Dems Seek Probe re CIA Tapes; Destruction a Plus for Suspects' Defense?
Democratic legislators reacted angrily today to news that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency had destroyed at least two videotapes of harsh interrogations of al-Qaida terrorist suspects in its custody, and called for an investigation. Meanwhile, observers predicted potential litigation and an adverse effect on the prosecution of suspected terrorists.
“Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts accused the CIA of ‘a cover-up,’ while Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois said it was possible that people at the agency had engaged in obstruction of justice,” reports the New York Times. “Both called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate.”
As detailed in an earlier ABAJournal.com post, the agency reportedly destroyed in 2005, in the midst of various investigations, videotapes of at least two 2002 interrogations of al-Qaida suspects. One reason for the destruction reportedly was to protect agents involved from potential legal repercussions.
However, in an e-mail to employees Thursday, Gen. Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, said the tapes were destroyed to safeguard undercover officers and because they were no longer needed for intelligence purposes, according to the Times article.
Some legislators said they found such justifications dubious, including Kennedy. “Does the director believe the C.I.A.’s buildings are not secure?” he said today, according to the Times. “That excuse won’t wash.”
A Christian Science Monitor article predicted lawsuits over the CIA’s destruction of the tapes, and Reuters reported that lawyers for defendants in terrorism cases say the destruction of the tapes could derail the prosecution.
“First, it’s a criminal offense to destroy evidence,” Clive Stafford Smith told the news agency. He heads Reprieve, a British-based human rights group that represents prisoners held by the U.S. at the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
“Second, if you do, the American case law is quite clear,” Smith says. “The charges get dismissed against the individual if it’s evidence that would have helped the defense.”
