There's a certain beauty to the Freedom of Information Act. Even when the government won't give you something under it, they still have to give you a list of what it is they're not giving you. So when the government decided that it would not release the documents the ACLU has been seeking regarding the CIA's destruction, it still had to provide a description—including a date—of each document it was withholding and what its rationale was for doing so.
A date and the description of a document can tell you a lot. That's why the ACLU was able to announce today that it now knows "the precise date the tapes were destroyed" and has "evidence that the [Bush] White House was involved in early discussions about the proposed destruction."
Marcy Wheeler has the highlights of the chronology that the new list provides. I've added some comments for context.
November 1, 2005: Bill Frist [then the Republican Senate majority leader] briefed on torture.
November 1, 2005: [Washington Post reporter] Dana Priest reveals the use of black sites in Europe. In response, CIA starts moving detainees from the countries in question.
November 3, 2005: [Judge] Leonie Brinkema inquires whether govt has video or audio tapes of interrogations. CIA IG Report on Manadel al-Janabi’s death completed.
November 4, 2005: Member of Congress writes four page letter to CIA IG.
November 8, 2005: CIA requests permission to destroy torture tapes. CIA reaffirms March 2005 statement that all interrogation methods are lawful. Duncan Hunter [R-Calif.] briefed on torture. Pete Hoekstra [R-Mich.] briefed on torture.
November 14, 2005: Govt tells Brinkema it has no audio or video tapes.
This is yeoman's work (par for the course from Marcy). If you can't tell, it shows that the tapes were destroyed right after Judge Brinkema and Congress asked about them. That looks pretty damning. Here's Jameel Jaffer, the director of the ACLU's National Security Project, explaining the White House involvement:
[T]he tapes were destroyed immediately after the Washington Post reported the existence of the CIA black sites and the New York Times reported that the CIA Inspector General had questioned the legality of the agency's torture program.
The index also lists the earliest known record of White House participation in discussions about destroying the tapes—an e-mail dated February 22, 2003 revealing that CIA officials met with Bush administration officials to discuss how the agency should respond to a letter from Representative Jane Harman (D-CA) advising the agency not to destroy the tapes. While it was known previously that the White House participated in discussions about the disposition of the tapes, this is the earliest record to date of any such discussions.
I'll say the same thing I said about the Obama administration's suppression of perhaps thousands of torture photos two weeks ago: this smells like a coverup.