« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Why Did The CIA Videotape Interrogations?
Although Jose Rodriguez might have felt he had good reason to destroy the CIA's 2002 interrogation tapes, the destruction threatens to break the agency's surprisingly sterling record of escaping prosecution for torture, so not many people would defend it as a wise move. But surely an even dumber move is the 2002 decision to videotape the interrogations in the first place.
Various explanations abound, but none of them are definitive -- least of all CIA Director Mike Hayden's.
Very little is known, and none of it for certain, about why the tapes ever existed. It's astonishing that in 2002, CIA officials wouldn't have realized the tapes were evidence of potential criminal conduct. Clearly they realized shortly thereafter, since the CIA spent years trying, and failing, to get outside legal authority to destroy them.
Last Thursday, Hayden ventured an explanation to CIA employees. Via Marty Lederman:
The tapes were meant chiefly as an additional, internal check on the program in its early stages. At one point, it was thought the tapes could serve as a backstop to guarantee that other methods of documenting the interrogations---and the crucial information they produce--were accurate and complete. The Agency soon determined that its documentary reporting was full and exacting, removing any need for tapes.
Notice that the second sentence contains a different rationale from the one offered in the first. In the second sentence, Hayden says that officials ordered the taping to ensure that the transcripts of the interrogations were accurate. Perhaps. But in the first, he cryptically refers to an "internal check" on an inchoate interrogation program -- one of dubious legality -- that began with Abu Zubaydah's March 2002 capture.
What might that mean? On one reading, the tapes are there to ensure that the interrogators didn't go beyond what the administration was authorizing, as a check on the interrogators themselves. Recording, then, has the added virtue of (if you'll forgive the vulgarity) covering the CIA's ass, a hallmark of George Tenet's tenure as CIA director: they'd be able to say in internal administration discussions that Interrogator X didn't do a thing that John Yoo, Jay Bybee et. al. didn't say they can do. Yesterday's Newsweek report from Mike Isikoff and Mark Hosenball provided that explanation.
They also provide another, one that Kevin Whitelaw runs down in U.S. News, that the tapes were made "in part to document [Abu Zubaydah's] medical condition...
During the operation to capture him in 2002, Zubaydah was shot multiple times, including in the groin, and was treated by CIA medics."There were concerns that there be a record of his medical treatment and condition in the event that he died," says one intelligence official."
Though Hayden mentions -- without elaboration -- that Abu Zubaydah was "seriously wounded in a firefight," he doesn't link the videotaping to Abu Zubaydah's health. It's not inconceivable that the health issues prompted the videotaping: after all, the last thing CIA wants in a torture chamber is a dead body, as an interrogation of dubious legality could become a potential homicide. Documenting that the CIA didn't kill Abu Zubaydah makes a certain amount of sense -- certainly on the Cover Your Ass Principle.
But that still isn't the explanation that Hayden offered. Hayden, of course, wasn't part of CIA in 2002, and only found out about the tapes in 2006, when he was principle deputy director of national intelligence.
A real answer, if it ever comes, is going to have to come from George Tenet or one of his subordinates -- maybe even someone who was in the chamber with Abu Zubaydah and made the decision on the spot. (That, of course, wouldn't explain why al-Nashiri's interrogation was videotaped, but still.) And that answer is surely only going to come when someone's hand is on top of a Bible.
Comments (28)
Oh an investigation - oh my
You whiney wimps
Oh gosh, gee wiz, oh your so strong,
can I feel your muscles. Oh I am just swooning over the raw display of Democratic prowess. Oh my , I feel a bead of sweat trickling down my breast bone.
I do declare I think I may swoon.
Yeah , all you Democratic losers are so pitiful. Get use to republican power -
because there is more to come for many many years.
George Bush is the best thing that ever happened to you all, your like a bunch of
babies who need to be suckled on a republican tit.
December 13, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did they destroy the evidence? Could it be evidence of systematic brainwashing? There's a very compelling diary on DailyKos that is well worth your consideration...
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/125250/15/926/421147
December 13, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not holding my breath waiting for the tapes of the torture of American Taliban John Walker Lindh to surface.
Guess that that with the admission that we torture there can be no whining about those quaint Geneva Conventions when Americans or our mercenaries are tortured on TV. Heck of a job, Bushie
December 13, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "tapes" were not destroyed. This story is a red herring.
Copies exist, or that is the way to bet anyway.
Lots of people in on the torture policy wanted to see the "tapes" ... that's why they are computer files, DVDs, whatever and not "tapes".
No one was running hither and thither with the one, unique, "tape".
The Agency would rather catch hell for destroying evidence than let them go public. Remember the Abu Ghraib photos ?
They think we are boobs. From the way the "reporters" have bought this fake story, we are.
December 13, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a link to a partial list of the detainees that they DID kill - you can figure out if they were tortured or not. (warning: graphic).
http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/
December 13, 2007 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is somehow a mystery? You gotta be kidding me.
George and Dick wanted to watch these people being tortured.
End of story.
December 13, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to guess the reason was organizational inertia. Taping was probably a standard practice in certain contexts and someone probably just assumed that these interrogations were sufficiently similar to other activities to carry over the practice. My guess is that the taping stopped once someone with more authority and common sense realized what was going on.
These guesses are not really factually supported, but I think it seems more in line with common practice in a large organization than the very "top-down" explanations currently circulating.
December 13, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, the GW Bush administration and their goons did something stupid?? Really? Really? I just can't imagine they would do anything poorly conceived of or executed.
December 13, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why record the sessions? Two reasons:
-Permanent record of anything the victim says for future analysis.
-Training tool for future interrogations.
Everybody, from the interrogators on up to the DOJ officials dumb enough to put their names on the approvals for these techniques to Gonzo, Rummy, Cheney, and Bush should all burn for this despicable stain on our national character.
December 13, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's a clue when posters like CIA Muscle make simple grade school level mistakes like "your so" and "use to" and "your like" -pathetic
December 13, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Chris C. Perhaps not necessarily Bush, but *definitely* Cheney (or at least his people in OVP).
December 13, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right dot the i
and cross the t
Democratic Procedure - that's all that counts for ya'll, and look where it's got you
Like I said - we are really frightened
of whiney Dems, but boy they sure can
spell and punctuate
December 13, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALERT: There is a big problem with Hayden's testimony.
QUOTE: "other methods of documenting the interrogations---and the crucial information they produce--were accurate and complete."
The above quote implies that there were "other methods" to document. However, -- here's the problem -- Fox is reporting (at the link above) that there were no backups, no transcripts.
- Why is Hayden reporting the tapes were a "backup" but Fox is reporting there were no backups?
- Who is telling the truth: Hayden that there were multiple systems to record data; or FOx, that there were only videotapers, and no transcripts?
- How can Hayden argue that there were videotapes made as a backup (to something else, TBD; but the Fox news is reporting (at the link above) that there were no transcripts, backups, or any other non-videotape methods to transmit word-for-word details about the interrogations, comments, and what was said?
December 13, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can Hayden argue that there were videotapes made as a backup (to something else, TBD; but the Fox news is reporting (at the link above) that there were no transcripts, backups, or any other non-videotape methods to transmit word-for-word details about the interrogations, comments, and what was said?
-----------------------
Because Fox News is lying?
December 13, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think will o dwisp's point is that there is a correlation between being a right-wing torture-monger and being an uneducated moron. I'm inclined to agree with this view.
December 13, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
will o dwisp wrote on December 13, 2007 1:32 PM:
it's a clue when posters like CIA Muscle make simple grade school level mistakes like "your so" and "use to" and "your like" -pathetic
The same garbage is being posted at Election Central and other threads here. Obviouslly a kid home from school using a different name at each post.
December 13, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
one practical reason to have videotaped the tortures, er, i mean interrogations, is to assist in report writing - which is one of the five elements of interrogation (the five being 1. planning and prep, 2. the approach, 3. questioning, 4. termination, and 5. report writing).
video documentation would tend to be valuable during the report writing phase of the interrogaton to clarify or confirm elements of information.
btw, waterboarding is torture.
been there, done that, didnt last five seconds and screamed uncle through the watersoaked towel. tough has nothing to do with it.
and yes, a tortured individual will say ANYTHING that they think will stop the torture. truth has nothing to do with it either.
that is why torture is not effective.
it is unreliable, and it produces non-credible information.
December 13, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
[ pv2k wrote on December 13, 2007 2:35 PM: ]
"Because Fox News is lying?"
Indeed, there _are_ audio tapes (mentioned at the link above), and the courts have had this information provided. Either the DOJ lied when it said there were audio tapes; or CIA is lying when it says there are not backups.
Why does Hayden's testimony [not backups available] not reconcile with DoJ statement to the court at the link above?
December 13, 2007 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because intel folks have watched the B- movie adaptation of Clear and Present Danger? When the ship hits the fan only the personal actually responsible will escape justice.
What's in your wall safe?
December 13, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at the link: "Visit This Declaration" -- It goes to the court declaration on audios.
A. Transcripts
Read, page 2 of 5: "On Sept 19, 2007, we viewed the video tape and a transcript [ redacted ] of the interview."
- How many other videos had transcripts?
- Why did this CIA tape (that was destroyed) supposedly "not" have a transcript?
- Who told the DOJ about the transcripts for the other video tape?
B. Variety of Evidence, not just video
They have [1] video; [2] audio; and [3] transcripts; and [4] classified cables. The CIA claims the video was "destroyed" but does not address the other lines of evidence which may have been retained.
- The President during Katrina viewed a DVD of the destruction. Did the CIA "video" get transferred to DVD or other electronic file format other than tape?
- Have all computers at all CIA contractors, NSA-affiliated entities, DoD contractors/JCS/DoD, and DoJ been included?
- Have the CIA agents assigned to US government agencies like State and Commerce also been asked about the copies of the tapes which may have been transferred?
- What about DHS: DHS is keeping records for a "generational" war. Is no security contractor working for DHS or DHS itself not keeping any copy of the visual information on a computer hard drive?
- What classified cables mention which audio, transcripts, and other backup copies for the supposedly destroyed CIA water boarding?
C. Lack of Independence
Note comment at Note 5, page 3 of 5: That defense counsel was not provided information because of they lacked a "need to know". This doesn't mean that there were no transcripts; it merely says that the transcripts were not provided.
- What was the basis to determine the video-audio tapes had been destroyed if adversarial counsel cannot review the evidence related to the original taping, subsequent cables, or the lines of evidence sent via the 6th Military Group to JCS?
D. CIA Has Imperfect Info Due To Communication Problems Between CIA Sections/Planning Units
Concern: Implicit Doubts about CIA Agents Statements in re Waterboarding "benefits"
Recall the recent alleged "CIA agent" disclosures on waterboarding. There were problems with his testimony. Some asked whether there was a link between waterboarding and the ability to find actionable intelligence. The CIA agent wold not be in a position to know about other lines of evidence -- captured before the waterboarding event, "torture" -- that may have driven other efforts unrelated to the disclosures at the interrogation.
Specifically, note on page 4 of 5: There is a problem with the CIA teams not communicating: "unknowning that a different component of the CIA had contact with. . .": This implies that the CIA agents public assertion that waterboarding "was" successful is dubious: He is not aware of other efforts underway that may have already captured that information supposedly only gleaned by water boarding.
December 13, 2007 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think that your power will last forever, or at least twenty years, and that during that time you will be defining reality, there would be little reason not to make the recordings. Why not? They're the history you've made!
December 13, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all the reports of involvement of psychologist/psychiatrists in developing the torture interrogations to try to increase the benefits, I'd have to wonder if that wasn't part of the taping issue. So interrogators and their MentalMengele's could review over and over to help determine the new methods to take.
Which may also tie in with Whitehouse's assertions about the secret Presidential revision of EO 12333. Not only were there limits in that order on surveillance of US citizens abroad (Whitehouse's concern) but there were also prohibitions involving human experimentation. The whole blacksite program was not much more than a human experimentation project, though. I would guess someone was taking the same types of calcualtions the Nazi doctors too - how many minutes in stress position, what happens when you combine with locking in a smaller than coffin sized black room - for how many hours - what about combined with hypothermia and 8 hours of sleep deprivation - with 4 days of sleep deprivation - with 2 years of sleep deprivation ...
To be honest, if these detainees were really and truly being interviewed with the intent and purpose of trying to secure good intelligence information and hopefully help with a long term commitment to address the problems posed by al-Qaeda and its supporters and the issues of fundamentalism and terrorism - - - ALL the interrogations of anyone should have been taped and archived and accessible for future use, given that everyone has determined that the "gwot" isn't ending tomorrow. And the reason that you have witnesses appear in court is one of the same reasons you would videotape: you have to judge circumstances,demeanor, gives, tells, etc. with the testimony.
The fact that what they had was destroyed pretty much says a) the actual purpose was the torture and manipulation - not the intelligence; and b) everyone cares more about covering Bush's backside than preserving information that might help protect against future terrorist attacks.
Golly - could you be more proud?
December 13, 2007 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would the CIA tape this? Same reason the Nazis kept records of the Holocaust:
- Organization
- Record keeping
- Didn't view it as wrong, but as evidence of their superior management skills over the "lesser ones"
- System of management, data collection, and documentation for future reference
A. GWOT Lessons For Future: At Odds With Evidence Destruction
- - - - - - - -
Mary wrote on December 13, 2007 3:47 PM
Good point: "if these detainees were really and truly being interviewed with the intent and purpose of trying to secure good intelligence information and hopefully help with a long term commitment to address the problems posed by al-Qaeda and its supporters and the issues of fundamentalism and terrorism - - - ALL the interrogations of anyone should have been taped and archived and accessible for future use, given that everyone has determined that the "gwot" isn't ending tomorrow."
- - - - - - - - -
This implies the tapes would be saves for posterity for future reference.
- Were the tapes made on the assumption nobody would think there was a crime?
- Was it assumed that the GWOT would trump Geneva, and there would be no war crimes prosecution or oversight?
- Was it assumed the effort had popular support, and that the "will of the people" would never turn against them?
- How much of the 9-11 hysteria fueled the improper attitude "We can do what we want, regardless reality, facts, or evidence"?
- When did [a] the "ability to refer to the tape" get trumped by [b] the fear "executive privilege claims cannot shield this evidence of illegal activity"? When the lawyers realized that the public knew of the war crimes issues; that Geneva was enforceable; and the JAGs could not be silenced forever. [Notice the shift from (a) "we didn't do anything wrong" and "you can't see the evidence" in re FISA/Geneva; to (b) "We want immunity".
B. Culture of Abuse Before 9-11
The problem with the above arguments: The illegal FISA violations started before 9-11. How many people were having their rights violated prior to Sept 2001? maybe 9-11 was just the excuse to keep doing what had already started. Not as much an issue of "why keep the tape" but "why not keep doing what nobody's stopped us from doing".
- Failure of oversight
- WH manipulation of IGs to not review issues
- Sense within GOP that the IG system would not uncover anything, nor would the GOP bother to review this
However, the above does not explain why the DNC did not also act: They had the power to filibuster to ask for things, and compel responses. If the GOP could threaten others with, "We'll take away the filibuster if you challenge or question this". . .
C. Joy of Documenting Right over Wrong (Ignoring That it was illegal abuse of power)
Why did the CIA make the tapes? Because they were fascists, and fascists like to document their domination, abuse, and intimidation of those they can manipulate. Look at the Abu Ghraib photos: Those were looked at as late night "fraternity parties" until Geneva and prisoner abuse issues were raised.
D. Other views ignored
If you can silence the opposition in the legal community, then the lawyers -- who were concerned about this -- would not have a voice to say, "Hay, this is illegal, better not document it." The same stupid lawyers who said it was legal would also say, "Let's record us doing legal things."
E. Promotion Documentation
Tapes may have served as evidence for intelligence community to showcase what they were able to do. This is like an electronic resumee.
Who would say, "What I'm doing is legal, but I don't want anyone to know." Where's the promotion material in that? If you can show a video of "what you did" you can say, "I did that" and "I deserve to be promoted for this contribution".
December 13, 2007 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
We covered this yesterday. Cheney needed something to watch on his VCR in his bunker...
December 13, 2007 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In House of Bush, House of Saud : The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties Craig Unger claims because Abu Zubaydah was injured and needed an IV drip, the CIA secretly dosed him with “truth serum” and used a “good cop bad cop” routine on him. Two pairs of interrogators were used – 2 American CIA agents played the good cops who posed as medical aides and two that posed as Saudi Intelligence that interrogated him. The idea was that he would be so frightened of the Saudis and being shipped to Saudi Arabia and being tortured and killed that he would do anything the Americans asked to be protected. Zubaydah did just the opposite. He acted relieved when he saw the “Saudis” and told them to call a Saudi Royal family member and they would “vouch” for him. He even produced a phone number from memory. The number checked out – when he was told he was in big trouble, he told the “Saudis” they were the ones in trouble – he produced more phone numbers – one even being a Pakistani general. He also claimed all of these people new about 9/11 prior to the event – just not all the details. When the CIA realized they weren’t going to be able to get anymore information this way, they informed Zubaydah of the ruse and he tried to kill himself. The kicker is all of the Saudis that he exposed had strong financial and political ties to the Bush family, the Carlyle Group, Cheney, Baker – that whole crowd. One of them was one of the 100+ Saudis that were shuttled out of the country immediately post 9/11 when most of America was grounded. It’s possible that these connections to Bush et al were the reason the tapes were destroyed, besides the illegal torture.
December 14, 2007 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
From The One Percent Doctrine by Ron Suskind:
'Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied.
Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, "thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target." And so, Suskind writes, "the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered."'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html
December 14, 2007 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you tape the interview! To fail to do so would be negligence!
You are going to have a local review the tape and explain what the body movements and local terms mean.
Every word the suspect says (and especially what he did not tell you or avoided) should give you information.
Chances are that you will not understand what it means until you have the that meaning is until you put it all in context and understand the suspect's personal vocabulary.
For a good book on this" I know you are lying, by Mark McClish.
I would also bet dollars to dognuts that they still have the tapes on anyone they intend to cross examine at trial.
December 14, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Abu Zubaydeh was picked up in March 2002, then waterboarding and other “enhanced” techniques were employed several months before the Office of Legal Counsel’s Yoo and Bybee narrow definition of torture was issued on August 1. Thus, it seems the OLC was approving CIA techniques retroactively – and there is no legal basis for anyone involved to claim they were approved.
I also find it strange that everyone seems to have forgotten the Nuremberg trials – and the proposition that one may be held guilty of war crimes even when obeying orders. In this case, we don’t even have orders; just assurances of protection in case anyone ever finds out what the interrogators were up to.
December 14, 2007 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink