« Doug Feith Honored at AEI; Michael Vick Goes To Jail | Home | Walter Mondale on US-Japan Challenges and the Power of the Vice President »

Disentangling Torture TapeGate

user-pic

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.

9 May 2003–C.I.A. declares in sworn statement to Judge Leonie Brinkema that it was not recording interrogations of terrorist suspects in any format (see p. 4 of letter to Federal Judges by U.S. attorneys Novak and Raskin).

June 2004–George Tenet resigns as Director of the C.I.A. James Pavitt retires. Stephen Kappes replaces Pavitt as DDO.

September 2004–Porter Goss sworn in as Director of the C.I.A.

November 2004–Stephen Kappes resigns from the C.I.A. in a dispute with Porter Goss and the his aides. Jose Rodriguez takes over as the DDO.

late June 2005An Italian judge issued arrest warrants for 13 U.S. CIA agents accused of kidnapping imam Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr in Italy in 2003, and sending him to Egypt for questioning regarding possible terrorist activities.

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.

All for now boys and girls. Stay tuned.


19 Comments

| Leave a comment

TPMCafe has frequently hosted Jane Harman here, I hope an invitation has been extended for her to come back and face the music. I'm guessing she won't have the guts but print her refusal. It's time to really embarass her.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

--------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------

If you're going to start an "insider" piece on the CIA you probably shouldn't lead with a claim that the CIA shit that has hit the fan is all due to some double cross by Italians. Hey! It may be true, but then again you may be lying and using the Italians as backs to stand on while spouting bull.

Considering your timeline, the Italian judge's decision to charge CIA operatives for their kidnapping and rendering off an Italian street for long term torture was shortly after the machine gun killing, Sonny Corleone toll booth "safe route" style, of the second highest ranking Italian military intelligence officer. This Italian gave his life to protect the just released Italian journalist hostage he had gone to Iraq to rescue. Little did he know it would be Americans that would shoot him dead. So if you're going to make accusations about double dealing scum, look to your CIA buddies rather than Italians.

Of course the instant the CIA did the kidnapping the Italians looked like weenies. Italians don't mind looking like weenies and would surely approve of such, or at least according to you. Yeah, these are the same people like the Italian worker who, when he was about to have his head cut off by Iraqi terrorists, on camera for all the world to see, said, stone faced, "This is how an Italian dies."

I'm not an Italian nor do I have any Italian heritage, but given a choice in who to believe would be honest and honorable in this matter of rendition, torture and torture tapes, I'd go with the Italians rather than anyone in the CIA, including you.

Hopefully we'll soon see a battle to the death between multi-generational ratfucking Republicans and double-triple crossing, waterboarding, nude pyramid building, panty hatting, prison riot starting CIA people. More likely we'll get the usual focus on Hillary Clinton and how often she sleeps with Bill.

It seems such a trivial thing, to not blame the Italians, but you couldn't resist.

Are you a moron? Deal with the basic facts. The Italians were fully briefed on the operation. The Italians subsequently had a change of heart. No one is blaming anyone. Whoops. I take that back. I am blaming you for being a fool incapable of understanding simple English.

Wow!

A more dispassionate response would have more credibility.

That said, wasn't SISMI the origin of the Niger documents?

Wasn't the abduction of Osama Moustafa Hassan Nasr actually coordinated with SISMI?

From Wikipedia

The exposé of the incident, coming just before Italy's general election, was a major embarrassment for the Berlusconi administration.[17] If it had admitted foreknowledge of or complicity in the operation, it would have been admitting that one part of the government (its intelligence services) deliberately undermined the efforts of another (its judiciary). If it had denied any involvement, it would point to a serious lapse in Italian security, as it would mean foreign intelligence agencies would be able to pull off major operations within Italy, right under the nose of Italy's own intelligence agencies, with virtual impunity.[7]

Either way, most observers thought it clear Silvio Berlusconi did not wish the case to proceed. He initially told the press that he did not believe the CIA was responsible for the abduction, and even if they were responsible, it was a justifiable action. He was widely quoted in the press as having said, "You can't tackle terrorism with a law book in your hand."[17]. He then declared to ANSA agency: "This is a trial we absolutely should not have, and its result will be that our intelligence services will not longer have the cooperation of foreign intelligence" [14].

Berlusconi's successor, Romano Prodi, has thus far seemed more amenable to the judicial investigations, although is proceeding guardedly. Despite prosecutors' numerous requests, the Italian government still has issued no extradition requests to the United States.

It's not unreasonable to suspect the CIA of disinformation campaigns, particularly when agents have been identified in a criminal complaint. It would be unreasonable to think otherwise.

MW

Simple reading comprehension is a challenge for those who split infinitives.

Yeah, next thing you know he'll be using misplaced participles.

At this time of year, there's a real danger of using Santa Clauses.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Howard,

HAHAHAHHAHA :-)

"That? Oh that's just the sanity clause."

What? Now we have to use Latin grammar?  Oy vey.

I'm have to agree with LJ here. I certainly didn't get the impression that the Italians were being blamed here but rather the CIA got nervous when the Italians grew a conscience or whatever it was that caused them to rethink their support of such vile activities.

The point here isn't about blame it's about motivation. The fear that others , like the Italians, might back out of these gruesome operations and thus expose what the CIA and our government were doing (denying it all the while) meant that they needed to institute some ass covering procedures.

Seems simple and clear enough to me.

Larry,

What's your take on the account by Gerald Posner as to a possible ulterior motive for the disappearance of the Zubaydah tapes:

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

Posner's original reporting on this has now been substantially corroborated by James Risen in State of War (p. 187). I've written more about this in "Part 4" here:

http://www.asecondlookatthsaudis.com

Now more than ever, I'd sure like to know what was on those tapes.

I would also love for you to weigh in on the veracity of the claims in that Huffingtonpost piece. It makes a lot of sense to me on the surface but that may just be due to its conspiratorial, and thus interesting and intriguing nature.

I second that. Some of us would really like to hear it, Larry.

In fact, it is highly likely that George Tenet showed part of the videotape of the interrogation to the President.

Wouldn't the administration go for a secure, live, 2-way video link? That way, they could scream questions at Abu Zubaydah themselves, in between drowning episodes.

I remember the immediate post-9/11 period, and I think the mood was about 90% in favor of torture, because it would give us a magical shield against EVIL. But the thing about torturers is, they don't sleep well. And their political alliances tend to flip rapidly. Maybe we should torture the Italians, to get them back in line -- Nah, let's go back to the constitution.

I agree that the mood of the American public at the time must be remembered. In the heat of the moment, even on venues such as NPR, one heard many voices expressing willingness to bend the rules and overlook traditional notions of justice. It was the period when mustache of understanding and most Americans advocated invading an Arab nation with the "suck on this" message. The torturers had the American public's support, but that public, they forgot, would again prove to be the world's ficklest, especially after soberer minds resulted from the cooling down of post 911 rage and from the collective awareness of the colossal disasters this rage was leading to worldwide.

I always welcome, with a chuckle, any quotes Atrios posts of examples of then acceptable discourse during this period. It's as if the entire nation had become Little Green Footballs.

Larry, what would you think about the Scooter Libby prosecution as a more proximal (and, for the Addington-Cheneyites, more pressing) cause for the destruction of the tapes? Scooter was indicted in October 2005 -- the month before the tapes were destroyed. And I find it unlikely that Addington/Libby/Cheney weren't involved in both the decisions to order torture and to destroy the evidence.

atan.blogspot.com/2007/12/cia-torture-tapes-and-libby-prosecution.html

Leave a comment

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


January 5-9

Book Cover

January 12-16

Book Cover

January 19-23

Book Cover

January 26-30

Book Cover

February 2-6

Book Cover

February 9-13

The Great Depression

February 16-20

Tear Down This Myth

February 23-27

Demagogue

March 16-20

Engaging The Muslim World




Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address