WASHINGTON, Dec. 19, 2007
Report: Bush Lawyers Discussed CIA Tapes
Former AG Alberto Gonzales Took Part In Talks Over Interrogation Videos' Fate, Sources Say
-
(AP)
-
Play CBS Video Video CIA Grilled On Destroyed Tapes CIA director Michael Hayden went before a closed Senate hearing to explain the destruction of hundreds of interrogation tapes. David Martin reports.
-
Video Mukasey Questioned On CIA Tapes "CBS News RAW": Appearing in Washington, D.C., at his first news conference as attorney general, Michael Mukasey responds to numerous questions about the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes.
-
Interactive 21st Century Spying The biggest overhaul of the U.S. intelligence community in half a century.
-
Who's Who Spy Agency Chiefs A glimpse at those who have headed the Central Intelligence Agency since its inception.
Alberto Gonzales, the former attorney general who served as White House counsel until early 2005, was among those who took part, the officials said, along with David Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council, and Harriet Miers, who succeeded Gonzales as White House counsel.
A former senior intelligence official said there had been "vigorous sentiment" among some top White House officials to destroy the tapes, the Times reported. He said some believed in 2005 that revealing the tapes could have been damaging in light of the abuses exposed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Other officials, however, said no one at the White House advocated destroying the tapes. They acknowledged, though, that no White House lawyer gave a direct order to keep the tapes or advised that destroying them would be illegal, the Times reported.
The White House disputed the newspaper's account in a statement: "The New York Times' inference that there is an effort to mislead in this matter is pernicious and troubling, and we are formally requesting that NYT correct the sub-headline of this story."
The sub headline said White House involvement in discussions about the destruction of the tapes was more extensive than Bush adminstration officials have previously admitted.
Later Tuesday, a White House spokeswoman announced that the Times had agreed to correct the sub headline.
In a related development, a federal judge said the Bush administration must answer questions about the destruction of the videos, rejecting the government's efforts to keep the courts out of the investigation.
U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy on Tuesday ordered Justice Department lawyers to appear before him Friday at 11 a.m. (1600 GMT) to discuss whether destroying the tapes, which showed two al Qaeda suspects being questioned, violated a court order.
The Justice Department has urged Congress and the courts to back off, saying its investigators need time to complete their inquiry. Government attorneys say the courts do not have the authority to get involved in the matter and could jeopardize the case.
For now, at least, Kennedy disagreed. Attorneys in unrelated cases, meanwhile, began pressing other judges to demand information about the tapes.
In June 2005, Kennedy ordered the Bush administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos. The recordings involved suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The Justice Department argued that the videos were not covered by the order because the two men were being held in secret CIA prisons overseas, not at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
David Remes, a lawyer who represents Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo Bay, said the government was obligated to keep the tapes and he wants to be sure other evidence is not being destroyed.
"We want more than just the government's assurances. The government has given these assurances in the past and they've proven unreliable," Remes said. "The recent revelation of the CIA tape destruction indicates that the government cannot be trusted to preserve evidence."
Kennedy did not say why he was ordering the hearing or what he planned to ask. Even if the judge accepts the argument that the government did not violate his order, he still could raise questions about obstruction or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."
Meanwhile, lawyers for a man convicted of terrorism charges alongside Jose Padilla asked a federal judge in Miami Tuesday to force the government to turn over any remaining evidence regarding Zubaydah's interrogation. Prosecutors have acknowledged that Zubaydah provided information identifying Padilla as an al Qaeda operative working on a purported "dirty bomb" plot, leading to his May 2002 arrest at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.
Lawyer Ken Swartz said information about his client, convicted terrorism supporter Adham Amin Hassoun, might be found in those interrogations.
In a third case, this one involving another Guantanamo Bay detainee, attorney Jonathan Hafetz of the Brennan Center for Justice asked U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington to schedule a hearing. Kessler's order, filed in July 2005, is almost identical to Kennedy's, and Hafetz says he worries key evidence was destroyed.
The Justice Department had no comment on Kennedy's decision to hold a hearing. Its lawyers are working with the CIA to investigate the destruction of the tapes and urged Kennedy to give them space and time to let them investigate.
Remes had urged Kennedy not to comply.
"Plainly the government wants only foxes guarding this henhouse," Remes wrote in court documents this week.
The Bush administration has taken a similar strategy in its dealings with Congress on the issue. Last week, the Justice Department urged lawmakers to hold off on questioning witnesses and demanding documents because that evidence is part of a joint CIA-Justice Department investigation.
Attorney General Michael Mukasey also refused to give Congress details of the government's investigation into the matter Friday, saying doing so could raise questions about whether the inquiry was vulnerable to political pressure.
Kennedy served as a federal prosecutor during the Nixon and Ford administrations until he was named a federal magistrate judge in 1976. President Jimmy Carter appointed him to be a local Washington judge and President Bill Clinton appointed him to the federal bench.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Politics
Add a Comment See all 630 Comments
- Let''s see here. Bush says he only learned of the tapes a month ago, but his closest people were in on all the discussions from the start. I guess that means one of two things;
1. Bush is lying. Thats very probable since he has lied to us many times about everything.
2. Bush is just an incompitant figure head. Also very probable. The lying and corrupt Chaney is pulling the strings. - Reply to this comment
- Another cover-up how many does that make for 2007 at least 10 major ones?
Posted by mrconservatv
Hummmmmm? Thats a good question. I ran out of fingers and toes to count with! - Reply to this comment
- Congratulations Mr. Dunkin'''' Donuts SHIFT MANAGER guy!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by hungry1968
Now wait a minute. One minute I''m the cigarette butt picker upper guy at the Pentagon, and now I''m the Dunkin'' Doughnuts shift manager guy. WHich is it? - Reply to this comment
- A slug? Perhaps...but a slug who has worked his way to the top :)
Ahhhhhh....it''''s great to be an self motivated, hard working American. You have to admit it MrConservative, you gotta love this country....
Posted by poopusbuttus at 07:12 PM : Dec 19, 2007
All the way to the top?!?!
Congratulations Mr. Dunkin'' Donuts SHIFT MANAGER guy!! - Reply to this comment
- Without Bush Govt contract handouts poops would have to get a real job he sponging off the US taxpayer.
You''''re a slug.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by mrconservatv
A slug? Perhaps...but a slug who has worked his way to the top :)
Ahhhhhh....it''s great to be an self motivated, hard working American. You have to admit it MrConservative, you gotta love this country.... - Reply to this comment
- I wonder if Cheney was burning all the no bid contracts before a federal investigation?
Posted by the74blaster at 06:56 PM : Dec 19, 2007
Another cover-up how many does that make for 2007 at least 10 major ones? - Reply to this comment
- LOL! When it comes to poop the immortal Bugs Bunny said it best, "What a maroon!"
Posted by SgtRDS at 06:57 PM : Dec 19, 2007
LOL - Reply to this comment
- Posted by poopusbuttus at 06:54 PM : Dec 19, 2007
Without Bush Govt contract handouts poops would have to get a real job he sponging off the US taxpayer.
You''re a slug. - Reply to this comment
- Dont make me add you to my list....
Posted by poopusbuttus at 06:47 PM : Dec 19, 2007
That''''s a tuff one remembering six usernames, you need to make a list. GOOD LORD YOU''''RE MESSED UP
Posted by mrconservatv at 06:51 PM : Dec 19, 2007
LOL! When it comes to poop the immortal Bugs Bunny said it best, "What a maroon!" - Reply to this comment
- Yes Saddam was a bas***** (not unlike Cheney), but Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and posed no threat to us in any manner. This was a war of conquest and crusade and is a shame to America.
Posted by SgtRDS,
I would agree that is probably closer to the truth than GOP will ever admit.
I wonder what spending all that money in Iraq could have done for social security, rebuilding our nations highways, funding research for alternative fuels and in the form of tax relief to all of us?
Its a matter of priorities. Keep us dependent on nonrenewable fuels so the oil companies can rip us off and the defense contractors can rake profits in hand over fist.
I wonder if Cheney was burning all the no bid contracts before a federal investigation? - Reply to this comment
- Posted by j-whitman at 06:54 PM : Dec 19, 2007
Enjoy your dinner J bird. - Reply to this comment
- Chevron & Rice ripped off billions from Iraq''''s Oil For Food program & gave kickbacks to Saddam Hussein
Giuliani''''s business contacts funded the mastermind of 9/11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by j-whitman
More fabricated BS from JWHITMAN. Dude, you''re good at that sort of stuff. HAHAHA - Reply to this comment
- Dinner time,, catch ya''ll later
- Reply to this comment
- Dont make me add you to my list....
Posted by poopusbuttus at 06:47 PM : Dec 19, 2007
That''s a tuff one remembering six usernames, you need to make a list. GOOD LORD YOU''RE MESSED UP - Reply to this comment
- poopusbuttus,,,, State of the Union Address (Jan 2002) Bush states that anyone who funds, harbors, or engages in acts of terrorism will be taken out...
Chevron & Rice ripped off billions from Iraq''s Oil For Food program & gave kickbacks to Saddam Hussein
Giuliani''s business contacts funded the mastermind of 9/11 - Reply to this comment
- Dont make me add you to my list....
Posted by poopusbuttus at 06:47 PM : Dec 19, 2007
Oh poops has a list - Reply to this comment
- All Iraqi groups blame U.S. invasion for discord
See departure of ''''occupying forces'''' as key to reconciliation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by j-whitman
JWHIT: You''re slipping back into "Dummy" mode again. Dont make me add you to my list.... - Reply to this comment
- Bravo! Well said! Iraq did not attack us on 9-11, so using that as an excuse to invade Iraq would be like us invading China because the Japanese bombed us at Pearl harbor. Yes Saddam was a bas***** (not unlike Cheney), but Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and posed no threat to us in any manner. This was a war of conquest and crusade and is a shame to America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS
State of the Union Address (Jan 2002) Bush states that anyone who funds, harbors, or engages in acts of terrorism will be taken out.
SGTRetards: ever hear of Ansar Al-Islam? No, I didnt think you did. - Reply to this comment
- I could reference some more justifications for invading Iraq that ended up being fabrications, but they are uneccessary for making my point.
Now we are signing long term agreements for an indefinite presence by American troops?
I would say that is a huge FLIP FLOP on the Bushs part!
Would you not agree?
Posted by the74blaster at 06:35 PM : Dec 19, 2007
blaster....I disagree. The ends justify the means. - Reply to this comment
- poopusbuttus,,,,, Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 --- That attack came from friends, family & business associates of Bush & Giulani --- Here''s the results
All Iraqi groups blame U.S. invasion for discord
See departure of ''occupying forces'' as key to reconciliation - Reply to this comment
