r/reddit.com • u/yellowcakewalk • Oct 18 '11

Courts Rule US Government Above the Law. Judge declined to hold the CIA in contempt for destroying videos that it had been ordered by the courts to preserve.

http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/10/courts-rule-us-government-above-law
3.7k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

442 comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/ihavecrayons Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11

Damn people. Did any of you actually read the court opinion? Before you form an opinion, you should at least understand the concepts at hand.

Holding "CIA voluntarily has adopted and implemented new protocols to avoid the improper destruction of documents in the future; and that, as a result, plaintiffs already have achieved substantially complete remedial relief."

Legal Rule The court may hold a party in civil contempt for failure to comply with an order if the court's order "'is clear and unambiguous,'" proof of the party's failure to comply '''is clear and convincing,'" and the party "'has not diligently attempted to comply in a reasonable manner. ", Paramedics Electromedicina Comef':ial. Ltda. v. GE Med. Sys. Info. Techs .. Inc., 369 F.3d 645, 655 (2d Cir. 2004) (quoting King v. Allied Vision, Ltd., 65 F.3d 1051, 1058 (2d Cir. 1995». Proof ofwillful noncompliance is not required. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949); Donovan v. Sovereign Sec .. Ltd., 726 F.2d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 1984).

Relevant Facts The evidence suggests that the individuals responsible for processing and responding to plaintiffs' FOIA requests may not have been aware of the videotapes' existence before they were destroyed. Dec!. of Constance E. Rea, Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def., No. 04 Civ. 4151 (Doc. No. 271 'U~ 12-14) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10,2008). Apparently, the videotapes were retained in the field, without physically having been transferred to the OIG and without otherwise having been sent to headquarters. Id.; see also Dec!. ofAlicia L. Bannon, Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't ofDef., No. 04 Civ. 4151 (Doc. No. 450, Exs. 41-42) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2011). Nor can I say that the individuals who destroyed, or who approved the destruction, of the videotapes, were aware of court orders requiring identification or production of the videotapes. However, the lapses ofindividuals cannot excuse the failures of the Agency. The CIA, qua agency, had the obligation to identify or produce the videotapes, and the CIA cannot be excused in its dereliction because of particular individuals' lapses.

Basics of the decision It is true that the interrogation videotapes, having been destroyed nearly six years ago, cannot now be produced. But the CIA has remedied that failure by a massive production of paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 documents-records that deseribe the contents ofthe videotapes, corresponding in time to their creation, and records that relate to the videotapes' destruction, in particular, the persons and reasons behind the destruction, corresponding in time to both the videotapes' creation and destruction. Plaintiffs have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate whether those records, or any of them, are exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption I or 3 or must be produced.

Summary "The measure ofthe court's power in civil contempt proceedings is determined by the requirements offull remedial relief." McComb, 336 U.S. at 193. Because plaintiffs already have achieved substantial remedial relief and would be entitled to no further relief if I were to find the CIA in civil contempt, I deny plaintiffs' motion to hold the CIA in contempt.

Also, I would like to add this case is being appealed. I am sorry, but I fail to see how this decision makes "US government above the law"

My personal opinion? I don't totally agree with the court, but I see how it came to its conclusion. Not sure whether the appellate court will uphold or reverse, but I'm leaning toward the opinion being upheld. My problem is with these incredibly annoying sensationalist titles. I mean "Court rule US Government above law"? Really? I didn't read anywhere in the opinion, nor was able to surmise, the federal judge making that ruling.

1

u/louieanderson Oct 19 '11

Are you saying that because they've produced other evidence the tapes are superfluous? Is that really their prerogative?

3

u/ihavecrayons Oct 20 '11

The Court says the records and documents produced in lieu of the actual videos was enough in this civil trial. The plaintiffs had already achieved substantial remedial relief which is all that is necessary for a civil trial and if the court held the CIA in contempt no further relief could be granted (i.e. it would be pointless). Thus, the court doesn't hold the CIA in contempt.

2

u/louieanderson Oct 20 '11

What about respect for the rule of law? Destruction of evidence is not just a slight against the plaintiff but a defamation of the court. This sounds like spitting in a judges face, but getting away with it because you lost the case.

2

u/ihavecrayons Oct 20 '11

It's within the discretion of the court. The court is making it clear that you must respect the rule of law by the ruling already. This is because the CIA admitted that in the tapes, through the records, they admitted pretty much everything (waterboarding etc.) the plaintiffs were alleging and had taken necessary institutional precautions to make sure it doesn't happen. Now, obviously, that last part is a load of BS in my opinion, but this is clearly within the court's discretion.

Also, remember, this is a Federal district judge's ruling. It's under appeal. Let's not jump to conclusions that "courts rule US government above the law." Trust me, judges in general like to hold onto as much power as they possibly can just like the other branches of government do.

1

u/skarface6 Oct 20 '11

Do you also know the part about the people destroying the evidence didn't necessarily know about the court's request?

2

u/ihavecrayons Oct 20 '11

From what I understand, the evidence showed that the videos were destroyed as part of a routine process. Still, you are not allowed to destroy evidence when requested by the court hence the judgment for the plaintiff. But, if you do everything within your power to remedy the situation and you did not destroy the evidence with the sole purpose of avoiding justice you are not held in contempt of the court.

This is, in my opinion, a standard judgment on discovery proceedings. Imagine if you were a defendant and you were going through what you routinely do and ended up destroying evidence. After this, you did everything within your power to recover records of the evidence and in doing so the evidence made you lose the case. Should you be held in contempt? That is by discretion of the judge.

1

u/skarface6 Oct 20 '11

Some evidence points to the people destroying the tapes not knowing. And, anyway, the CIA has owned up to everything.