老澳门开奖结果

Originally posted on .

New materials released last week in the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 ongoing FOIA proceedings seeking documents on the destruction of the torture videotapes add some details to the narrative in .

The materials are Vaughn indexes containing brief descriptions of 165 internal CIA electronic communications relating to the reasons behind the destruction of the tapes. The CIA continues to withhold the documents themselves, but descriptions of several of the documents are illuminating.

A few of the things we learn:

1. The conversation about destroying the tapes began during . Two cables sent from the black site to CIA headquarters on August 19, 2002 discuss 鈥渓essons for the future based on CIA experience鈥� and an August 20, 2002 cable discusses 鈥渁 proposed policy regarding the use of videotapes in interrogations.鈥�
2. There were extensive conversations about destroying the videotapes in December 2002, right after a CIA lawyer had traveled to the Thai black site to review the tapes and just as the CIA鈥檚 inspector general was beginning his special review of the CIA鈥檚 RDI program. This conversation, carried out in numerous cables between December 19 and the end of the month, included 鈥減roposals on how to handle the possible destruction of the videotapes鈥� and culminated in a memo to CIA Director George Tenet on 鈥渢he disposition of the videotapes.鈥�
3. suggested that, after the July 38, 2003 Principals meeting, the question of the tapes 鈥渟eemed settled鈥� until the publication of the . In fact, the Vaughn index shows the conversation continuing even during this period, with a sequence of emails around September 22, 2008 鈥渃oncerning a draft memo on the destruction of the videotapes鈥� and a February 19, 2004 email with attachment 鈥渃oncerning the legalities as to whether the CIA is legally required to retain the videotapes.鈥�
4. There are numerous emails in the days leading up to destruction of the videotapes on November 8, 2005, just after the and the day before . The CIA is clearly bracing for these leaks: on October 31, there is a 13-page email chain 鈥渄iscussing whether to publically acknowledge the counterterrorism program鈥� and on November 1, an email with attachment 鈥渢hat discusses the Agency鈥檚 detention and interrogation program from a legal standpoint.鈥� There are communications orchestrating how the agency will talk about the destruction of the tapes鈥攁 November 4 email 鈥渢hat contains proposed language regarding the disposition of the tapes,鈥� and a November 10 email with the subject 鈥淟anguage for tapes鈥� that discusses 鈥渃ommunication between CIA officers relating to the tapes.鈥� Finally, there are destruction orders themselves: a one-page cable on November 8 from the black site to headquarters 鈥渞equesting permission to destroy the videotapes鈥� and a two-page cable that same day, under the subject 鈥淎pproval to destroy videotapes,鈥� 鈥渄iscussing a proposal and granting permission to destroy.鈥�

Interestingly, in a related affidavit summarizing the agency鈥檚 reasons for continuing to withhold these communications, the CIA says it was willing to release parts of thirteen of the documents.

Prior to releasing the documents, however, the Agency was informed by the Department of Justice that Special Prosecutor John Durham was asserting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemption (b)(7)(a) over the proposed-for-release portions of 10 of the 13 documents that the CIA was prepared to release in part. The other three documents the CIA proposed for partial release have Congressional equities that require consultation with Congress before a final determination can be made. Therefore, all of the documents are currently withheld in full.

The three documents being withheld pending consultation with Congress relate to the February 2003 briefings of two members each of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees鈥攖he briefings that prompted Jane Harman鈥檚 letter counseling against destroying the tapes.

The 10 documents that Durham is apparently blocking from release, on the grounds that their release would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, are:

1. a 11/9/05 email with embedded cable 鈥渃onfirming the destruction of the videotapes that were stored at a field location鈥�;
2. an 10/25/02 cable from CIA Headquarters to the field 鈥渄iscussing a proposal to destroy the videotapes鈥�;
3. a 10/27/02 document consisting of 鈥渆xcerpts of two cables discussing the use of the videotapes鈥�;
4. a 12/02/02 cable with the subject 鈥淒estruction of classified materials鈥� that contains 鈥渆xcerpts from two cables discussing a proposal to destroy the videotapes;
5. a 12/03/02 cable with the same subject line 鈥渄iscussing the proposed destruction of classified material鈥�;
6. the 11/08/05 cable requesting permission to destroy the videotapes;
7. the 11/08/05 cable granting permission to destroy the videotapes;
8. an undated memo that is a 鈥渢wo-page timeline鈥� 鈥渞egarding the destruction of the AZ tapes;
9. an undated three-page memo with the subject line 鈥淚nterview Questions鈥� that is a 鈥渓ist of questions regarding the CIA鈥檚 RDI program鈥�; and
10. an undated document with the subject 鈥淐IA Interrogation Techniques鈥� that is a 鈥渢hirteen-page memo with handwritten marginalia discussing the CIA鈥檚 interrogation of Abu Zubaydah.鈥�

We know from these most recent Vaughn indices, which follow similar indices of documents relating to the tapes鈥� destruction that the CIA has forwarded to the 老澳门开奖结果 in recent months, that there is a substantial paper trail surrounding the destruction of the videotapes. We know Durham has been down that trail. Where is his investigation going?