WHY NO INVESTIGATIONS ABOUT PHONY LETTER LINKING SADDAM & MOHAMED ATTA

The new book by Ron Suskind, The Way of the World, makes the sensational charge that the White House instructed the CIA to create a bogus letter from the former head of Saddam's Intelligence Agency that Saddam had ties with Mohamed Atta.

The White House has issued non-denial denials, calling the assertion "ridiculous" but not saying that it is false. So has George Tenet, formerly head of the CIA, that "to the best of [his] knowledge," he received no such instructions.

But where are the reports we should expect about this in the public media? Where are the stories in The New York Times or on CBS? Investigative reporters should be swarming all over this story, but so far, there has been relative silence.

CIA VIDEOTAPES HARSH INTERROGATION OF TERROR SUSPECTS, THEN SECRETLY DESTROYS VIDEOTAPES

The C.I.A. destroyed in 2005 two videotapes of terror suspects being harshly interrogated, The New York Times reported just seven minutes ago on its web page.

"The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A’s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials. NY Times reporter Mark Mazzetti writes:

"The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said."

Mazzetti reports that hardly anyone knew of the existence of the tapes, including the 9/11 Commission.

"Staff members of the 9/11 commission, which completed its work in 2004, expressed surprise when they were told that interrogation videotapes existed until 2005.
"“The commission did formally request material of this kind from all relevant agencies, and the commission was assured that we had received all the material responsive to our request,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and later as a senior counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"“No tapes were acknowledged or turned over, nor was the commission provided with any transcript prepared from recordings,” he said."

So this appears as if the C.I.A. is destroying evidence of wrong-doing. The C.I.A. was concerned that these "harsh interrogation methods" could subject C.I.A. torturers (oops, I mean officers) to criminal penalties and charges.

Reports Mazzetti:

"Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the 9/11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

"If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations. . . ."

"John Radsan, who worked as a C.I.A. lawyer between 2002 and 2004 and is now a professor at William Mitchell College of Law, said the destruction of the tapes could carry serious legal penalties.

"“If anybody at the C.I.A. hid anything important from the Justice Department, he or she should be prosecuted under the false statement statute,” he said."

The C.I.A. claims that the tapes were destroyed to protect the identity of the C.I.A.

"The C.I.A. said today that the decision to destroy the tapes had been made “within the C.I.A. itself” and were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value. The agency was headed at the time by Porter J. Goss. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Goss refused to comment this afternoon on the destruction of the tapes. interrogators."

CIA DIRECTOR DEFENDS RENDITION AND HARSH INTERROGATION METHODS

Here's a far-out story I almost missed. The CIA Director defends the policy of "rendition" and interrogation used on suspected terrorists. Claudia Parsons reports for Reuters on CIA Director Michael Hayden's comments on Friday:

""In this fight, we've leveraged every inch of the space we've been given to operate," Hayden told an audience that included academics, lawyers and human rights activists at the Council on Foreign Relations.

""But, he said, the programs were "carefully controlled and lawfully conducted" and far more limited than widely believed.

""Since it began ... in the spring of 2002, fewer than 100 people have been detained at CIA's facilities," Hayden said, adding that the number of renditions was even smaller, in the "mid-range two figures."

""These programs are targeted and selective. They were designed for only the most dangerous terrorists and those believed to have the most valuable information, such as knowledge of planned attacks," he said. "But they also have been the subject of wild speculation, both here and overseas.""

So let me see if I understand. The "harsh" interrogation methods, such as water-boarding and sleep deprivation, are used on "only the most dangerous terrorists and those believed to have the most valuable information."

In other words, we know the suspects are "guilty" even before we interrogate them. We don't do these things to suspects we know are not "guilty." A suspect must be known to possess "the most valuable information." Isn't this just like the mind set of those who conducted the Inquisition interrogations in Spain and Portugal some 500 years ago. "We know you are a heretic, so you better confess. And to make sure you confess, we're going to put you up on the rack . . ."

But Hayden insists these criticisms are overblown.

Writes Parsons:

"Hayden said he was worried that politics appeared to be limiting the CIA's ability to do its work, and he criticized the media for publishing stories revealing details of CIA operating methods."