No Comment — December 10, 2007, 8:26 pm

What Difference Would It Make?

The Department of Justice and the CIA are undertaking a “preliminary investigation” to determine whether a more formal probe of the destruction of the two tapes is appropriate. The effort on the Justice side is entrusted to Kenneth L. Wainstein, the assistant attorney general responsible for counterterrorism efforts, who is coordinating with the CIA’s Inspector General, John L. Helgerson, on the probe.

The major issues that need to be addressed are internal to the CIA and the Justice Department. Both made false official statements to a federal court in Virginia as well as to the American public. The question is how deep the deception ran, who masterminded it, and what purposes it served. And neither the public nor Congress should accept an answer from Mr. Wainstein or Mr. Helgerson, because both are far too close to the issues which need to be scrutinized. As Senator Biden already noted, this is a matter which can only be managed by a special prosecutor appointed by Attorney General Mukasey.

Justice Department lawyers involved in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui have been very quick to insist that the disclosures are “irrelevant” because Moussaoui pleaded guilty. The Justice Department lawyers handling these cases have a long track record of hyperventilation and lack of candor dealing with the courts and the public. It’s distressing, but not surprising that they should behave this way. They are after all mimicking the posture that the Administration itself assumes on a political level, and they are thereby continuing a long Bush Administration practice of politicizing the court process.

But their doubtful reassurances provide a reason to pause and think that question through. Over at Slate, Emily Bazelon and Dahlia Lithwick provide just such an exercise, and they do it very persuasively.

So, first stop: the time line. What was happening when the tapes were destroyed? If you heard my interview today on Amy Goodman’s show, you know that the decision occurred at the intersection of two high-profile litigations: the Government had just settled on prosecuting Jose Padilla, and it was facing the demands of the Moussaoui judge, Leonie Brinkema, who was pressing the Government to turn over the tapes, if they existed.

One of the two men tortured on the CIA tapes is Abu Zubaydah, whose confession supplied the main evidence supporting the warrant issued for Jose Padilla’s arrest in May 2002 at O’Hare Airport. Padilla was promptly labeled a “dirty bomber” and an enemy combatant and tossed in a brig for 43 months. When he was finally prosecuted on a conspiracy theory, in a Florida federal court in 2007, Padilla’s lawyers claimed Zubaydah had implicated him under torture. The Justice Department dismissed these allegations as “meritless,” since there was no proof Zubaydah had been tortured. It’s bad enough that the DoJ just “lost” the tapes of Padilla himself being interrogated. It now also seems clear he was first grabbed on the say-so of a crazy person who was willing to say anything to stop the abuse he experienced. One of Padilla’s lawyers tells us that if these tapes had been disclosed, it would have been far more likely that the Supreme Court would have taken up the case for a second time, when Padilla tried to go back to the high court in April 2006.

Next: Moussaoui, who, let’s not forget, faced the death penalty. The same fall that the CIA tapes were destroyed, according to the Post’s timeline, federal district court Judge Leonie Brinkema ordered the government to turn over evidence of specific interrogations relating to the allegations against Moussaoui. His lawyers reportedly wanted to know whether the al-Qaida trio of Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had inculpated Moussaoui, or failed to name him. According to the New York Times, CIA lawyers told federal prosecutors that the CIA did not possess any such evidence.

That means the two biggest terror trials we’ve had since Sept. 11 were predicated on torture evidence that was then destroyed. The government has argued that al-Qaida operatives cannot be tried because the evidence against them is secret and threatens national security. But the real rationale is much worse: The evidence against them is wholly unreliable.

Now remember that the lawyers acting on behalf of the defendants in these cases all went to court not only to get production of this evidence, which would have had obvious relevance to their cases, but also to insure that the Government was not destroying evidence. The response from the Bush Justice Department? It argued that the lawyers were whacky conspiracy theorists to even suggest that documents might be destroyed. Of course, we now know that the CIA was very actively engaged in discussion of destroying the evidence throughout this time, and this is already some evidence suggesting that the Justice Department’s advice figured significantly in the process—indeed, so did the CIA’s Inspector General.

When the detainees initially asked for this evidence to be preserved in January 2005, the Bush administration opposed their request, saying “this case is utterly devoid of any circumstances warranting such an order” because “there is no evidence of any document destruction in this instant case” and, in fact, the government had “numerous reasons … for ensuring the preservation of the documents in question.” Apparently those reasons weren’t good enough for the CIA. Given that the Guantanamo detainees say that many of them were implicated solely on the basis of other prisoners’ tortured confessions, video examples of that torture would only have helped them. These defendants have argued all along that the evidence against them has no weight because people say anything under torture. The tapes would have made their point graphically, indisputably, unforgettably.

So the Justice Department tells us it all makes no difference. This statement reflects a Justice Department which believes it is an arm of the President, committed to serving his personal will by securing the conviction and destruction of anyone he labels an enemy. It is not a Justice Department that has even the most remote interest in the word “justice.” And its conduct continues to demonstrate this fact every single day. As Bazelon and Lithwick put it: “Those confessions, and others like them, have been the underpinning for much of the government’s legal assault on the rule of law in recent years, from free and open trials, to secret expansions of executive powers.” Those confessions rest upon torture. And this is a truth the Government seeks to deny, to suppress, to eradicate. But in so doing it is waging a war, not against terrorism, but against justice.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

January 2018

Strandings

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Future of Queer

Swap Meet

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Newlyweds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Body Politic

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Munich, 1938

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Monumental Error·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1899, the art critic Layton Crippen complained in the New York Times that private donors and committees had been permitted to run amok, erecting all across the city a large number of “painfully ugly monuments.” The very worst statues had been dumped in Central Park. “The sculptures go as far toward spoiling the Park as it is possible to spoil it,” he wrote. Even worse, he lamented, no organization had “power of removal” to correct the damage that was being done.

Illustration by Steve Brodner
Post
CamperForce·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

After losing their savings in the stock market crash of 2008, seniors Barb and Chuck find seasonal employment at Amazon fulfillment centers.

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall

Factor by which the brightness of a recent supernova exceeded that of all the stars in the Milky Way:

20

Fetuses yawn.

Trump’s former chief strategist, whom Trump said had “lost his mind,” issued a statement saying that Trump’s son did not commit treason; the US ambassador to the United Nations announced that “no one questions” Trump’s mental stability; and the director of the CIA said that Trump, who requested “killer graphics” in his intelligence briefings, is able to read.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today