. Given the timing, that would be the most likely scenario (Harriet didn’t become White House Counsel until 2005, so the early negotiations on this occurred when she was in a non-legal role.)

    any chance that house will take up consideration of the hjc’s contempt charges now?

  14. selise says:

    mary has a diary up at dkos: “Tapes & Torture I – What Happened September 13th?” it begins:

    There are so many stories floating around about video tapes found, and video tapes destroyed and who knew what and when about torture, that it is easy not only to confuse the stories, but for details to slip through the cracks.

    So lets break out some of the details separately. Starting with September 13, 2007 and the “separate” CIA investigation that started this ball rolling.

    in addition to reading it, may i suggest some “recommends”

  15. Leen says:

    “But Clandestine Service officials involved in the matter believe they never got explicit instructions from him to preserve the tapes.”

    Will we ever know who the “clandestine Service officials” are?

    I keep wondering does it matter who originally (the CIA’s attorney) determined that these “enhanced” techniques were legal?

  16. Mary says:

    I have to believe that every single clandestine and Sr. lawyer at CIA knew about Judge Brinkema’s order. It was hugely high profile way back in 2002/2003 that Judge Brinkema was considering letting defense counsel get actual physical access to some of the detainees. Moussaoui was a hugely high profile case too within the whole of the Clandestine community and the upper echelons of DOJ (remember McNulty went from running the Moussaoui case to DAG).

    Larry Johnson has a time line up and his sources were telling him that the orders issued in Italy re: CIA agents and the kidnap for torture there were a part of the reason why this became a hot ticket item in 2005, but I think they’ve spun him just a little bit.

    It’s pretty clear that the tapes were being offshored for the same reason that the GITMO prisoners were being offshored originally – CIA was hoping, when chickens came to roost, to claim that they didn’t have to turn anything over bc the tapes were outside the court’s jurisdiction. Then something very “ooops” happened.

    While Nov 2005 is when the immunity claims for CIA operative in Italy were turned down:
    http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pap…..aim-of.php
    another aspect of the Italian case is that Italian authorities executed warrants at Robert Lady’s home. He barely left before they arrived, but one thing he left behind was his computer.

    Uh huh. You have to wonder to what extent the CIA began to wonder about their offshored videos being seized by a foreign nation and publicized in connection with a foreign trial for violations of the torture conventions.

    But I don’t buy that any lawyer at CIA didn’t know about Brinkema’s requests (although it sure would be interesting to see who signed off on the declarations) and pretty much knew that their agency was fibbing to a federal court judge.

    I put up a diary at kos on one little aspect, the oddity of the Sept. 13th date (which is when the Senate Intell committee also said they officially wanted Rizzo’s nomination pulled, with no real Republican grumbling) referenced in the letter to Brinkema and the fact that tapes found by the CIA in connection with some wholly unrelated matter would somehow get delivered to DOJ as responsive to the Brinkema orders on the same day.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..476/420580

    There’s lots of interesting pieces – but I think from the published report, Judge Brinkema has to be thinking about having Muller and Rizzo both come talk to her.

    • phred says:

      Mary — just read your diary over at dKos, so I decided to do quick check of the NYT archive. On September 14th it was announced that Michael Sulick was returning to CIA to replace Jose Rodriguez. Kinda makes me wonder if he insisted that CIA come clean about the tapes (which he must have known about from his prior stint) before he came back. Maybe he didn’t want to get stuck with that particular hornets nest himself.

    • emptywheel says:

      Mary

      I don’t know–I think it’d be possible to find a lawyer who didn’t know about the specific order–or who at least had plausible deniability. From the language Isikoff and Hosenball use, it suggests it’s more of a hypothetical opinion anyway, not one directed to these specific tapes. Ergo, you take Brinkema out of the equation.

      And FWIW, I agree on Larry. There’s simply no way the Moussaoui case doesn’t come into things, with the 2003 and Nov. 2005 timing. Further, there’s no way the Congressional deliberations, which included significant discussion about filming/photographing (because of Abu Ghraib).

  17. Mary says:

    Wow – thanks Selise/EW. I was mostly just getting that part off my chest and posted so it will stay in my archives and I’ll have it later.

    Re: 4 above, Gigliamo (sp?) has specifically said on the record in one of the pieces that the “found and turned over” tapes are not the same as the “destroyed’ tapes, but his response leaves a huge lot to be desired, in large part bc he also tries for more cover by saying the destroyed tapes did not have anything to do with the particular Moussaoui possible witness/detainees who had been specified in Brinkema’s order. However, it’s pretty clear that Zubaydah would have been on the Moussaoui list and it’s also being reported over and over that Zubaydah and Nashiri were on the destroyed tapes – so it does make you scratch your head of G as a reliable spokesperson. Still, no one is going to turn tapes over to Brinkema and also hit the presses saying they don’t exist IMO – I have to think her fuse is pretty short by now.

  18. Hmmm says:

    I may be more than a little confused… what are we saying now? That Italy’s intelligence agencies handed CIA a digital copy of the digital copy of the interrogation tapes that Brinkema ordered produced in 2005, as found on the laptop siezed from the CIA officer’s home in Italy? So that even if the original tapes had been destroyed as asserted, there is now undeniable evidence that CIA once again has copies of the same recordings?

  19. Mary says:

    phred – that’s an interesting fact to add in – anytime new people are showing up in significant slots, it makes you wonder how that impacted what happened.

    EW – I was talking about Larry’s references to the Italian kidnap case, so I’m not sure I follow the reference to “There’s simply no way the Moussaoui case doesn’t come into things, with the 2003 and Nov. 2005 timing” I absolutely believe the Moussaoui case comes into things – I would have known that Moussaoui was calling on Zubaydah to be produced as a witness back in 2003, I just can’t believe any DOJ lawyer didn’t know that too.

    Larry, though, brings in the Italian kidnap case:
    http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/co…..e_tapegate

    It appears that the June 2005 decision of the Italian judge to issue arrest warrants for C.I.A. officers and contractors involved in the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in 2003 may have been the precipitating incident convincing Jose Rodriguez that Agency must destroy video tapes of terrorist interrogations.

    I think that case comes into play in the decision to destroy the tapes too, but not for the exact same reason as Larry.

    He says that:

    That operation was conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the Italians. If the Italians could flip on us that meant anyone could.

    I’m thinking the problem larger than the arrest warrants was that the foreign governments were executing search warrants, as they did in Italy at Robert Lady’s villa. As they went to arrest him, he took off, but he left behind him files and a computer at his villa (Lady’s villa) that the Italian investigators took into their possession. So suddenly, the offshoring theory to keep documents out of a US courts jurisdiction, but leaving them IN an ITALIAN court’s jurisdiction (or Egyptian, Moroccan, Polish, etc. – depending on where they offshored – court’s jurisdiction) might have become more startling when you realized that your kidnap/torture activities just resulted in Italian police forces validly and legally seizing you CIA station chief’s computer and files.

  20. LS says:

    I read somewhere that Rodriguez’ CIA cover was blown in August. Fitz referred to the Plame CIA Leak case as a “National Security” matter or investigation in his post Libby conviction presser (on youtube)…

    Does anyone think maybe Rodriguez’ cover was blown in a similar manner to Plame for some reason, which has placed the CIA in “unique circumstances” or something like that…?

  21. MadDog says:

    Mary and Emptywheel both have good points regarding any knowledge of Brinkema’s request at the CIA.

    The way I see it, the CIA has their typical devious, wink-wink excuse that they’re a heavily compartmented institution and therefore the left foot knows not what the right hand is holding.

    Now in the case of the DOJ, these bozos ain’t gonna have that same excuse. They were briefed by Scott W. Muller, CIA General Counsel in 2003 that the CIA desired/intended to destroy these interrogation videotapes.

    There ain’t that same level of compartmentaliztion at the DOJ, so Brinkema ain’t likely to buy any excuse that the DOJ did not know about the interrogation videotapes.

    I’m sure that Mukasey will say it was all either Ashcroft’s or Fredo’s fault and since both these turds are hiding out in civilian life now, the poor, poor DOJ shouldn’t get punished.

  22. PJEvans says:

    EPU @ 23, MadDog @ 28

    The company I work at wants all relevant e-mails kept until they tell us we can lose them. They’d rather not get nailed for non-retention in an audit. I have a hard time believing that a government lawyer would be lees cautious.
    I take that back.
    This is Darth and Shrub. They’d lose incriminating stuff before it became incriminating, if they could find a way to do it.

    • MadDog says:

      The company I work for (with 25,000+ employees worldwide) spends hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year on legal “confrontations”. These are mostly patent thingies.

      About 7-8 years ago, our company’s legal beagles decided that email retention was an invitation to major awards (200 to 500 million in awards was very typical) in legal battles with other companies. These legal beagles were basing their concerns on the actual trial discoveries and outcomes they’d experienced.

      Hence, we ain’t retaining email beyond 1 year. I suspect that we’ll even move that down to 6 months.

      And as cynical as this may sound, the governing philosophy of my august company leadership is that the underlying real-world facts of this non-retention policy is that “if there ain’t no evidence, there ain’t no crime.”

  23. Mary says:

    39 –

    Nope, sorry – got into too many cases and too much shorthand.

    All we know about the destroyed torture tapes is that they were being kept in a foreign country. As to why they were being kept in a foreign country – instead of deep in vaults at the CIA and with ready access by its counterterrorism/counterintelligence professionals – I speculated that the CIA was leaving the tapes in a foreign country in order to try to tack on a claim that a US court had no jurisdiction to order that the documents be produced from a foreign country as an additional grounds for not turning them over.

    I would very much doubt that the tapes were offshored in Italy. However, Larry Johnson has a post up that I link at 40 where he says things that happened in the Italian case (described below) resulting in Italy issuing arrest warrants for CIA agents http://www.asil.org/insights/2…..50707.html
    in June of 2005 helped convince CIA agents that keeping tapes in a foreign country (and torturing in a foreign country for that matter) may not have been as safe as they thought it was, since some of these foreign countries were beginning to agressively investigate the CIAs kidnap/torture activities. Larry says that seeing a foreign court go after CIA agents helped with the decision to destroy evidence in foreign countries of CIA torture.

    (Italian case: Someone in the CIA got with some people in the Italian intelligence service while Berlusconi was in power and made arrangements for an Iman in Italy to be kidnapped by the US. The Italian intelligence individuals who have admitted a role have indicated they thought the US was just going to try to scare the Iman into becoming an informant. In any event, the CIA kidnaps him, then smuggles him to the US airforce base, then enlists a member of the uniformed military, stationed by grace in Italy, in the illegal kidnap and transport out of country of the Iman and they send him off to Egypt for torture.

    However, “real” police in Italy had the Iman under surveillance basically picked up all of the CIA criminal activity with their own wiretaps and surveillance and not only that, the CIA kidnap destroyed a big “real police” operation that was ongoing. So an Italian prosecutor, Spataro, was approached by a friend or family member of the kidnapped Iman and began a criminal investigation. As a part of that investigation, Spataro got arrest and search warrants issued bc the CIA agents involved in the kidnap did a horrible job at the “covert” concept. Many of the agents were already out of country, but the head of the operation, Robert Lady, was there in the villa he had recently bought to retire too. He got a warning and left so quickly that he didn’t take his files/computer – which the Italian police took.

    See why the spooks got spooked? Meanwhile, Berlusconi says he didn’t have anything to do with authorizing a kidnap, and the former head of the Italian intel service has criminal charges pending, as do an assortment of CIA agents.

    • LS says:

      Yeah. The Italy connection…Niger Documents…

      I still have this feeling that “intelligence” is sniffing a little too close to the WH regarding that and the 9/11 connections with Pakistan, as well.

      The Administration is circling the wagons…..

      I believe the real story is…mindboggling, yet logical. JMHO and I’m just a snoopy individual…

      • Mauimom says:

        Sometimes old, bad eyes tell truths you didn’t know about.

        I read the following:

        The Administration is circling the wagons…..

        As “the Administration is circling the weapons.” Y’know, they probably are.

  24. LS says:

    Part of wanting to kidnap and disappear people is to shut them the F up….ala, if I tell you, I’ll have to …. ya. The WH could give a shizzola about OBL….that is the real red herring. They have been in major damage control and cover-up ever since 2000…

  25. Hmmm says:

    Thanks much, Mary. But if the tapes were destroyed, and then later they (or copies?) reappeared within CIA, where did those come from? It’s the conjunction with the unspecified “unique circumstances” that has me wondering whether a stashed copy was found by some third party, and returned in some visible way that removed any plausible deniability.

  26. phred says:

    Mary & LS — I think there are two issues here.

    First, why after all this time did the CIA feel compelled to write the oops letter to Judge Brinkema? I think the announced return of Sulick on the 14th is key. He would have known about the tapes and the black sites since he was the 2nd highest ranking official in clandestine services back before Goss forced him out in 2004. One wonders what the insubordination was about? According to the NYT article I linked to above, the clandestine services had been “gutted” during the 1990s and they were desperate to rebuild it because of their continued difficulties in penetrating the closed societies of Iran and N. Korea. Sulick speaks Russian, Polish, and Spanish, which suggests he knew all about the eastern European black sites. The guy knew where the bodies were buried as it were, when they asked him back. I find it implausible that being that high up the food chain he didn’t know about the tapes or the request from Judge Brinkema during the Moussaoui trial. I think he didn’t want to get stuck with this. So he says when they call him up — you have to tell them about the tapes, and they say ok, but Rizzo had some of them destroyed. So, he tells them to fess up about what’s left before he arrives, and tells ‘em Rizzo’s gotta go. All of which quietly happens.

    But that just begs the question of why only destroy some tapes and not all. And here is where LS’s speculation seems likely to me. One can easily imagine interrogator’s asking the torture victims leading questions about the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, which they would answer in the affirmative no matter whether it was true or not. One can also imagine other damning information that would implicate the WH that would be worth incurring a judge’s wrath and obstruction of justice to prevent that information from coming out.

  27. emptywheel says:

    Mary

    My point was that I suspect Larry’s point about Italy puts too much emphasis on it. He doesn’t mention Brinkema, much. He doesn’t mention the McCain bill at all. He doesn’t mention the tweaks in the photographing policies all through 2005. So while Italy does pose one more risk, it’s not a risk that’s greater than another Abu Ghraib just before Congress votes on McCain’s torture bill. These tapes almost certainly were either in Paksitan, Thailand, or another gulf states. Or hell, maybe Israel. None of them that opposed to torture. So the presence of those tapes overseas–after all, they could have just brought them home–is not a convincing precipitating event. Brinkema is. I don’t see anyway around Brinkema being a precipitating factor, given the 2003, and Nov. 2005 timing.

    • leveymg says:

      WHY DESTROY THE ABU ZUBAYDAH TAPES, AND NOT OTHERS? That’s Easy – It’s What He Knew.

      Miers was protecting Bush. Zubaydah knew all about the CIA’s role in training the 9/11 hijackers, and the U.S. was well aware of the details of the planned attack. See, TORTURE VIDEO: WHAT THE CIA DOESN’T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT ABU ZUBAYDAH, http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..799/420257

      Zubaydah was driven insane, and his memories effectively erased by oxygen deprivation during repeated water boarding. Without killing him, that insured that he won’t be able to provide credible testimony. The tapes document that process.

      If you want to preserve evidence, and obtain accurate testimony, repeated waterboarding is the last thing you would want to do. But, intelligence collection apparently wasn’t the purpose of torturing Abu Zubaydah. Otherwise, they would have used other methods to extract information from that individual.

      To know why they erased the record of Zubaydah’s interrogation, just look at what he knows.

      – Mark

      • phred says:

        leveymg — I think your comment refers to a question I raised. I disagree with your interpretation of the pertinent information that may have been on the destroyed tapes. I think the suggestion LS made above is much more likely. In 2002, Cheney and his minions were working very hard to gin up a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Using torture they may have induced the 3 individuals to make a connection where there was none in fact. Nonetheless, Cheney would have cited such vital information from the interrogations of their high value detainees as yet another piece in his cherry-picked, manipulated intelligence used to justify his ill-gotten war.

  28. Hmmm says:

    EW, Mary’s Kos piece says that around 9/13/2007:

    According to the DOJ, the CIA found itself in ‘unique circumstances involving separate national security matters unrelated to the Moussaoui prosecution.’(emphasis added) And somehow, in connection with those ‘unique’ and ’separate’ matters, the CIA just happened to find a video tape of interrogations and those interrogations just happened to be of some of the specific detainees Judge Brinkema had ordered be produced and CIA just happened to think that DOJ might want to see the tape.

    Do you have any sense what the Sept. ‘07 “unique circumstances involving separate national security matters unrelated to the Moussaoui prosecution” were? Are you saying that meant Sulick teaming with Kappes? I would have expected something more surprising.

  29. Jeff says:

    I’m intrigued by the September 13, 2007 thing. But I’m having difficulty figuring out what the likely story and the causality would be. The DoJ letter tells us that a CIA attorney notified DoJ of the tapes on September 13. The Post story on the Dems’ attempt to collapse Rizzo’s nomination appeared in the paper on the 13th, meaning it was done before CIA notified DoJ on that day. I can imagine various scenarios, e.g. the Dems managed to pry something about the tapes out of Rizzo, which both sunk him and compelled CIA to tell DoJ in the Moussaoui case. But isn’t it also possible that after Rizzo felt screwed, he himself was involved in alerting DoJ? I guess I’m just confused.

  30. Hmmm says:

    Just for some calendar reference points, according to the big timeline, Sept. 13 2007 was:

    – a week after the Israeli strike in Syria

    – 2 weeks after the Minot-Barksdale event

    – 2 weeks before the Kyl-Lieberman vote

    All three pretty damn “unique circumstances”, not that I have any idea how any of them could result in surfacing old detainee interrogation tapes. And of course other stuff must have been happening too.

  31. bmaz says:

    Mary – I have missed you. I agree with you about the knowledge of the pertinent governmental actors of Brinkema’s discovery/evidentiary orders. In fact, I have a lot of gripes about this whole scenario that appear to track some of yours. I am absolutely stupified by the surreal inanity of the CYA stories being variously bandied about by the various governmental actors and the discussion of them by everyone else (not necessarily here, but in general). Here are some of said gripes in a somewhat chronological order:

    1) The argument that these tapes were not evidence that needed to be preserved, irrespective of Brinkema’s order, is patently absurd. The subjects were detainees in heinous national and international crimes. These subjects were not going to be blithely released; they were being detained and were going to continue to be detained (apparently forever). Under any set of laws you want to apply, whether US, International, Geneva Conventions, whatever, these subjects were presumed to be entitled to some degree of judicial/tribunal review; so saying there were “no court cases” is simply a lie. I can accept the proposition that the CIA was not required to make the evidentiary tapes; but once they did, they had a duty to preserve them. Failure to do so is, without any question whatsoever, obstruction of justice; to argue otherwise is disingenuous and/or naive.

    2) Brinkema’s order. Judge Brinkems’s order was not some little one off, throw away deal. The demand for discovery by Defendant Moussaoui, the disingenuous non-compliance by the government and the steamed frustration and anger by Brinkema was a heated and publicly reported battle that went on for an extended period. Maybe not for the public, but to the litigants, there was a whole record behind the order. There is no question but that the torture tapes were subject to the order. Furthermore, I don’t really understand this whole sideshow about the tapes not being reachable because they were “offshored”. A US court, for the sake of argument here let’s use Brinkema, may have no authority to compel foreign authorities to produce something they created and in their possession, but it sure as hell has jurisdiction over US governmental actors and can certainly order them to produce things within their possession whether said things are in the US, Italy, Thailand, or, for that matter, the freaking space station. If they do not comply and/or spoil said evidence, it is contemptible, sanctionable and quite likely prosecutable (although determination of prosecutability is more complex than a contempt determination). Lastly, this “compartmentalization” argument that the germane actors here “didn’t know” about Brinkema’s order is a bunch of hooey. As I said above, and you (Mary) have said so well, Brinkema’s order was very well publicized and known. I find it hard to believe that ANY lawyer in the CIA and/or DOJ didn’t know about this. Even if some didn’t for whatever reason see any of the publicity on their own, discussion and buzz of the ruling and order would have spread throughout their workplaces like a gas fills a vacuum. But, more importantly (and I have litigated on this issue) it is the duty of the party/governmental agency so ordered to disseminate said order to any and all members germane, or that could be germane, to enforcing the order. Ignorance is not a defense, they are ordered to know; if they do not, it is presumptively willful non-compliance (rebuttable, but you better make a good showing and I haven’t seen anything compelling here).

    3) What’s up with this Kiriakou dude? – His sudden ubiquitous presence on the scene is bizarre and smells; I just am not certain of what. Valerie Plame couldn’t even acknowledge that she was employed by the CIA for 90% of the time she was so employed, when 100% of the world knew she was so employed; but this guy is blithely running around to every Tom, Dick and Harry with a Canon Handicam and a cable connection talking about waterboarding (which Bush says he can’t even discuss) for the CIA. Uh huh. His stories of the wondrous success and surrounding facts of his waterboarding of Zubaydah are incredulous. The media are being played by this guy; only question is what, or who, is his motivation.

    • Rayne says:

      RE: Kiriakou — I watched his “performance” on NBC’s Today Show this morning. I suspect that it’s not just his spiel that’s at issue here, but the manipulation of the public’s perception of waterboarding. While he’s being interviewed, they cut away several times to a demonstration of waterboarding. My kids were watching this morning as well, and they were asking what that was all about; it was their naive response to what they were viewing that made me think it’s not about Kiriakou that we’re seeing him on the circuit.

      I had to explain to my kids what really happens to humans during waterboarding, that it wasn’t as banal as it looked on television, that while it induced the sensation of drowning, that it could still actually kill someone being subjected to that treatment.

      That I had to explain the seriousness of waterboarding made it clear to me they are trying very, very hard to normalize waterboarding and torture, make it look like a ho-hum every day event.

      There are tapes out there. They are bad, and they show it all, and eventually we are going to see them. Kiriakou is innoculation against them.

      • bmaz says:

        You know, it is my understanding that the US has literally prosecuted and convicted people for waterboarding in the past. I think it has been a very long time, so the defendants are probably dead; but it would be a nice touch for their descendants to vocally and publicly petition Bush for posthumous pardons based upon his fondness and claim of legality for the procedure. Just for grins…..

        • bmaz says:

          I believe that Texas Sheriff Parker is an ideal candidate for this application, hey he is probably still alive too, and that is an extra bonus! I will say this, the Correntewire piece was somewhat lame for hammering Bush for not pardoning Parker when he was Texas Governor; it was a Federal prosecution, Bush couldn’t pardon that as Governor. Also the soldier court martialed in 1968 and the descendants of Maj. Edwin Glenn who was court martialed in 1901 would be nice additions. I certainly don’t think these people should be pardoned, I just want them to apply for it. Loudly.

    • Praedor says:

      I think the game that is being played, if it is being played, is actually rather simple. Kiriakaou comes forward and talks about waterboarding a suspect that happens to produce LOTS of good intel that “saves lives” blah blah…but, waterboarding is torture and should not be done.

      OK. Now I think I see the setting of the playing field: make out how great waterboarding worked in this or that situation but at the same time indicate that it is really too “harsh” and shouldn’t be done. Thus, while waterboarding may now (redundantly and unnecessarily) be banned by explicit statute, those that did it in the past should be given a pass because it really worked out well. Let’s all now sit around the campfire, roast marshmallows and sing songs k?

      Aside from the fact that I am adamantly opposed to ANY law being passed that bans waterboarding (because that means that past waterboarding was legal when it was, in fact, ILLEGAL), Krikiakou may be setting up a get out of jail free card by covering both sides of the argument: waterboarding worked, it is harsh and probably shouldn’t be done, so lets just let bygones be bygones, ban it henceforth, and cut the torturers a break.

  32. Hmmm says:

    Naw, I don’t think Syria had ‘em. But Saudi intelligence might have, eh? And the Syria strike plus the Pakistan situation seemed to wake those guys up but good.

  33. prostratedragon says:

    I had to explain to my kids what really happens to humans during waterboarding, that it wasn’t as banal as it looked on television, that while it induced the sensation of drowning, that it could still actually kill someone being subjected to that treatment.

    That I had to explain the seriousness of waterboarding made it clear to me they are trying very, very hard to normalize waterboarding and torture, make it look like a ho-hum every day event.

    Since “24″ there’s clearly been an all-out effort to normalize and neutralize this stuff. Are there not more SERE veterans beside MCPO Nance (the trainer who testified on wb in Congress recently) who will step forward? The one I knew is no longer around.

    • Rayne says:

      “24″ definitely normalizes the notion of torture and the ticking bomb scenario — but there’s a huge audience that doesn’t watch “24″. My kids are a great example; Kiriakou got to them when “24″ couldn’t, because I won’t let them watch “24″. But my kids aren’t a key demographic. Who else did the Kiriakou propaganda get to?

      Still poking around to see what happened on 13 Sep. This story made WaPo, dated 13th, but it must have been put to bed on 12th:

      N. Korea, Syria May Be at Work on Nuclear Facility
      By Glenn Kessler
      Washington Post Staff Writer
      Thursday, September 13, 2007; Page A12
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..02430.html

      An article dd. 21 Nov by Gareth Porter refers to this article, saying:

      The officials did not want the intelligence community involved in assessing the alleged new evidence, suggesting that they knew it would not withstand expert scrutiny. Glenn Kessler reported in the Washington Post Sep. 13 that the “dramatic satellite imagery” provided by Israel had been restricted to “a few senior officials” and not disseminated to the intelligence community, on orders from National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley.

      {Sorry, not going to link to the article from which I culled that expert as the site launched a rather nasty piece of software on me when I opened it. I recommend you try to find it someplace other than AsiaTimes.]

  34. prostratedragon says:

    Yes, some of the same people who got the survival training for Vietnam also could cite appropriate sections of the Geneva Conventions and the UCMJ from memory.

    I think that some Japanese WWII officers were among those who might have been tried for war crimes because of waterboarding. I’m pretty sure that at least one such was hanged.

    The point of the “24″ reference was just to suggest 1) of what duration and 2) how deliberate, imo, the campaigning has been.

  35. Rayne says:

    Hunt Oil announced deal with Iraqi Kurds for petroleum development on Sunday, 9 Sep.

    On 12 Sep, Putin approved resignation of Russian Government.

    On 13 Sep, Bush gave a presidential address on the Way Forward in Iraq, a kind of follow up to testimony by Gen. Petraeus and Ryan Crocker in front of Congress the previous week.

    (2) insiders at CACI Intl. sell 4000 shares each of stock on that date.

    An op-ed by Kiriakou and Richard Klein is published as well.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/op…..-rightrail

    17 Sep, Greenspan confirms Iraq War about oil.

    Sure was a busy month.

    • emptywheel says:

      That CACI is mighty interesting, Rayne. When Larry first mentioned contractors (and there was a mention in an NYT article–saying that “contractors led the CIA through” the torture process), I immediately thought of CACI, which (IIRC) was one of the contractors at Abu Ghraib.

      • Rayne says:

        Not enough $$, though, to do much. Stock price on each of the two sales was between $53 and $55/share, meaning total gross value was roughly $432K, and at 50% tax, only $200K net (percentage of tax estimated as well).

        But it might be enough for 2 corporate executives to put an attorney on retainer…

      • Rayne says:

        My bad, still sifting through the CACI info and I realized those two insider trades are from 2006.

        That said, there was an insider trade on 12-SEP-07 by director Charles Revoile, a former General Counsel for CACI:
        http://google.brand.edgar-onli…..;Type=HTML

        CACI’s main business isn’t contracting as much as it is technology; I wish I could tell if an entity “CACI” referred to in EU as a marketing information firm was the same as CACI Intl. It would make CACI an all-in-one service provider, hmm?

  36. alabama says:

    I think there’s an abundance (let’s call it a “surplus”) of recorded instances of torture occurring everywhere–at Guantanamo Bay, at Abu Ghraib, at various safe-houses all around the world. I think this material is being held for eventual release by intelligence and FBI types with a score to settle–their target being 43 and his hound-dogs, and their grievance being their forced submission to his demand that torture be practiced and recorded, with the recordings going straight to the White House.

    Torture is nothing new, and its recording is nothing new. But sending this stuff to the White House–doing so at the bidding of someone who has no business seeing it, or need to see it, and doing so at the peril of your soul because one man has the power to force it upon you for the gratification of his own personal craving–well, this would be grounds for revenge at the personal as well as the institutional level. Because it’s pornography pure and simple; it has no intelligence value, no practical urgency.

    Bush, in effect, has reduced the CIA (and maybe the FBI) to the status of porn-makers. For this he will surely pay, and do so very soon after leaving office.

  37. radiofreewill says:

    Paging Harriet Miers, paging Harriet Miers…the Senate Judiciary Committee is waiting on you at the white courtesy phone…Harriet Miers, thank you!

  38. Palli says:

    These tapes (if we would view all the hours of gratuitous torture “interrogation”) would, no doubt, show how ineffectual torture is soliciting accurate and timely information. Kiriakou says 35 seconds but after how many hours of other torture? Wouldn’t want anyone to see that.
    More importantly, they probably exhibit the insatiable escalation of brutality that torture spawns. The “socially” condoned unleashing of violent power is contagious and the real images of torturers enjoying themselves is more frightening than the violence we have become accustomed to on TV. Violence is pornographic and addictive. These crimes, committed by CIA, Mercenaries, ally secret service, or GIs, was ordered and viewed by individuals in our government… Copies of these tapes are somewhere. They are too satisfying for the sadistic thread that runs through our great nation The training video that runs incessantly on telly shows the torturers in head masks. I wonder why? Even among professional colleagues there is the knowledge that the executioner should not be identified…(for his own safety?)
    Could Americans trust a torturer to live on their street, among children, the elderly and pets?
    Apparently there are no more un-American activities.

    • phred says:

      I agree with you on this. But it brings me back to the question of why not destroy ALL of them, if what you are worried about is graphic evidence of torture? Unless I’m mistake, there are some torture tapes (video and audio) still extant. So why destroy 3 sets, but not the rest? What was on those particular tapes that necessitated their destruction?

      • bmaz says:

        This is just a guess, but I’ll bet it is at least part of the answer to your question. The Administration has said all along that they got usable information out of Zubaydah that yielded all these wondrous results. My guess is that not only do the tapes display the brutality of the torture, but also that they got mostly useless crap from Zubaydah. Ergo, the tapes kill the Administration on both ends; exposes the torture and confirms the futility of it. Throw in a spoonful of likely trying to get Zubaydah to lie and say Iraq was related to 9/11 and, well……

        • phred says:

          Yep. That sounds about right to me. I realize I’m harping on the point a bit, but I do think we need to keep asking the question of why these specific tapes were destroyed. From what I’ve seen elsewhere, it appears the emphasis is on the fact they show torture. I suspect there is more to it than that. Granted, all speculation on my part, but if it was only about the torture, they would have gotten rid of all of them.

  39. bmaz says:

    Other than the fact that they placed so much emphasis on Zubaydah kind of making him the linchpin of their torture regime, along with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, I don’t know.

  40. Mary says:

    Argh – I have problems with getting in and out here.

    Bmaz, I think we are on track. I agree with your statement: “A US court, for the sake of argument here let’s use Brinkema, may have no authority to compel foreign authorities to produce something they created and in their possession, but it sure as hell has jurisdiction over US governmental actors and can certainly order them to produce things within their possession whether said things are in the US, Italy, Thailand, or, for that matter, the freaking space station. ” emph added

    But I also think that was the secondary aspect of offshoring – using someone else to hold the bag. That’s where I think Larry’s references to the Italian situation causing ripples comes in. CIA and DOJ blew off Brinkema in 2003 (and basically the Fourth Circuit too, which relied on the declarations in its ruling). That sounds like they were pretty comfy with not having to produce (offshored AND a bagholder). Then the Judge made them come back a second time, in 2005. By then they had two problems. First, the Judge (who they didn’t mind screwing two years earlier) and now the concern that foreign resources might become unreliable as bagholders. That was probably fostered by some paranoia (oh, wait, what is it if they really are out to get you as opposed to the phonesex operators at DOJ investigating?) from the whole SERIES of foreign investigations and the topper of actual warrants and indictments in Italy. If Pollari in Italy had something like CIA tapes to hand over to investigators to cut a deal to get off the hook himself, I bet he would have used it. I’m thinking the CIA crew may have started worrying that other foreign counterparts might sweat their role in torture some and think of dealing and they didn’t want them to have anything to deal with or anything that could be seized by a foreign gov. Just spec though.

    In any event, your very point on “possession” is one that jumped out at me in the letter to Brinkema and I dropped a sidenote in about that in the diary. DOJ lawyers never mention whether or not there are other videotapes (or digital or electronic transmissions etc. etec.) under the control of the CIA. They very narrowly use only the word possession and that in the specific reference to CIA. So they are only speaking of tapes in CIA possession. Nothing about other agencies. Nothing about having agents holding. Nothing about videotapes of which CIA or other agencies have knowledge. Shave what they are saying any closer and you’ve slapped a baby’s behind onto DOJ’s face.

    So, just like you have to wonder what happened to make CIA/DOJ finally come clean with the videotapes they do have in Sep. 2007 (and phred points to some possibilities) you also have to wonder why they thought in 2005 they needed to not just blow off the Order, but also destroy tapes and why, if they were on a tape destruction warpath, they neither destroyed NOR turned over in 2005 the tapes being turned over now. Whistleblower? Blackmail file? Change in personnel? all, all and more, some, other, none?

    Vis a vis the pissed off federal judge, she’s just as pissed off over non-torture tapes that are responsive and that you do not produce as she is about torture tapes that you hold back and do not produce (the point phred also makes in 81). So it doesn’t seem that the Moussaoui case orders alone would have caused some tapes to be not produced and destroyed in 2005, while other tapes were not produced and not destroyed and eventually handed over in 2007.

    OTOH, Brinkema did indicate in 2005 (and I’m not sure if she did this in 03 when there was still the possiblity of getting physical access to the detainees for defense counsel) that in addition to the tapes, statements, etc. she wanted to have someone from CIA testify to her or give declarations regarding the circumstances of the statements (obviously, a transcript won’t necessarily show the physical and mental torture involved in the responses). So maybe someone was planning on lying and wanted to make sure that if tapes did show up, they didn’t show up with things on them that he/she lied to the court about. I still think, though, that they became a bit afraid of foreign resources and what might happen to foreign based tapes. But who knows?

    Also, all the points you made about while these guys were being held, the tapes would be needed vis a vis some kind of tribunal (which they have not received yet). I also have to say – supposedly they involved statements about the crimes and conspiracies of others, who might yet be picked up and who might be processed – as PADILLA was, criminally. Zubaydah’s torture statements were trotted out by DOJ for arrest warrants in Padilla’s case and that course of conduct – using blacksite torture as the basis for the DOJ to have a court issue arrest warrants of Americans on American soil, has been blessed the DOJ prosecutors involved and the Federal Court in Fla. And IIRC, Padilla’s case is still on appeal as well. I have to think his lawyers are going to be also wondering why the evidence that his arrest warrant was based on DOJ’s connivance with CIA torture shouldn’t be an issue?

    • bmaz says:

      Your distinction between “possession” and “control” is a salient one. In this setting it is still a disingenuous distinction for law enforcement to hang their hats on. I don’t recall having to argue this exact point in Federal court (may have, don’t remember), but I have confronted it in our local superior court where I found local law enforcement collecting evidence, giving it to the FBI and failing to report it. When I found out (idiots; I guess they never thought lawyers might know Federal people too), they then claimed they didn’t have to disclose it because because they didn’t have it. Had a good judge, he was PISSED and slapped them silly for it. I guess the current case is a lot more complex and all, but it still seems like bad faith BS if you ask me.

  41. Mary says:

    Phred – here’s another point that may have some impact.

    In Oct. 2005, McNulty was nominated to follow in the footsteps of Thompson and Comey as DAG.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01992.html

    That may have been one more pressure point on the destruction – he wasn’t installed until several months later, but he had run the Moussaoui case and the USAtty’s office there. Now he was coming into a slot where he might be sitting in on all the torture meetings. Granted, he proved willing to prevaricate with the best of them, but how sure can you be of someone agreeing to help you cover up torture?

    I have to think that at some point, Leahy is going to want to have Mr. McNulty come see him.

    • phred says:

      Thanks for the link Mary. McNulty’s nomination may well have contributed to things, but I’m curious about something. From the article you link, it says, “Some defense lawyers have been critical of McNulty, for his aggressive approach in terrorism and other areas and because he has never personally prosecuted a case. But associates say he is deeply involved in the details of all major cases brought by his office…“.

      Since McNulty would have been on the prosecution side of the fence in the Moussaoui case, do you think he would not have known about the documentation the CIA had on the 3 prisoners in question? I suppose that is possible. So I take it you think he would have balked if once he became the DAG he discovered DoJ and CIA had lied to Brinkema? That’s an interesting angle indeed. Given the allusion to his aggressive approach to terrorism above, do you really think he had the moral fiber to rat out DoJ to Brinkema? Perhaps more importantly, do you think the folks at CIA thought so?

  42. Hmmm says:

    WRT the possibility of tapes being delivered to the WH — not that I endorse the theory — can I just point out: man-sized safes in Dick’s office. Also, tapes there would not be under CIA control. Bagholder Dick? Makes some sense from a family jewels POV.

    Also IMHO it’s neither necessary nor helpful to ascribe psychosexual motive here. Plenty else deeply wong to be found from a more level-headed analysis.

    • phred says:

      Hmmm, I’ve got to admit there is a certain elegance in having Dick hiding the goods in his safe, especially since OVP is a separate and unaccountable branch of government in his view (not subject to judicial review?). But given his penchant for getting others to take the fall for his misdeeds, I doubt he would be willing to hide the evidence himself. Does Addington have a man-size safe? ; )

      OT, woohoo Preview works! Thanks EW : )

  43. Hmmm says:

    What if the relationship between CIA and the bagholder is not one where CIA controls? That could mean either that the bagholder controls (i.e. USG Exec Branch), or that CIA and the bagholder have a cooperative relationship but neither controls the other (i.e. elements of foreign powers [perhaps intelligence services] or even non-state entities — mob etc.). Mightn’t there then be a plausible reading that CIA was not in violation of a production order?

    Understand, I’m not challenging — just trying to dig at the usual assumptions buried in the mindset of conventional production scenarios, to see whether Team Dick (Addington really) may have logically engineered some successful way around them for this unique fact circumstance.

  44. bmaz says:

    I guess that is a feasible position; however, I can’t imagine the CIA stashing these, explosive may be an understatement, tapes out of their control. However, to get back to your question, having relevant and material evidence and intentionally disposing of it (literally or effectively) is knowing destruction or spoilation of evidence; which is an even bigger violation/contempt than lying about it’s existence and whereabouts.

  45. bmaz says:

    It depends; but if it materially impacts a defendant’s ability to make his defense, the penalty should be dismissal of the charges. It is a complex and fluid determination, and usually based kind of on the totality of the circumstances, but suffice it to say that reckless/intentional destruction of material evidence affecting a defendant’s ability to defend against the government’s charges should result in dismissal. As an aside, it is my belief that Brinkema came very close to dismissing some of the allegations (certainly the death penalty allegation, and maybe many of the base charges as well) for the disingenuous conduct of the prosecution on Mossaoui as it was, without knowing of the destruction of the tapes yet.

    • phred says:

      So if I understand this correctly, there is an advantage to the defense (dismissal of charges) but no penalties for the prosecution/law enforcement entities for the destruction? Is that right?

  46. bmaz says:

    Oh, those are available too. Contempt sanctions, including criminal contempt is available along with certain financial penalties (but these are usually limited to costs and fees incurred a a result of the act). The court can make a direct referral for criminal prosecution and can, in certain circumstances, retain their own prosecutors. This is what occurred in the contempt proceeding (different than the criminal charges just recently filed) against Dickie Scruggs in Alabama (I think the Scruggs instance was bogus, but it is a current example of what you ask about).

    • phred says:

      So if we set aside political considerations for the moment. If a few individuals are found to have colluded to destroy evidence, given what was destroyed, do you think it likely or unlikely that they would get jail time? If so, what would be the sentencing range on something like that? This is a hypothetical question because I don’t want to get into questions of Bush’s state secrets or questions of pardons or any of the political maneuvering we are likely to see, I’m just trying to get at what the “typical” consequences one might expect for something like this.

      Oh, and one more thing, you say the court can make a direct referral — would that have to be Brinkema in this case since she requested this evidence? And if so, does she have the authority to make such a referral at will or does she have to wait for the defense lawyers to request her to do something?

  47. bmaz says:

    Phred – The court can make a referral on their own volition or upon motion by a party. Do I see any jail time? No. Unfortunately, I do not; but it is deserved by somebody. The AUSAs assigned to the case will plead ignorance and the CIA and Bush Administration will never finger the persons ultimately responsible. Without having the directly responsible malefactors, the court will be hesitant to incarcerate anybody.

    • phred says:

      So, it looks like those who chose to destroy whatever incriminating evidence there may have been made a good call. I was afraid of that.

      Thanks as always bmaz, for answering all of my pesky questions! I sure wish I knew more about the law. G’night…

  48. Mary says:

    91 – I don’t have the actual orders which the Judge issued in 2003 an 2005, so I can not tell you for sure. They may even be sealed. But what would be typical would be that the Judge’s order would incorporate some of the defense subpoena language that she chose to grant.

    If you haven’t seen that kind of language that gets in subpoeanas, it is typically pretty broad and is set forth in a pretty thorough and annoying *lawyerspeak* multiparagraph description.

    So what would have been requested, and granted in some possibly reduced form, as to the specific named terrorist suspect detainees, would be first a relatively broad characterization of the US Government entities (since the US is a party to the litigation in a criminal matter) that are required to look – describing by identity and function (the Who of the production) – then a broad listing of what is being sought (the what of the production) – then a broad listing of the possession – control issues (the where) and specifications as to the way it is turned over and to whom (for example, here, perhaps in a certain type of room to just the Judge ex parte initially)

    e.g. (just as a rough outline)

    function:
    – all applicable government entities involved in the interrogation and application of interogation techniques (including, without limitation, harsh interrogation or specially authorized interrogation) questioning, surveillance (including without limitation, data, audio, visual or any other form of surveillance of any kind or nature), caretaking, recordkeeping,(yada yada – this is just for example and not based on working it through) …..(collectively, the “Activities”),

    identies:
    such entities including, without limitation (and a list would ensue – for example FBI, CIA, NSA, military intelligence or other known possible sources, etc.) and all related or affiliated entities and their officers,employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors …..(collectively, the “Producing Persons or Entities”)
    and the order/request would also have a description of what would need to be turned over:

    shall produce to the court (or other parties, but probably all to the court initially for ex parte review) all records of any kind whatsoever relating to the files, notes,(including, without limitation, handwritten, audio, electronic, digital…)video tapes, audio tapes, digital or electronic records, summaries, memoranda, … whether now existing or formerly existing and presently memorialized, summarized or otherwise referenced in any manner whatsoever(the “Information”)

    and for example on the where:

    in the possession of, warehoused by, under the control of, owned by, or reasonably accessible by or to each or any of the Producing Persons or Entities …

    As others can attest, that’s just a short sample of how the defense requests might have appeared, but they are very unlikely to have failed ot include issues regarding which entity, control, etc.

    I have to think that, while it would have been pared down from the broad requests language, Brinkema would not have failed to address control, agency, etc. issues. Which makes the exact wording of her orders and the declarations interesting. It appears that with respect to another order by another Judge, specifically directing the CIA not to destroy evidence, CIA is now trying to parse that the destruction of the disclosed destroyed tapes was ok bc the order language only related to interrogations of GITMO detainees, not the then unacknowledged black site detainees who were first publically alluded to in the Dana Priest story.

    Gigliamo tried the same kind of parsing early in the initial story as it came out with respect to Brinkema, indicating that only specific terrorist suspect detainees were mentioned in Brinkema’s orders, and that the destroyed tapes were not of those detainees (but that seems to be falling apart with the acknowledgements that Zubaydah was on the destroyed tapes, bc there is almost no way he would not have been in the Judge’s order, even though I haven’t seen that order. Moussaoui was requesting Z as a witness from the very very very beginning, and very publically so.

    And lest anyone forget, the Padilla arrests were initiated by DOJ getting arrest warrants based on what appears to have been the torture statements of Zubaydah and Binyam Mohammed (who, alone of the British GITMO detainees is not being released to a country where he might start talking to the press and where his abuse claims could be medically investigated). Given the high profile of the Padilla case and his objection to that arrest warrant and allegations of torture in relation to the statements supporting it – – how can tapes of Zubaydah being tortured not be deemed relevant to that case and its appeals? I have to wonder if there wasn’t a preserving order in that case too, but by the time Padilla was undisappeared after years, it looks like Gov may have already taken all many gifts Judge Luttig gave them, including the time and free hand to destroy evidence, and put it to good use. I believe the Comey prequel to Nifong (press conf) on Padilla was June of 05 (I’m notoriously bad on names and dates though – so don’t rely). All the allegations that he made about Zubaydah’s interrogations and information – – within a few months of that presser and well before the Padilla case was decided (the Sup Ct at that juncture remanded) his DOJ was destroying all that evidence it supposedly reviewed and which Comey assured everyone “proved” that the President was a wonderful guy who made great decisions.

    Gosh – who would want to destroy proof of such nobleness?

    To put in the the lhp comment for her — “maybe the CIA was waiting for Comey to leave” to destroy the tapes? Was he involved in those heated discussions? Seems likely that he was involved in the discussions. Given the distortions and misrepresentations and misuse of public statements in the Padilla presser, I have to speculate as to whether he would more likely have been a prop, rather than a block, to conspiracies to conceal DOJ’s involvement with making the US a state sponsor of torture – but who knows?

  49. bmaz says:

    Mary – I agree with your take on the orders. That was part of why I above called the view that the tapes were no mandated to be preserves as evidence as “patently absurd”. That is not even counting all the other reasons I delineated. Did you look on PACER for the orders? I will go look (am not the biggest fan of PACER; but hey, its better than pre-PACER days of zip). I’ll see what I can find, because it would be interesting to see Brinkema’s wording.

  50. bmaz says:

    Yes. After spending an hour or so there and on teh Google, It appears you are quite right. My guess is, as Mary has said, the orders have enough goofy “lawyerese” to cover these tapes, whether they are in the possession, control or whatever. The one wildcard in this is the coming and going of defense attorneys and Mossauoui representing himself at some point. There was some flat out goofy stuff (Like Mossaoui’s “Motion to Prevent Ashcroft From Having His Ultimate Fantasy” or something very close to that) so who knows. I would sure commonly expect an evidentiary order in a circumstance like this to be broad enough to cover.