« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
More Tapes?
From The New York Times:
Lawyers for Majid Khan, a detainee at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have challenged the Central Intelligence Agency’s assertion that videotaping of interrogations stopped in 2002, saying that Mr. Khan’s interrogations after that time were recorded on videotape.
This isn't the first time there's been a hint of this. As we noted here, another detainee has claimed to have seen cameras in the interrogation rooms, and prosecutors have indicated in a filing that there are two currently existing videotapes of interrogations.
Also, here's our rundown of Khan's case.
Advertisement
Don't forget, too, that in the wikileaks-posted copies of the Gitmo SOPs, there were specific assignments for what are called "Combat Cameramen" - people whose military job it is to make a video and still record of what's going on.
There are tapes.
January 21, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best 'big picture' analysis I have read about this was from over the 'big pond.'
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer, believes the scandal could reach deep into the White House. “The CIA and Jose Rodriguez look bad, but he’s probably the least culpable person in the process. He didn’t wake up one day and decide, ‘I’m going to destroy these tapes.’ He checked with a lot of people and eventually he is going to get his say.”
ww.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3087293.ece
He didn’t wake up one day and decide, ‘I’m going to destroy these tapes.’ He checked with a lot of people and eventually he is going to get his say.”
January 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
ww.villagevoice.com/news/0803,hentoff,78870,6.html
speculation at the Village Voice but hardly consistent reporting...
ww.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=dan_coleman_1
The two accounts of the interrogation differ.
ww.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/24/040524fa_fact
But the outrage of the torture came from the DOD program, which the CIA withdrew from.
But the real purpose I would suppose at this juncture is to:
Establish the conditions for CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY
This is a supreme court ruling that dealt with Tort and torture, and is what Yoo leaving early, lost emails, no tapes, seek to establish.
The summation: there is not a "chain of causality" between executive's decisions and the acts that took place in the field.
Was this political, was this calculated?
Yeah...
And truth be told, the two programs as you can see from the information on the investigation of Zubaydah’s interrogation as linked by Dan Coleman involve the FBI, CIA and the DOD.
So having DOJ point the finger at CIA after their involvement in GITMO and holding an individual because a radio had been left in a hotel safe, is.. interesting... to say the least.
But Rodriguez isn't at what is at stake in CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY before the supreme court.
So you need to see this story in the political and legal perspective.
The day beofre dirty shoe bomber was caught, fbi agent collen rowlins testified and on the same day: the 911 truth movement was started at the national press club in DC. June/10/2002
So there was a 'push' for some info, in pure 'neocon' ideology. And not everybody was without blame, and certainly the responsibility lies at the executive level!
CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY would require limited immunity and that the executive could not be held to the 'chain of causality' clause for tort.
Rodriguez when told to inform congress he destroyed the tapes had become the 'immunity' segment of that orchestrated event.
Yawnnnnn.....
January 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment attempts to partially clarify some confusion in re CIA and DoD on facility videotaping; and suggest further analysis and questions. Here's a breakdown of what follows:
Part 1 Finding the Guantanamo Video Procedures
Part 2 CIA vs. DoD: The Dance During Litigation
Part 3 NYT/Public Mixing Issues
Part 4 Questions, Food For Thought, Possible Answers
--------------------------------------
PART 1: FINDING THE GUANTANAMO PROCEDURES ABOUT VIDEO TAPING
Guantanamo 2004 SOPS include information on videotaping.
HOW TO VIEW IT
A. Copy/paste this URL:
snipurl.com/1xy4e
B. Find file:
Scroll down to this section of the page, at the snipurl: look for: [ File gitmo-sop-2004.doc (click to view full file) ]; this will allow you to download the file to your computer.
C. See Section 5-16, page 5.8, "Video Camera Operations"
The procedures show video recording was well understood, part of normal operations, and not an unusual activity.
Chapter 5, [ Chapter 5: Detention Facility Operations] deals with video:
"New section on video camera operations, guidelines for filming incidents (5-16, 5-16a), which includes the rather incredible statement "Think like an editor as you shoot! Let technique master technology; don't let technology become your master. The best equipment in the world will never replace creativity and reasoning", apparently taken from . . ."
"VIDEO GUIDE LINES FOR EVIDENCE SCENES":
crime-scene-investigator.net/videoguidelines.html
The link "GTMO procedures on Video" goes to the released Gutananamo detention procedures, and the changes bewteen the 2003 and 2004 versions.
----------------------------------
PART 2: Shell game between CIA and DoD on facility practices, evidence, and interrogations
DoD's manual doesn't specifically address _CIA_ practices. The NYT article doesn't well discuss why a former Guantanamo-DoD prisoner is asking the CIA, instead DoD, about video tapes: Does counsel want to know if interrogations stop in 2002 at _all_ facilities, just Guantanamo, or the CIA facilities?
A partial answers may be the DoD Manual for Guantanamo clearly discussing video taping two years after the CIA said taping stopped. The CIA could say anything, and this may or may not have no bearing on DoD actions, and vice versa.
There is no question video taping was permitted under the DOD guildelines for Guantanamo, two years after the 2002 "_CIA_ end date." The apparent question is whether the former Guantanamo prisoner can get the CIA to respond about _CIA_ taping at _other_ facilities.
Example DoD Guidance in Manual, which may or may not have been implemented or followed by different agencies at other facilities:
1. Note this: There are areas for "investigations" and "other agencies" [ See page Investigations s 5-18, page 5.8; See Section VI – Other Agencies ]
2. Note the following, "Abuse, or any form of corporal punishment, is prohibited. " There was no confusion for _DOD_: All abuse is not allowed, this includes waterboarding. Non-sense for Congress or President to argue over whether waterboarding is or isn't "torture," when the Guantanamo manual expressly forbids _all_ abuse. Whether torture is or isn't abuse is self-evident; whether abuse is or isn't torture is meaningless: It's prohibited. CIA is still subject to Geneva.
---------------------------------------
PART 3: Scope of Issues
NYT touches on many issues, but the litigation narrowly focuses on video tapes for now. As a reminder, there are other things going on:
- 1. Former Guantanamo prisoner alleging abuse by DoD;
- 2. Evidence gathering by former prisoner at DoD failcity; former prisoner seeking information from another agency, the CIA on interrogation video taping practices;
- 3. CIA tape destruction;
- 4. CIA stating taping ended in 2002; but the Guantanamo guide showing videotaping was permitted after 2004
---------------------------------------
PART 4: QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS MANUAL, AND ABOUT BROADER INTERROGATION BY CIA in re CIA TAPE DESTRUCTION
A former prisoner, previously under DoD Conrol at Guantanamo, is asking the CIA whehther there was or was not _CIA_ taping after 2002. The _DoD_ guidance shows this taping was permitted.
- Even if the CIA refuses to respond, why isn't the former Guantanamo-DoD prisoner asking DoD for the other tapes, still permitted after 2002; or has this request been rejected/not met/answered in the negative? [Unclear]
Geneva applies to all US persons. It's irrelevant that someone was or wasn't in the CIA or DoD.
- Why wasn't the guidance in this Guantanamo Document referred to when CIA were discussing what to do with evidence related to a foreseeable investigation: Doesn't CIA have similar guidance? [Possible answer: It doesn't matter -- they are responsible for fully complying with Geneva. It's irrelevant the SUpreme Court said rendition is a State secret because Nuremberg established the precedent of prosecuting judicial officers/judges for failing to enforce Geneva in re prisoner mistreatment. Arguably, the Supreme Courts decision to call prisoner abuse-rendition a "State secret" is allegedly a repeat of the abuses adjudicated at Nuremberg. It is foreseeable that US SUpreme Court Justice could be prosecuted before the ICC on this refusal to adjudicate rendition-related issues.]
- When will US leadership in Congress determine why these prohibitions against prisoner abuse were not fully enforced against all detaining personnel, not just DoD personnel, but also CIA? [Possible answer: To answer this question would require an impeachment investigation, which might implicate DNC leadership in Congress who were allegedly told of the planned abuse; but allegedly failed to challenge this planned-illegal abuse of prisoners. This is an alleged war crime by a civilian policy maker: They had the alleged ability to stop this through funding cuts and/or an impeachment investigation but refused.]
When there is misconduct, that misconduct is supposed to be investigated. Surely, alleged prisoner abuse by CIA would be misconduct.
- Why would DoD include "other agencies" in its coordination guldance; but would have us believe the CIA 'didn't know' what to do about an investigation? [Possible answer: People are playing stupid about foreseeable ICC interest areas and GEneva. JAGs well warned US leaders that civilians could be prosecuted for war crimes.]
- Why wasn't the evidence related to that alleged "misconduct by the CIA" self-evidently retained? [Possible answer: It appears this is the $60K question, and the answer looks like: "Because they didn't think they could hide it behind executive privilege or state secret claims, like the WH-OVP e-mail."]
January 21, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, who's the person here who has the cajones to leak the tape out?
I gotta wonder how far the Bush administration would be willing to take this here.
January 21, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they taped the interrogations. I would be surprised if they didn't tape every single one of them. Nothing to do with the methods themselves but it just makes sense to be able to analyze the responses later.
Even if they weren't torturing these people, they would want to check the body language for signs of lying. Do they expect us to believe they totally rely on the memory of the interrogators?
January 22, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
GTMO Procedures on Video [Change Summary] wrote on January 21, 2008 7:41 PM:
For those whom were wronged by the politicizing of intelligence, the positive step forward is to hear the testimony with immunity, and allow a narrative of repudiation to proceed.
Overcoming these initial talking points allows for subsequent discussions to proceed as to adjudication of remaining detainees.
You cannot undo the past, but you can grab the next sentient moment. As I listened to the oral arguments of CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY it became clear to me that establishing a chain of causality would be difficult if not impossible, and that litigating to that end would create a scenario: where that deliberation process would delay final adjudication proceedings and the closure to Gitmo.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and if you focus on the larger narative, you might concede as I do that allowing the motions of discovery to proceed is the best recourse.
There were allot of people who got sucked into these larger events, and all for differing reasons, Wilson Plame, Roley, Fitzgerald, Ashcroft, Gonzales, and others.. and I think at some juncture that people have to see what lies in the present instead of re-adjudicating the past. The smug comments by Yoo are irritating, he knows well CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY and the implications of his counsel to the Executive office.
But for those whom got sucked into the fray, with good intentions, differing opine, policy disputes, etc, etc, etc,
There is no going back and re-setting the game clock.
I bet the person who saw the destruction of WTC1 and WTC2 and conjectured that an attack on a nuclear facility (as a consequence of working with the nuclear industry) had wished that they had never coined the phrase 'dirty bomb' at FreeRepublic, or at FreeRepublic had also promoted that as a existential threat, and then redacted it.
Or.. that in the wake of 911 similarly, wanted to see terrorists denied funding from put options to make a second attack and had inquired about CBOE data, at FreeRepublic, or at FreeRepublic had also promoted that as a existential threat, and then redacted it.
The whole damn environment is littered with caveats, unconvenient truths, and a factual accounting will be delayed for quite some time to come, that is the way things work.
But there are larger and evolving threats to national security, the economy, the national energy policy, the foreign policy, and of course there 'are' people out there that are terrorists and would utilize force to promote political agendas and target civillian targets, these groups are both foreign and domestic, and though the alliances change as to political designation of friend and foe, it is reasonable to say that the policy of torture as defined by Rumsfeld is at an end.
The exchange between Pace and Rumsfeld was the tipping point. Uniformed professionals in the DOD do not promote or ignore torture as part of their nation building agenda.
CIA in a lurid or insidious scenario will torture to avert a clear and present danger and stand internal review for that act. CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY dealt with the 'chain of causality' in that torture, and the Supreme Court ruled from a tort standpoint that there was limited immunity in respect to non-us citizens.
So to sum this up, a formal repudiation of torture in testimony is going to make CIA the apolgist for DOD acts that exceeded reason, for FBI complicity that makes their investigation 'curious' to say the least, and finally allows for this recourse of action.
The best way to grasp the 'sentient now' is to allow immunity and testimony and then watch the basic principles of CHRISTOPHER V. HARBURY procede.
There is no alternative than dragging this out and delaying the act of closure to this unsavory and 'foolish' period of history behind us.
I'm no fan of the Neocons, stood almost alone when it was dangerous to do so and clearly articulated my disagreement. But would not chase their foolish asses through the sewers for a 'loaf of bread' as the world has changed around me yet again, and there is more important and effective means to the same result.
I just wish the bar association would disbar Yoo, there should be at least that decency among professionals.
January 22, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink