By Scott Horton
Last week, President Obama comforted CIA agents by assuring them that there would be no prosecutions related to the torture program. But his words were carefully chosen. In fact, it appears increasingly likely that some sort of criminal charges are in the works.
Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball report:
<...>
In the midst of the discussion about whether a special prosecutor should be appointed to deal with the Bush torture legacy, commentators tend to forget that there are already two special prosecutors looking into Bush-era criminality who were appointed by former Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey. One of them is John Durham, a career prosecutor from New England who handled a high-profile mob investigation in Boston as well as the inquiry that took down Governor John G. Rowland in Connecticut. He was appointed to look into the mysterious disappearance of some 92 tapes of high-value detainees in CIA custody. Federal prosecutors in Virginia told a court that they didn’t exist; they later claimed to have been misled by the CIA. Because court orders had been issued to turn over the tapes, obstruction of justice may be inferred from their destruction.
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball | NEWSWEEK
Published May 2, 2009
From the magazine issue dated May 18, 2009
When president Obama decided to release the Bush-era Justice Department's interrogation memos last month, he tried to calm an anxious CIA by publicly declaring that operatives who "reasonably" relied on them would not face criminal prosecution. But agency officials still have plenty to worry about. Despite Obama's assurances, a Justice Department special counsel is quietly ratcheting up his probe into a closely related subject: the CIA's destruction of hundreds of hours of videotape showing the waterboarding of two high-value Qaeda suspects. At the same time, a Senate panel is planning the first public hearing dealing with CIA interrogations, including testimony from a star witness: Ali Soufan, the former FBI agent who vigorously protested the questioning of one of the detainees, terror suspect Abu Zubaydah.
In recent weeks, prosecutor John Durham has summoned CIA operatives back from overseas to testify before a federal grand jury, according to three legal sources familiar with the case who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters. The sources said Durham is also seeking testimony from agency lawyers who gave advice relating to the November 2005 decision by Jose Rodriguez, then chief of the CIA's operations directorate, to destroy the tapes. The flurry of activity has surprised some lawyers on the case who had assumed Durham was planning to wind down his probe without bringing charges. Now they're not so sure. Durham, who declined to comment, might simply be tying up loose ends in a closely watched case. But one continuing point of inquiry could spell trouble for the agency: allegations that CIA officials may have made false statements or obstructed justice in the case of convicted Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.
Durham was appointed by former attorney general Michael Mukasey shortly after the December 2007 revelation about Rodriguez's decision. At the time, then-CIA director Michael Hayden insisted the tapes were destroyed only after "it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries—including the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui." But since then, declassified filings in the Moussaoui case show that around the time the tapes were destroyed, Moussaoui's lawyers were seeking CIA records about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah—who, according to recent disclosures, was waterboarded 83 times. On Nov. 3, 2005, Judge Leonie Brinkema even ordered government lawyers "to confirm or deny that it has video- or audiotapes" of interro-gations of potential witnesses. But CIA officials supplied only "intelligence summaries" of Abu Zubaydah's interrogation. (The CIA declined to comment. Rodri-guez was unaware of any judicial orders for the tapes and "did absolutely nothing wrong," said his lawyer, Robert Bennett.)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a top backer of a "truth commission" on torture, is taking matters into his own hands, starting with a May 13 hearing of a judiciary subcommittee he chairs. Along with Soufan, he also plans to call former State Department official Philip Zelikow, another internal critic. According to a Senate Democratic aide, who also asked for anonymity, Whitehouse wants to keep a public spotlight on the issue until the next bombshell: an internal Justice Department ethics report on the lawyers who wrote the interrogation memos, which could be released within the next month.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
