The Priest article increased their value.
And the Brinkema request threatened to disrupt the tight chain of secrecy and compartmentalization within the executive.

So I suspect that the Brinkema request was an important motivator for destruction, and I wonder about the date of destruction. If 2nov05, then this theory is off base (and maybe just the priest article spooked them). If after 3nov05, then I wonder whether discovery concerns played a role.

Regardless, if they were destroyed to conceal from the Brinkema request, then a crime may have been committed. Criminal torture, perjury about torture by Gonzales (who obviously knew about the tapes existence at his AG appointment hearing in jan05) and then criminal obstruction of justice as part of a cover up.
Hence my skepticism about prior reports suggesting Gonzales was advocating for their preservation. I venture a guess that he wanted them destroyed, especially after 3nov05.

That is, of course, a pile of crap. The people that put Plame in the media are Traitor Cheney, Traitor Bush, Traitor Libby and their other traitor friends. As to the precious CIA troops you feign such concern over, they, and their superiors, forfeited their right to “protection” when they agreed to star the government authorized equivalent of a criminal snuff film. There are common and accurate words to describe these people. War criminals.

the Clandestine Section and Chief were protecting the (CIA) troops. The Chief knew he would probably have trouble, but he did it anyway. That is why I call it bravery.

The fact that the interrogation was done is a known admitted fact.

Let’s face it and admit that most here just want the pictures to shock people with, but it would do more than that. It would endanger people that were doing what their Government told them to do.

It seems like a real turnaround from people that were so outraged that CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name became public, but she put her own face on the cover of Vanity Fair all by herself.

Only if you follow the Constitution, which prohibits and excludes from government power the power to engage in Bills of Attainder. One of the claims I’d like to see made to the Sup Ct bc everyone seems to be forgetting that no branch of our government has the right to issue bills of attainder, i.e., to engage in pains and punishments of a person without trial and due process.

more likely (b) the original tapes were routinely being copied and/or transmitted elsewhere for analysis and archiving shortly after being shot, so there was no longer any need to retain original recordings indefinitely onsite.

I agree. And thanks for your whole post, because it’s pretty much the same thing I’ve been thinking.

While I would never, ever, participate in such an endeavor as “reviewing torture,” and am dismayed and horrified that any psychologists did participate in such activities, I’ve been considering quite a bit what would be necessary in order for anyone to review the tapes.

Assuming they are recorded, saved, and transmitted every 48 hours, you have to assume someone going through them simply to extract the important parts. Then you have to assume transcribing followed by translation. And then you’ve got to have people view the tapes along with reading the translations. With written reports, I’d assume… otherwise why bother having experts review them? This would not be a rapid process. It would take a lot of time. I can understand the need to rerecord tapes, rather than just keep sending new tapes. And digital storage is much easier to transport or transmit. But the actual transcribing and then translating, together with the need to analyze by various disciplines would seem to need a great deal of time and effort. So doing it “on site” just totally stretches credibility.

This argues for other evidence still available elsewhere.

So, if “tapes were destroyed” that tells us nothing. And the

absence

of any other information suggests something…. that the other stuff, transcripts and translations and digital saved information probably still must exist… likely in multiple copies.

The 48 hour recycling process thus seems to be more a function of how much fits on a given tape than anything else. So where is the other info and how/when will it surface?

Even if true, the claim that the tapes were kept only at the interrogation site both (1) does not preclude that the tapes might have been copied and the copies physically transported elsewhere (like to the US), (2) does not preclude that the recordings on the tapes may have been transmitted elsewhere while the originals stayed at the interrogation site, and (3) does not explain how the recently discovered copies — which appear to have been the precipitating event for the entire public disclosure — came into being. In fact, the existence of any copies at all may help to support an analysis either (a) that the original tapes were copied intentionally in specific cases, or (b) that they were copied as part of the ordinary process, or else (c) that the original tapes were stored insecurely; and any of these 3 options would blow the story they’re trying to tell in the NYT article out of the water.

Similarly: Even if true, the claim that after a certain point the tapes were recycled on a couple-of-days basis hits those same points (1) (2) and (3) above. In fact, it may help to support an analysis that either (a) there was a huge analyst team onsite that was able to fully process everything the detainee said within a couple days (unlikely?), or more likely (b) the original tapes were routinely being copied and/or transmitted elsewhere for analysis and archiving shortly after being shot, so there was no longer any need to retain original recordings indefinitely onsite.

(One possible reason for making copies: video format conversion from European-style 50 Hz PAL vs. US/Japan-style 60 Hz NTSC — though there are certainly ways to shoot in NTSC while in Europe.)

As chris c pointed out, Poland and Romania are late comers to the EU; their politics are quite different from western Europe.

But I also note the physical flight path from Iraq to these two countries; these two are readily accessible with no flyover western Europe, only over Turkey and countries in which leaked Swiss intelligence documents say CIA had black sites (. They are also a skip-hop-jump from Kosovo, where KFOR Camp Bondsteel is located — a US-operated facility that is off-limits to inspectors from the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT).

And we also know that these two countries received accommodations from the U.S.

Further, I note the CPT made inspections in these two countries:

Poland, in October 2004, and in May 2000

Romania, in 09/2002 – 02/2003

Interesting windows…

While the reports on Poland are available in English, Romania’s report is available only in French. When I have time I will have to translate the Romanian report; I’m afraid my French is just rusty enough that parsing would be tough without help. Is something hiding in plain sight?