TPM's Timeline of the CIA's Torture Tapes

[ProSense]

TPM's Timeline of the CIA's Torture Tapes

By Spencer Ackerman and Paul Kiel - December 11, 2007, 4:18PM
For years, the CIA denied recording any interrogations of al-Qaeda detainees. For years, the Bush administration denied issuing any legal authorization for torture. And for years, members of Congress claimed ignorance of what the CIA and the Bush administration had in store for detained members of al-Qaeda. All of these denials have proven false.

There's a tremendous amount that remains unknown about CIA interrogations of al-Qaeda, the recording of those interrogations, and the destruction of those recordings. Determining just what is known is confusing, as is sorting out when crucial developments occurred. To provide a measure of clarity, TPMmuckraker has compiled a timeline of relevant events over the past five years. Since the core of the current controversy isn't about the destruction of the tapes but the interrogation methods those tapes captured -- which is of course unknown -- we included milestones on the administration's road to developing interrogation policy.

Invaluable research assistance was provided by Adrianne Jeffries, Peter Sheehy, and Andrew Berger. Mistakes in compiling this information are entirely our own, and we hope you'll alert us in comments to any errors we've made.

February 7, 2002: President Bush signs an executive order that says Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not apply to al-Qaeda detainees.

2002:: Al-Qaeda members Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri are captured and interrogated in secret CIA prisons. At least some of the interrogations are videotaped.

The precise date of the interrogations that were taped is not known. However, there are some clues. As early as the spring of 2002, the CIA began using "harsh interrogation methods" on Zubaydah, including waterboarding. As for Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, he was not captured until the fall, as late as November. He told a military tribunal in March of this year that "from the time I was arrested... they have been torturing me," and that he'd made up stories in order to get interrogators to stop.

August 1, 2002:: Jay Bybee, the chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, issues a memo that restricts the definition of torture to physical pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." A still-classified memo from roughly the same time period, known as the Second Bybee Memo, reportedly gets specific about the legality of certain prospective CIA interrogation techniques.

September, 2002:: The leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees receive a CIA briefing on interrogation techniques considered for al-Qaeda detainees. The content of that briefing is highly disputed. Both Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and ex-Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) say they were not briefed on actual interrogation techniques in use by the CIA. Ex-Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) says otherwise. The briefing or briefings do not mention any interrogations being recorded. There is no known protest from any member of Congress present.

February - December 2002: The Senate and House intelligence committees conduct a joint review into the intelligence preceding the 9/11 attacks. Jointly chaired by Sens. Graham and Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Reps. Goss and Pelosi, it is not told by the CIA of any recorded interrogations.

November 27, 2002: President Bush signs into law a bill creating the 9/11 Commission.

February, 2003: CIA General Counsel Scott Muller briefs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about interrogation techniques now in use by CIA. According to then-ranking member Jane Harman (D-CA), the briefing raised "serious concerns." Muller also gave some indication that there were videotapes of some al-Qaeda detainees and reason to believe that the tapes might be in danger of destruction. Harman writes a classified letter to the CIA general counsel's office, warning "against destruction of any videotapes." Reportedly, Porter Goss (R-FL), the committee chairman and future CIA director, warns against destroying the tapes as well.

more

[ProSense]

1. Kick! n/t

[L. Coyote]

2. Timelines are instructive, so here's another detailed one.

..... here's a detailed one. http://www.slate.com/id/2179607/sidebar/2179658 /

FROM: Ifs and Buts = If the CIA hadn't destroyed those tapes, what would be different?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2444290

In the uproar over the destruction by the CIA of taped interrogations of suspected al-Qaida operatives in the aftermath of Sept. 11, we are discovering creative new ways to speculate about past events. The pastime has begun with what should have been done differently—finger-pointing at congressional Democrats who'd been briefed about the tapes and remained silent, or distress over the failure to inform superiors at the CIA or the Bush administration. But here's a different thought experiment: How would the national debate over torture have changed if we'd known about the CIA tapes all along? How would our big terror trials and Supreme Court cases have played out?

Yes, this is also a speculative enterprise, but it's critical to understanding the extent of the CIA's wrongdoing here. And we have a benchmark. When the photos from Abu Ghraib were leaked in 2004, a national uproar ensued. Video of hours of repetitive torture could have had a similarly significant impact—the truism about the power of images holds. If we are right about that—and we think we are—this evidence that has been destroyed would have fundamentally changed the legal and policy backdrop for the war on terror in ways we've only begun to figure out.

.....................By Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick - Dec. 10, 2007 - http://www.slate.com/id/2179607 /

[mod mom]

3. That's a good one-bookmarked!

[ProSense]

4. It's not an unnamed official making the claim.

Both Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and ex-Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) say they were not briefed on actual interrogation techniques in use by the CIA. Ex-Rep. Porter Goss (R-FL) says otherwise. The briefing or briefings do not mention any interrogations being recorded.

It's Porter Goss' word against Pelosi and Graham's. Hmmm, who should I believe?

[L. Coyote]

8. One of the three, the one who purged non-loyalists from CIA for Bush, may be a target

Does that help? I got more clues, if not. The one linked to influence peddlers.....

[ProSense]

10. Subpoena Porter Goss! n/t

[seemslikeadream]

5. Jay S. Bybee July 10, 1992

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE5DD103CF933A25754C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

The lawyer, Jay S. Bybee, confirmed in a telephone interview today that he had called the prosecutor, Gail McKenzie, twice in early November, just before the Administration decided to extend an additional $500 million in agricultural loan guarantees to Iraq.

But Mr. Bybee denied that the calls were an attempt to influence Ms. McKenzie's investigation into allegations that senior Iraqi officials were involved in a multibillion-dollar bank fraud in the United States and that they used some of the money to build Baghdad's huge military arsenal.

Rather, he said, the White House was concerned that both the Agriculture and State Departments were rushing through the loan program, and he wanted to know if she had any evidence that could embarrass the White House if it approved the credit extension.

"It wasn't the indictments we were concerned about," said Mr. Bybee, who now teaches law at Louisiana State University. "We were concerned about being embarrassed if we went ahead and guaranteed loans for Iraq given the track record at the same time the Justice Department was indicting Iraqi officials."

Asked if his calls could be viewed as an obstruction of justice, Mr. Bybee said: "Baloney. To the best of my recollection I made it clear to her that I had no intention of influencing anything she did on the case. She didn't seem uncomfortable, and we had a very friendly, professional conversation."

Mr. Bybee, who said that the White House yesterday found and read him his notes of the phone conversations, denied that he had been ordered to call Ms. McKenzie by the chief White House counsel, C. Boyden Gray, but could not recall how he did come to call her. Nor could he say why he did not ask the Justice Department for information about the case, which would have been the normal channel. "On reflection, I probably should have," he said.





http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Jay_Bybee

In Gibson v. Matthews (F.2d, 1991), Bybee argued that a pregnant woman serving time in federal prison for bank robbery had no constitutional right to have an abortion.

In Bowen v. Kendrick (1988), Bybee defended the Adolescent Family Life Act, which "provides grants to public and private agencies for services for pregnant adolescents and adolescent parents." The act funds religious as well as public organizations with the restriction that the funding will be used for "counseling and educational services for adolescents, including abstinence only policy, but not including family planning services or abortion services." Bybee argued that awarding grants to religious groups does not violate the constitutional requirement of separation between church and state.

In High-Tech Gays v. Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (F.2d, 1990) Bybee defended a mandatory screening process for all "known or suspected " gay employees arguing that their participation in "acts of sexual misconduct or perversion indicative of moral turpitude, poor judgment, or lack of regard for the laws of society."
He has also argued in a law review article that "homosexuals" are "emotionally unstable" and that banning discrimination based on sexual orientation creates "preferences" favoring "homosexuals," instead of protecting them. (a)

As a states' rights advocate, Bybee argues that because "the federal courts have an affirmative obligation to enhance state powers and limit Congressional power," acts such as the Violence Against Women Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act are unconstitutional. (b)

Bybee disagrees with the 17th Amendment, which calls for the popular election of senators, claiming it is a "failed system gone awry" that can only be remedied by "returning to election of the U.S. Senate by state legislatures." (b)






DEAD BECAUSE OF A LIE

[L. Coyote]

6. K & R

[BelgianMadCow]

7. The historical perspective is important. Great summary. K&R

[ProSense]

9. Info from today's hearing:

Rockefeller on tapes hearing: ‘Useful’ but not complete.

[EFerrari]

11. Kick