CIA Now Reviewing OPR Report on Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury

Sheldon Whitehouse revealed raised during today’s Department of Justice oversight hearing that the CIA is now reviewing the results of the Office of Professional Responsibility report on John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury’s role in authorizing torture.

Whitehouse: CIA was given a opportunity for substantive comment and classification review. Is it now the CIA that is holding up the release of the report?

Eric Holder claimed that the CIA’s review was not holding up the report. But when asked whether or not DOJ was ensuring that those at CIA reviewing the document had clean hands on torture, Holder twice did not answer, and ultimately said he wasn’t worried whether those involved in torture get to make substantive comment on the OPR report.

Whitehouse: Role of CIA in substantive comment and in classification review, interesting conflicts of interest. What assurances from CIA that those who seek to influence OPR report through substantive comment or those who have effect of delaying report are not complicit or involved in underlying conduct. Have you got a clean scrub of those at CIA who are involved in program?

Holder: As complete a report as we can. Declassify as much as we can. Full feeling of what it is that OLC lawyers dealt with. Pushing to declassify as much as we can. 

Whitehouse: Doesnt’ address question of whatever assurances from CIA that in discharge of review role the people involved in that had clean hands WRT this program and are giving untainted advice.

Holder: We haven’t gotten anything yet. This may not be an issue at all.  Will interact with Panetta. Want to have as much declassified as possible.

Whitehouse: And on question of substantive comments? Is it not important that CIA should be doing so in manner that keeps agencies hands clean.

Holder: I’m actually less worried about substantive comments.

Whitehouse: Would they be likely to look at substantive comments differently if CIA had not kept report from people with clean hands.

Holder: Fact-driven. Conclusion that one draws from the facts, Justice Department’s view of facts that we have uncovered.

In other words, no, Holder doesn’t find it problematic that someone like John Rizzo–who remains the Acting General Counsel at CIA and who made apparently false declarations to OLC in 2002 when it first approved torture–gets a chance to review the OPR report.

Hell. Maybe if we’re lucky, he’ll tell DOJ that David Addington or Dick Cheney ordered him to submit that apparently false information so OLC would sign off on torture (though I doubt Rizzo–whose big career break was, like Cheney and Addington, cleaning up after Iran-Contra–will break the omerta). 

As troubling as this news that CIA is reviewing the OPR report is, it does say something about the OPR report’s conclusions. They implicate CIA enough that Eric Holder (not Mukasey) feels that CIA ought to get a chance to explain itself.

I’ve been saying for months that the CIA may have knowingly submitted false information to OLC. It may be that John Yoo and Jay Bybee used that as their excuse for their crappy opinions. Maybe, if this report ever comes out, we’ll get to see whether that’s the case. 

Update: The CIA review of the OPR report was covered in a Politico story back in May. Here’s the letter DOJ sent to Senator Whitehouse revealing that fact. 

image_print
20 replies
  1. Arbusto says:

    American justice at work; allowing those being investigated, CIA council, Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury “substantive comment” or modification of the findings. It’d sure streamline our criminal court system if defendants or subjects of investigation or grand juries get to do the same.

  2. phred says:

    I am still worried (particularly after Holder’s testimony this morning) that key parts of the report will remain classified and redacted. This smacks of a continuing cover-up operation to me.

  3. LabDancer says:

    “Maybe, if this report ever comes out, we’ll get to see whether that’s the case.”

    Girl, this report is going to be right up your alley.

    • acquarius74 says:

      Thank you, drational, for that fine, very informative diary. Comments there also are exceptional. I must find time to visit dkos more often.

  4. Mary says:

    No blunt question – one like, “It’s been reported over and over that a CIA operative froze a 20 or so yo man to death in Afghanistan using “enhanced interrogation techniques and alos that this CIA operative has received multiple promotions since this torture killing; yet in a recent interview with Jane Mayer Leon Panetta has said that there is no one who should have charges pursued against them. Since, as bad as they are, none of the released memos authorizes torturing to death someone with no known al-Qaeda affiliations, can you explain that?”

    I don’t even care about the whiffle waffle that would come out in reponse if the damn questions would just be asked and be put in the public domain.

    Holder and Obama are disgraces – how sad that the first African-American AG and President are willing to be torture supporters.

    • phred says:

      That would be refreshing! I can’t imagine any of our Congress critters actually holding Obama’s/Holder’s feet to the fire though. It is difficult to watch (or even read about) these hearings when they seem to be just so much posturing. What consequences are there for administration officials that come before Congress and spend their time obfuscating, stalling, and generally doing a graceless minuet with Congress? None. It is embarrassing. For them and for us.

    • acquarius74 says:

      Yes, Mary. And what about Mark Swanner, the CIA agent/interrogator who killed Jamadi (the Iceman) among the photos in the leaked Abu Ghraib group. The CIA even investigated him and referred his case to DOJ for their appropriate action. That was 2004 – 5 years and no action on the case and the last article I read he was still working for CIA. I guess Panetta just closed the door on that since it happened in the past…nothing here to see, move along.

    • FromCt says:

      Anybody YET willing to even consider demanding an intiation of an impeachment investigation of Obama’s obstruction/complicity….?

      Glenn’s columns on wednesday speaks not only to the congressional democratic caucus:
      http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html
      “House Democrats prioritize loyalty to the president over their own judgment”

      and…
      http://www.salon.com/opinion/g…..index.html
      “Obama and transparency: judge for yourself”

      Am I the only one who sees how we should be reacting to Obama’s flagrant betrayal of the presidential oath? Is your hope for the passage into law of Obama’s key domestic legislative objectives, worth what has to be ignored or minimized, related to his apparent refusal to uphold the law?

  5. foothillsmike says:

    Von Brunn has not yet been indicted since he has not yet had the opportunity to redact the DAs report. /s

  6. WTFOver says:

    David Miliband wants interrogation policy kept secret

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/poli…..errogation

    • MI5 officers stand accused of colluding in torture
    • PM orders rewrite of papers after complaints

    The foreign secretary, David Miliband, told MPs today that he will not allow the public to see the secret interrogation policy that is at the heart of allegations that MI5 has been colluding in the torture of British citizens.

    • Mary says:

      Can’t have that “lending succour” to the enemy that would result from telling the truth, can we?

    • acquarius74 says:

      Thanks for this post, Marcy, especially the clip. Don’t you know the weasel witnesses like Holder hate to come under his guns? Perfect preparation, perfect recall, perfect delivery, and documented facts like bullets that can’t be dodged. IMO we should draft him for pres in 2012. Others say that he is too badly needed in the senate; that’s true, but it’s pretty well in the old one-holer already except for him, Feingold, Durbin and Sanders.

  7. Jkat says:

    OT ..but .. some corporations are trying to keep their flight records secret .. AND ..

    oh hell .. when ya gets to the bottom of it ..it’s somehow going to be related to rendition flights ..i think ..

    it’s one of those news stories that make ya go hmmmmmmmm

  8. kgb999 says:

    I’ve been saying for months that the CIA may have knowingly submitted false information to OLC. It may be that John Yoo and Jay Bybee used that as their excuse for their crappy opinions. Maybe, if this report ever comes out, we’ll get to see whether that’s the case.

    The CIA wasn’t the only one pushing for these techniques. The DoD started looking into using the JPRA resources offensively as early as Sept. 2001. There were at least two other groups trained by JPRA before or at about the same time as the Abu Zubaydah CIA team. There are some pretty clear hints that waterboarding happened in Afghanistan before it came to Gitmo.

    The OLC knew exactly what they were being asked for and the CIA was not the only source of information they used to make their decisions. For example, on the day (Jul 24, 2002) the OLC verbally approved “some techniques” for use on Abu Zubaydah, Haynes pressed JPRA for documentation on their training programs and Ogrisseg’s report on long-term effects of waterboarding was produced. Haynes spends the next two days getting documentation together from the JPRA that the OLC used to verbally approve the worst techniques on the 26th and produce the Bybee Memos on Aug 1.

    IMO, the military likely tortured more people than the CIA. They were a major driving force behind these authorizations.

  9. Leen says:

    “reviewing OPR report” will Bradbury, Yoo or Bybee be in the room for the review? (just kidding) Which meeting was it that Bradbury was able to have input during a recent review or was it “memos”?

Comments are closed.