A statement last week by CIA Director Gen. Michael V. Haydon that his agency had in 2005 destroyed tapes of the interrogations of two Saudi Arabian prisoners has set off another firestorm of trying to figure out what the CIA did and why.

In 2002 the CIA interrogated, apparently including with harsh techniques that many Americans would consider to be torture, at least two Saudi Arabian prisoners, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The CIA videotaped the interrogations. Both are still prisoners at the Guantanamo U.S. Naval Base in Cuba.

In 2005, three years later, Gen. Hayden says the CIA destroyed hundreds of hours of these tapes, because they no longer had intelligence value and to protect the interrogators from retaliation from terrorists.

Gen. Hayden's announcement aroused a vivid reaction on the part of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the intelligence committees of the House and the Senate, to whom the CIA had apparently denied the existence of any such tapes. It is speculated that the tapes were destroyed to shield CIA personnel from possible legal action.

So here the American public goes again, into the dark caves of the Bush administration, where probably torture, certainly denial and general obfuscation are the name of the game. Here are some of the outstanding questions:

1) Were the interrogation methods used what would commonly be considered torture? How many people were questioned in that fashion? How many were taped being interrogated? The CIA says two, but what reason is there to believe them?

2) Who at the CIA approved the interrogations, and on whose authority? As for the destruction of the tapes, Porter J. Goss was director of the CIA at the point they were allegedly destroyed. Someone at the CIA says Mr. Goss didn't know about it. What reason is there to believe that claim? Or, if not, why not?

3) Who instructed the CIA to tell the 9/11 Commission and the Congress that there were no tapes? CIA officials say they did it themselves. Is that claim credible given the general internal discipline of the Bush administration?

4) White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says President Bush has no recollection of the tapes question. What reason is there to believe what she says he says?

5) How many prosecutions or possible prosecutions of terrorists are now compromised by the CIA's claims that it has destroyed what is likely to be relevant evidence?

6) Who should investigate this mess? The CIA has no credibility in the case, having already lied about the tapes repeatedly. New Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey almost wasn't confirmed by the Senate on the basis of his dodgy responses to senators' questions on the legality of torture.

As of now, the CIA itself, the Justice Department, and the Congress are launching investigations of the matter. They will have plenty to do if the American people are to emerge with a clear picture of this latest example of ethics and secrecy having gone wrong inside the U.S. government.

All of this is apart from the fact that torture is generally considered not to produce reliable, actionable intelligence in any case.