Torture Tapes and CIA Retirements
The NYT originally broke the news of the torture tape destruction on December 6, 2007. And on October 25, 2007, the government informed Leonie Brinkema that they had found three unrelated tapes of interrogations that should have been disclosed during the Moussaoui trial. Those two events were the first we had confirmation of the scandal surrounding the CIA’s taping–and subsequent destruction–of torture tapes.
Those events followed–distantly–the retirement of Jose Rodriguez, who we know was in charge of CTC when the torture tapes were made and was later in charge of Clandestine Services when the torture tapes were destroyed. Rodriguez’s replacement was reported publicly on September 14 and he left on September 30.
The torture tape revelations also followed–distantly–the September 25 withdrawal of the nomination of John Rizzo to be CIA General Counsel, a function had he filled on an interim basis for some years. We know Rizzo was involved in the authorization of torture, though he claimed to be mysteriously out of the loop of 2005 discussions about whether or not to destroy the torture tapes.
Given the lapse of time between the Rodriguez retirement and the Rizzo withdrawal, it was unclear whether there was a connection.
And while it’s still unclear whether there’s a connection, it turns out the timing of CIA internal discussions about the torture tape destruction and Rodriguez’ retirement and Rizzo’s withdrawal is much closer than we knew.
The torture tapes FOIA reveals that the CIA was discussing the torture tape destruction on September 25 and October 5, 2007. It describes a Top Secret September 25, 2007 email “discussing the review and disposition of the tapes” and must have attached these earlier discussions (that’s why they were included in this Vaughn Index). And it describes a Secret October 5, 2007 email which appears to link to the earlier email approving of the destruction of the tapes. John Durham has claimed a law enforcement exemption over the latter of these two emails, suggesting that release of that email would interfere with whatever investigation of the torture tape destruction he is doing.
Again, not that there’s a connection, but CIA was linking to discussions that Rodriquez was involved in and Rizzo may have been involved in at precisely the time they effectively ended their CIA careers.
Is Rizzo’s CIA career really over?
Bob in AZ
Regarding our conversation last Friday about a certain John Radsan, currently a Professor at the William Mitchell College of Law here in St. Paul, this quote from him in your NYT article reference (page 2) is “interesting”:
If the NYT was more assiduous in their fact-checking, they might have included a more nuanced depiction of Professor Radsan’s CV:
This would be as a CIA Assistant General Counsel working in the CIA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC) at the very same time that John Rizzo was heading that very same CIA OGC.
Pray tell Professor Radsan, are you suggesting you are in need of prosecution, and if not, why not?
Retraction in order. Scott Mueller still held the CIA General Counsel position in 2004, so Rizzo was merely another assistant GC worker bee, albeit one who was up to his eyeballs in the GWOT.
I’m getting too sloppy. Typo: Scott Mueller should be Scott Muller.
Muller was still there, but I think it possible–if not likely–that since Rizzo preceded Muller and did the torture approval he remained closely involved throughout.
Yeah, Rizzo was certainly intimately involved. Just not as the head, or even acting head, of the CIA’s OGC at the time.
phenomenal series!
As an aside, as a retired Psychiatrist, I still get piles of throw-away journals. One is the Psychiatric Times which I still peruse once and a while. In this issue, I was heartened to see that the lead article was Mental Health Professionals in the “Enhanced” Interrogation Room. It’s a reasonable article, documenting the involvement of mental health types in the Torture Program, with commentary on how the various professional organizations have responded…
I’m tempted to contact Professor Radsan at his pubic email address of [email protected] and ask him a simple set of questions:
1. Were you aware of the existence of the AZ interrogation videotapes or any other interrogation videotapes during your tenure as a CIA Assistant General Counsel during 2002-2004?
2. Were you personally aware of the Federal courts’ orders regarding the CIA’s production of any interrogation videotapes during your tenure as a CIA Assistant General Counsel during 2002-2004?
3. Was the CIA’s Office of General Counsel aware of the Federal courts’ orders regarding the CIA’s production of any interrogation videotapes during your tenure as a CIA Assistant General Counsel during 2002-2004?
If yes is answered to any questions, explain how your comment in this NYT article applies to you:
That’s getting rather personal, don’t you think? *g*
Bob in AZ
(PS I only read that sentence 5 or six times over the course of several hours before I noticed…)