CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
White House Heavily Involved in CIA Tape Destruction
The CIA is on a roll lately with news that it destroyed taped “harsh” interrogations of detainees. The Justice Department recently warned a federal judge to back off of an inquiry as to whether the tapes’ destruction violated a court order. The department also asked congressional committees to back off of their independent investigations – as if Congress does not have a constitutionally mandated oversight role.
Just today we learned from the New York Times that four White House lawyers, including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and former White House counsel Harriet Miers, took part in the discussions about whether or not the videotapes should be destroyed. We know that no one in the White House suggested the taped interrogations be preserved, and in fact, several officials claim that the White House went as far as providing “vigorous sentiment” that the tapes be destroyed. This is just another case of Bush administration officials trying once again to hide their criminal activity. The White House cannot be trusted to investigate itself and at this point, only an independent prosecutor can fully investigate the matter without the Justice Department attempting to influence the process. The argument that the tapes needed to be destroyed in order to protect the operatives just does not hold water. If that were the case then virtually all of the documents in the CIA’s possession would need to be destroyed. Congress and the courts are right to investigate this matter. If it is found that criminal activity did take place, whether it be the destruction of the tapes or the interrogations the tapes depicted, those responsible must be held accountable – no matter who they are.
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites.
We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published.
Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.