holy moly — they approved it the same day permission for destruction was requested. makes me wonder if HQ knew the request was coming in ahead of time…

So just who manned “headquarters” and where was it? Back in the old days the typist listed initials at the bottom of a message/memo/letter. The internet is so efficient.

the investigation will probably go nowhere unless public pressure is put on the Department of Justice and the Obama administration to hold the torturers accountable

In other words, it will go nowhere fast.

The ACLU is one of the only stalwart voices for ‘We the People’…! ;-)

From Attackerman…

And For Your Friday News Dump, Here’s A List Of Bagram Detainees

I guess the torture tapes were ordered destroyed because George W. Bush didn’t get to watch them any more?

I think that’s almost certain. Nothing moves that quickly, in my own experience, if there are legal questions involved. There should have been some here.

yup — either a decision was made to not run it by legal or legal was in the loop before the ask cable was sent

I’m still wondering about Document 75 (on page 65 of “Vaughn index of electronic documents relating to the reasons or people behind CIA’s destruction of 92 videotapes, Part 4 – (76 page PDF) which concerns the 11/10/2005 communications between CIA officers and “anonymous Presidential Advisors” regarding the destruction of the CIA’s torture videotapes the day after they were destroyed.

Who were these “anonymous Presidential Advisors” and were they/are they a part of a criminal conspiracy to prevent the CIA’s torture videotapes from being entered into evidence as specifically ordered by the Federal courts?

I just wanted to point out that Judge Brinkema asked about any tapes on November 3, 2005 (this was her second request and is found in the ACLU timeline; the first was back in May 2003). The order to destroy the tapes went out on November 8, 2005 as per this post. So the CIA was probably reacting to this request. On November 14, 2005, the CIA declared it had no such tapes. So it is likely that the tapes were destroyed by this time. (link same as above)

I am working off the entry from my Bush scandals list on this (item 288). Most of it is based on the letter prosecutors wrote to Brinkema in December 2007 when they found some tapes still survived. The ACLU might consider updating its timeline. In any case, the timing indicates that the CIA and Rodriguez willfully destroyed evidence in direct response to a judicial query and in order to avoid its release. The idea that this was coincidental is laughable.

Thanks, Hugh, for plugging this into the timeline, and making it clear that the destruction of the tapes/evidence was a clear obstruction of justice.

To Suzanne @1, it’s clear that there were many discussions about destroying the tapes, going back to Sept. 2002, as the article states. I think EW has discussed this before, in numerous posts. But its all there in those Vaughn index links.

One thing that’s notable is that the issue does appear to emanate from the people in the “Field” initially. Of course, this could have been from higher-ups visiting the Field stations or sites, or temporarily on assignment there. It also occurs to me that there is more than one Field site, and the various requests could have come from different sites, or HQ emails or cables sent to different sites. Until we see the whole document(s), or a reasonable portion, we won’t know.

Also, it’s clear, too, in those early documents, and crops up in docs quoted in this latest release, that even early on (2003, maybe even in 2002… I’m going by memory right now) that they were anticipating “litigation” arising out of the torture interrogations. I’ve wondered about that. IT was a secret, compartmentalized program. How did they know there would be later exposures.

I have two thoughts on that. The first is logical: once FBI started complaining, they knew that sooner or later there’d be leaks and other troubles. The second thought is more tinfoil-y: that since they were afraid of leads, and since contingency plans should be made for any breach of secrecy, they anticipated the need to leak some of the program in order to hide the rest, i.e., planned for a limited hangout. The litigation aspect would freeze the exposure, and focus it on what they wanted. Hence, we’re looking a lot at this set of videotapes, and the many, many other videotapes made at Guantanamo and elsewhere are not even a topic of conversation.

You are absolutely correct, MadDog. This should be a bombshell. I see there are a hell of a lot of emails emanating from CIA HQ (and within it) discussing the videotape destruction, and now we know, including with presidential “advisors” (would that include vice-presidential?).

The press should be demanding answers, this should be a big story. Have you written a diary on this? Is someone else going to cover this story? Why isn’t the press all over this?

(I know, the cynics will tell me, because no one cares. Well, I don’t believe that. People care, just not those who work for the big media. And after all, it’s still the latter that tell people what the big stories are.)

Though appreciative of tinfoily number 2, my vote goes to:

…The first is logical: once FBI started complaining, they knew that sooner or later there’d be leaks and other troubles…

As a matter of fact, I think this is a very astute observation that really hasn’t seen the light of day before.

The FBI folks were indeed initially at KSM’s black site with him and I’d bet good money they were entirely knowledgable that videotaping was occurring.

The FBI, of course, works for the DOJ. And DOJ attorneys were the direct link to the Federal court orders on turning over videotapes.

So it seems highly likely under those circumstances that the CIA knew it could not keep the videotaping secret, and that their only choices were to fall on their swords (i.e. judicially documenting the videotaping of their own torture program and be prosecuted) or destroy the tapes.

Even dummies can hear an axe falling.

And to compound their dumminess, they actually discuss their torture videotape destruction desires on numerous occasions with the White House in 2002 and then again in 2005, and beyond dumminess, even with Congress.

If these CIA folks are prosecuted for obstruction of justice for the videotape destruction, there is certainly grounds for a life prison sentence for stupidity.

I think there was a memo that sounded like discussion on how to make the request…saw it in the EW working thread. I’ll see if I can find it and link.

See comments starting at 2 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/14/new-aclu-torture-foia-docs-working-thread/

What intrigues/bothers me is just what the stance of prosecutor John Durham is in regards to the documentation of “anonymous presidential advisors” discussing the CIA’s destruction of the torture videotapes on the day after the videotapes themselves were destroyed.

For example, why were these documents not included in Durham’s FOIA exemption (b)(7)(a)?

As the CIA’s Wendy Hillman’s declaration (30 page PDF) states, 10 documents were withheld per that FOIA exemption by Durham.

Why not the 11/10/05 documents about the CIA communications with those “anonymous presidential advisors” the day after the videotapes were destroyed?

I would agree that this is bombshell material, so the lack of Durham’s FOIA exemption for these is astonishing.

The possible reasons seem to be:

1. He doesn’t know about them or their import (blind as friggin’ bat).
2. He doesn’t care about them or their import (narrow focus investigation).
3. He has other substitures for the same material (Dick Cheney, David Addington, Harriet Miers, et al. lookout!)

I would love it to be number 3, but I’m guessing it is number 2.

even early on (2003, maybe even in 2002… I’m going by memory right now) that they were anticipating “litigation” arising out of the torture interrogations. I’ve wondered about that

Again this seems related to the Moussaoui case. From my scandals item based on the prosecutors’ letter:

One of the unexpected turns in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui (see item 274) came in October 2002 when he sought testimony from other terrorists in US custody. Based on a CIA declaration of May 9, 2003, the government made the following disclosure to the defense:

Question: Whether the interrogations of (redacted) are being recorded in any format?
Answer: No.

For those following this thread,

Exemption (b)(7)(A) authorizes the withholding of “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information … could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

You’re right that the lack of an exemption for this is notable. However, since there are often legal fine points I don’t understand, I’d hope we’d get feedback from bmaz, or ACLU, or Mary, or some attorney on this.

All these are great points, Hugh. You neglected to put in a link to your Bush Scandals timeline/list. Here it is for those interested: http://bushscandalslist.blogspot.com/2009/10/introduction-george-bush-connecticut.html

Meanwhile, didn’t Jose Rodriguez already say he authorized the destruction of the tapes in November 2005? You note that at your list and that he was director of the CIA clandestine service.

So how can this document be withheld? It could be released redacted, but is withheld in full. Maybe the signator is not Rodriguez?

It all points to, as bmaz is fond of pointing out (and I hope I’m not misrepresenting his position), that conclusion that the Durham investigation is a farce. As the gravedigger of possible CIA indictments, Obama put Durham in control of a second CIA interrogation recently, this arising out of the OIG report and the charge that some of the interrogators may have gone beyond the instructions in the OLC memos. Of course, even that constricted mandate is a coverup. But in the current political environment, even this limited hangout is likely to undergo its own coverup.

But for the smug administration flunky that might happen upon this column/thread, remember that political environments change, and the day might yet come (one hopes) that the torturers will have to stand before a court and answer for their crimes. And that includes those that ordered the crimes, and those who made efforts to cover them up.

Thank you for the post Jeff.

I’ll post later with links but I am wondering why they witheld docs on the committee meetings? Should they also be released in redacted form due to our knowledge of the meetings? Presidential advisors were present at this meeting too.

This is the 2/04/2003 doc 155 MFR (pg 15) addressing the SSCI member Briefing irt: CIA’s RDI program.

Index 6 doc 160 (pg 25) also has interesting language regarding the “two page timeline regarding the destroyed tapes noting an exchange between CIA officers and presidential advisors and possible presidential actions. (my bold)

Sure hope ACLU has a nice list of all docs CIA stated they were going to release in full or redacted form but were withheld because of Durham. Some serious breadcrumbs lie in those tapes Durham withheld.

See update in article re ACLU’s initial take on this release. Nothing there, though, on the issue of “presidential advisors and possible presidential actions”, unless you consider the part about the principals meeting.

I’ve looked, but can’t find what the CIA’s RDI program stands for. Does anyone know what that stands for?

Rendition, detention, and interrogation (RDI) I believe.

Thanks. Could call them the three horsemen, I suppose. The unholy trinity of torture.