DOJ Ordered to Establish Relevancy of Destroyed Interrogation Tapes

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26324267.post-61039666303565207222008-02-15T19:02:00.002-06:002008-02-15T19:16:34.481-06:00DOJ Ordered to Establish Relevancy of Destroyed Interrogation TapesThe Bush administration has been ordered by a federal judge to state whether two CIA interrogation videos destroyed in 2005 were relevant to his case.<a href="#_ftn1f" name="_ftnref1f">[1]</a> The videos displayed CIA interrogators using harsh methods on two individuals suspected of engaging in terrorism, however, the government has yet to reveal what information was gleaned from that questioning. The Department of Justice has asked that judges not to demand information about the tapes, citing that it would hamper an ongoing investigation into their destruction.<a href="#_ftn2f" name="_ftnref2f">[2]</a> U.S. District Judge Richard Roberts rejected the Justice Department’s stance last month and required that the government disclose how it has handled evidence since 2005 and explain what has been destroyed. The Justice Department asked Judge Roberts to put that ruling on hold due to the ongoing criminal investigation. In a ruling on the afternoon of February 14th, Roberts held that he would not call for the government to reveal its handling of all evidence since 2005. However, he has asked that prosecutors disclose whether any destroyed evidence was relevant to his case which involves a Guantanamo Bay detainee.<a href="#_ftn3f" name="_ftnref3f">[3]</a> If the two al-Qaida suspects in the video discussed the detainee from Roberts’ case during their interrogation, the CIA would have to disclose that in court and give an explanation as to why they destroyed the tapes.<a href="#_ftn4f" name="_ftnref4f">[4]</a> In July of 2005, Roberts had ordered that the government preserve all evidence in the case. In November of that year the tapes were destroyed. In the event that Roberts finds that the tapes contained evidence relevant to his case he could hold the government in contempt of court.<a href="#_ftn5f" name="_ftnref5f">[5]</a> Contempt of court is punishable under <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000401----000-.html" target="_blank"> 18 U.S.C. § 401</a>, where it is defined as the (1) Misbehavior of any person in the court’s presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; <a name="2"></a>(2) Misbehavior of any of the court’s officers in their official transactions; <a name="3"></a>(3) Disobedience or resistance to the court’s lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.<a href="#_ftn6f" name="_ftnref6f">[6]</a> If Judge Roberts finds that evidence relevant to his case was destroyed and holds the government in contempt of court, then the punishment can be by fine or imprisonment, or both.<a href="#_ftn7f" name="_ftnref7f">[7]</a> According to Roberts, the government has yet to prove that they did not destroy evidence in the case. In fact, the Judge expressed disapproval when prosecutor John Durham quoted CIA Director Michael Hayden in court documents, stating that the tapes were destroyed only after it was determined that they were not relevant to any court cases. Roberts noted the quote "with some concern." He stated that he does not understand why the Hayden quote was included, given that the Justice Department has not offered evidence to show that the tapes were irrelevant and that Durham himself is investigating whether destroying them violated any court orders.<a href="#_ftn8f" name="_ftnref8f">[8]</a> Although Roberts has stated that he does not want to interfere with the criminal investigation, the Bush administration has shown no reason why it cannot state whether evidence related to his case was destroyed. He has given the Justice Department a deadline of March 13 to do just that.<a href="#_ftn9f" name="_ftnref9f">[9]</a> <hr align="left" width=33%> <a href="#_ftnref1f" name="_ftn1f">[1]</a> Matt Apuzzo, Judge Asks Details on Destroyed Evidence, The Associated Press, Feb. 14 2008 (available at <a href="http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1305820&nid=116" target="_blank">http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1305820&nid=116</a>). <a href="#_ftnref2f" name="_ftn2f">[2]</a> Id. <a href="#_ftnref3f" name="_ftn3f">[3]</a> Id. <a href="#_ftnref4f" name="_ftn4f">[4]</a> Id. <a href="#_ftnref5f" name="_ftn5f">[5]</a> Id. <a href="#_ftnref6f" name="_ftn6f">[6]</a> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000401----000-.html" target="_blank"> 18 U.S.C. § 401(2008).</a> <a href="#_ftnref7f" name="_ftn7f">[7]</a> Id. <a href="#_ftnref8f" name="_ftn8f">[8]</a> Matt Apuzzo, Judge Asks Details on Destroyed Evidence, The Associated Press, Feb. 14 2008 (available at <a href="http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1305820&nid=116" target="_blank">http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1305820&nid=116</a>). <a href="#_ftnref9f" name="_ftn9f">[9]</a> Id. McNabb Associates, P.C.noreply@blogger.com