« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Investigation Focused on Tapes, Not Torture
John Durham, the prosecutor tapped by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to probe the destruction of the CIA’s videotapes of interrogations, finally laid out in detail the purview of his investigation last week. And it’s clear that his focus is on the tapes themselves – not what they might show.
Given Mukasey’s refusal to investigate the use of waterboarding, that’s not much of a surprise. Mukasey had also allowed that Durham could look at the possible use of torture “if it leads to showing motive” for the destruction. Durham’s summary of his investigation jibes with that -- showing that it’s all about the tapes, but that why someone might have destroyed the tapes will also be key to his investigation:
The questions under active review in this investigation focus on whether any federal criminal offenses were committed in connection with the destruction of the…videotapes. More specifically, the investigation team is actively reviewing whether any person or persons obstructed justice, made false statements, or acted in contempt of court or Congress in connection with the destruction of the videotapes. With respect to potential obstruction of justice offenses, we are investigating whether the destruction of the videotapes violated any order issued by any federal judicial officer, and, if so, what the persons’ knowledge, motive, and/or intent was in destroying the tapes or causing their destruction….Central questions for this investigation include: who within the federal government knew of the existence of the videotaped interrogations at issue; who was aware of the various orders that might have required the preservation of the videotapes; and who was involved, in any way, in the decision and/or directive to destroy the videotapes.
In other words, whether any of this will lead to an examination of the interrogation techniques that were used on the two detainees whose interrogations were videotaped is unclear.
Durham made the disclosure, which was first reported by The New York Times this weekend, as part of the government’s bid to convince a federal judge to withdraw an order to explain the tapes’ destruction. You can read it here.
Josh
Zachary
So, in short, it is not a federal crime to 'destroy videotapes.' It is a federal crime to remove a mattress tag.
February 11, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Straw Argument is being made. Durhams investigation must also determine if what was on the tapes had to do with those requests from Judges and Defense Attys. That being a fact, once he knows that Water Torture was on the tapes he has the "bright line" test that Mukasey said he needed to open a investigation. The problem is the Atty Gen. used the Bybee Memo Defense to avoid a investigation. If you read page 35 and 36 of the Bybee Memo it should be remembered that that Memo has been withdrawn, but I think it's safe to assume Acting Head of the OLC, Bradbury has reinstated it since his fingerprints are all over it and the like. Only time will tell us if Durham has accepted that it's only torture if the "intent" was to torture or to get information, making the interrogation incidental? ( oh yeah, and done in "Good Faith" )
February 11, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey's use of the Bybee Memo Defense last week makes the question moot as to if water torture or other "enhanced methods" were used since according to the Judge Bybee Memo it's not torture if the original intent is to collect information and this is done in "good faith"
Pages 35 and 36 should be enough reading, but the whole Memo should be memorized, you'll need it.
February 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In other words, whether any of this will lead to an examination of the interrogation techniques that were used on the two detainees whose interrogations were videotaped is unclear."
Unclear? It's a lot of things, but I'm fairly certain that "unclear" isn't one of them.
February 11, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well at least he's leaving the door open. This could just be lip-service toward the administration, kind of a "hint, hint, wink."
February 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a case of the hen guarding the foxes.
If it has to do with accountability for torture and illegal spying being authorized by the White House, then Mukasey's is nothing but winking, dodging and running out the clock. It's clear he's not going to prosecute anyone of real importance - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Rice and a host of other war criminals.
When this administraion is over, so is Mukasey. And he knows that. He has nothing to lose.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
February 11, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink