ACLU sues CIA for Contempt in Torture Tape Destruction (Ever wonder why impeachment is off the table?)
The Dems are complicit in torture. The ACLU is going to burn Bush and the Dems. Why? Because the CIA Won't Take The Fall For Bush's Torture Policies.
- Why impeachment is off the table.
-
Well maybe it is a little clearer why the first thing Pelosi did after she became speaker of the house was to take impeachment off the table.
According to the Washington Post beginning in 2002 leading lawmakers both Republican and Democrat where briefed on the so called enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during that time period included Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Bob Graham, John Rockefeller IV, Porter Goss, and Pat Roberts.
The only one that objected the technique was Representative Jane Harmon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR20071208016...
So it looks as though Speaker Pelosi and other Democrats have colluded with the Bush administrations torture techniques because she knew about them but did not report them.
Senator Biden has called for an independent counsel to investigate the destruction of the torture tapes that have been in the news for the last week. It seems though Senator Jay Rockefeller D(W.V.) chairman of the Senate intelligence Committee does not think there is a need for an independent counsel because he said “ it is the job of the intelligence committee to do that.” I believe that the foxes are guarding the hen house.
This is starting to make some sense why after the Democrats took control of Congress that no serious investigation of this administrations lawlessness has occurred.
We the people need to make sure that there is an independent counsel appointed to investigate the destruction of the terror tapes and to determine who is complicit in this administrations total disregard for the rule of law.
The fox should not be guarding the hen house and we must enhance the improvements already made in Congresses ethics reform laws this year to include, a standing independent investigating body to watch Congress and the President. Without this who are we to trust, the politicians?????
Peace and Liberty through intelligence, strength, and integrity.
Tags: ethics, congress, impeachment, fox, henhouse Wednesday December 12, 2007 - 03:32pm (EST) Permanent Link | 8 Comments
Citing Destruction of Torture Tapes, ACLU Asks Court to Hold CIA in Contempt (12/12/2007)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a motion asking a federal judge to hold the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in contempt, charging that the agency flouted a court order when it destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the harsh interrogation of prisoners in its custody. In response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests filed by the ACLU and other organizations in October 2003 and May 2004, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the CIA to produce or identify all records pertaining to the treatment of detainees in its custody. Despite the court’s ruling, the CIA never produced the tapes or even acknowledged their existence. Last week, in anticipation of media reports concerning the tapes, CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly acknowledged that the CIA had made the tapes in 2002 but destroyed them in 2005.
“The CIA’s secret destruction of these tapes displays a flagrant disregard for the rule of law,” said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “It must be sanctioned for violating the court’s order and the obligation to preserve records that fell within the scope of our Freedom of Information Act requests.”
The tapes, which showed CIA operatives subjecting suspects to extremely harsh interrogation methods, should have been identified and processed for the ACLU in response to its FOIA request demanding information on the treatment and interrogation of detainees in U.S. custody. The tapes were also withheld from the 9/11 Commission, appointed by President Bush and Congress, which had formally requested that the CIA hand over transcripts and recordings documenting the interrogation of CIA prisoners.
“These tapes were clearly responsive to the Freedom of Information Act requests that we filed in 2003 and 2004, and accordingly the CIA was under a legal obligation to produce the tapes to us or to provide a legal justification for withholding them,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “By destroying these tapes, the CIA violated the statute as well as an order of the court. In the circumstances, it would be entirely appropriate for the court to hold the agency in contempt.”
The motion filed today relates to a lawsuit that was filed in 2004 to enforce a FOIA request for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad. The ACLU brought the FOIA lawsuit with the Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, Veterans for Common Sense and Veterans for Peace.
The motion filed today asks the court to hold the CIA in contempt; to require the CIA to produce a complete list of all records that fall within the scope of the FOIA requests that have been destroyed (including tapes); and to require the CIA to file with the court a detailed written description of the substance of the destroyed tapes.
“The interrogation techniques employed by our government raise fundamental questions of human rights and decency,” said Arthur Eisenberg, New York Civil Liberties Union Legal Director. “The CIA cannot avoid those questions by simply destroying the evidence.”
The ACLU brief and related legal documents are available online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia
Many of these documents are also contained and summarized in Administration of Torture, a recently published book by Jaffer and Singh. More information is available online at:
www.aclu.org/administrationoftorture
Attorneys in the FOIA case are Lawrence S. Lustberg and Melanca D. Clark of the New Jersey-based law firm Gibbons P.C.; Jaffer, Singh and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU; Arthur Eisenberg and Beth Haroules of the New York Civil Liberties Union; and Shayana Kadidal and Michael Ratner of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
| Print This | Email This |
The Investigations of the Destruction of CIA Torture Tapes: How An ACLU Lawsuit Might Force the Bush Administration To Reveal What Actually Happened
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
By my count, there appear to be no less than ten preliminary investigations underway, following the revelation that the CIA destroyed at least two sets of videotapes (containing hundreds of hours of footage) of "advanced interrogation" techniques being employed in terrorism investigations. In fact, every branch of government is now involved.
Within the Executive Branch, according to news reports, the CIA's General Counsel and Inspector General are investigating. The Department of Justice is investigating. On Capitol Hill, both the Senate and House Intelligence Committees are investigating. In addition, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is inquiring as to whether the Federal Records Act has been violated. And Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, has made preliminary inquiries as well.
The Bush Administration has shown that it is not very good at investigating itself, so no one should hold their breath for the outcome of either the CIA or Justice Department investigation. And Attorney General Mukasey has dismissed an independent special counsel inquiry as very premature. The Democratic-controlled Congress could get to the bottom of all this, but one should bear in mind that our elected representatives have yet to get to the bottom of the political firing of U.S. Attorneys (although, to be fair, they did get former Attorney General Gonzales to resign). Today, Congress suffers from a degenerative spinal malady, and while they can bark, they appear unable to bite. There are three court orders that may have been violated, but one in particular strikes me as a very serious problem for the CIA. Accordingly, we may well be in the unique situation in which a pending civil lawsuit might flush out some answers, and the federal judiciary might thus embarrass the other branches into actually taking meaningful action. I say "might" because the Bush Administration thinks nothing of stiffing federal court judges who seek information, and they probably figure they can tap-dance for the federal judiciary - along with all the other inquiries -- until they are out of Washington on January 20, 2009. Nevertheless, the situation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, as a result of Freedom of Information Act requests by the American Civil Liberties Union, could well force the Bush Administration's hand. An order holding the CIA in contempt of court might get the Administration's attention. The ACLU's Lawsuit, and the Order that the CIA Produce Documents When word of mistreatment of detainees surfaced, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act request targeting the CIA and others on October 7, 2003 and May 25, 2004, seeking records concerning the treatment of all detainees apprehended after September 11, 2001 and held in U.S. custody abroad. This, of course, would mean not only in Guantanamo but in the secret prisons in Eastern Europe operated by the CIA. Not surprisingly, the government stiffed the request, so the ACLU filed a lawsuit in June 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case ended up in the courtroom of Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. On September 15, 2004, Judge Hellerstein ordered the CIA and other government departments to "produce or identify" all responsive documents by October 15, 2004. The CIA claimed that some of the relevant documents were the subject of an inquiry by the CIA's Office of the Inspector General, so its attorneys requested a stay of the judge's order and an extension of time to comply with the request for other documents. In February 2005, Judge Hellerstein denied the CIA's request for a stay, but he did not enforce the stay immediately when the CIA moved for the judge to reconsider his ruling based on additional evidence from the CIA's Director - as the CIA entered a full-court press to prevent the ACLU from getting anything.
This stalling action had been playing out, when news of the destruction of the tapes became public. Now, in the action before Judge Hellerstein, he ACLU has moved to hold the CIA in contempt of court, based on the Judge's September 15, 2004 ruling. It is difficult to see why the CIA is, in fact, not in contempt, given the nature of the FOIA request and the judge's order.
Motion to Hold the CIA In Contempt
On December 6, The New York Times reported that the CIA had destroyed two videotapes of CIA detainees who were being subjected to "aggressive interrogation techniques" - more commonly called torture. The Washington Post soon reported that the destruction of the tapes had occurred in November 2005. CIA Director Michael Hayden publicly acknowledged that destruction, and soon confirmed this statement under oath in testimony to the House and Senate, saying that the destruction had occurred before he became Director.
Passing over who did what and why to focus on the situation in Judge Hellerstein's courtroom, on December 12, of this year the ACLU filed a motion to hold the CIA in contempt of court. The ACLU makes a powerful case that the CIA violated Judge Hellerstein's order of September 15, 2005 - issued before the CIA's apparent destruction of the tapes.
The Court's Order required the CIA to "produce or identify all responsive documents." Those not produced had to be identified. Classified documents were to be "identified in camera [that is, only to the court] on a log produced to the court." Recall, too, that the FOIA request sought information on the handling of all but a few detainees, who were within the United States.
It is well- and long-established law that a court order of this nature requires that the party preserve all information possessed that is responsive to the request. Thus, the CIA was obligated to preserve the tapes even if they were hell-bent on fighting in court to deny them to the ACLU. And as this litigation proceeded, Judge Hellerstein's later orders only served to reinforce that obligation, as a string of precedents makes clear.
What Is Next?
In addition to holding the CIA in contempt for destroying tapes that were subject to an FOIA request that surely reached these videos, the ACLU has also requested that the CIA provide some public disclosure of the facts surrounding the destruction of this material. In addition, the ACLU has requested permission to take depositions of those involved, under oath, and has requested that the court issue a further order barring the CIA from destroying, removing, or tampering with other records that are the subject of the ACLU's FOIA request. Finally, the ACLU is seeking costs for its expenses and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
How this is resolved depends on one factor: Judge Hellerstein. Doubtless, the CIA will respond with papers proclaiming its innocence, and no doubt denying that it was aware of the destruction. However, this is where the Judge himself - if he does not give the ACLU discovery powers - may demand that the CIA tell him what they have been up to, given his clear prior orders.
As I have written before, judges appointed by Republican presidents tend to throw cases that might embarrass Republican presidents out of their court, as quickly as they can figure out how to do so. Federal judges appointed by Democratic presidents, fortunately, do not tend to cower when either Republican or Democratic presidents are involved. A judge ends up with a case like this through a random selection procedure; in this case, the CIA happened to draw a Judge it cannot intimidate, which makes it interesting.
More on Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, Who Issued the Videotapes Order
Judge Hellerstein was appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton in 1998. An editor of the Columbia Law Review during his law school years, he started his legal career in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps of the Army in 1959-1960. An experienced litigator with a prestigious New York City law firm, he is a highly-respected judge. He works hard, is fair, and is savvy.
He is also a nightmare for the CIA in a case like this, because on June 3, 2005 he ordered the release of four videos from Abu Ghraib, along with dozens of photographs - not withstanding an effort of the government to suppress this material from ever becoming public.
Judge Hellerstein appears to have no tolerance for torture. Unlike his former colleague and now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who still is not clear that waterboarding is torture, one does not have the sense that Judge Hellerstein suffers from such confusion.
While Judge Hellerstein is going to appropriately protect the sources and methods of the CIA, if any judge is going to get to the bottom of this destruction of these records quickly, this is the judge.
What Do You Think? Message Boards
If history really does repeat itself, George W. Bush is in big trouble.
Even before reports that the CIA destroyed two videotapes of prisoners supposedly being questioned under torture sparked outcry in Congress and the media, 40 members of the ACLU of Southern California’s board of directors had voted unanimously, with one abstention, to support the start of impeachment proceedings against Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Speaking Friday to KPFK radio, former ACLU of Southern California President Stephen Rohde said the vote mirrored similar action taken in 1971 to impeach former President Richard Nixon. Nixon resigned in 1974, before Congress could impeach him for his role in the Watergate burglary and cover-up. By that time, however, ACLU chapters in other major cities and the national chapter in Washington had followed the SoCal chapter’s lead and called for Nixon’s impeachment.
“Our hope is by being the first affiliate to call for impeachment we will encourage other affiliates to join us and seek to have the national board consider the issue next year,” said Rohde, a founding member of the Pasadena-based Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace.
A bill in the House to impeach Cheney that was introduced by Democratic presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has not received the support of his party and last month was sent to committee to avoid a floor debate.
Another similarity to questions of impeachment in the 1970s and now is the role played by electronic recordings. In 1973, tapes of presidential conversations in the Oval Office that were turned over to investigators in the Watergate case were missing 18 minutes of discussion. In the case of the missing interrogation footage, CIA Director Michael Hayden has said the CIA destroyed the tapes “only after it was determined they were no longer of intelligence value and not relevant to any internal, legislative or judicial inquiries,” according to a CNN report.
Rohde said the local ACLU is preparing an extensive list of high crimes and misdemeanors — impeachable offenses — they say have been committed by Bush and Cheney, among them torture and extraordinary rendition, misleading the nation into war with Iraq by manipulating intelligence and the use of surveillance.
No comments:
Post a Comment