CIA Urges Judge To Keep Bush-Era Documents Sealed

Source: Washington Post

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 9, 2009


The Obama administration objected yesterday to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security and benefit al-Qaeda recruitment.

In a pointed affidavit, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta told a federal judge in New York that records describing the contents of the videotapes, which the CIA said it destroyed in 2005, and other documents containing what he called "sensitive operational information" about the interrogations, were properly classified.

Their forced disclosure to the American Civil Liberties Union "could be expected to result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security by informing our enemies of what we knew about them, and when, and in some instances, how we obtained the intelligence we possessed," Panetta argued.

Although Panetta's statement is in keeping with his previous opposition to the disclosure of other information about the CIA's interrogation policies and practices during George W. Bush's presidency, it represents a new assertion by the Obama administration that the CIA should be allowed to keep such information secret. Bush's critics have long hoped that disclosure would pinpoint responsibility for actions they contend were abusive or illegal.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060804117.html?hpid=topnews

---

Wasn't the argument that photos and videos were too graphic to show?
They won't even release documents describing what was done in those videos.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5303329

Source: Consortium News

By Jason Leopold
March 21, 2009

The CIA has about 3,000 documents related to the 92 destroyed videotapes that showed “war on terror” detainees being subjected to harsh interrogations, the Justice Department has disclosed, suggesting an extensive back-and-forth between CIA field operatives and officials of the Bush administration.

The Justice Department said the documents include “cables, memoranda, notes and e-mails” related to the destroyed CIA videotapes. Those tapes included 12 that showed two “high-value” prisoners undergoing the drowning sensation caused by waterboarding and other brutal techniques that have been widely denounced as torture.

The number of documents – but not their contents – was mentioned Friday in a Justice Department letter from Lev Dassin, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Dassin told Judge Hellerstein that unredacted versions of the materials would be available for only him to review “in-camera” on March 26. The CIA also refused to provide the ACLU with a list of individuals who watched the videotapes prior to their destruction because that information “is either classified or otherwise protected by statute.”

........

Read more: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/032109a.html

Who exactly could that be meant to protect? Brings to mind all the old DU jokes about Bush & Cheney sitting around jerking off to torture videos.

What sort of statutes protect people who watch torture videos? What the hell does that line mean, anyway?

Wat

One of the first thing Bush/Cheney started doing was classifying
Reagan/Bush era docs to cover up Iran-Contra and other crimes.
Lots of docs that were once in the public domain are now classified secrets.

Go figure, eh!! Cover-up or not?

Especially since word was that nothing significant was learned from torture - so that just about leaves it open to letting it all go public

Hope the judge has some backbone to go with that robe

Yes...evidence of war crimes....let's keep it under cover.

Snort.

begin?

There is a sound rationale for withholding photos/documents from a potential jury pool.

If people are really, really serious about war crimes trials, then Obama is right.

That's the real problem isn't it?

None of the people in positions to do anything about it
are "really, really serious about war crimes trials".