C.I.A. Destroyed Two Taped Interrogations

Shades of Watergate?

An ominous sign that we are no longer just using the tools of government to battle terrorism but slipping far away from the founding fathers’ concept of America — or the concept held under most administrations throughout American history — and beginning to resemble “a banana republic” where the law is NOT the law but something you can ignore or defiantly skirt?

Those are just some of the reactions to the latest scandal to seems to be a Scandal of the Week Administration involves the CIA destroying tapes that apparently recorded interrogations that could have been problematic in legal terms or a scandal if leaked to the media:

The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about its secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The official explanation is going to please no one (except perhaps those talk show hosts who will immediately adopt whatever the official position is):

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said.

In a statement to employees on Thursday, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, said that the decision to destroy the tapes was made “within the C.I.A.” and that they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value.

The destruction of the tapes raises questions about whether agency officials withheld information from Congress, the courts and the Sept. 11 commission about aspects of the program.

The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which was appointed by President Bush and Congress, and which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.

This is an issue “with legs.”

It will be discussed quite a lot, likely to spark Congressional investigations and be pointed to by administration critics as an example of either an administration that by choice or otherwise seems to be remaking what was generally considered to be the American character.

It’s hard to imagine this scandal in the administration of John F. Kennedy. Or Dwight Eisenhower. Or Ronald Reagan. Or the first George Bush.

Now it’s all out there: has info been withheld from not just the press but Congress — a branch of the government that is supposed to have some power and not be a bunch of wimpish rubber stamps?

If so, are there consequences? Or is this how democracies evolve — where bit-by-bit the way people assumed they operate begins to be changed….from within…with no unified substantive protests from elected officials?

It’s hard to imagine it now. But it is real and did happen in America. Will Congress and voters decide that the trending here is a bit off the path of the America that they were taught about in schools as kids? Would we WANT to teach kids the realities now?

TWO POSTS THAT NEED TO BE READ IN FULL:–Ed Morrissey:

If the tapes showed the faces of the interrogators, they would be correct to consider such tapes dangerous if leaked. Given the general sloppiness of the 9/11 Commission, one could understand their reluctance to allow access to the tapes. But why destroy them? Is the CIA incapable of protecting two videotapes from exposure? That sounds like a stretch for an explanation, especially after waterboarding became such a controversial issue at about the same time.

Frankly, the timing stinks. The tapes sat unmolested in a vault for at least two years without the CIA worrying about the potential damage from a leak. The Inspector General had long since concluded that the interrogations did not break the law. However, as soon as Congress began debating the specific interrogation technique that the tapes depicted, someone decided that they represented a danger to the agents. It looks a lot more like destroying evidence than tightening security.

–ANDREW SULLIVAN says this smacks of a Banana Republic:

What defines such a republic? How about an executive that ignores the rule of law, commits war-crimes and then destroys the actual evidence? Today’s bombshell is that the CIA has done just that with respect to tapes made recording the torture of enemy combatants. Read the whole story. We live in a country where the government can detain indefinitely, torture in secret, and then secretly destroy the tapes of torture sessions to protect its own staff..

There’s a lot more blog reaction HERE.