Coverup and Crime

Obviously, you can't miss Mark Mazzetti's story on the CIA's destruction of tapes that would have provided evidence of torture being carried out by American personnel. Spencer's commentary seems apt:

Of course, Hayden just inherited this whirlwind. His predecessors, George Tenet and Porter Goss, sowed it. And to a greater degree, it's the fault of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, John Yoo and John Rizzo, who created a blatantly illegal interrogation program for the CIA to implement. Those on the tapes torturing Abu Zubaydah and Detainee #2 were, loyally, doing what those men wanted. But Tenet must have known that what's on those tapes is evidence of criminal activity. That's a much more plausible explanation for why he stopped taping interrogations. And it's also probably why Rodriguez, with Goss' tacit or explicit consent, destroyed them. If Michael Mukasey is the same man of integrity he was before he became attorney general, he'd call that criminal conspiracy or deliberate obstruction of justice.

What will probably end up consuming the remainder of Bush's term is an inquiry into the cover-up. But it's always the crime -- torture, systematic and approved by the highest levels -- that demands focus. And it was the CIA's decision to distract whomever it could from knowing about the crime.

Michael Hayden as the current front-man is obviously going to wind up bearing a lot of the heat for the coverup, but it's Jose Rodriguez, CIA operations chief at the time, who was the actual actor here -- unless he's willing to fess up and implicate superiors in the conspiracy. And then there's the underlying crime, the culpability for which goes all the way up the chain.

Speaking of which, I saw a screening of Taxi to the Dark Side the other evening and had planned on holding off on blogging about it until the film was out in theaters, but I'll just observe that its dissection of the ways in which "command responsibility" implicates top officials in the crimes committed on the front lines of the torture trade is really brilliant. The film also makes the point that for all the flaws of the political press (the guys who cover campaigns, file dispatches from congress, follow the president around and take notes on what he says, etc.), quite a lot of excellent work has been done on these issues by reporters in the field and investigative correspondents based here in Washington.

Comments

Anyone else think it's really weird that we found out about this at all?

CIA Guy: "Hey, Boss, so I destroyed the tapes like you asked and told the press."

Boss (sandwich halfway to mouth): "Say that last part again."

Posted by southpaw | December 7, 2007 9:56 AM

Has anyone asked the Presidential candidates if they pledge to prosecute Jose Rodriguez and George Tenet for their crimes?

I mean, if it is so simple - those CIA personnel tortured (or approved torture), and torture is a crime, then those CIA personnel are criminals, no? So has anyone asked a direct question of the Presidential candidates if they plan to prosecute these criminals?

Posted by Al | December 7, 2007 9:57 AM

Less obtusely: The CIA is supposed to be really good at keeping secrets that are quite difficult to keep . . . like what American diplomats are breaking the laws of their host countries by spying and whatnot . . . so, aside from the moral implications of disappearing these videotapes, how and why did they let this relatively uncomplicated cat out of the bag?

Posted by southpaw | December 7, 2007 10:04 AM

The CIA is supposed to be really good at keeping secrets that are quite difficult to keep

I'm not sure that's true. My recollection is that the CIA has long leaked, probably for the same reason that other places leak: vanity, whistleblowing, internal politics, etc.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 7, 2007 10:09 AM

according to the Times, Goss was furious when he found out the tapes had been destroyed.

Posted by Nathan | December 7, 2007 10:16 AM

The CIA is supposed to be really good at keeping secrets that are quite difficult to keep . . .

And, of course, beside what SCMT says - even besides the leaks, the CIA is actually really bad at keeping secrets. After all, how in the world did Italy get the names of the 20+ CIA personnel who kidnapped Abu Omar? Not a leak - just simple incompetence. It's not clear how the NY Times got its original information about the tapes - whether it was a deliberate leak or not.

Posted by Al | December 7, 2007 10:19 AM

My recollection is that the CIA has long leaked, probably for the same reason that other places leak: vanity, whistleblowing, internal politics, etc.

True enough. But I would think that someone who had access to this peculiar bit of information would also be close enough to the story to fear self-incrimination (and so, presumably, not leak it). The CIA leaks lots of information, but leaking their own suspect behavior (and then officially confirming it) does seem a bit unusual.

Posted by southpaw | December 7, 2007 10:33 AM

My biggest concern at this point is--what if nobody cares? Or not enough people, anyway. The Bolshevik Republican regime has shown itself sublimely talented at bitch-slapping and quietly mugging critics when the general public has shown an inability to get riled up about what's being done in the name of the people. After all, what's a little "rough treatment" that you can't even get some good YouTube of? Nada. Zip. Nothing happened, boss--buncha whiners and terrorists looking for "special treatment"...

Posted by elle loco | December 7, 2007 10:36 AM

the CIA is actually really bad at keeping secrets....It's not clear how the NY Times got its original information about the tapes - whether it was a deliberate leak or not.

Fair point. There is a tendency, for some reason, to assume extreme competence in the "hard" areas of govt. But it's the same collections of oddballs and fuckups that you find in the rest of life. I seem to recall that John LeCarre noted that "The Looking Glass War" was the novel that best described his experience of the secret service he was in, but that the book sold poorly because of the oddball/fuckup issue.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 7, 2007 10:41 AM

Also, the presumption that the tapes were destroyed to coverrup the tactics used doesn't hold much water. Given that there was a period when they were videotaping these interrogations, there had to be a lot more than two tapes that show the harsh tactics then in use.

Were all tapes of harsh interrogations destroyed? And if so, why not leak that the CIA had dumped its whole library of torture tapes--a better, more damning story?

Were only these 2 relating to Zubaydah destroyed? And if so, what was so special about them (with respect to the assumed motive to coverrup the interrogations tactics in play)?

These tapes probably do show torture, but if only two were destroyed, I'd bet it's not the torture they were coverring up.

Posted by southpaw | December 7, 2007 10:49 AM

There is a tendency, for some reason, to assume extreme competence in the "hard" areas of govt. But it's the same collections of oddballs and fuckups that you find in the rest of life.

Yes, but it doesn't take "extreme competence" to burn two highly classified VHS tapes and not tell anyone about it. They haven't just admitted the tapes are missing, after all, they've gone ahead and said they destroyed them intentionally.

Posted by southpaw | December 7, 2007 10:53 AM

Double Gitmo!

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 7, 2007 11:06 AM

So what's your theory, Southpaw?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 7, 2007 11:34 AM

So what's your theory, Southpaw?

Alas, I haven't made the transformation into a full conspiracy theorist yet. I don't know what's going on.

All I'm saying is that covering up a criminal policy of harsh interrogation tactics by destroying two videotapes doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

If you are interested in a conspiracy theory, here's one from the neocons--it's pretty far-fetched.

Posted by southpaw | December 7, 2007 11:44 AM

They can hardly be blamed for destroying the tapes. As long as they were out there, sooner or later they would be leaked.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | December 7, 2007 12:27 PM

I look at this from the perspective of a criminal lawyer, and it is quite astounding. Here in Canada, there is a big push to ensure that all statements by an accused be videotaped to ensure that there is an objective record of the circumstances of the giving of the statement. The Toronto police service has a quite detailed policy that requires, for instance, that the video record the entry of the accused into the room where the statement is to be made, and that there be no interruptions in the making of the video. Any deviations from the policy raise grave doubts about the circumstances of the statement.

This is all for very good reason: we need to be exceptionally suspicious of any moment that is unrecorded (and thereby subject solely to the word of the police vs. the accused).

If tapes existed and were deliberately destroyed, the imagination runs wild about what they showed.

Posted by McKingford | December 7, 2007 12:28 PM

I don't know what's going on.

Well then, Ockham's Razor suggests that this was revealed because the leaker was genuinely angry about the decision to destroy the tapes, wanted to embarrass a rival, had a personal relationship with the reporter, was careless (or maybe drunk), or any of the other reasons that secrets get leaked in Washington all the time.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 7, 2007 12:48 PM

Well then, Ockham's Razor suggests that this was revealed because the leaker was genuinely angry about the decision to destroy the tapes, wanted to embarrass a rival, had a personal relationship with the reporter, was careless (or maybe drunk), or any of the other reasons that secrets get leaked in Washington all the time.

That would explain the leak.

It does nothing to explain the motive for selectively destroying two tapes, if that's what happened, nor does it explain why the agency leadership is publicly standing behind the decision to intentionally destroy the tapes.

Posted by southpaw | December 7, 2007 1:07 PM

Far-fetched idea:

Retaliation from the VP's office for the NIE?

The WH may have concluded by now, probably correctly, that they are pretty impervious politically and criminally to any of the darkside activities that have taken place under their watch, even when they directed it. So why not cause the CIA some heartache in turn for wrecking their Iranian wet dream?

Posted by Condor | December 7, 2007 1:22 PM

"So what's your theory...?"

When information about the CIA comes out unexpectedly, it is almost always from a careerist who thinks the leak will make the agency more secure in the long run. People who engage in unsanctioned lawbreaking are a liability.

Posted by Njorl | December 7, 2007 2:21 PM

Interesting thing about videotapes of US government officers committing crimes - they tend to get ruined by the FBI when examined.

This happened during the riots at Federal Prisons in the fall of 1995. Inmates at one prison were brutally beaten and tortured - even though they were inmates who were already in "The Hole" and thus uninvolved with the riots. The brutality was duly videotaped by the correctional officers (nobody ever said C.O.s have ANY brains), and subsequently turned over to the FBI during the investigation initiated by family members of the inmates.

And of course the FBI testified that due to the poor quality of the tapes and the riot gear worn by the C.O.'s, no evidence of any brutality was shown.

Right.

This is the same FBI that took the blood-stained clothes of an inmate murdered by two C.O.'s in his cell in the Oklahoma City Transport Center, tossed them into an agent's car trunk, then had the agent drive around with them in the trunk for a month until he complained it was stinking up his car, thus ruining the evidence...

So even if these tapes hadn't been destroyed, you can bet your bottom dollar the DoJ would have made sure they were useless during any investigation.

Yes, I know the FBI had agents at Guantanamo who complained officially about the inmate treatment there. I assume some FBI agents probably care. I can guarantee you their superiors don't give a damn.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 7, 2007 10:49 PM

"Given that there was a period when they were videotaping these interrogations, there had to be a lot more than two tapes that show the harsh tactics then in use."

I don't think we've ever gotten an accounting of how frequently the so-called "harsh interrogation tactics" were used, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility that only two tapes were made. Another possibility, which strikes me as more likely, is that the tapes of interrogations were routinely destroyed, but that an exception was made in these two cases because the subjects provided useful information. The reason for saving the tapes would be to allow the interrogations to be reviewed if questions later arose about what the subjects had said.

If the leaker is someone who was not responsible for interrogations, he might not know about the other tapes. The leaker would be someone who was involved in anti-terrorism and therefore had a "need to know" about the two tapes in question.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | December 7, 2007 10:55 PM

If we were really serious about this terrorism stuff, we would gut the DEA and send those guys out. Different mission, same sort of skill set needed. Except if they win it wouldn't bankrupt Central and South America and create a massive crisis.

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 7, 2007 11:06 PM