Posts

Were the Torturers Bypassing OLC in July 2004?

/46 Comments/in /by

Update, March 13, 2015: The Torture Report clarify this. First, CIA had not yet rendered the detainee, who was indeed Janat Gul. At the meeting, CIA did ask for a memo, as well as permission to torture Gul because (we now know) a fabricator had claimed he was involved in an election season plot. We’ve also learned that regardless of what Comey and Goldsmith approved, the CIA used its torture of Gul, after Goldsmith left, to expand the prior authorizations CIA had obtained to incorporate what they had actually used.
Jay Bybee thinks it’s really damning that Jim Comey attended a July 2, 2004 Principals meeting at which the torture of one particular detainee (he says it was Janat Gul, though there are reasons to doubt it) was discussed.

Comey joined Ashcroft at a NSC Principals Meeting on July 2, 2004 to discuss the possible interrogation of CIA detainee Janat Gul. Report at 123. Ashcroft and Comey conferred with Goldsmith after the meeting, leading to Goldsmith’s letter to Muller approving all of the techniques described in the Classified Bybee Memo except for the waterboard. Id (PDF 26-27)

I’m not so sure. In fact, it appears that the key approvals happened after Comey had left that meeting–and Goldsmith’s “approval” appears to have been an attempt to put some limits on the CIA after the White House had approved the techniques.

Let’s review everything that led up to that meeting.

In April, per the OPR Report, Jack Goldsmith and Steven Bradbury began work on a memo to replace the March 2003 Yoo memo. Meanwhile, in response to the CIA Inspector General Report’s description of torture as it was being administered, Goldsmith advised CIA General Counsel Scott Muller on May 27 not to use waterboarding (and to strictly follow the descriptions of the other nine authorized techniques carefully). On June 7 and 8 news of the torture memos appeared in the WSJ and WaPo. After learning in a phone call with John Yoo about some of the back-channel advice CIA and DOD had gotten, Goldsmith told Muller on June 10 that CIA was going to have to put things in writing if it wanted further OLC opinions on torture (Goldsmith appears to have kept the proof that he faxed it to CIA). On June 16, Goldsmith told Ashcroft he would withdraw the Bybee One memo and then resign. On June 22, in an off the record briefing, Comey, Goldsmith, and Philbin renounced the Bybee One memo. And on June 28, the Supreme Court ruled against the Administration in the Hamdi case.

The entire torture program, the torture architects surely believed, was at risk. In his book, Jack Goldsmith reports that the CIA and White House accused him of “buckl[ing]” in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. And Addington sniped that Goldsmith should give him a list of any OLC opinions Goldsmith still stood by.

In this context on July 2–ten days after Goldsmith publicly withdrew the Bybee One memo and four days after the Hamdi decision–the CIA asked to torture again.

Read more →

Clarence Thomas’ Revenge

/154 Comments/in /by

Rosalind linked to this LAT article describing Clarence Thomas’ pro-abuse views.

According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form — but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm — has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Thomas objected when the high court, in a little-noted recent opinion, said this unprovoked and malicious assault by a North Carolina prison guard amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

[snip]

According to Thomas, this harsh treatment did not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. “Judges — not jailers — impose punishment,” he wrote.

[Thomas and Scalia] explained that the word “punishment” as it was used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 referred to judges imposing punishment for a crime. Prison guards do not impose “punishment” even if they mete out cruelty, they said.

The entire article is worth reading not just because it reveals where Thomas will weigh in if torture ever gets to SCOTUS.

But it highlights a point I noted (as did Citizen92): the degree to which Clarence Thomas’ former and future clerks implemented our country’s torture regime.

Page 25 to 27 (PDF page 31 to 33) of the OPR Report includes a section on the background of the lawyers who had significant hand in writing the torture memos:

John Yoo. Clerk, Clarence Thomas,1994 to 1995

Patrick Philbin, Clerk, Clarence Thomas, 1993 to 1994

Jennifer Koester, Clerk, Clarence Thomas, 2004 to 2005

Steven Bradbury, Clerk, Clarence Thomas, 1992 to 1993

Of the list included on those pages, just Jack Goldsmith and Daniel Levin did not clerk for Thomas. And of course, the most egregious work came from lawyers–Yoo, Koester, and Bradbury–who were Thomas clerks.

This is one of the dangers of appointing a partisan hack like Thomas rather than radical, but intelligent, lawyers like Alito and Scalia. Because the partisan hack is going to launch a whole generation of lawyers (see also Citizen92’s focus on James Ho, who also went through OLC) who treat law like one big game of sophistry and human beings like objects into really prominent positions.

And I would bet that Clarence Thomas enjoys the little part he has had in shredding our country’s Constitution.

It’s Not Just the Emails DOJ Lost, It’s the Backup Documentation

/39 Comments/in /by

We’ve been talking quite a bit about John Yoo and Patrick Philbin’s emails on the torture memos that OLC deleted: with a rebuttal of John Yoo’s claims there were no email, a report on the National Archives’ attempts to learn what happened, and a catalog of damning facts we learned from the few emails left over.

But it’s not just the emails that are missing. It’s also some of the backup documentation. Some of the documents that went into the production of the torture memos–and should have been reviewed by OPR over the course of its investigation–disappeared some time in the last 5 years.

As I reported last September, after some delay in a FOIA response, Acting head of OLC, David Barron confessed that OLC could not find all of the documents that it had first listed on a 2006 FOIA response.

The problem, as Barron explained in his declaration, seems to stem from three things: CIA, not OLC, did the original FOIA search in 2005 and at that time did not make a copy of the documents responsive to FOIA; for long periods OPR had the documents, lumped in with a bunch of other torture documents, so it could work on is investigation; the documents got shuttled around for other purposes, as well, including other investigations and one trip to the CIA for a 2007 update to the FOIA Vaughn Index. [Here’s the 2007 Vaughn Index and here’s the Vaughn Index that accompanied Barron’s declaration last September.]

And, somewhere along the way, at least 10 documents originally identified in 2005 as responsive to the FOIA got lost.

Poof!

The 10 Missing Documents

Here’s a list of the short descriptions of what disappeared:

  • Document 6, 07/25/2002, 46 [or 60 or 59] page Top Secret [or Secret] memo providing legal advice
  • Document 20, 09/12/2003, 1 page Top Secret memo requesting legal advice
  • Document 47, 07/07/2004, 1 page Top Secret memo providing legal advice
  • Document 77, 08/16/2004, 2 page Top Secret memo providing legal advice
  • Document 142, undated 2 page Top Secret memo requesting legal advice
  • Document 155, undated 3 page Top Secret draft memo with attached handwritten notes requesting legal advice
  • Document 172, undated 5 page Top Secret memo requesting legal advice
  • Document 175, undated 6 page Top Secret draft memo providing legal advice
  • Document 177, undated 10 page Top Secret draft memo providing legal advice
  • Document 181, undated 127 page Top Secret draft memo providing legal advice

Why did CIA do the FOIA responses?

Now, before I get into why this is troubling in terms of the OPR Report, let me just challenge a claim Barron made in his declaration. He explained that CIA, rather than OLC, had done the first and second FOIA searches this way:

CIA attorneys were initially given access to the OLC Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (“SCIF”) in 2005 to search for documents responsive to the FOIA request at issue in this litigation. CIA attorneys conducted the search because no OLC attorneys assigned at the time to the processing of FOIA requests had the clearances needed to access and review the documents.

It’s not entirely clear when CIA would have been rifling through OLC’s SCIF drawers in 2005 (and Barron apparently doesn’t feel like telling us). But it would have come after Judge Alvin Hellerstein ordered the CIA to respond to the FOIA on February 2, 2005 (they had been refusing to respond to his order to do so from the previous fall). And they would have done it over the next year and a half. In any case, it would have happened after Daniel Levin wrote his unclassified torture memo, about which the OPR Report explains,

Virtually all of OLC’s attorneys and deputies were included in the review process,

And it would have happened during or after the drafting of the Bradbury memos, about which the OPR Report explains,

Bradbury circulated drafts of his memoranda widely within the Department.

Granted, the OPR Report doesn’t say the Bradbury Memos were circulated widely within OLC, but when they had an incentive to make the claim, DOJ later claimed that the torture memos, which would have been the same compartment as all the FOIA documents, were widely circulated. It seems unlikely that Levin’s memo was reviewed by “virtually all of OLC’s attorneys,” but that the following year they couldn’t find a single OLC lawyer to put together a FOIA response.

And what seems even more curious is that rather than invite CIA to OLC’s SCIF to do the updated FOIA response in 2007–at a time when the documents were under investigation–DOJ would instead send all the documents over to CIA for them to do it.

In 2007, the documents were recalled from OPR by OLC so that they could be sent to the CIA for processing and for purposes of updated the unclassified Vaughn Index submitted in this matter.

It’s sort of funny that DOJ took fewer cautions with these documents after they were actively under investigation than they did beforehand. Here, DOJ seems to have said to the CIA, see if you can’t make some of these documents accidentally blow into the Potomac on your way back to DOJ…

Three Troubling Documents

Now, it’s hard to tell what disappeared, since we don’t actually get to see either the documents that disappeared or those the DOJ thinks might be close matches. But three of the documents, in particular, trouble me.

Document 6, 07/25/2002, 46 [or 60 or 59] page Top Secret [or Secret] memo providing legal advice

Here’s the longer description of this document submitted in the 2007 FOIA response:

Document No. 6 is a 60-page document dated 25 July 2002 that consists of a 3-page memorandum and six attachments of 2 pages, 7 pages, 10 pages, 13 pages, 13 pages, and 12 pages, respectively. It is classified SECRET.

The memorandum and attachments contain confidential client communications from the CIA on a matter in which it requested legal advice from OLC.

Aside from the fact that DOJ has said, at different times, this packet of information was 46, 60, and 59-pages long (and that the same FOIA claims it is classified both Top Secret and Secret), the questions about this document alarm me because I’m fairly certain this is the packet of JPRA information sent OLC in the last days of drafting of the first torture documents. It’s going to take me a full post to explain the many reasons questions about this document’s provenance is problematic–tune in next post for the next installment of disappearing evidence!

Read more →

The Emails the Bush Lawyers Were So Worried About

/in /by

As I noted yesterday (though I got the details slightly wrong), the OPR report revealed that a number of John Yoo and Patrick Philbin’s emails had been deleted (and that Goldsmith’s had been deleted but were subsequently recovered).

OLC initially provided us with a relatively small number of emails, files, and draft documents. After it became apparent, during the course of our review, that relevant documents were missing, we requested and were given direct access to the email and computer records of Yoo, Philbin, Bybee, and Goldsmith. However, we were told that most of Yoo’s email records had been deleted and were not recoverable. Philbin’s email records from July 2002 through August 5, 2002 – the time period in which the. Bybee. Memo was completed and the Classified Bybee Memo (discussed below) was created – had also been deleted and were reportedly not recoverable. Although we were initially advised that Goldsmith’s records had been deleted, we were later told that they had been recovered and we were given access to them.

That’s particularly interesting, because several times in the year-long lead up to the release of the report, we’ve seen reports that Bush Administration members were squirmy about the number of emails OPR had gotten. Michael Isikoff first reported concern from Bush lawyers that OPR got emails from the memo contributors last February.

OPR investigators focused on whether the memo’s authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted, according to three former Bush lawyers who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe. One of the lawyers said he was stunned to discover how much material the investigators had gathered, including internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted.

I wondered whether reappearing emails was of particular concern to those trying to cover up Bush crimes here. Then there was the remarkably bad NYT story from June 6, 2009, that not only revealed the presence of the emails and included the damning Comey ones, but spun them just as Steven Bradbury would have liked them, as an attack on Comey rather than what they were, an indictment of the drafting process.

All of this anxiety about emails could just be an expression of Bradbury’s worries (retrospectively, it looks much more likely than it already did that he was the source of the emails and the spin to the NYT).

If so, though, that’s particularly interesting since we know that OPR originally got a very limited batch of emails from Steven Bradbury (this was in 2004, before he would write his own torture memos).

On August 31,2004, Bradbury gave OPR copies of unclassified documents relating to the Bybee Memo, including email and documents from the computer hard drives and files of the former OLC attorneys who worked on the project.

But reports of the anxiety about emails are all the more interesting given the emails that are included in the report. Perhaps the most damning example is the email in which Yoo refers to Abu Zubaydah as “Boo Boo” (which Spencer reported on Friday):

On July 30,2002, Yoo asked [Koester] by email, “[D]o we know if Boo boo is allergic to certain insects?” [Koester] responded,”No idea, but I’ll check with [redacted].

In addition, email evidence provided the basis for [Special thanks, again, to burnt for making searchable copies of these reports that made compiling this list much easier]:

  • The start date of the Bybee One drafting process, April 11, 2002
  • Timing or summaries of key meetings, including some with Alberto Gonzales
  • Yoo’s comments on drafts sent to Jennifer Koester, his side-kick in the writing process
  • Details of Bybee’s involvement in the drafting process
  • Proof that Yoo didn’t intend to write the Commander-in-Chief or possible defenses before his July 16, 2002 meeting with Gonzales (and probably David Addington and/or Tim Flanigan)
  • Evidence that Yoo consulted with a university law professor on common law defenses (the second draft, but not the first and final, shows that this was a university professor)
  • Indication that Yoo and Koester didn’t start the Bybee Two (Techniques) memo until July 25, 2002 or later
  • Details on the pressure the White House was putting on Yoo to get the memos done
  • Details of who received the opinions including–a fact that Yoo later denied–DOD
  • Complaints Koester received from DOD’s Working Group that the Yoo Memo was too extreme
  • Proof that both Michael Chertoff and John Yoo told CIA’s Inspector General they would wait to investigate alleged crimes until he was done with his investigation
  • Goldsmith’s opinions about the Bybee One Memo, including his judgment that it constituted a “blank check”
  • Comey’s emails documenting his concerns about the May 10, 2005 Combined Memo and his belief that Bradbury was responding to White House pressure because he wanted the AAG position

In other words, the emails provide a key piece of evidence that the White House was responsible for the way in which the Bybee One memo served as a blank check, as well as the pressure the White House put on the lawyers as they were drafting the memos.

The emails put the White House squarely in the drafting process.

But that’s all with most emails from John Yoo and Patrick Philbin still disappeared.

It sort of makes you all the more curious about what was in the Yoo and Philbin emails that got deleted, huh?

OPR Working Thread Two

/in /by

Happy Saturday.

OPR Report Second Draft

I will be starting with the Second Draft of the OPR memo. As before I will use the PDF page numbers, not the printed page numbers

PDF 6: OPR interviewed John Bellinger between the first draft (December 2008) and second draft (March 2009).

PDF 7: The first draft claimed that OPR didn’t get the Combined memo until 2007. The second draft says they saw it in 2005, along with the Techniques memo.

PDF8: Bradbury said he didn’t show OPR the CAT memo bc it didn’t replace either of the Bybee memos; he claimed that was the entire scope of the OPR investigation.

PDF 8-9: The Second draft (written after receiving Mukasey’s comments) notes that Mukasey had reviewed the Bradbury memos and found them legal. It is followed by a paragraph noting that Obama issued an order stating no one coudl rely on OLC guidelines from before his term.

PDF 10: Second draft notes that it did not rely on legal commentary or comments from other DOJ employees. Seems like Mukasey beat them up for letting Goldsmith or Comey’s opinions matter.

PDF 11: Second draft withdrew recommendation to review Bradbury memos, saying that the Obama EO withdrawing everything made further review unnecessary.

PDF 12: Second draft makes a point of saying that Bybee didn’t leave dept until March 28, 2003 (the first said he left right away). This may have relevance for the Yoo Memo.

PDF 12: Second draft notes that

PDF 16: Footnote 14 is changed to say that CIA had neither oral or written approval to use torture when it started; draft one had just said this was before the August 1 memo.

PDF 20: There is a longer redaction after the techniqes list in the second draft. Also note the explanation of Bellinger’s discussion with Yoo now has a redacted half-paragraph. This is significant since Bellinger was interviewed between the two drafts. Also note that part of footnote 18 is redacted in the later draft, though from the spacing it appears to be the unredacted passage from the first draft explaining that oo did not know why Bellinger told him to avoid telling State. Presumably in the contect of the other Bellinger discussion, it is now too sensitive?

PDF 21: THere’s a medium sized paragraph in the second draft that doesn’t appear in the first, which seems to come from Bellinger. Bellinger notes that Yoo was under a great deal of pressure on this memo, and also says that over time there was significant pressure to rule that the program was legal and could be continued (this seems to refer to Bradbury’s timing). In any case, it seems to relate to pressure from the WH.

PDF 23: there is a much longer redaction in the description of the meeting talking about starting the opinion. Again, this must come from Bellinger.

PDF 26: Second draft adds a paragraph stating that Yoo said he was not under time pressure, except maybe at the end after they decide to do Bybee Two.

Read more →

What’s Missing from the EFF Document Dump: Whitehouse’s Declassification Requests

/22 Comments/in /by

I’m still plugging away on the EFF Document Dump. But before I delve into the next chunk of emails, I want to note something that hasn’t, thus far, shown up in the document dump (and almost certainly should have been included in the communications between Congress and OLC): Two separate requests (or one extended one) on the part of Sheldon Whitehouse to declassify some of the underlying legal authorities for Bush’s illegal surveillance program.

On December 7, 2007, Whitehouse revealed three paraphrases of OLC opinions that Bush had relied on to authorize his surveillance program.

  • An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.
  • The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.
  • The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.

Whitehouse made it clear–between the time SSCI approved its version of FAA on October 26, 2007 and the time the full Senate approved it on February 12, 2008–that these three OLC opinions authorized at least one earlier incarnation of Bush’s surveillance program (though it’s not clear whether they authorized the PAA or the totally illegal programs).

For years under the Bush Administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own papers, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those opinions, and spent hours poring over them. Sitting in that secure room, as a lawyer, as a former U.S. Attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and State Attorney General, I was increasingly dismayed and amazed as I read on.

To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified.

These are the opinions, then, that the SSCI got to review as part of the negotiations over the PAA and FAA.

Then, on April 30, 2008, Whitehouse revealed he was still trying to get language from one OLC opinion similarly declassified, this one on exclusivity.

I’m doing it again with a piece of language that relates to exclusivity. There is a sentence that describes whether or not the FISA statute’s exclusivity provision is really exclusive enough for the OLC and that is, we’re still going through this process. I’d like to be able to tell you more about this.

This effort took place before the ultimate compromise bill was introduced on June 19, 2008 (it passed the Senate on July 9, 2008).

In other words, Whitehouse’s efforts–which surely include the OLC (though the OLC would almost certainly not have had final declassification authority)–were part of DOJ discussions with Congress about passing FAA. But they don’t show up in the OLC documents, or (as far as I have seen) in the EFF documents more generally.

Though there may be reasonable explanations (I’m going to do some follow-up on this point), it does seem a curious omission. Not least, because these four opinions (and therefore, presumably the discussions about declassifying some summary of them) are really keys to understanding much of the discussion in the emails. They explain both the discussions about 12333 and “2.5” authority, specifically regarding whether the government could wiretap Americans overseas. As well as some of the discussion about the debate over the exclusivity provision.

Is John Rizzo Stalling?

/43 Comments/in /by

Boy, the press conference with Eric Holder today was jam-packed. In addition to using the Zazi arrest to push to renew the PATRIOT Act, Holder apparently updated reporters on the long-awaited OPR report.

The release of a long-awaited ethics report on the conduct of former Justice Department lawyers who authorized the use of harsh interrogation appears to be a ways off.

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday the department is waiting for additional comments from “some of the lawyers who were involved.” The former Office of Legal Counsel lawyers under scrutiny already missed a May deadline for submitting their responses.

Speaking with reporters at Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, Holder said he expected the report to be cleared for release relatively soon. In June, he said the report, now more than four years in the making, would be ready in a “matter of weeks.”

The report explores whether legal advice in the interrogation memos, which have since been rescinded, met professional standards required of Justice Department lawyers. The Office of Professional Responsibility’s initial findings are said to be harshly critical of Jay Bybee, the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and John Yoo, a former deputy.

In spite of this report’s focus on Yoo and Bybee, I wonder whether they’re really the cause of the delay. After all, last we heard, the report was delayed not just because Yoo and Bradbury got a chance to review the document and work the ref, but because CIA got to review the document, even while John Rizzo, a key participant in the report, remained as Acting General Counsel at CIA.

In other words, "some of the lawyers who were involved" may not be limited to the OLC lawyers. John Rizzo was "involved" over a longer time and in as central a role as any of the OLC lawyers. He may have as much incentive as they do to delay the report.

JPRA’s Advice Has Gone Missing

/85 Comments/in /by

As I noted earlier, ACLU got a new Vaughn Index today, covering the OLC documents pertaining to CIA’s torture program.

But what ACLU really got is a long admission from Acting OLC head David Barron that OLC has lost ten or more of the documents included on a Vaughn Index provided in 2007.

And one of those documents–apparently referred to as Document 6 in both Vaughn Indices–is one of the packets of information JPRA provided to Jim Haynes and from there to OLC as back-up to the Bybee Two Memo (though note, given the date of July 25, this does not appear to be the document compiled urgently that described waterboarding).

The 2007 Index refers to the document as a 46-page document, dated July 25, 2002, providing legal advice. Yesterday’s Index refers to the document as a 59-page document, from and to the DOD, dated July 25, 2002, providing legal advice.

The page discrepancy, by itself is interesting (that is, if they don’t have the document, then how do they know that the original index listed the page numbers wrong?). 

And then there’s the fact that this document is missing. Some of these documents discussed SERE techniques as torture. In the SASC report, both Jim Haynes and John Rizzo were very squirmy about discussing how DOD advice to to OLC for CIA’s torture memos; if we had the document itself, we might be able to explain that definitively. And then there’s the possibility that someone took notes on this document.

But, if my reading of the two Vaughn Indices is correct, we can’t answer those questions. Because somehow, one of the key documents in the generation of the torture memos has just disappeared from a SCIF facility.

Addington’s Direct Involvement in the Torture Memos

/97 Comments/in /by

As I noted yesterday, I’ve been reading old HJC hearings–including the hearing at which Daniel Levin testified about the torture memos. Levin basically testified that he was asked to resign while he was drafting what became the 2005 Bradbury memos.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Levin, let me begin with you and Mr. Wilkerson, and put frankly everything I have heard today in some context. And I want to pull out two particular events. The first one is the circumstances of your not being at the Department. I know that you were very careful in your answers to Chairman Nadler earlier. But let me make sure I understand you.

You didn’t voluntarily leave the Department; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. I would have preferred to have stayed. I mean, when I was told I wasn’t going to stay, I voluntarily left.

Mr. DAVIS. That tends to be what happens; when people who are over you tell you to go, you go. That is what in the real world is called being fired.

But he also revealed something else about what happened when he was drafting the replacements for John Yoo’s crappy memos: he had no direct contact with David Addington during the process–or anyone else in OVP.

Mr. ELLISON. Whom did you talk to in the redrafting?

Mr. LEVIN. I talked to a lot of people. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I think one of the problems with the earlier memo was, it was not the subject of sufficiently broad collaboration and discussion.

I talked, in addition to everybody in the Office of Legal Counsel virtually, people at the Criminal Division, various other people in the Department, people at the State Department.

Mr. ELLISON. Did you talk to anybody in the Vice President’s Office?

Mr. LEVIN. I don’t believe I did talk to anybody in the Vice President’s Office. I did submit drafts to the White House Counsel’s Office, and whom they circulated it to in the White House, I don’t know.

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. Do you know if—did Mr. Addington have any input into your redraft?

Mr. LEVIN. Not directly to me. Whether he did so indirectly, I am not sure. He may have provided comments to White House Counsel that were then communicated to me as their comments. I was not ever told anything that were his comments, and he never spoke to me about it directly.

Now, that’s remarkable. Read more →

More CIA Lies about Torture Briefings

/52 Comments/in /by

Time has an important story matching a claim made in Steven Bradbury’s July 20, 2007 OLC memo about Congressional briefings on torture with what the Senators themselves (particularly John McCain) say about briefing they received. The claim–which appears in the middle of a discussion about what shocks the conscience (pages 43-44)–is this:

Nevertheless, you have informed us that prior to passage of the Military Commissions Act, several Members of Congress, including the full memberships of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and Senator McCain, were briefed by General Michael Hayden, Director of the CIA, on the six techniques that we discuss herein and that, General Hayden explained, would likely be necessary to the CIA detention and interrogation program should the legislation be enacted. In those classified and private conversations, none of the Members expressed the view that the CIA detention and interrogation program should be stopped, or that the techniques at issue were inappropriate. Many of those Members thereafter were critical in ensuring the passage of the legislation, making clear through their public statements and through their votes that they believed that a CIA program along the lines General Hayden described could and should continue.

The Time article focuses closely on McCain’s objection to this representation:

A spokeswoman for McCain said that contrary to those claims, the Arizona Republican repeatedly raised objections in private meetings, including one with Hayden, about the use of sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique. "Senator McCain clearly made the case that he was opposed to unduly coercive techniques, especially when used in combination or taken too far — including sleep deprivation," says Brooke Buchanan, a spokeswoman for McCain.

Less prominent, but important given her current position as Chair of SSCI investigating–among other things–CIA’s lies about briefings, is this objection from DiFi:

In the weeks that followed, according to a person familiar with matter, California Democrat Diane Feinstein, a member of the committee, raised concerns with the CIA about use of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Now, some of the people briefed have already raised objections about the characterizations made of these briefings (for example, Feingold wrote a letter objecting to the program and later wrote objecting to Hayden’s representations of his briefings on the program). Read more →