What does a house full of rats smell like?

By lying to the federal court (in the Mossaoui case) as well as to the the September 11 commission, the CIA effectively broke the law and obstructed justice. According to the New York Times (Dec. 6)

"The C.I.A. in 2005 destroyed at least two video tapes documenting the interrogation of two [alledged] Al Qaeda operatives [...] Current and former government officials said [the destruction of the tapes] had been approved at the highest levels of the agency. (NYT)

In 2003 and 2005, the C.I.A., then headed by Porter J. Goss

"told federal prosecutors in 2003 and 2005, who relayed the information to a federal court in the Moussaoui case, that the C.I.A. did not possess recordings of interrogations sought by the judge in the case (NYT)

The C.I.A. said [Dec 6, 2007] that the decision to destroy the tapes had been made “within the C.I.A. itself,” and they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value.

Mr. Moussaoui’s lawyers had hoped that records of the interrogations might provide exculpatory evidence for Mr. Moussaoui — showing that the Al Qaeda detainees did not know Mr. Moussaoui and clearing him of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, plot.

Porter J. Goss, replying through a spokesperson, declined to comment.

What remains in question is, how is the term "safety of undercover officers" defined? Of course, the agency wished the public to understand this term in the sense that phantom operatives would use the tapes to identiffy then attack officers. In fact, the destruction of the tapes was to protect the officers from legal scrutiny. The decisioon to videotape the interrogations in the first place, was to prevent teh use of coercion and torture.

I am no legal expert, but it would seem that the agency can no longer be seen as reliable in any case. The claims that many defendants are using, that they are being coerced into illegal confessions, appears to be valid in at least some of the cases. If the Hollywood blockbusters are anything to go by, then any testimony or even involvement by the C.I.A. should cause the exoneration of any alledged "terrorists". This particularly when the agency beings to emply the  secrecy clauses in its defense when placed under scrutiny or cross examination about people in their custody.

This is genuine madness. God forbid that any of the readers ever find themselves in an American court room. A  house full of rats. A shameful abuse of power.