Torture Tapes Destroyed to Cover Gonzales Perjury

Today's NY Times reveals the top Bush Administration lawyers informed of the existence of the CIA Interrogation tapes that likely contained documentation of waterboarding and others techniques that would be considered torture.  We have previously learned about the fact White House Counsel Harriet Miers was informed of the tapes existence.  Now we learn that the other officials included Dick Cheney's Counsel, David Addington, as well as White House Counsel and later Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

The stated Administration justification for destroying the tapes was to protect the identities of the CIA agents who conducted the interrogations.  More skeptical folks have suggested that they were destroyed to eliminate bad publicity in the wake of the Abu Ghraib Scandal.

But I submit that there is a more tangible motive:  To eliminate evidence of Alberto Gonzales' perjury.

Emptywheel has an excellent timeline describing the major events in the Torture debate including the destruction of the tapes.

The CIA Tapes were destroyed at some point in November 2005.

On November 3, 2005, in the trial of al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui Judge Leonie Brinkema inquired whether government had video or audio tapes of interrogations.  This request would have led to discovery of the existing CIA tapes.  Because this was a high-profile case for the Bush Administration, the head of the DOJ, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would have certainly been informed of the request.

Now we learn from today's NY Times article:

The accounts indicate that the involvement of White House officials in the discussions before the destruction of the tapes in November 2005 was more extensive than Bush administration officials have acknowledged.

Those who took part, the officials said, included Alberto R. Gonzales, who served as White House counsel until early 2005; David S. Addington, who was the counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and is now his chief of staff; John B. Bellinger III, who until January 2005 was the senior lawyer at the National Security Council; and Harriet E. Miers, who succeeded Mr. Gonzales as White House counsel.

Thus, Gonzales almost certainly knew of the Torture tapes existence, and he almost certainly knew they were on a path to discovery if Brinkema's inquiry was answered truthfully.

Now let's take a look at the Perjury Dilemma Gonzales Faced.  From his January 6, 2005 confirmation hearing (Under Oath).

KOHL: Well, do you believe that the policy is a correct one, that we never should have had any torture at Guantanamo or at Abu Ghraib, among other reasons because it really doesn't produce anything of value?
GONZALES: Sir, the United States has never had a policy of torture.

Unlike other countries, that talk about -- simply talk about Geneva, if there is an allegation that we've done something wrong we investigate it. We're very serious about our commitments, our legal obligations in Iraq. And if people have done things that they shouldn't have done, in violation of our legal obligations, they are going to be held accountable.

SEN. DURBIN: Then let's go to specific questions. Can U.S. personnel legally engage in torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under any circumstances?
MR. GONZALES: Absolutely not. I mean, our policy is we do not engage in torture.

SEN. COBURN: And is it, to your knowledge, a policy of this administration at any time to tolerate torture or inhumane behavior towards any of the detainees that we have?
MR. GONZALES: It is -- it is not the policy of the administration to tolerate torture or inhumane conduct toward any person that the United States is detaining.

MR. GONZALES [To Feingold]: ...And in addition to that, as I’ve said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in torture and will not condone torture....

SEN. KENNEDY: If I could come back to the unprecedented expansion of executive power contained in the Bybee amendment [On president's authority to approve Torture in contradiction of law], which you seemed to -- had adopted at the time it was issued. So we’re clear, the Bybee memo concluded that the law of the land cannot prevent the president from carrying out his commander-in-chief authority in any way he sees fit, even if the directions and actions violate clearly established law.
MR. GONZALES: Senator, that old opinion, as I’ve said, has been withdrawn. That analysis has been rejected, and I consider it rejected.
SEN. KENNEDY: And -- but at the time when you first saw it, it still was put into -- it was effectively the law -- the administration’s position for some two years?
MR. GONZALES: Well, that certainly reflected the position of the Office of Legal Counsel. But again, let me reemphasize that that authority was never exercised. As far as I know, the president was never advised of that authority, and so no actions were taken in reliance upon that authority.

Summary
The heady early days of Alberto Gonzales' reign as attorney general were entered with testimony from Alberto Gonzales that the US did not engage in torture.  Yet we now learn that Gonzales knew about CIA Torture tapes long before Gonzales became Attorney General.  And we learn that the tapes were destroyed shortly after a Federal Judge asked whether they existed.  I suggest that the CIA Torture tapes were destroyed to protect Alberto Gonzales (and his Superiors in the Bush Administration) from his first perjury scandal.  I will remind the readers that Gonzales can still be impeached, as can Dick Cheney, who almost certainly ordered the CIA to torture prisoners, and for the evidence of this torture to be destroyed in November 2005.

Note: dday and Awkhawk both had earlier diaries on this subject, and sure enough, as I was cutting and pasting from Gonzales' confirmation hearing, another excellent diary by Jesselyn Radack popped up, but I hope you will indulge this different approach, suggesting a tangible motive for an acute need for destruction.

Update:
Several readers have commented that Gonzales may have eluded perjury if the torture was done by contractors or foreigners at CIA "Black Sites".  Well, Gonzales was on the record denying that possibility as well.
Also from Jan 6, 2005 Confirmation Hearing:

SEN. DURBIN: And so this morning we read in the paper about rendition, an argument made that we took a prisoner whom we could not, should not torture legally and turned him over to a country that would torture him. That would be illegal as well, would it not?
MR. GONZALES: Under my understanding of the law, yes, sir, that we have an obligation not to render someone to a country that we believe is going to torture them; that is correct.

SEN. LEAHY: And I probably will take about 15.
One, I was glad to hear you say to -- and I’m -- correct me if I misunderstood you, but to Senator Durbin that it is wrong if somebody -- if a U.S. personnel turns somebody over to another country knowing they’re going to be tortured. Did I understand you correctly on that?
MR. GONZALES: I believe that that is the law, and naturally U.S. policy.
SEN. LEAHY: And so they would be prosecuted, the people who did that?
MR. GONZALES: Yes, sir. Yes.

And let's remember that Dana Priest's WaPo article about black sites came out November 1, 2005.

So Gonzales was double-dipped in perjury sauce.