Also see:
AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications •
Also see below:
A Scramble at the CIA to Lawyer Up •
Go to Original
Ex-CIA Official May Refuse to Testify About Videotapes
By Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick
The Washington Post
Thursday 10 January 2008
A former CIA official at the center of the controversy over destroyed interrogation
videotapes has been blocked by Justice Department officials from gaining access
to government records about the incident, according to sources familiar with
the case.
The former official, Jose Rodriguez Jr., has also told the House intelligence
committee through a letter from his attorney that he will refuse to testify
next week about the tapes unless he is granted immunity from prosecution for
his statements, the sources said.
The panel has issued a subpoena for Rodriguez, the former chief of clandestine
operations who issued the order to destroy the videotapes in 2005. He and other
former CIA officials are also being blocked from gaining access to documents
about the incident, sources said.
The fast-paced maneuvering comes as part of an escalating, three-way confrontation
between Congress, the Justice Department and a group of former CIA officials
involved in the decision to destroy the videotapes, which showed the use of
harsh interrogation tactics on two suspected al-Qaeda operatives in 2002.
Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey announced last week that the Justice Department
had opened a criminal investigation into the tapes' destruction, even as lawmakers
vowed to continue pursuing their own inquiries into the episode. Former CIA
officials have begun seeking outside counsel and some, including former CIA
director George J. Tenet, have hired attorneys to represent them, sources say.
In a related development yesterday, a federal judge in Washington declined
to intervene in the CIA tapes case, saying that there is no evidence the Bush
administration defied court orders and that Justice Department prosecutors should
be allowed to proceed with their own investigation.
U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. said in a three-page ruling that a
group of inmates held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "offer nothing to support
their assertion that a judicial inquiry" is necessary into the tape destruction.
He said neither of the detainees whose interrogations were taped and later destroyed
has an apparent connection to the prisoners who were demanding the review.
Kennedy also wrote that he expects the Justice Department "will follow
the facts wherever they may lead and live up to the assurances it made to this
court."
The CIA disclosed last month that it had destroyed hundreds of hours of CIA
videotape showing coercive interrogation tactics used on two senior al-Qaeda
suspects: Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, known as Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim
al-Nashiri. CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said the tapes had been destroyed
to protect the identities of interrogators, but other CIA officials have said
they were destroyed to protect the interrogators from potential prosecution.
Rodriguez's attorney, Robert S. Bennett, declined to comment yesterday on details
about his client's case or on any communications he has had with Congress.
"Unless there is an agreement of some kind, he has to show up," Bennett
said of Rodriguez. "His options are to testify or not testify. That's all
I can say at this point."
A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the ongoing investigation,
which is being headed by John Durham, a longtime career prosecutor from Connecticut.
Congressional aides said the House intelligence committee's chairman, Rep.
Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), and other lawmakers have not begun discussing how
to respond to Bennett's immunity request for Rodriguez.
Committee staffers in recent weeks have begun sifting through several hundred
pages of internal documents related to the case, which has been gathered together
at CIA headquarters in Langley and made available for classified review.
But sources close to the case say that Rodriguez and other former officials
are not being granted access to the same files. Most defense attorneys would
advise a client against testifying or cooperating with a congressional investigation
without access to such documents, according to sources and legal experts.
Several other current and former CIA officers also have sought outside legal
help, fearing that they may be eventually become entangled in the tapes controversy.
Roy Krieger, a Washington attorney who specializes in intelligence cases, says
he has been approached by two officers and has heard from others of a growing
nervousness in the intelligence community.
"They are very scared because of the depth and breadth of the investigation,"
Krieger said.
He added that the prospect of massive legal bills - many CIA officers lack
legal insurance - is equally frightening to some. "They're looking at
second mortgages and dipping into college education funds to pay the bills,"
Krieger said.
----------
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Go to Original
A Scramble at the CIA to Lawyer Up
By Mark Hosenball and Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
14 January 2008 Issue
Attorney general Michael Mukasey's decision to launch a full-scale FBI probe
into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes has sent several alarmed agency
employees scrambling to find lawyers. To lead the probe, the A.G. named John
Durham, a hard-nosed veteran prosecutor who is assembling a team of deputies
and FBI agents. Some CIA veterans fear the move is tantamount to unleashing
an independent coun sel on Langley. "A lot of people are worried,"
says one former CIA official, who asked not to be identified talking about sensitive
matters. "Whenever you have the bureau running around the building, it's
going to turn up some heads. This could turn into a witch hunt." Justice
officials say Durham was assigned to investigate the 2005 decision to destroy
the tapes-not the activities recorded on them, including the use of waterboarding
on Al Qaeda suspects. But at this point, Durham has no formal mandate on the
probe's scope, giving him the freedom to ex pand it if he chooses. "We're
going to follow this wherever it leads," says one Justice official, who
asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe.
One key figure, Jose Rodriguez, the former CIA chief of clandestine services
who gave the order to destroy the videotapes, has retained Robert Bennett, a
renowned defense lawyer who represented Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit.
Another potential witness, George Tenet, who was CIA director when the tapes
were made, will be represented by former FBI general counsel Howard Shapiro.
Roy Krieger, a Washington lawyer who has repre sented about 100 CIA employees,
says that two agency officers have approached him about representation, though
neither has retained him yet.
For the CIA spooks in volved, cost is a serious issue. Krieger says legal expenses
for each employee could reach "hundreds of thousands" of dollars;
the CIA will not foot the bill. In anticipation of just such a scenario, however,
the agency some years ago began encouraging its employees to purchase special
liability-insurance policies from Wright & Co., a Virginia firm that specializes
in coverage for government investigators. A Wright spokesman had no response
to questions about whether claims have been filed for legal fees in connection
with the tapes inquiry. CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano confirmed the agency does
not pay its officers' legal bills, but added "only a very, very small subset
of agency activities ever become the subject of litigation or investigation."
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story