Case of CIA tapes looks to be headed for inconclusive end

The case of destroyed CIA tapes of alleged gross abuse of detainees held by the U.S. is nearing its close, according to The Washington Post.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John H. Durham, who is leading the investigation, recently bestowed immunity from prosecution on a CIA lawyer who reviewed the tapes years before they were destroyed to determine whether they diverged from written records about the interrogations, two sources familiar with the case said. That could signal that the case is reaching its final stages. Durham has been spotted at Justice Department headquarters in Washington over the past few weeks, in another signal that his work is intensifying.

The agency lawyer, John McPherson, could appear before a grand jury later this month or in April, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation continues. CIA lawyers have been essential to understanding the episode because they offered advice to agency personnel about handling the tapes, and whether they should have been included when agency records were turned over in other court cases. McPherson is not thought to be under criminal jeopardy but had previously hesitated to testify, the sources said.

Emptywheel's bmaz doesn't see much coming from this entire exercise:

If the reporting is accurate, there are several things of interest here. First off, there is little, if any, accountability in the offing. False statements against a secondary official giving closed door testimony is not going to take us rule of law adherents where we want to go. And if this official is indeed covert, the odds of charges really being pursued are not very good; not to mention that any prosecution, even if it were pursued, would be fastidiously kept narrow and constrained by CIPA procedures. I find very little hope for anything useful here.

One curious passage in the story relates to the defense agency officials are claiming for scrubbing the evidence: security (of course....).

Durham and a special team have gathered and pored over sensitive documents to determine whether destruction of the tapes constituted a crime. Agency officials say the motive was innocent: After the emergence of widely reviled images of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, CIA veterans feared that the disclosure could compromise their security. Investigators, however, have been probing whether the tapes were destroyed in anticipation of a congressional or federal investigation, which could violate obstruction of justice laws.

So if (or when) nothing is done to hold those accountable for these tapes' disappearance, is security going to be the reason? And what can't be done in the name of security now? For instance, this is the age of a litany of Bush/Obama state secrets claims, the effort to conceal detainee photos (now a Democratic team effort led by Joe Lieberman, wiretapping, torture, the list goes on. What's the line here?

The U.S. may not have a threshold for responsibility, but President Obama believes Indonesia does. Obama's accountability-free mantra is "look forward, not backward" when confronted by America's post-9/11 detainee/war policies, but not when it comes to Indonesia's human rights abuses. Per Glenn Greenwald:

In 2008, Indonesia empowered a national commission to investigate human rights abuses committed by its own government under the U.S.-backed Suharto regime "in an attempt to finally bring the perpetrators to justice," and Obama was asked in this interview: "Is your administration satisfied with the resolution of the past human rights abuses in Indonesia?" He replied:

We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can't go forward without looking backwards . . . .

(Emphasis mine)

That's convenient. What is good for me is not for thee.

We're desperate, get used to it

While the world chippers about a couple of starfucking attention whores getting into the White House, our president is about to add 30,000 troops into a sinkhole of a war. But that's tomorrow, when the Salahi's will probably get a TV show on Bravo. What about today? Today's ignored national affront goes to the noble Supreme Court further -- and maybe permanently -- suppressing torture photos.

NYT:

The justices sent the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, which ruled in 2008 that the pictures should be released to the public. But at the request of the Obama administration, the Second Circuit later postponed its own order, setting the stage for the administration to take the case to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, the justices told the Second Circuit to give “further consideration” to the issue in light of a Congressional action authorizing the Defense Department to keep the pictures from the public. With the issue on its way back to the Second Circuit, a final decision will probably not be made for months.

In light of tomorrow, that is downright a tragedy masterpiece. This is the week to remember Obama's first year by.

I hope Black Francis gives the White House the finger tomorrow night.

One step closer to the disappearance of those detainee photos

The Senate passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill (with the Lieberman amendment that will usurp Congress's power to hold prerogative over detainee abuse photos, giving it to the Defense secretary.) by a margin of 79 to 19 yesterday.

And of course, I have to read about this on the Web site of The Reporters Committee of Freedom of the Press. No disrespect for them, but when RCFP and the ACLU are the only voices pushing against this, it's a sad state of affairs in the press. RCFP:

In a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the ACLU urged him to "not invoke your new and discretionary authority to suppress images of abuse."

[...]

"We are deeply disappointed that Congress has voted to give the Defense Department the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct,” said the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer in a release. “Secretary Gates should be guided by the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos would ultimately be far more damaging to national security than their disclosure.”

I wonder what Republicans think of such executive power, something they suddenly rail about after supporting unprecedented presidential power for George W. Bush? I wonder how Democrats feel, being the majority and all, exposing themselves once again as frauds and hypocrites after railing against Bush's similar excesses while they were a minority? I can't imagine Gates doing what Obama doesn't want. And Obama seems to want to suppress this proof of American war crimes. Torture and murder of detainees is not America. But Dick Cheney made it the centerpiece of our global policy. Or at least that's how our "friends and enemies" see it. Now Barack Obama covers it up. I don't know how the Cheneyites could have it any better than complicity, cover up and a blind eye.

Me Knowing the Truth, I Cannot Concur

I hate to be so goddamned bitter all the time, but it gets sillier everyday with the lingering effects of the rank corpse that was the Bush adm. and their facilitators (and willing heirs) in the Obama White House. And this could either be a turning point or a grave dive into the further perverting of the law.

So now here's Lyle Denniston on those detainee abuse photos that Obama initially felt a need to be released, then quickly reversed and never looked back. Now he's been convinced to take this to the Supreme Court. Wow. From SCOTUS Blog:

Whether the Court actually rules on the issue, however, appears to depend upon whether the Administration is able, when Congress returns from summer break, to persuade the lawmakers to change the federal law at issue. The disclosure issue arises under the Freedom of Information Act, and proposals are now pending in Congress to undo the Second Circuit’s interpretation of the FOIA section at issue. If the legislation passes, the photos would be protected from public release, and there would be nothing left at issue legally. (There are no constitutional issues even implicit in this dispute; no one is claiming a constitutional basis for public access to the abuse photos.)

Although the case focuses on a single two-word phrase in one section of the FOIA, the dispute actually has major significance for transparency in wartime: at issue is whether the government can prevent the public disclosure of unclassified evidence of military misconduct during wartime, based on a generalized claim that release will threaten harm to U.S. military forces in the field.

Welcome to the Supreme Court Ms. Sotomayor.