Share

Top CIA Officials Appear Before Jury Over Destruction of al-Qaida Tapes

by: Chris McGreal  |  The Guardian UK

photo
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, at a news conference in December 2007, was asked about the CIA's destruction of videotapes that recorded harsh interrogation techniques. (Photo: Reuters)

92 video tapes may have been illegally destroyed. London station chief included in inquiry.

    Senior Central Intelligence Agency officials, including the London station chief, have been brought before a grand jury in Virginia investigating the potentially illegal destruction of 92 video tapes recording the torture and interrogation of al-Qaida detainees.

    A special prosecutor, John Durham, has called the CIA officials as part of an 18-month-long criminal probe in to the destruction of evidence of the agency's interrogators using waterboarding and other forms of torture against Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri who are described by the Americans as "high value" detainees now held at Guantanamo Bay.

    Those ordered to testify include the former CIA chief, Porter J Gross. Another is a woman who is not publicly named who heads the agency's London station. She previously worked as the chief of staff for the head of the CIA's clandestine branch, Jose Rodriguez, who is the focus of the investigation.

    The New York Times reports that former CIA officers have identified the woman as having helped carry out Rodriguez's order to destroy the tapes which had been kept in a safe in at the agency's station in Thailand where the torture and interrogations were carried out.

    Rodriquez is reported to have been concerned that agents might have been identified and endangered if the tapes leaked.

    But the CIA will also have been concerned that some of its agents may have been open to prosecution under domestic and international laws against torture besides the enormous damage to its already battered reputation if video were made public of the extended torture and brutal techniques used against the captives. The impact is likely to have been much greater than the outcry caused by the pictures of abuse by US soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.

    President Obama has since pledged not to prosecute individual agents for their part in torture and interrogations because they were assured by the Bush administration that their actions were legal.

    The investigation was launched because the destruction of the tapes may amount to a criminal offense because it was evidence that could have been used in any prosecutions for torture. Robriquez has told colleagues that he received legal guidance from CIA lawyers who told him he had the authority to order the destruction of the tapes.

    However it remains open to question whether anyone will be brought to trial for that or other alleged offenses given the Obama administration's desire to reassure CIA agents that they will not be pursued over past crimes.

    The existence of the tapes was only made public after they were destroyed.
On Thursday, the Obama administration said it will delay until the end of next month the release of a 2004 CIA report detailing the torture and other abuse of prisoners held in clandestine prisons oversees.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

If what they did was legal,

If what they did was legal, why did they have to destroy the tapes?

What this brief, breezy

What this brief, breezy report essentially adds up to is that any agency denizen (career spook, contractor, liaison, military detailee, et al) in any way vulnerable to criminal charges proceeding from the US national security enterprise's program of kidnap, "extraordinary rendition", secret prisons and torture has effectively been preemptively pardoned. No need to investigate or pursue for further evidence as it will be an empty, merely academic exercise, never to bring anyone to justice, let alone public scrutiny. It has all been sanitized. Any proposing to whistle blow will succumb to a fatal accident. Paraphrasing California Representative (and avid security clearance fan) Jane Harmon ("D"), "It never happened".

our tax dollars @

our tax dollars @ work...again...and again...and again...

"President Obama has since

"President Obama has since pledged not to prosecute individual agents for their part in torture and interrogations because they were assured by the Bush administration that their actions were legal." That is clear. Now, who is going to get prosecuted?

If they are off the hook

If they are off the hook because Bush claimed that torture was legal, and torture is an international crime and certainly NOT legal regardless of the torturous route taken by John Yoo and Richard Addington and Dick Cheney, why are those four people named above not in jail themselves? Weren't these senior administration people the ones guilty of violating international law and killing people from the results of this torture?

So Bush, Cheney, Yoo et al

So Bush, Cheney, Yoo et al get away with their crimes....it is so wrong!

Justice for the Elite?

Justice for the Elite? You've got to be kidding!! We are simply cannon fodder and peons and completely deluded into thinking we still have a democracy and Justice! The US has become the greatest threat to world peace, security, and the good will of honest and innocent families!! I encourage everyone to pray, in whatever way each chooses, to have these arch criminals, these murderers, torturers, thieves and liars brought to justice and punished to the full extent of the law.....the law which once had some relevance!!

These guys were following

These guys were following orders. The government is departmentalized. They did not know everything when they carried out their orders. The ones in charge are the only ones to know everything. They should be held accountable- not the soldiers who did as they were told. Form the evidence it is obvious that they were not that careful and felt they had the full blessing and backing of the US gov. I wonder what the public might think if those who have served in a war had to stand trial for everything they did- how would it be different?