<html>
<body>
<font size=3>March 13, 2008<br>
</font><font size=1>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/washington/13intel.htm?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205507371-qh+hfevfsPJcuqfj7uKTJg" eudora="autourl">
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/washington/13intel.htm?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1205507371-qh+hfevfsPJcuqfj7uKTJg<br>
<br>
</a></font><h1><b>Pentagon Cites Tapes Showing Interrogations
</b></h1><font size=3>By
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mark_mazzetti/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
MARK MAZZETTI</a> and
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/scott_shane/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
SCOTT SHANE</a><br><br>
WASHINGTON The Defense Department is conducting an extensive review of
the videotaping of interrogations at military facilities from Iraq to
Guantánamo Bay, and so far it has identified nearly 50 tapes, including
one that showed what a military spokesman described as the forcible
gagging of a terrorism suspect. <br><br>
The Pentagon review was begun in late January after the
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
Central Intelligence Agency</a> acknowledged that it had destroyed its
own videotapes of harsh interrogations conducted by C.I.A. officers, an
action that is now the subject of criminal and Congressional
investigations.<br><br>
The review was intended in part to establish clearer rules for any
videotaping of interrogations, Defense officials said. But they
acknowledged that it had been complicated by inconsistent taping
practices in the past, as well as uncertain policies for when tapes could
be destroyed or must be preserved.<br><br>
The officials said it appeared that only a small fraction of the tens of
thousands of interrogations worldwide since 2001 had been recorded.
<br><br>
The officials said the nearly 50 tapes they identified documented
interrogations of two terrorism suspects,
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/jose_padilla/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
Jose Padilla</a> and
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/ali_saleh_kahlah_al_marri/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
Ali al-Marri</a>, and were made at a Navy detention site in Charleston,
S.C., where the two men have been held. <br><br>
The initial findings of the Pentagon review represent the first official
acknowledgment that military interrogators had videotaped some sessions
with detainees and could widen the controversy over the treatment of
prisoners in American custody. A Pentagon spokesman, Geoff Morrell,
cautioned that the review was incomplete, and a spokesman for the
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/d/defense_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
Defense Intelligence Agency</a>, Don Black, said that
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/cia_interrogation_tapes/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">
interrogation videotapes</a> had been routinely destroyed if they were
judged to have no continuing value.<br><br>
The only tape described by officials is of Mr. Marri, a citizen of Qatar
who was arrested in December 2001 while in college in Illinois and moved
five years ago to the jail after being designated an “enemy combatant.”
Government officials say they believe he was an operative for
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
Al Qaeda</a> who was plotting attacks.<br><br>
Two government officials said that the tape showed Mr. Marri being
manhandled by his interrogators, but did not show
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/torture/waterboarding/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">
waterboarding</a> or any other treatment approaching what they believed
could be classified as torture. According to one Defense Department
official, the interrogators dispensing the rough treatment on the tape
were
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org">
F.B.I.</a> agents.<br><br>
An F.B.I. spokesman declined to comment, citing a continuing review of
detention practices that is being carried out by the Department of
Justice’s inspector general.<br><br>
Mr. Black, the spokesman for the Defense Intelligence Agency, said its
director, Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, had reviewed the tape and was
satisfied that Mr. Marri’s treatment was acceptable. <br><br>
He said that Mr. Marri was chanting loudly, disrupting his interrogation,
and that interrogators used force to put duct tape on his mouth, while
Mr. Marri resisted. Mr. Black said most of the videos showing Mr. Marri’s
interrogations had been destroyed. The government has never charged Mr.
Marri, but because of his designation as an enemy combatant, the Pentagon
is allowed to hold him indefinitely. <br><br>
The scale of detention and interrogation by the military, with tens of
thousands of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba,
dwarfs that of the C.I.A., which has held fewer than 100 high-level Qaeda
suspects. The C.I.A. has acknowledged videotaping only two terrorism
suspects, in 2002, and military officials said that the review, ordered
in late January by James R. Clapper, the Pentagon’s senior intelligence
official, had similarly found that only a small number of detainee
interrogations had been videotaped.<br><br>
“This is not a widespread practice,” said Mr. Morrell, the Pentagon press
secretary. He said that it was up to individual military commanders
whether to tape interrogations and that the videotapes were often used as
the basis of written intelligence reports. In addition to the existing
interrogation videotapes, there are existing recordings that show
interactions between military guards and terrorism suspects, including
detainees’ forcible removal from cells at Guantánamo, military officials
said. <br><br>
Images of rough treatment of detainees is a delicate subject for the
Pentagon. Soldiers’ snapshots of the abusive treatment of detainees at
the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq set off a firestorm and led to prison terms
for a number of military personnel. <br><br>
Congress imposed a ban in 2005 on all harsh interrogation methods by the
military but left a loophole for the C.I.A. Last month, Congress voted to
extend the ban to the C.I.A., but President Bush vetoed the
bill.<br><br>
The C.I.A. acknowledged in December that in 2005 it had destroyed the
only interrogation videotapes that its officers had made; the tapes
showed two detainees,
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/z/abu_zubaydah/index.html?inline=nyt-per">
Abu Zubaydah</a> and Abd al- Rahim al-Nashiri. <br><br>
Lawyers for Mr. Marri, who have challenged his imprisonment in court,
sought access to any tapes or other records of his interrogations, but in
2006 a federal judge in South Carolina said the government did not have
to produce any tapes. That decision is being appealed.<br><br>
Jonathan Hafetz, one of the lawyers, said Mr. Marri had heard guards
describe “a cabinet full of tapes” showing his interrogations, but had
never had independent confirmation that such tapes existed. Mr. Marri has
alleged that earlier in his imprisonment he was deprived of sleep,
isolated and exposed to prolonged cold.<br><br>
Mr. Hafetz said he planned to file papers in court on Thursday describing
the psychological harm done to Mr. Marri. “Locking someone up for five
years without charges is a disgrace and a betrayal of American and
constitutional values,” he said.<br><br>
The difficulties in the Pentagon’s review can be glimpsed in a seven-page
court filing last month by Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, the military
commander at Guantánamo Bay.<br><br>
Admiral Buzby’s report describes an array of digital video recorders used
to capture “activities” it does not specify whether interrogations are
included in at least four subcamps at Guantánamo. But the systems
automatically recorded over older material when they reached capacity, he
wrote.<br><br>
In some cases, Admiral Buzby wrote, “We suspect that the recording
devices contain recorded data but we are unable technologically to
confirm whether data remains.”<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=3 color="#FF0000">Freedom Archives<br>
522 Valencia Street<br>
San Francisco, CA 94110<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#008000">415 863-9977<br><br>
</font><font size=3 color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://www.freedomarchives.org/" eudora="autourl">
www.Freedomarchives.org</a></font><font size=3> </font></body>
</html>