AP Newsbreak: CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes

[Winehole23]

AP Newsbreak: CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iASWS1P4bBULp9TwdMDnotGBi5bQD96M15S80)

By DEVLIN BARRETT – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — New documents show the CIA destroyed nearly 100 tapes of terror interrogations, far more than has previously been acknowledged.


The revelation Monday comes as a criminal prosecutor is wrapping up his investigation in the matter.


The acknowledgment of dozens of destroyed tapes came in a letter filed by government lawyers in New York, where the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit seeking more details of the Bush administration's terror interrogation programs following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.


"The CIA can now identify the number of videotapes that were destroyed," said the letter by Acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin. "Ninety two videotapes were destroyed."


ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said the CIA should be held in contempt of court for holding back the information for so long.


"The large number of videotapes destroyed confirms that the agency engaged in a systematic attempt to hide evidence of its illegal interrogations and to evade the court's order," Singh said in a statement.
The tapes also became a contentious issue in the trial of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, after prosecutors initially claimed no such recordings existed, then after the trial was over, they acknowledged two videotapes and one audiotape had been made.


The letter, dated March 2 to Judge Alvin Hellerstein, says the CIA is now gathering more details for the lawsuit, including a list of the destroyed records, any secondary accounts that describe the destroyed contents, and the identities of those who may have viewed or possessed the recordings before they were destroyed.


But the lawyers also note that some of that information may be classified, such as the names of CIA personnel that viewed the tapes.
"The CIA intends to produce all of the information requested to the court and to produce as much information as possible on the public record to the plaintiffs," states the letter.


John Durham, a senior career prosecutor in Connecticut, was appointed to lead the criminal investigation out of Virginia.


He had asked that the requests for information in the civil lawsuit be put on hold until he had completed his criminal investigation. Durham asked that he be given until the end of February to wrap up his work, and has not asked for another extension.


Durham's spokesman, Tom Carson, had no immediate comment.
The criminal investigation into the CIA's videotapes included interrogations of al-Qaida lieutenant Abu Zubaydah and another top al-Qaida leader. They were destroyed, in part, to protect the identities of the government questioners at a time the Justice Department was debating whether the tactics used during the interrogations — which are believed to have included waterboarding — were illegal.

[Blake]

oh man.....

this means mouse was right all along about 9/11!

Sorry for doubting you.

[JudynTX]

Only 92? :rolleyes

[LnGrrrR]

I'm telling you, it sounds more and more like Obama doesn't want what happened to get out because it's just THAT bad.

[DarrinS]

I'm more interested in the tapes that Roger Goodell destroyed.

[Winehole23]

I'm more interested in the tapes that Roger Goodell destroyed.That felt so wrong to me. Why destroy the evidence? What do the Pats have on Goodell?

[DarrinS]

That felt so wrong to me. Why destroy the evidence? What do the Pats have on Goodell?


Destroying evidence is never a good thing, IMO.

[Winehole23]

I'm telling you, it sounds more and more like Obama doesn't want what happened to get out because it's just THAT bad.My understanding is the tapes were destroyed years ago, but that the precise information about the destruction ordered by the court is only now coming to light. The bad news is unwelcome.

The Abu Ghraib tapes may soon see wider release. Expect Obama to fight that tooth and nail as well.

Sen. Lindsay Graham used the words "rape" and "murder" to describe the conduct he saw on the tapes, and Sec'y Rumsfeld said their release would be harmful to the country.

[Nbadan]

Sen. Lindsay Graham used the words "rape" and "murder" to describe the conduct he saw on the tapes, and Sec'y Rumsfeld said their release would be harmful to the country

Someday they to will have to be released...

[Winehole23]

Someday they to will have to be released...The truth commission will be powerless to do justice but will compensate by immunizing some of the criminals for their testimony. Ick.

[Wild Cobra]

That felt so wrong to me. Why destroy the evidence? What do the Pats have on Goodell?
The bottom of the article explained it. To protect the identity of CIA agents. This was an issue long ago. Came out then that the tapes were destroyed for that purpose. A wise decision considering how many traitors release secret material from within our government before an approval process. Besides, maybe some were destroyed because they were useless? I don't know about such material, but some things, you simply destroy after a three or seven year window anyway. Can you imagine the logistics of saving everything?


Someday they to will have to be released...
And your point? Besides, how do you release destroyed material.

Why is this such a big deal?

[Bartleby]

A wise decision considering how many traitors release secret material from within out government before an approval process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

[Wild Cobra]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
Yep, Joe Wilson was traitor. Armatige? Hard to say. Maybe. There is still debate of her actual status.

[Winehole23]

The bottom of the article explained it. To protect the idemtity of CIA agenents. This was an issue long ago. L'Affaire Plame changed all that, eh? :lol


Besides, maybe some were destroyed because they were useless? I don't know about such material, but some things, you simply destroy after a three or seven year window anyway. Can you imagine the logistics of saving everything?Interrogations of dangerous terrorists? Why save those?



And your point? Besides, how do you release destroyed material.Maybe you didn't read through the thread carefully. No biggie. We all do it sometimes. I sidetracked to the Abu Ghraib tapes.


Why is this such a big deal?The CIA responded to an court order for information with a tale of destruction. And then, a year later, got around to disclosing the scope of that destruction to the court. Can you see why the judge is peeved at the CIA?

[Wild Cobra]

L'Affaire Plame changed all that, eh? :lol

No, there have been several serious leaks throughout government. Here about the new file sharing problem that had Marine One details available on-line?



Interrogations of dangerous terrorists? Why save those?

Why save fruitless evidence as well? Without the details, we can only guess. I would say 92 tapes isn't that many. How many thousands are there? One tape, one session. Possible example. Interrogator walks in room. Talks. No response from the terrorists. Walks out. Would you save such a tape any longer than needed?



Maybe you didn't read through the thread carefully. No biggie. We all do it sometimes. I sidetracked to the Abu Ghraib tapes.

Are you saying the whole thread is factual?

Serving in the military for 11 years, we destroyed plenty of documents. Not out of fear, but because it's time was up, or it was no longer useful.



The CIA responded to an court order for information with a tale of destruction. And then, only years later, disclosed the scope of that destruction to the court. Can you see why the judge is peeved at the CIA?

When is it wise to say more than necessary? I simply have seen nothing to convince me that in this case, the CIA's story is a problem. I only see people who wish to project their bias into the situation as seeing problems.

[Bartleby]

Serving in the military for 11 years, we destroyed plenty of documents. Not out of fear, but because it's time was up, or it was no longer useful.


Did you do so when there was a court order not to?

[Wild Cobra]

Did you do so when there was a court order not to?
Never in that situation. Weren't the tapes destryed before a court order was issued?

[Bartleby]

Never in that situation. Weren't the tapes destryed before a court order was issued?

It's not clear from the article whether they were destroyed before or after the order, but if the former, why not simply provide an accurate number of destroyed tapes when it was initially requested?

[Wild Cobra]

It's not clear from the article whether they were destroyed before or after the order, but if it were the former, why not simply provide an accurate number of destroyed tapes when it was initially requested?
I don't remember this story very well. I think it started about two years ago. At the time, they simply responded that the tapes were already destroyed for security reasons, to protect their agents identity. No numbers were asked for at the time that I'm aware of. As far as I know, the tapes were destroyed prior to any request being made. Do you know of accountability being asked for then?

This is a stupid story. Even the story acknowledges the CIA is retrieving what information it can. I only see it as a big deal for those wanting to push an agenda.

[Winehole23]

Never in that situation. Weren't the tapes destryed before a court order was issued?The CIA says yes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/washington/07intel.html).


General Hayden said he understood that the tapes were destroyed “only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries — including the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.”

[Winehole23]

It's not clear from the article whether they were destroyed before or after the order, but if the former, why not simply provide an accurate number of destroyed tapes when it was initially requested?It took awhile to round up all the tapes, destroy them and fabricate bogus documentation for the whole thing. :lol

[Winehole23]

Are you saying the whole thread is factual?
The whole thread? I'll answer for my posts but I'll not answer for any other posters. Let's keep to the OP.

What strikes you as *not* being factual about it?

[Wild Cobra]

The whole thread? I'll answer for my posts but I'll not answer for any other posters. Let's keep to the OP.

What strikes you as *not* being factual about it?
I don't know. I often flat out ignore what some people say.

[Winehole23]

Yep, Joe Wilson was traitor.For what? Having a position contrary to the President?


Armatige? Hard to say. Maybe.The guy who actually spilled the beans? No motive. Just a chatty Cathy.


There is still debate of her actual status.Really? I thought the debate ended long ago. NOC, right?

[Winehole23]

I don't know. I often flat out ignore what some people say.Believe me WC, sometimes it shows.

[Wild Cobra]

For what? Having a position contrary to the President?

No, for speaking about a CIA mission he was on, to the press.



The guy who actually spilled the beans? No motive. Just a chatty Cathy.

Yet they pressed and pressed until they got Libby to make a misstatement and prosecuted him...



Really? I thought the debate ended long ago. NOC, right?

Not considering she was outed even before people wanted to know how Joe Wilson got the assignment.

$1,000 donation to the Gore campaign with their shadow-employers name.

Listed in Who's Who.

If she was an NOC, nobody really seemed to try to keep her cover. They can claim that all they want. If it was true, she was at fault for being so open.

[Winehole23]

No, for speaking about a CIA mission he was on, to the press.Funny. Was Wilson ever prosecuted for this?


Yet they pressed and pressed until they got Libby to make a misstatement and prosecuted him...When you misstate things to official inquiries, that can be considered a crime depending on the circumstances.



Not considering she was outed even before people wanted to know how Joe Wilson got the assignment.

$1,000 donation to the Gore campaign with their shadow-employers name.

Listed in Who's Who.

If she was an NOC, nobody really seemed to try to keep her cover. They can claim that all they want. If it was true, she was at fault for being so open.well you seem to know all about it WC. Tell us how do you know?

[clambake]

I don't know. I often flat out ignore what some people say.

did you ignore what the doctor said?

[Wild Cobra]

Funny. Was Wilson ever prosecuted for this?

No. He never signed a confidentiality form. A mistake by the CIA rouge operation. Still, being a former ambassador, he thew exactly what his actions would do. He knew his personal view should not be used as they were. He, and the rouge CIA agents had an agenda that they should be ion jail for. Abuse of office.



When you misstate things to official inquiries, that can be considered a crime depending on the circumstances.

That was explained. I forget the exact details, but she was known as Mrs. Wilson, Valerie Wilson, and Valerie Plame. He didn't know two of the names I think till later, as the investigation went on. He didn't know who she was and later admitted he did, once he knew the names were one in the same. He should have never been prosecuted under the circumstances. I haven't seen any conclusive tie that he intentionally lied. Have you?



well you seem to know all about it WC. Tell us how do you know?

This was the subject of laughter that she was NOC right after the controversy started. These details and more saying why she couldn't be NOC were on several of the talk radio shows. It was an open secret, if it ever was a secret.

[Winehole23]

He should have never been prosecuted under the circumstances. I haven't seen any conclusive tie that he intentionally lied. Have you?Well, I know that he was tried for it and a jury convicted him.

US Attorneys don't like to take cases they think they'll lose, so we know at a minimum that Fitzgerald thought he had a winnable case against Libby. He pursued it and the jury agreed with him.


This was the subject of laughter that she was NOC right after the controversy started. These details and more saying why she couldn't be NOC were on several of the talk radio shows. It was an open secret, if it ever was a secret.But she was.

Isn't it a bad idea to out CIA agents? Wasn't that the end of Plame's CIA career? Her career wrecked by her own government and for what?

[AntiChrist]

Valerie Plame was in great mortal danger, because she was a deep, deep, deep undercover operative.

In fact, she was in so much danger that her and her husband did a spread for Vanity Fair. But it wasn't likely that she'd be recognized as she's a master of disguise.


See

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/original/031202_VF_ValeriePlame.jpg

[Winehole23]

Still, it's bad to out CIA agents or it isn't. Pick one.

[Winehole23]

Whether Plame was in peril at all is immaterial.

[AntiChrist]

Still, it's bad to out CIA agents or it isn't. Pick one.


What she and her husband did was wrong, as was the Bush admin's response to it.

[clambake]

What she and her husband did was wrong, as was the Bush admin's response to it.

what did they do that was wrong?

oh yeah, i remember. they broke the truth on that bullshit about Niger.

[AntiChrist]

what did they do that was wrong?

oh yeah, i remember. they broke the truth on that bullshit about Niger.


If you REALLY look into it, you'll discover what liars and attention whores they are.

[ChumpDumper]

No, for speaking about a CIA mission he was on, to the press.This mission was stated to be top secret to my recollection.



Yet they pressed and pressed until they got Libby to make a misstatement and prosecuted him...Libby shouldn't have lied.



Not considering she was outed even before people wanted to know how Joe Wilson got the assignment.

$1,000 donation to the Gore campaign with their shadow-employers name.

Listed in Who's Who.Was her occupation listed as "covert CIA agent"?


If she was an NOC, nobody really seemed to try to keep her cover. They can claim that all they want. If it was true, she was at fault for being so open.If you don't believe in the law, just say so.

[clambake]

If you REALLY look into it, you'll discover what liars and attention whores they are.

just a couple of people willing to tell you the things that bush and cheney wouldn't.

[AntiChrist]

This mission was stated to be top secret to my recollection.



That's why he immediately went and wrote a New York Slimes OP ED piece on it. He was SOOOOO concerned about his wife's "top secret" identity.

[ChumpDumper]

That was explained. I forget the exact details, but she was known as Mrs. Wilson, Valerie Wilson, and Valerie Plame. He didn't know two of the names I think till later, as the investigation went on. He didn't know who she was and later admitted he did, once he knew the names were one in the same. He should have never been prosecuted under the circumstances. I haven't seen any conclusive tie that he intentionally lied. Have you?I saw a federal conviction for perjury. That's pretty conclusive.

[ChumpDumper]

That's why he immediately went and wrote a New York Slimes OP ED piece on it. He was SOOOOO concerned about his wife's "top secret" identity.The piece on Niger?

He didn't mention his wife in it at all.

[AntiChrist]

just a couple of people willing to tell you the things that bush and cheney wouldn't.





First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rogue nations, and noted that Nigerian officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refuse the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.

Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former [Niger] Prime Minister Mayaki.

Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the [blacked out] intelligence service." In fact, the CIA did not provide Wilson with "any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and noted that there were no 'documents' circulating ... at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from [blacked out] intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. ...[N]one of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report





ambassador .... LOL

[ChumpDumper]

You should probably change back to your DarrinS screen name.

[clambake]

oh, i get it. they interfered with your evil plans.

[AntiChrist]

You should probably change back to your DarrinS screen name.


Nah, I'm having too much fun.


by the way,



It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs.

lie

What led him to Africa was his hatred of Bush and the Iraq war. What ultimately got him there was his wife's insistence that he get the "job".

[clambake]

i think it's what he found out that bothers you.

[AntiChrist]

i think it's what he found out that bothers you.


It's a free country. If you think Joe Wilson is an American hero, that is your prerogative.

[ChumpDumper]

What led him to Africa was his hatred of Bush and the Iraq war. What ultimately got him there was his wife's insistence that he get the "job".Too bad his trip to Africa happened before the Iraq War.

[clambake]

"The evidence leading up to the war was deliberately misleading."

_colin Powell

[AntiChrist]

The detective work of Joe Wilson, American Hero.


Joe: Hey, did anybody from Iraq try to buy yellowcake from you guys?


Nigerian officials: Uh, no.


Joe: Alrighty then. Hey, can I have another cup of mint tea.

[ChumpDumper]

You straighten out the timeline yet, Darrin?

[AntiChrist]

You straighten out the timeline yet, Darrin?


He was against going into Iraq. My fuckin bad, ok.

Joe Wilson is still a douche and both he and his wife are at least partly to blame for her "outing".

[ChumpDumper]

He was against going into Iraq. My fuckin bad, ok.It was pretty bad.


Joe Wilson is still a douche and both he and his wife are at least partly to blame for her "outing".How, specifically?

[AntiChrist]

It was pretty bad.

How, specifically?


How is he a douche? or how are they to blame?

[Winehole23]

Joe Wilson is still a douche.Who cares whether Joe Wilson is a douche? That has nothing to do with it.


and both he and his wife are at least partly to blame for her "outing"...and Libby went down obstructing the investigation into it. Your point, your highness?

[ChumpDumper]

How is he a douche? or how are they to blame?How are they to blame?

[AntiChrist]

...and Libby went down obstructing the investigation into it. Your point, your highness?


That is true, but his sentence was commuted. :depressed


As for the Plame's/Wilson's revenge civil suit, ...





“But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration’s handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants’ duties as high-level Executive Branch officials,”






:lmao


Something about messing with a bull and getting the horns comes to mind.

[AntiChrist]

How are they to blame?


They fucked with the wrong people, evidently.

[Winehole23]

Something about messing with a bull and getting the horns comes to mind.A civil opinion. Pfft. Rapped on the knuckles by a creaky old judge. The Wilsons lost. So what? I'm not crying about that. How is that the issue at all?

[ChumpDumper]

They fucked with the wrong people, evidently.:lmao

That is your specific answer, Darrin?

[Winehole23]

What ultimately got him there was his wife's insistence that he get the "job".The hoary old nepotism charge? Good God, no! Do we have to relive this in real time, again? I refuse to do it. Somebody more bored (and boring) than me can do it. I refuse.

[Winehole23]

BTW, nice hijack AntiChrist.

It's like euchre, except instead of merely stealing the deal you can deal from your own deck, and you did.

Bravo :ace

H/T!

[ChumpDumper]

Why did they make these videos in the first place?

[DarrinS]

Why did they make these videos in the first place?


To promote a really sick version of youtube?

[Winehole23]

Isikoff (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Isikoff_Discrepancies_in_CIA_tapes_story_0303.html ) on Maddow via Raw Story.