After querying former intelligence officers and reviewing the letter from the U.S. Attorney’s in Richmond, Virginia, I can clarify some issues surrounding what’s what with respect to the question of the “destruction” of interrogation tapes and speculate on others.
The bottom line is: Jose Rodriguez, the recently retired Deputy Director of Operations, has been fingered as acting unilaterally, but that is not true. He did check with both the IG and the DO’s assigned Assistant General Counsel before destroying the DO’s copies of the tapes. Although Jose is a lawyer, he made the mistake of trusting fellow lawyers, and now is likely to get chopped up in the political meat grinder while trying to clear his name and reputation. (UPDATE: See today’s NY Times piece by Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti confirming Jose got a legal opinion before destroying the tapes.)
Why destroy the tapes? 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. That
operation was conducted with the full knowledge and approval of the
Italians. If the Italians could flip on us that meant anyone could.
Let’s follow the timeline:
March
2002 – Abu Zubaydah is captured in Pakistan. George Bush is briefed
regularly by George Tenet on the details of Zubaydah’s interrogation
(see p. 22, State of War
by James Risen). Cofer Black is in charge of the CIA’s Counterterrorism
Center and oversees the CIA’s hunt for the terrorists. Zubaydah is
interrogated in Thailand, where the sessions were filmed. He was
waterboarded sometime in the May-June 2002 time frame. Enhanced
interrogation methods were used and approval for them came from Jim
Pavitt (see p. 21 of ABC News interview of former CIA case officer, John Kiriakou). Pavitt was the DDO (i.e., Deputy Director of Operations). Stephen Kappes,
who currently serves as the Deputy Director of the CIA, was named
Assistant Deputy Director of Operations in June 2002. Ron Suskind
confirms Risen’s report that the President and his National Security
team were regularly briefed on the results of Zubaydah’s torture
sessions (see The One Percent Doctrine, pp. 111-115).
What
we know for certain is that the CIA was keeping the President and his
National Security team fully briefed on the methods and results of
interrogating Abu Zubaydah. In fact, it is highly likely that George
Tenet showed part of the videotape of the interrogation to the
President.
November-December 2002 – Cofer Black leaves the
C.I.A. and is sworn in as the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the
Department of State. Jose A. Rodriguez takes over the helm of the
C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center.
14 November 2005 – In response to an order of the
U.S. District Court for the C.I.A. to confirm or deny that it has video
or audio tapes of interrogations of C.I.A. subjects, the C.I.A. the
“U.S. Government does not have any video or audio tapes of the
interrogations of (two terrorist suspects whose names are blacked out)”
(see p. 4 of U.S. Attorney letter).
June 2006 – Michael Hayden takes over as Director of the C.I.A. and Stephen Kappes returns as the Deputy Director of the C.I.A.
13
September 2007 – C.I.A. notifies the U.S. Attorneys in Richmond,
Virginia that it had discovered the videotape of the interrogation of
terrorists whose names are blacked out in the declassified letter (see. p. 2 of the letter).
19
September 2007 – The U.S. Attorneys view the video tape. Attorneys
direct the C.I.A. to search its files again for relevant material.
18
October 2007 – C.I.A. provides the U.S. Attorneys with an additional
video tape and an audio tape of an interrogation. The U.S. Attorneys
compare the video tapes with the operational cables (i.e., written
reports) reporting the results of the interrogations. They determined
that the reports accurately reported what was viewed on the video tape.
This
is an important point – the substance of what transpired during those
interrogations was given to the Moussaoui defense team.
So. Who did what?
Jose
Rodriguez has the advantage of being a lawyer. I am fairly certain that
he can document who he talked to and the guidance he received before
taking the step of destroying the tapes. Another thing that might save
him a bit is that he and Congressman Reyes are buddies, which is what
Congressman Reyes may have meant when he told the NYT today that he
(Reyes) “was not looking for scapegoats.”
This isn’t the first
time that Jose has had his tit in a ringer. During Iran-Contra, he and
another C.I.A. officer were summoned to DC for questioning by the FBI.
He could prove that he had asked for, and never received, DCI
confirmation through cable command channels that Ollie North’s orders
were legit, and thus diplomatically told Felix Rodriguez to pound sand.
However, when it was thought that he was going to be called to testify
on the Hill, the DCI’s office told him that, despite what the
regulations said, OGC would not provide him legal support for acting
within his authority and the law. Then C.I.A. Director told Jose thru a
friend that Iran-Contra was “political, get your own lawyer.”
Jose
Rodriguez did not consult beforehand with Kyle “Dusty” Foggo. However,
Jose did inform Dusty subsequently of the advice he received from the
OGC’s counsel. Jose may not be in as much trouble as some imagined. If
he destroyed the tapes before November 14, 2005 then the C.I.A. told
the truth to the judge. The May 2003 date puts the onus on Jim Pavitt
and George Tenet rather than Jose Rodriguez. They knew about the tapes
and the C.I.A. General Counsel lied to a Federal Judge. Who told whom
what then? That’s going to be the interesting question.
And last
but not least. The top two Democrats and Republicans on the House and
Senate Intelligence Committees – the so-called “gang of eight” – were
fully briefed in interrogation techniques several times during 2002-3.
They concurred unanimously that the interrogation techniques were OK.
This means that Democrats as well as Republicans backed this process.
Concerned citizen: Are you reading too much into the U.S. Attorney's letter?
"The U.S. Attorneys compare the video tapes with the operational cables (i.e., written reports) reporting the results of the interrogations. They determined that the reports accurately reported what was viewed on the video tape. This is an important point the substance of what transpired during those interrogations was given to the Moussaoui defense team."
This is an important assertion, and I don't see it supported by the U.S. Attorney's letter.
Too much is redacted from the letter on pages 2 and 3 to determine what the cables were compared to. There also nothing in the letter indicating that the cables in question were provided to the defense. At least so far, the judge is just getting transcripts, and it's not clear from the unredacted portions of the letter that these transcripts are complete. The defense does not even get the transcripts. And these are a small part of the videotapes, are they not? Weren't most destroyed?
This is not just about torture - these tapes would relate to (reportedly) ongoing criminal investigations of the crimes of 9/11.
1
December 17, 2007
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: