2005 destruction of interrogation tapes caused concern at CIA, e-mails show
Washington Post
By Peter Finn and Julie Tate
April 16, 2010The 2005 destruction of 92 videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects at secret CIA prisons immediately prompted concern at agency headquarters that the decision was not adequately cleared and may have been improper, according to newly released documents. A day after the destruction, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, then the executive director of the CIA, was told that "we may have ‘improperly’ destroyed something," according to an e-mail. The message was written by Foggo’s deputy, who remains undercover, according to a former intelligence official.
"There may have been some people who thought precise procedure wasn’t followed, but I haven’t heard of anyone who believed at the time that any law had been broken," said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the subject of an ongoing investigation. "That’s quite a different thing"…
The tapes were destroyed on Nov. 9, 2005, a week after The Washington Post revealed the existence of CIA prisons overseas. Some CIA officers had long argued for the destruction of the tapes, but White House officials and members of Congress objected and said the tapes should be preserved. Jose Rodriguez Jr., head of the directorate of operations at the CIA from 2004 to 2007, sent a cable authorizing the destruction of the tapes.
Foggo’s deputy wrote that Rodriguez thought "the heat from destroying is nothing compared to what it would be if the tapes ever got into public domain — he said that out of context they would make us look terrible; it would be ‘devastating’ to us"…
WASHINGTON — Porter J. Goss, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in 2005 approved of the decision by one of his top aides to destroy dozens of videotapes documenting the brutal interrogation of two detainees, according to an internal C.I.A. document released Thursday. Days after the tapes were destroyed at the order of Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., then the head of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service, Mr. Goss told Mr. Rodriguez that he “agreed” with the decision, according to the document. He even joked after Mr. Rodriguez offered to “take the heat” for destroying the tapes. “PG laughed and said that actually, it would be he, PG, who would take the heat,” according to one of the document, an internal C.I.A. e-mail message.
According to current and former intelligence officials, Mr. Goss did not approve the destruction before it happened, and was displeased that Mr. Rodriguez did not consult him or the C.I.A.’s top lawyer before giving the order for the tapes to be destroyed. It was previously known that Mr. Goss had been told by his aides in November 2005 that the tapes had been destroyed. But a number of documents released Thursday provide the most detailed glimpse yet of the deliberations inside the C.I.A surrounding the destroyed tapes, and of the concern among officials at the spy agency that the decision might put the C.I.A. in legal jeopardy.
The documents detailing those deliberations, including two e-mail messages from a C.I.A. official whose name has been excised, were released as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the . The e-mail messages also reveal that top White House officials were angry that the C.I.A had not notified them before the tapes were destroyed. The e-mail messages mention a conversation between , the White House counsel, and , the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, in which Ms. Miers was “livid” about being told after the fact. “Rizzo is clearly upset, because he was on the hook to notify Harriet Miers of the status of the tapes because it was she who had asked to be advised before any action was taken,” according to one of the e-mail messages…
According to one of the e-mail messages released Thursday, Mr. Rodriguez told Mr. Goss that the tapes, taken out of context, would make the C.I.A “look terrible; it would be devastating to us.” The destruction of the tapes is the subject of a Justice Department criminal investigation that has stretched on for more than two years. The investigation is led by John Durham, a federal prosecutor in Connecticut…
The e-mail messages mention a conversation between , the White House counsel, and , the C.I.A.’s top lawyer, in which Ms. Miers was “livid” about being told after the fact. “Rizzo is clearly upset, because he was on the hook to notify Harriet Miers of the status of the tapes because it was she who had asked to be advised before any action was taken,” according to one of the e-mail messages.
I wonder if this was a case of saying the official thing (Harriet was livid) while, with a wink and a nod, giving covert messages to go right ahead and do what must be done and don’t tell me about it until after you’ve don’t it? It’s that “deniability” thing about responsibility..
Even if not, what it says is that Miers had “asked to be advised before any action was taken,” and she was angry that they did it without “advising” her in advance. It still fits with that.
It does fit. The documents are posted now on the ACLU Site. They are pretty damning…
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/natsec/20100415_CIArelease_destructionoftapes.pdf