New York Times: C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes as Judge Sought Interrogation Data

More evidence of no evidence.
======================
C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes as Judge Sought Interrogation Data

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE
Published: February 7, 2008

WASHINGTON — At the time that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed videotapes of the interrogations of operatives of Al Qaeda, a federal judge was still seeking information from Bush administration lawyers about the interrogation of one of those operatives, Abu Zubaydah, according to court documents made public on Wednesday.
Times Topics: C.I.A. Interrogation Tapes

The court documents, filed in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, appear to contradict a statement last December by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, that when the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 they had no relevance to any court proceeding, including Mr. Moussaoui’s criminal trial.

It was already known that the judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, had not been told about the existence or destruction of the videos. But the newly disclosed court documents, which had been classified as secret, showed the judge had still been actively seeking information about Mr. Zubaydah’s interrogation as late as Nov. 29, 2005.

Continued here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/07/washington/07intel.html?_r=1&ex=1360040400&en=26b4518cafaf9445&ei=5090&partner=rssuserla...

Why is the mainstream media

Why is the mainstream media pushing this story?

Very good question

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe a military commission "trial" of KSM in which he says yeah, I was tortured, but I really did do 9/11 A-Z and am not sayng that because I was tortured.

There was a story a few months back Colonel Morris Davis stepped down as chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo, citing political interference with the independence of his office. He said that in September 2006, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England discussed with him the “strategic political value” in charging some of the prisoners before the midterm elections.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/11/politics-at-guantanamo-former-...

In the meantime, I say it's evidence of no evidence. But your question is one I share.

This law professors doubts the KSM confession:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/03/true-confessions-tale-of-khali...

Then who?

I guess the next question would be who exactly is pushing this story.

Maybe we could uncover the agenda that way.

Here's how it started

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/washington/07intel.html?pagewanted=2

In exchanges involving the Moussaoui case, the C.I.A. notified the United States attorney’s office in Alexandria, Va., in September that it had discovered two videotapes and one audio tape that it had not previously acknowledged to the court, but made no mention of any tapes destroyed in 2005.

The acknowledgment was spelled out in a letter sent in October by federal prosecutors that amended the C.I.A.’s previous declarations involving videotapes. The letter is heavily redacted, with sentences identifying the detainees blacked out.

Signed by the United States attorney, Chuck Rosenberg, the letter states that the C.I.A.’s search for interrogation tapes “appears to be complete.”

Here's a timeline - story begins October 25, 2007.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004872.php

After the October letter to the court from the U.S.attorney, the CIA revealed on December 6, 2007 that it had destroyed tapes in 2005.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/12/hayden_says_cia_videotapes_des...

I want to think that CIA was honest with Justice both times, and Justice said they would have to reveal it to the court so the CIA disclosed the destroyed tapes to the press, knowing it would have to be revealed to the court.

Jose Rodriguez?

When commenting on this story before, I remember thinking that this is a political maneuver designed to attack someone within the CIA. Since that time Jose Rodriguez's name has come out. I think we have to assume he is a target of the Bush-Cheney regime for reasons unknown.

I am watching the Zelikow show on Democracy Now and he repeatedly emphasizes that there is a criminal investigation of the CIA. So, I am beginning to get the idea that the stories are linked. The plan seems to be to blame the CIA in general (much as it was blamed in the official account of 9/11 and the WMD "fiasco") for the failings of the 9/11 Commission report (which must be more well known in upper political circles than the mainstream news would have us believe).

The other agenda seems to be the Bush-Cheney regime tying up loose-ends before leaving power. I think there is real concern that new information about what really happened on 9/11 and the subsequent cover-up will come out with the new presidency. In particular, it seems that some of those held at Guantanamo bay could actually face a public trial under a new administration.

Wanted to think Justice was honest so much

that I missed this:

It is unclear whether the C.I.A. notified federal prosecutors in the Moussaoui case about the existence and destruction of the tapes before the matter became public. But one of the documents released Wednesday, a letter from Chuck Rosenberg, United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said a prosecutor in the Moussaoui case “may have been told in late February or early March 2006” about the Abu Zubaydah videotapes, but “does not recall being told this information.”

Moussaoui's lawyers are arguing to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that disclosure of the tapes would have influenced his decision to plead guilty in 2005. Saying a prosecutor "may have been told" in 2006 begs the questions of who told him and when the Justice Department found out. The prosecutor was seeking the death penalty when he "may have been told" of destroyed tapes.

Speaking of torture, Attorney General Mukasey said again today there will be no prosecutions for torturers who relied on legal opinions of the Justice Department.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/7/23652/50864/156/452427

Watch him say it here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/mukasey_no_i_will_not_...

I'm a little encouraged that he looks uncomfortable.

Tapes? We don't need no stinking tapes!

Abu Z. spilled his guts. Sure, torture confessions are completely unreliable. But, we only need an audio...or even a TRANSCRIPT....How the hell did he know that Saudi prince's cell number BY HEART??
Of course he was somewhat guilty as any patsy is. Who were his puppet masters?

Well, the three saudi's he fingered and the head of paki air force were all dead in a months time.

And it's a short drive from Riyadh to Langley. As Sibel Edmonds has been trying to tell us....the FBI, CIA, Dept of State are all so corrupt , fetid w/disease they should be immediately abolished.

Lets stop pussy footing around here. Demand transcripts. Connect the dots. Hang the treasonous bastards from the highest tree and lets get on with dismantling capitalism in a PEACEFUL, fair and equitable manner.

TRUTH can help save our planet!

If I were a prosecutor

I'd want you on the jury.

Why Would An Agency(CIA) Torture Its Own Tools

It seems clear that the admission of torture is a ruse. One to attach the idea of the necessity of unusual state violence or the mind "searing" idea of torture, to a fake narrative to give it a compelling and riveting
quality.

To give the official story high drama which makes it easily propagated. The idea that the tapes were supposedly destroyed gives the game away.

Careful what you wish for

Here it comes:

6 Guantánamo Detainees Are Said to Face Trial Over 9/11
By William Glaberson
The New York Times Saturday 09 February 2008

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020908Z.shtml

"The charges, to be filed in the military commission system at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, would involve as many as six detainees held at the detention camp, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who has said he was the principal planner of the plot."

Actually, i wished for a trial in federal court.