« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
And now there's a paper trail in the saga of the CIA's destroyed interrogation videotapes. A former senior intelligence official tells The New York Times's Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane that lawyers within the agency's clandestine wing advised Jose Rodriguez Jr. in 2005 that junking the tapes was legal. For the investigations opening into Rodriguez's actions by the House and Senate intelligence committee, that written advice will be key -- if it hasn't already been shredded.
It's unclear exactly which attorney from the Directorate of Operations (now called the National Clandestine Service) gave Rodriguez the go-ahead. A bevy of administration and intelligence officials have acknowledged that attorneys from the White House (including Harriet Miers), the Justice Department, and the CIA's general counsel advised against destroying the tapes. Interestingly, a clearly pro-Rodriguez ex-CIA official tells the Times that such advice was less than ironclad:
“They never told us, ‘Hell, no,’” he said. “If somebody had said, ‘You cannot destroy them,’ we would not have destroyed them.”
Behold another pivot point for the joint DOJ-CIA Inspector General inquiry and the Congressional probes: how clearly did the Bush administration warn the CIA against destroying the tapes? Did Rodriguez, faced with widespread administration opposition to the destruction of the tapes, simply keep asking for guidance until he found the legal advice he wanted? Or did the administration, including the CIA's own acting general counsel, John Rizzo, give equivocal, I-don't-want-to-know guidance?
There's a bitter irony here. Earlier this year, Rizzo lost his bid to become the CIA's general counsel after he offered a euphemistic and equivocal definition of torture to the Senate intelligence committee. But by all accounts, Rizzo opposed the destruction of the interrogation videotapes, which very likely display torture. And the attorney Rodriguez relied upon, against protocol, went behind Rizzo's back:
In describing the decision to destroy the tapes, current and former officials said John A. Rizzo, the agency’s top lawyer at the time, was not asked for final approval before the tapes were destroyed, although Mr. Rizzo had been involved in discussions for two years about the tapes.It is unclear what weight an opinion from a lawyer within the clandestine service would have if it were not formally approved by Mr. Rizzo. But the former official said Mr. Rodriguez and others in the clandestine branch believed the legal judgment gave them the blessing to destroy the tapes.
The former official said the leaders of the clandestine service believed they “didn’t need to ask Rizzo’s permission.”
Double irony: in circumventing Rizzo, Rodriguez might not have obtained the valid legal cover he sought.
“Although unlikely, it is conceivable that once a C.I.A. officer got the answer he wanted from a D.O. lawyer, he acted on that advice,” said John Radsan, who worked as a C.I.A. lawyer between 2002 and 2004 and is now a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in Minnesota. “But a streamlined process like that would have been risky for both the officer and the D.O. lawyer.”
When intelligence-policy scolds berate the agency for being risk-averse, this isn't exactly what they have in mind.
Comments (18)
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 9:45 AM:I really don't know what the big deal is. I am sure there are tons of copies of the tape floating around the administration. You know damn well at least darth vader and the king have a copy. About the only use of torture tapes is for the drunk with power, above the law crowd to get their jollies.
What an outrage. Nobody told this bozo that he couldn't destroy the tapes??????? What is he smoking? When are these guys going to start going to jail? They should build a new prison outside dc to hold all these criminals, video tape their every waking moment, and then put it on c-span for all to see. I would love to see darth vader behind bars washing dishes.
TheraP wrote on December 11, 2007 10:00 AM:From the AP (via the Guardian) from NBC's morning show:
"
TheraP wrote on December 11, 2007 10:02 AM:sorry, accidentally pushed send instead of copy!
"The CIA's waterboarding of a top al-Qaida figure was approved at the top levels of the U.S. government, a former CIA agent said Tuesday.:
"Kiriakou did not explain how he knew who approved the interrogation technique but said such approval comes from top officials.
``This isn't something done willy nilly. This isn't something where an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he's going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner,'' he said Tuesday on NBC's ``Today'' show. ``This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and Justice Department.''
Poo-face Killah wrote on December 11, 2007 10:04 AM:Holy cow. CIA was infiltrated by one of Saddam's sons? And at such a high level.
Steven Van Haren wrote on December 11, 2007 10:31 AM:Look up at TheraP's comment, number two on the thread, it's the best bad news you'll get all day.
The gloves are coming off. I wonder what Dana Perino looks like when she snarls... I can't wait to find out.
Freewheelin' Freddie wrote on December 11, 2007 10:37 AM:Check out Rodriguez in Wikipedia.
Heck of a job, Jose!
fedhallofshame_com wrote on December 11, 2007 10:46 AM:"Did Rodriguez, faced with widespread administration opposition to the destruction of the tapes, simply keep asking for guidance until he found the legal advice he wanted?"
I get it. You're being sarcastic.
Just because NOW "a bevy of administration and intelligence officials have acknowledged that . . .counsel advised against destroying the tapes." doesn't mean that he wasn't ordered to do so from above.
There is no honor among thieves. Government service is like working for the Godfather.
Nanz wrote on December 11, 2007 11:09 AM:Doesn't anyone in our government ever act immediately when blatant wrongdoing has happened, to start criminal proceedings? humanahumanahumana duhhh. In the meanwhile, what evidence/participants remain/s is disappeared, etc. Just so tired of all the corruption oozing out of every pore of this administration as well as congressional committee members.
Slowly, so very slowly it has dawned on me that they are all in on everything that has taken place, all of it. Oh no, We'll just wait another month, 6 months, etc. to begin to think about maybe it is something that should be looked into. oh goodness gracious there is an election, we will wait. And by not doing anything the imprimature is given, precedent is set-- corruption reigns. Throughout!
Bushie wrote on December 11, 2007 11:39 AM:I wonder if this isn't part of the CIA Inspector General blow up several months ago wherein Mike Hayden wanted to investigate the investigator?
Loren Korevec wrote on December 11, 2007 11:48 AM:Yet another carefully woven tapestry of unaccountability. I'm gettin' grouchy. Would somebody bust these guys...please?
ARG in Chicago wrote on December 11, 2007 11:51 AM:I've got two words for you:
PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY
That's what this is all about.
Mid-level guy holding the bag, er, tapes, gets mixed messages. He's told verbally that the tapes need to get destroyed. Another mid-level guy (lawyer) gives him what he thinks he needs in terms of legal cover, and *poof* the tapes disappear.
Top people all have alibis -- "we always said 'don't destroy them'". Middle guys are in jeapordy. But the tapes are gone, and that was the goal.
I don't think for a minute that these middle men will even blink before doing a 2-year stretch for obstruction to protect everybody higher up.
The fix is in, my friends. Anybody remember Iran-Contra??
-- ARG
BobT wrote on December 11, 2007 12:19 PM:Get used to it folks. This is a preview of what we'll get for the next few years. Same circumstances, different scandal. Sample headline after Bushco has left office:
scribe wrote on December 11, 2007 12:22 PM:"Investigation of (insert scandal)stymied, evidence missing, assumed destroyed."
There are shredding parties that have occurred or are planned all over DC over the next 12 months. Obstruction of justice seems to result in less jail time than most crimes.
"Interestingly, a clearly pro-Rodriguez ex-CIA official tells the Times that such advice was less than ironclad:
“They never told us, ‘Hell, no,’” he said. “If somebody had said, ‘You cannot destroy them,’ we would not have destroyed them.”"
Ummm, baloney.
There was a court order prohibiting destruction of evidence/documents/tapes.
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 12:23 PM:It was served on the CIA in July, 2005.
Go read - the detainees are making motions to have the Court "inquire into compliance with the order"
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/new-challenge-on-cia-tapes/
ARG in Chicago wrote on December 11, 2007 11:51 AM:
"I've got two words for you:
PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY
That's what this is all about.
The fix is in, my friends. Anybody remember Iran-Contra??"
EXACTLY RIGHT, ARG! After all, many of the big movers and sakers in this misadministration are former Reagan-era officials that have been recycled from those good old days (among others, Gates and Negroponte). So if anybody is still WONDERING if there was a cover-up...he is either as clueless as Dana Perino or in serious denial like Nancy Pelosi.
CJC wrote on December 11, 2007 1:06 PM:The question no one is yet asking is: Why tape the torture/interrogation sessions in the first place?
A) To document evidence?
B) To assure the Geneva Convention is upheld?
C) As a training video for fellow interrogators?
Why were they doing this? And if it was to protect themselves in some way then why destroy the tapes?
fedhallofshame_com wrote on December 11, 2007 1:06 PM:Yep. Plausible Deniability. Put the legal stuff in writing, i.e. "we do not tolerate {fill in blank}," then send the exact opposite message to the peons.
When caught, punish the delivery boys.
Utopia wrote on December 11, 2007 5:07 PM:Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Know what I mean? Say no more. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
U
Landmine wrote on December 12, 2007 8:48 AM:The old "it's more efficient to ask for foregiveness than permission" line, eh?
or
"all is chaos"