Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Bush May Be Forced to Explain Destroyed CIA Torture Tapes

By John Dean, FindLaw.com. Posted December 18, 2007.


An ACLU lawsuit might force the Bush administration to reveal what actually happened.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by John Dean

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

By my count, there appear to be no less than ten preliminary investigations underway, following the revelation that the CIA destroyed at least two sets of videotapes (containing hundreds of hours of footage) of "advanced interrogation" techniques being employed in terrorism investigations. In fact, every branch of government is now involved.

Within the Executive Branch, according to news reports, the CIA's General Counsel and Inspector General are investigating. The Department of Justice is investigating. On Capitol Hill, both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are investigating. In addition, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is inquiring as to whether the Federal Records Act has been violated. And Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, has made preliminary inquiries as well.

The Bush Administration has shown that it is not very good at investigating itself, so no one should hold their breath for the outcome of either the CIA or Justice Department investigation. And Attorney General Mukasey has dismissed an independent special counsel inquiry as very premature. The Democratic-controlled Congress could get to the bottom of all this, but one should bear in mind that our elected representatives have yet to get to the bottom of the political firing of U.S. Attorneys (although, to be fair, they did get former Attorney General Gonzales to resign). Today, Congress suffers from a degenerative spinal malady, and while they can bark, they appear unable to bite.

There are three court orders that may have been violated, but one in particular strikes me as a very serious problem for the CIA. Accordingly, we may well be in the unique situation in which a pending civil lawsuit might flush out some answers, and the federal judiciary might thus embarrass the other branches into actually taking meaningful action. I say "might" because the Bush Administration thinks nothing of stiffing federal court judges who seek information, and they probably figure they can tap-dance for the federal judiciary - along with all the other inquiries -- until they are out of Washington on January 20, 2009.

Nevertheless, the situation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests by the American Civil Liberties Union, could well force the Bush Administration's hand. An order holding the CIA in contempt of court might get the Administration's attention.

The ACLU's Lawsuit, and the Order that the CIA Produce Documents

When word of mistreatment of detainees surfaced, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request targeting the CIA and others on October 7, 2003 and May 25, 2004, seeking records concerning the treatment of all detainees apprehended after September 11, 2001 and held in U.S. custody abroad. This, of course, would mean not only in Guantanamo but in the secret prisons in Eastern Europe operated by the CIA.

Not surprisingly, the government stiffed the request, so the ACLU filed a lawsuit in June 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case ended up in the courtroom of Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. On September 15, 2004, Judge Hellerstein ordered the CIA and other government departments to "produce or identify" all responsive documents by October 15, 2004.

The CIA claimed that some of the relevant documents were the subject of an inquiry by the CIA's Office of the Inspector General, so its attorneys requested a stay of the judge's order and an extension of time to comply with the request for other documents. In February 2005, Judge Hellerstein denied the CIA's request for a stay, but he did not enforce the stay immediately when the CIA moved for the judge to reconsider his ruling based on additional evidence from the CIA's Director - as the CIA entered a full-court press to prevent the ACLU from getting anything.

This stalling action had been playing out, when news of the destruction of the tapes became public. Now, in the action before Judge Hellerstein, he ACLU has moved to hold the CIA in contempt of court, based on the Judge's September 15, 2004 ruling. It is difficult to see why the CIA is, in fact, not in contempt, given the nature of the FOIA request and the judge's order.

Motion to Hold the CIA In Contempt

On December 6, The New York Times reported that the CIA had destroyed two videotapes of CIA detainees who were being subjected to "aggressive interrogation techniques" - more commonly called torture. The Washington Post soon reported that the destruction of the tapes had occurred in November 2005. CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly acknowledged that destruction, and soon confirmed this statement under oath in testimony to the House and Senate, saying that the destruction had occurred before he became Director.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: bush, cia, torture, white house, aclu, interrogation, video tapes

John W. Dean is a columnist for FindLaw and a former counsel to the President.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The Court of Last Resort
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Dec 18, 2007 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem is that the administration will just keep stalling and appealing till it gets to the Supreme Court, where the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia) just need one co-conspirator, most likely Kennedy, to uphold Bush's position. The Constitution will be sacrificed on the bench of the highest court in the land.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Court of Last Resort Posted by: StrayCat
» RE: The Court of Last Resort Posted by: nochicagoboys
» RE: The Court of Last Resort Posted by: saltoafronteira
It's Torture, I Tell Ya!
Posted by: Tom Degan on Dec 18, 2007 3:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please, When your done reading John Dean's article and all of the responses, have a peak at something I wrote the other day on this very nasty little subject. Here's a link:

How...."Quaint"

peace....
Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's Torture, I Tell Ya! Posted by: rocketman
FORCED TO EXPLAIN??
Posted by: patfr on Dec 18, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How would you go about getting him to explain
anything? He's lied to you for seven long years, and he's not about to tell you the truth now

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just Say 'No'...
Posted by: Dadster3 on Dec 18, 2007 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
seems to work pretty good for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Meet the new TCLU
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 18, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“”judges appointed by Republican presidents tend to throw cases that might embarrass Republican presidents out of their court, as quickly as they can figure out how to do so. Federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, fortunately, do not tend to cower when either Republican or Democratic presidents are involved.”””

----– And anyone is supposed to take this comment seriously???? – so ALL republican judges are spineless and ALL democratic judges are not. Seems congress is pretty full of spineless democrats right now - so are we to assume all “tough” democrats ( there’s a laugh) become judges and all spineless ones get elected to congress?

“”Judge Hellerstein was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1998. An editor of the Columbia Law Review during his law school years””. ------I’m sure he is very capable but a Clinton appointee and Columbia law.. there’s a ACLU dream if I’ve ever seen one. The government never stood a chance!

I’m not sure of the ACLU’s motive in this case. On who’s behalf are they acting? They are now in the business of looking out for the enemies of America? Terrorists rights? Maybe the TCLU is a better fit.

Torture should never be condoned in this country and government agencies should not be ignoring court orders – but there is a real world out there with real people killing Americans – I think the ACLU’s efforts would be better spent protecting Americans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: robert.noll
» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Meet the old NeoCon Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» heh heh... Posted by: Coleman
» RE: What a Gasss! Posted by: channing
» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Meet the new TCLU, A Rocketman Smear Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: Tombo
» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: bloggeddowninMKE
» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: rocketman
» don't be a rockhead, man! Posted by: PaulC
» RE: don't be a rockhead, man! Posted by: rocketman
» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: saltoafronteira
» RE: Meet the new TCLU Posted by: rocketman
Only if the media keep it front page
Posted by: Jeanne on Dec 18, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing that will ever compel the "justice" system to take this scandal and run it daily is if the public interest in it can be maintained. The corporate media will quickly lose interest and be on to the next bit of "news" about some designated celebrity, and this saga will fade into oblivion, just as all the previous "scandals" have. If form follows, this will last no longer than the Alberto Gonzalez/attorney firing scandal. The corporate media have no interest in upsetting their apple cart (they are owned by the same people who own Washington, DC). So, unless there is a feeding frenzy of interest on the part of the public in general, this will quickly fade away into a, " . . . what ever happened to . . .?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush and his fellow criminals always get away with it
Posted by: Don Garb on Dec 18, 2007 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These things are just a nuisance for the White House psychos, they never obey the courts on anything. So where's the minutes from Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings? That's the longest running contempt of court I know of. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

If you American voters ever get sick and tired of your completely corrupt government (maybe sometime this century) you can try the "no incumbents" strategy. Always vote against the incumbent. The forces of evil will have to work overtime corrupting all the new folks, they might not get to all of them. Then you might actually have an honest moment in US politics ...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Protecting operatives' identities is bogus claim.
Posted by: rockpicker on Dec 18, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That could be done digitally.

Abu Zubaydah divluged the names of key Saudi and Pakistani players in 9/11, along with contact information he had memorized, to interrogators he believed were "friendly." All four people he fingered were soon dead.

This story ran in the Huffington Post last week. Pay attention. Here's the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/
the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html

For Rocketman to suggest the ACLU is NOT protecting US citizens in this case really is
foul-smelling drool. Thanks, LeftCoastProgressive, for that apt imagery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ps-3 of the dead... Posted by: rockpicker
A few things to ponder
Posted by: willymack on Dec 18, 2007 11:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. The bush crime spree has gone on, unabated since the 2000 election" was stolen.
2.The bushies will NEVER be brought to justice. Let's face it, folks, if it was gonna happen, it would already be a done deal.
3.Regardless of the 2008 "election" outcome, the same crooks who wield power now will be doing the same in the future, while the bushies will retire in obscene luxury with money stolen from US.
4. It'll probably take a really shocking event (since 911 wasn't enough) to wake up our people and cause them to take appropriate remedial action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's first ABOLISH THE CIA.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 18, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has done NOTHING to protect America and everything to shield terrorists especially Osama bin Laden. A real libertarian would call for its ABOLITION, not its continued existence against the taxpayers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I will believe it when I see it!!!!!!!
Posted by: kentigereyes@yahoo.com on Dec 18, 2007 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After wasted lives and wasted $$$$$$$$$$$ due to the despicably evil "w"/DICKY regime, I doubt that this regime will be held accountable for anything. Nobody in the United States of Arrogance has the b---s. I sure wish I was wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ANY coercive interrogations are illegal, aren't they?
Posted by: Earthian on Dec 18, 2007 5:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Dean's superb article presumes that torture is illegal. I agree. But the article fails to rule on or to presume that interrogations that involve non-torture coercion, whether physical or moral, are illegal. I wonder about that. (By coercion in this context I mean physical or moral methods that do not involve torture such as threats, threats to family members, bribery, use of privileges, mild discomfort that falls short of torture, misinforming prisoners about their rights, or failing to inform them of their rights.)

While I am not a lawyer, I have read the Nuremberg trial judgments, the Bill of Rights, and the third and fourth Geneva Conventions. I am clear why torture of any kind is illegal. It is a violation of the Bill of Rights, the Torture Convention, and the Geneva Conventions. But my reading of the Geneva Conventions suggests that interrogation based on coercion of any kind is also illegal. To you Mr. Dean and/or other well-informed commenters here, I'd like to know if my argument is flawed, and if so how. Here it is:

Civilian prisoners may have a lawyer, as recognized in the Miranda case, and do not have to testify under questions. ("You have the right to remain silent" "and you have a right to an attorney" it says.)

Prisoners of war are given in the explicit right not to have to answer questions except for four.

In the Third Geneva Convention, Article 17 makes that clear:

"Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. . . . No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

And in the Fourth Geneva Convention for civilians, it says:

"Article 31
No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties. "

As to whether they are prisoners of war or civilian suspects, Article 5 of the Third Convention makes clear the requirement (which has not been satisfied at Guantanamo):

"Article 5
. . .
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. "

So whether a civilian prisoner or a prisoner of war, Geneva states they cannot be interrogated by coercive means. Period. Right? Or what am I missing?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Outstanding analysis
Posted by: Krashkopf on Dec 19, 2007 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the CIA and the Administration have much to fear from Judge Hellerstein - the TRUTH WILL OUT!

"Impeach. Prosecute. Save America!" - Naomi Wolf

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]