I also have to wonder how a direction to quit taping the torture and preserving that evidence of torture that had been standard to take and keep fits in to the overall scheme of duites. No wonder people got so snitty with the USA (was it Charlton?) who wanted to push having all interrogations taped.

Congressional investigators have turned up no evidence that anyone in the Bush administration openly advocated the tapes’ destruction, according to officials familiar with a set of classified documents forwarded to Capitol Hill.

Well, isn’t that nice? I highly doubt it is true (there have already been reports that one or more WH officials were fairly enthusiastic on the destruction; the locals here have placed smart money on Addington); but even if it was true, that is not the freaking standard of care. The Administration was under a direct legal, ethical and moral duty to affirmatively see to it that the tapes were preserved. Wantonly and willfully standing around while they were destroyed, without taking steps to prevent it, is the dead nuts equivalent to authorizing their destruction.

They didn’t have the OLC opinion, but according to some of the articles, they had authorization from WH lawyers – including a thumbs up to burying alive.

I still find the fact that no one is mentioning DOJ (other than in the context of its own in-house efforts) and for several reasons. First off, you have on the record DOJ and other sources (like the GITMO team) who made in house complaints very early on that there were illegal interrogation tactics being used. So – why didn’t DOJ issue any warnings about preservation once those complaints began to surface? That’s where I thought Mukasey’s initial pick of Wainstein was extra interesting, since he was wrapped in at FBI during a lot of those operative time frames – as counsel and as COS.

But more than that, CIA demanded OLC memos to cover its torturers, but then never bothered, despite the years of wrangling over destroying the tapes, to get an OLC memo that authorized destruction of interrogation materials? I don’t see any journalists asking the very basic question of, “Why didn’t you ask the Dept of Justice for its opinion on destruction?” Or even asking a source to confirm that no one at DOJ knew about the tapes at all.

Bc I don’t believe that for a minute. They knew, from multiple reports and complaints from people like Coleman and Fallon that there were allegations of abuse, coercion, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatement and torture. But no one ever issues any advice to preserve? And no one ever even asks if there is any evidence? No one at DOJ is reviewing any of the Zubaydah info for possible prosecutions on related items like money laundering, etc.? No one at DOJ had any clue about any of this?

The biggest head scratcher, though, would be that no one said anything to DOJ while Yoo was still there in 02/03 about coughing up a memo authorizing evidence destruction. Not that he was always a sharer when it came to his OLC opinions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12…..38;emc=rss

Mr. Yoo said he had always duly notified Justice Department officials or other agencies about the opinions he provided except when “I was told by people very high in the government not to for classification reasons.”

I just don’t buy that no one at DOJ knew enough about torture allegations to issue a direction to preserve, and I also don’t buy that no one there was ever consulted on destruction of the tapes and authorization for that activity. And even if I were inclined to buy it, I’d still be “perplexed” over why no journalist is even asking about where DOJ fit into the conversations on whether or not it was OK to destroy evidence.

a) Destruction of records outside the territorial limits of the continental United States is authorized whenever, during a state of war between the United States and any other nation or when hostile action by a foreign power appears imminent, the head of the agency that has custody of the records determines that their retention would be prejudicial to the interest of the United States, or that they occupy space urgently needed for military purposes and are without sufficient administrative, legal, research, or other value to warrant their continued preservation (44 U.S.C. 3311).

(b) Within 6 months after the destruction of any records under this authorization, a written statement describing the character of the records and showing when and where the disposal was accomplished shall be submitted to NARA (NWML) by the agency official who directed the disposal. (ed. note: see also 44 U.S.C. 3311).

Err… They haven’t complied with any of that…

Are US Embassies considered US soil? Wasn’t there some argument that the tapes were never on US soil? Is this relevant?

APEC Summit -
“The US President’s official entourage included Andrew Card, Jr., White House Chief of Staff; Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser; James Kelly, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Department of State; and James Moriarty, Senior Director for Asia Affairs, National Security Council.”

*****
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/trvl/pres/5218.htm

October 18-21, 2003
Thailand
Bangkok
Attended the APEC Summit meeting.