CIA Interrogation Tape Destruction Will Result In No Charges

[KoKo]

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/cia-interrogation-tapes-d_n_781005.html

PETE YOST



WASHINGTON — No one will be charged in the destruction of CIA videotapes of interrogations of suspected terrorists, a Justice Department official said Tuesday.

The official said that another part of the criminal investigation is continuing into whether interrogators went beyond the legal guidance given them on treatment of the suspects during questioning. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the conclusion about the videotapes has not been officially announced.

The CIA destroyed its cache of 92 videos of two al-Qaida operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, being waterboarded in 2005.

Jose Rodriguez, the agency's top clandestine officer, worried the 92 tapes would be "devastating" to the CIA if they ever surfaced. He approved the destruction of the tapes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/cia-interrogation-tapes-d_n_781005.html

-----
UPDATE:
MORE INFO and LINKS ON THIS from DU POSTER "Chill Wind:"

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/cia-interrogation-tapes-d_n_781005.html

---

Durham Torture Tape Case Dies, US Duplicity in Geneva & The Press Snoozes


By: bmaz Tuesday November 9, 2010 12:27 am


From the best available information as to the original destruction date of the infamous “Torture Tapes” having been on November 8, 2005, the statute of limitations for charging any general crime by employees and/or agents of the US Government for said destruction will expire at midnight Monday November 8, 2010 as the general statute of limitation is five years. By operation of law, the statute would have run yesterday were it not a Sunday. So, by the time you are reading this, it is over. Absent something extraordinary, and I mean really extraordinary, a criminal statute of limitation is effectively a bar to subject matter jurisdiction and that is that. Ding dong, the John Durham torture tape investigation is thus dead.

Last week, I wrote a letter to the DOJ and saw to it that it was delivered to the main contacts, Dean Boyd and Tracy Schmaler, as well as John Durham’s office. None of them responded. Finally, late Monday afternoon I called Durham’s office, and they acknowledged having received the letter.

(snipping)

Oh, there was one thing; when I asked why there had been no formal response to my letter, I was told perhaps it was a “little edgy”. Apparently actually phrasing an inquiry with legal specificity and facts makes it too “edgy” for the United States Department Of Justice.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x568987

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[saigon68]

53. ERIC HOLDER = Bush-Bot apologist

[Blues Heron]

2. Don't do it again boys!

Boys will be boys....

oy

[SpiralHawk]

3. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R - Torturer in Chief)

[Supersedeas]

47. Eric Holder called US a Nation of Cowards --- then folds up the Dept of Justice when the CIA says

boo

[herbm]

4. Why am I neither shocked nor surprised. I think that the last breifing by the Boosh WH got taken too

seriously by the President.

[blackspade]

5. Shocked!!!!

Not.

[RedCloud]

6. Who's your whore now CIA?

[Supersedeas]

7. too much law for the department of justice to respond to....our problems run deep

[glinda]

8. yes they do

[judesedit]

9. From what I understand, there is no statute of limitation on murder

And you know some of those tortured were murdered.

[Jefferson23]

26. Exactly right you are. Do you recall when Elizabeth Holtzman gave testimony

to this fact when Conyers had the hearings? I think we all had hope then, but now not really.

Maybe The Hague.

[No Elephants]

32. And what did Conyers do about the testimony?

I'm beginning to believe we need a Constitutional amendment banning hearings like this.

Expensive, time-wasting, partisan bs theatrics for cameras.

[Jefferson23]

36. That is a whole other problem. I think we both know why it went no where.

Democrats are paying the price now for not leading as they should, not upholding the law...among other things.

My point was that Holtzman made clear the legal ramifications of torture, no statute of limitations when death resulted
from torture. Of course the defense of these cases could take the stance there was no intent for anyone to die and other
such tactics, which would be irrelevant imo, as torture in and of itself is a crime in the first place.

The problem is our DOJ will not even get close to examining the cases on any serious level. I recall Joanthan Turley
commenting on the DOJ just before Obama's election...it will take decades to clean that place up was his opinion.

One small silver lining as a result of Conyers hearings is the record, that is worth a great deal imo. The record
reflects we do indeed know further investigations should take place and prosecutions would have likely followed.

Hypocrisy documented for the next generation to ponder and decide how to move forward as a nation of laws
is essential if we are ever to regain our principles again.

[OnyxCollie]

10. K&R. nt

[theHandpuppet]

11. Justice dept.: no charges in CIA tape case

Source: Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- The CIA's former top clandestine officer and others won't be charged in the destruction of CIA videotapes of interrogations of suspected terrorists, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

Another part of the criminal investigation is continuing into whether CIA interrogators went beyond the legal guidance given them on treatment of the suspects during questioning, a Justice Department official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because that part of the probe is still under way.

The CIA destroyed its cache of 92 videos of two al-Qaida operatives, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, being waterboarded in 2005.

Jose Rodriguez, formerly the agency's top clandestine officer, worried the 92 tapes would be devastating to the CIA if they ever surfaced. He approved the destruction of the tapes. Rodriguez's order was at odds with years of directives from CIA lawyers and the White House....

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/09/AR2010110903696.html?wpisrc=nl_natlalert

[2critical]

12. BUT the DOJ must defend DADT.....

[fascisthunter]

13. corrupt

[Supersedeas]

14. Destruction of evidence in any other context would amount to obstruction of justice...and yet

[No Elephants]

33. It's obstruction of justice in this context, too. No prosecution does not = no crime.

[Supersedeas]

43. Isn't it strange how quiet the American Bar Association is? Obstruction of Justice....so?

[chill_wind]

15. We don't prosecute war criminals and torturers, we just find new job opportunities for them.

The Torturer’s Reward
September 8, 4:38 PM, 2010
By Scott Horton

So what has become of those whose involvement in torture was so troubling that even a government inspector general recommended a criminal investigation? While investigations proceed apace overseas, Special Prosecutor John Durham is apparently still considering whether the facts warrant a real one in the United States. Durham has now spent more than a year trying to make this “threshold” determination, something that prosecutors frequently do in an afternoon. In the meantime, the Obama Administration’s position seems to be that the accused should be rewarded for their dubious services with lucrative training contracts. Adam Goldman of the Associated Press reports:

A former CIA officer accused of revving an electric drill near the head of an imprisoned terror suspect has returned to U.S. intelligence as a contractor, training CIA operatives after leaving the agency, The Associated Press has learned. The CIA officer wielded the bitless drill and an unloaded handgun—unauthorized interrogation techniques—to menace suspected USS Cole bombing plotter Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri inside a secret CIA prison in Poland in late 2002 and early 2003, according to several former intelligence officials and a review by the CIA’s inspector general. Adding details to the public portions of the review, the former officials identified the officer as Albert, 60, a former FBI agent of Egyptian descent who worked as a bureau translator in New York before joining the CIA. The former officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because many details of the incident remain classified.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/09/hbc-90007587

Can't let that kind of talent go to waste!

[NC_Nurse]

16. Dismal. Just dismal.

[chill_wind]

17. NYT Coverage of the decision

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/world/10tapes.html?_r=1&hp

[KoKo]

24. Eric Holder Quoted from your Link to NYT Article:...OMG! Read It!

"Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, said in a statement that the C.I.A. was “pleased with the decision” not to bring charges against agency officers involved in destroying the tapes, and that the agency would continue to cooperate with other aspects of the Justice Department’s investigation. But Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned Mr. Durham’s failure to file charges for obstruction of justice. He noted that the tapes were pertinent to litigation pending at the time that the agency destroyed them, including an A.C.L.U. Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking documents and images related to interrogations.

Mr. Durham, a career federal prosecutor based in Connecticut, was appointed in January 2008 by Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate whether destroying the tapes was a crime. In August 2009, the new attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., expanded Mr. Durham’s mandate to include looking into whether crimes had been committed in the interrogation program, an investigation that remains open.

At the time, Mr. Holder cited a 2004 report by the C.I.A. inspector general that discussed several instances in which detainees died during interrogations by agency officials in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also documented the use of unauthorized techniques — like mock executions, threats to family members, and inflicting waterboarding — more often than the department had approved.

When he expanded Mr. Durham’s mandate, Mr. Holder also stressed that the Justice Department would “not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees.”

[Poll_Blind]

31. See, that just pisses me off. n/t

PB

[No Elephants]

34. Disgusting. D of J is supposed to act as prosecutor, not as defense lawyer, judge and jury when it

comes to deciding who did or did not act in good faith.


We've had reports that the CIA started torturing before the opinions were sought. And, even after the opinions, knew what they were doing was wrong and the opinions were bogus. And some exceeded the scope of the opinions. And so on.


Acting in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel is a defense you raise and prove in court, in the same way as someone might raise an insanity defense and the have to prove it---while the prosecution tries to disprove it.

Trying to disprove any defense AFTER defense counsel has raised it in court would be the appropriate role of D of J here, not act as defense lawyer, judge and jury. And Holder know it. He's simpy counting on us not to know it and/or not to care.

Hey, EH, I care.

EH could have said he was using his prosecutorial discretion to "look forward" as to the CIA, just as we have on the rest of the war criminals. Or, he could have said nothing bc I had figured "looking forward" included everyone who was involved--Bushco, members of Congress, lawyers like Yoo and Bybee, CIA--everyone. Why he chose to say this is baffling.


Btw, LOLZ @ Koko.

[Supersedeas]

51. acting within the scope of Bybee and Yoo's torture memo is a cover for destruction of evidence?

[No Elephants]

52. Good point!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnyxCollie]

19. K&R. nt

[pmorlan1]

20. Pathetic!

Looks like Attorney General Eric Holder is following in the footsteps of former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzalez.

[bobthedrummer]

21. K&R, still no Inspector General at the CIA as far as that goes too n/t

[24601]

22. The IG is just one person. The OIG or Office of the Inspector

General has no shortage of people up and operating. The senior non-political appointee is the Acting IG. Not only that, the next level up, The Office of the Director of National Intelligence IG is up & operating as well. The DNI has authority over the CIA except in the area of Covert Operations (direct action) pursuant to a Presidential Finding.

[bobthedrummer]

23. I don't care if you're a loyal GS 10+ the Agency has been politicized for decades

and it has operated domestically for decades and no one in the entire bureaucracy of "oversight" has really done anything (like The Church Committee called for) for decades.

[24601]

25. CIA is no more politicized than Social Security. Yep, there are a

few political appointees at the top but the rank & file are not political in the partisan sense. Or are you are saying Valerie Plame was a political operative.

[bobthedrummer]

39. Glad you owned up to the facts 24601 n/t

[24601]

41. Federal Employees work all sorts of issues, some of which hit the

headlines. It looks to me that "controversial:has be mistaken for "political."

[maryf]

27. K&R

damn.

[defendandprotect]

28. Saw that disgusting news on yahoo earlier .... terrible ...

[HCE SuiGeneris]

29. The term 'justice' is meaningless in this country. n/t

[Supersedeas]

37. the rich, powerful, and politically well-connected have a different idea of Justice

It's a commodity to be bought, sold, and bargained for.

Bush v. Gore, Citizens United...the system of Justice is becoming more and more defined.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

38. True. It all depends on one's definition of the term...

I can't say I'm happy about the transformation. In fact, it's revolting.

[go west young man]

30. Strange how anything to do with 9/11 just vanishes.

Cheney's office catches on fire, the Pentagon's camera's fail to properly record the plane hitting it,
no recorded admissions of the guys who supposedly did it. We had to burn the evidence because it made us look too bad?
Just bad press for the good ole CIA.
Man we're a fucking banana republic at this point and Bin Laden if he actually committed 9/11
would have to be a serious genius. Or maybe something else has always been at hand. Like we did it. We as in Cheney and company.

[panzerfaust]

35. Shocking? No, just more CHANGE you can BELIEVE in.

? Change

Yes, I do remember someone promising that

[Jefferson23]

40. kick n/t

[bobthedrummer]

42. Injustice and corruption in The United States of America are still newsworthy indeed-kick

[TheWatcher]

44. We are truly becoming a Lawless, Outlaw Nation.

Proles of course, will be given the death penalty for jaywalking if TPTB deem it necessary.

But as long as you're not a Prole, you can loot, rob, steal, rape, pillage, extort, racketeer, murder, just about anything you can think of, and it's cute, funny, trendy, loving, and Of The Lord.

What a nightmarish time we are living in.

And I can almost guarantee, it's going to get worse.

MUCH worse.

There is nothing to stop these people.

[Devil_Fish]

45. Making the water boarding all worth it.....NOT

[Octafish]

46. Obstruction of justice is A-OK, but be a whistleblower and it's lights-out!

Obama More Aggressive Than Bush In Targeting Whistleblowers

[NeoConsSuck]

50. Thank you for that link.

One more reason to vote third party in 2012.

[The Second Stone]

48. The law only applies to the little people

Governments, government officials, BP officials, corporate lackeys, etc. can disregard the law and ethics because it is all for a higher good: keeping the government running with social security funds taxed more heavily on the not wealthy. We are their bitches.

[Odin2005]

49. This BS makes me feel sick!

:puke:

[madokie]

54. Huffington posts sucks as a source for anything

pretty much as politico is also.
I've read more shit from those two sites than all the rest of the internet put together.
Unrec for source

[Rex]

55. So PROOF that the CIA is above any and all laws.

AND I'm sure this will get no M$M coverage, if it ever did.

[Amonester]

56. Many banana republics have better justice officers than these shills. n/t