You are herecontent / What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?
What happened to the Padilla interrogation videos?
By Glenn Greenwald, http://www.salon.com
This is an infinitely bigger story than the media, thus far, seems to
realize. In the Jose Padilla criminal trial, the judge --
Bush-appointee and former federal prosecutor Marcia Cooke, who has a
reputation for extreme objectivity -- has ordered the Bush
administration to turn over all tapes made of its interrogations of
Padilla, as part of Padilla's motion to dismiss the indictment on the
ground that he was, in essence, tortured while being held
incommunicado for 3 1/2 years. In particular, Padilla's lawyers are
most interested in the last interrogation session to which he was
subjected -- in March, 2004 -- while still held as an "enemy combatant."
Ten days ago, Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball reported
that the administration had produced all of the DVDs it claimed it
possessed, but the March, 2004 interrogation video was not among them.
The government began claiming that the video "mysteriously
disappeared." Bush administration lawyers simply insist that they are
"no longer able to locate the DVD."
Associated Press now furthers the story by reporting that Bush lawyers
seem to have committed themselves to the position that the video will
not be found: "'I don't know what happened to it,' Pentagon attorney
James Schmidli said during a recent court hearing." Judge Cooke is
reacting exactly how she should -- with utter disbelief in the
veracity of this claim:
U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke was incredulous that anything
connected to such a high-profile defendant could be lost.
"Do you understand how it might be difficult for me to understand
that a tape related to this particular individual just got mislaid?"
Cooke told prosecutors at a hearing last month.
It is difficult to put into words how extraordinary this is. As the
Newsweek article reported:
The disclosure that the Pentagon had lost a potentially important
piece of evidence in one of the U.S. government's highest-profile
terrorism cases was met with claims of incredulity by some defense
lawyers and human-rights groups monitoring the case.
"This is the kind of thing you hear when you're litigating cases
in Egypt or Morocco or Karachi," said John Sifton, a lawyer with Human
Rights Watch, one of a number of groups that has criticized the U.S.
government's treatment of Padilla. "It is simply not credible that
they would have lost this tape. The administration has shown
repeatedly they are more interested in covering up abuses than getting
to the bottom of whether people were abused."
Then again, credible claims by a citizen that he was tortured while
held for years without charges by his own government also used to be
the kind of thing "you hear when you're litigating cases in Egypt or
Morocco or Karachi," but is now what characterizes the United States.
The March, 2004 video is unlikely the only evidence which the Bush
administration is concealing despite being ordered to produce. As the
Associated Press reported:
But [Padilla lawyer Anthony] Natale said there may be more tapes
missing and other interrogations that were not recorded.
Defense lawyers say brig logs indicate that there were 72 hours of
Padilla interviews that either were not taped or for which tapes may
be missing. Natale said it seems unlikely that any interrogation
session with Padilla was not videotaped "when he was videoed taking
Of course, even if administration's patently unbelievable claim were
true -- namely, that it did "lose" the video of its interrogation of
this Extremely Dangerous International Terrorist -- that would, by
itself, evidence a reckless ineptitude with American national security
so grave that it ought to be a scandal by itself. But the likelihood
that the key interrogation video with regard to Padilla's torture
claims was simply "lost" is virtually non-existent. Destruction of
relevant evidence in any litigation is grounds for dismissal of the
case (or defense) of the party engaged in that behavior.
But where, as here, the issues extend far beyond the singular
proceeding itself -- we are talking about claims by a U.S. citizen
that he was tortured by his own government -- destruction of evidence
of this sort would be obstruction of justice of the most serious
magnitude. This merits much, much more attention.
-- Glenn Greenwald