CIA’s Latest Vaughn Declarations, Working Thread
The CIA has released some new Vaughn Declaration documents in the ACLU’s torture FOIA. These documents relate to its communication with the OLC;
I’m keeping half an ear on HJC’s PATRIOT Act hearing at the moment, then will need to head to the CGI event. So I won’t be able to look at them until later.
In the meantime, however, consider this a working thread.
Update: Here’s the Vaughn Index from 2007 that Barron discusses in his declaration.
Thanks, EW! Have a great time at the CGI event, and please give us a report!
Also when you have time, I’ll be interested to hear your take on the HJC hearings. Today is moving day, so I’ll be in and out.
Thanks,
Bob in AZ
Good luck Bob. At least you got some nice fall weather up there.
woo hoo
Marcy, the multitasking Muse
praise the lord and pass the evidence
A quick judgment about the Barron declaration worth looking into: earlier representations justifying delays (we couldn’t release the IG report without cross checking it against the other documents, and we couldn’t release documents because of x and y and z) seem to have become “we lost track of what documents were what, but didn’t bother to say so?” I’m not sure which documents sets are what, when I say this.
#31. Memorialization of conversations between current and former DOJ attorneys about previous legal advice. By date, likely a “Legal Principles” conversation or withdrawn opinions.
Sibel Edmonds blows lid off CIA and Congress in new article in The American Conservative Magazine today.
Geez freakin louise. I’ve never seen anything like that Barron declaration. I couldn’t get past #11 right now – I’ll come back to it later, but I don’t see how anyone files that and holds their head up. And what – the story for the court is – “um the lawyers who worked on this before are gone, and we don’t know ass from backass, so, um, oh well?
Those lawyers that are “gone” aren’t “gone” from their duty to the court and they sure aren’t unavailable. It’s a small group and some court needs to haul their asses back before it. I haven’t kept up with the history on these ACLU requests and maybe Barron even gets into this after 11, but why was USA’s office of the Sov Dist. NY involved?
The Torture Memos: The Case Against the Lawyers
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23114
Oh, good, you got it linked already. It looks very interesting. I’ll go read now.
OK, they did admit it, on August 28.
I’m not sure that they admit it the other way around, they were also scrambling to match entries on the original Vaughn index to documents.
The delay request was signed by SDNY attorneys.
Barron declaration page 17 of 18, paragraphs 40 and 41:
“Presidential Communicatipons Privilege
40. Document 174 was released on August 24, 2009 with certain redactions, including the redaction of a sentence (on page 2 and repeated on page 3 of the document) that summarizes a pre-decisional deliberative communication between presidential advisers relating to a possible presidential decision. OLC continues to assert Exemption Five with respect to that redacted sentence, which is protected by the deliberative process and presidential communications privilege.
41. The presidential communications privilege protects confidential communications that relate to possible presidential decisionmaking ad that involve the President or his senior advisers. It is not limited to exchanges directly involving the President ; it protects communications between presidential advisers made in the course of formulating advice or recommendations for the President. The privilege protects such communications in order to ensure that the president’s advisers may fully explore options and provide appropriate advice to the President without concerns about compelled disclosure.”
First bold, what does that twice-redacted sentence say?
Second bold, is this cover for the OVP?
I need to cross-reference, but there are some references to (I think) PResidential Findings in some of the OLC opinions.
In paragraph 30 of the Barron declaration, he mentions, in an ‘oh, by the way’ tone, that they found over 200 potentially responsive documents not previously identified by OLC. They sent 168 documents to the CIA for processing and 56 to DOD.
Is it possible that someone actually got access to a particular man-sized safe? Wouldn’t Cheney spend 3X as much paper on CIA than DoD since he had many more of his minions inside DoD? [Funny how the docs split precisely 3:1, isn’t it?]
These are from the two safes in the OLC’s SCIF (Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility). So, not from that man-sized safe…
August 28
They need more time to conduct a final search.
September 21, Barron declaration
That is, they still need more time.
Anyone get the feeling that the OLC lawyer referred to in paragraph 19 is Bradbury?
Recall that he was busy at the time withdrawing these.
Hey, take a look at the description of Document 63 in the current Vaughn index. It’s from the EOP to OLC. Now, look at the description in the 2007 Vaughn Index. the number of pages don’t match. Normally, I would assume there was a typo in the original index, but, if the shoe were on the other foot, the government would certainly accuse a defendant of destroying evidence if this happened.
Barron declaration page 14 of 18, topmost sentence:
Vaugh Index page 119 of 226:
Torture Timeline says –
July 20, 2004: CIA requests new legal advice from OLC (13 page letter).
So Document 89 (3 pages) “provides an update on the status of interrogation advice” sometime in September.
Then on October 4, the OLC sends Document 90 – 4 pages, with handwritten marginalia, regarding application of international law , as it relates to detainees. (So this is their attempt to rationalize that the UN CAT does not apply.)
What does “Vaughn Index” mean?