Posts

The Torture Memos

/170 Comments/in /by

ACLU has them posted:

August 1, 2002 John Yoo memo

First May 10, 2005 Steven Bradbury memo

Second May 10, 2005 Steven Bradbury memo

May 30, 2005 Steven Bradbury memo

And while you’re over at ACLU, consider showing them some love for all their great work prying these out of the government. 

Consider this a working thread.

Update: Did I say they were worried about blows to the head? From the August 1, 2002 memo:

For walling, a flexible false wall will be constructed. The individual is placed with his heels touching the wall. The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual’s shoulder blades that hit the wall. During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash. To further reduce the probability of injury, the individual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall. 

Oh, and did I mention that they were using Abu Zubaydah as a human guinea pig, to test out methods they wanted to get approved? I ask, you see, because Abu Zubaydah told the ICRC that they only put in the "flexible false wall" after they started this technique.

Obama on the OLC Memo Release

/39 Comments/in /by

With my comments interspersed:

The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.

Michael Hayden was on claiming they could have won this in court–I think he’s really underestimating how fed up Hellerstein is with this bullshit. 

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

Note the admission that not all of the practices have been acknowledged. Perhaps, just for example, blows to the head?  Also, the recognition that these have been widely reported suggests the ICRC report may have made a difference in this fight.

In releasing these memos, Read more →

It’s Not the Water-Boarding, It’s the Blows to the Head

/70 Comments/in /by

Just to lay out a few details based on this article explaining that Obama continues to waver on what parts of the 2005 Bradbury torture memos to reveal. (h/t Steve)

1. According to the WSJ,  it’s not the description of water-boarding that the CIA wants to hide. It’s the description of how the CIA threw people against the wall.

Among the details in the still-classified memos is approval for a technique in which a prisoner’s head could be struck against a wall as long as the head was being held and the force of the blow was controlled by the interrogator, according to people familiar with the memos.

2. We know from the ICRC report this technique had been used, three years before Bradbury wrote his OLC memos, with Abu Zubaydah.

I was taken out of my cell and one of the interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck, they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room.

[snip]

When I was let out of the box I saw that one of the walls of the room had been covered with plywood sheeting. From now on it was against this wall that I was then smashed with the towel around my neck. I think that the plywood was put there to provide some absorption of the impact of my body. The interrogators realized that smashing me against the hard wall would probably quickly result in physical injury.

(According to the report, five more of the High Value Detainees described the same treatment.)

3. We know that Abu Zubaydah now has mental injuries and–apparently–cannot stand trial.

The WSJ quotes intelligence officials claiming that, if these details are made public, it’ll be a propaganda tool for the terrorists.

Intelligence officials also believe that making the techniques public would give al Qaeda a propaganda tool just as the administration is stepping up its fight against the terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan

But these details have already been made public, in the ICRC report and elsewhere. What the intelligence officials want to hide is that–even after they did this damage to Abu Zubadaydah (though before the ICRC called it torture in 2007)–Steven Bradbury wrote an OLC memo declaring this treatment legal.

Durbin and Whitehouse: Why Did Mukasey Give OLC a Peek at the Yoo/Bradbury Results?

/33 Comments/in , , /by

Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse want to know why the Office of Professional Responsibility gave OLC a chance to review their report on John Yoo’s and Steven Bradbury’s torture memos.

Just last week, they got a response from DOJ on the process the OPR review has gone through, revealing that the report already integrated comments from Mukasey and "OLC" (whose acting head was Steven Bradbury), and was giving Bradbury, Yoo, and Jay Bybee an opportunity to comment, as well. It will take "substantial time" before this review process is done, DOJ says.

OPR has completed its investigation of this matter and in late December 2008, provided the draft report to Attorney General Mukasey and invited comment. Attorney General Mukasey shared the report with Deputy Attorney General Filip and OLC. Thereafter, Attorney General Mukasey, Deputy Attorney General Filip and OLC provided comments, and OPR revised the draft report to the extent it deemed appropriate based on those comments.

In addition, during the course of the investigation, counsel for the former Department attorneys asked OPR for an opportunity to review and comment on the report prior to any disclosure of its results to Congress or the public. Attorney General Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Filip likewise requested that OPR provide the former Department attorneys with such an opportunity. For these reasons, OPR is now in the process of sharing the revised draft report with them. When the review and comment period is concluded, OPR intends to review the comments submitted and make any modifications it deems appropriate to the findings and conclusions. OPR will then provide a final report to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. After any additional review they deem appropriate, the Department will determine what disclosures should be made. Due to the complexity and classification level of the draft report, the review process described above likely will require substantial time and effort.

Which of course raises a whole slew of questions, some of which Durbin and Whitehouse have now posed to DOJ. Such as whether OLC’s review of the document influenced Steven Bradbury’s January 15 OLC memo withdrawing certain earlier opinions. 

Your letter does not indicate whether Steven Bradbury was recused from reviewing and providing comments on the draft report.  Mr. Bradbury, who was then the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of OLC, is reportedly a subject of the OPR investigation. Read more →

Where Are the Other Memos?

/179 Comments/in /by

As we’ve been discussing, DOJ released nine previously unreleased OLC memos yesterday, two of which were Steven Bradbury memos basically saying, "oops, no harm no foul!!"

But they’ve still just released 5 of the 41 memos that the ACLU has requested in FOIA proceedings (as well as two that were not on that list, plus Bradbury’s two "no harm no foul" opinions). Where are the other memos? Why weren’t they released yesterday? Is it because they’re still active (and supporting torture and illegal wiretapping and whatnot??)

The question is especially pertinent given a few things Bradbury said in his January 15, 2008 "no harm no foul" opinion.

The Commander in Chief Is Only Sort Of Bound By the Law

To dismiss several opinions authorizing torture, Steven Bradbury quotes at length responses he made to Teddy Kennedy in 2005 when he still had hopes of becoming OLC head.

The federal prohibition on torture … is constitutional, and I believe it does apply as a general matter to the subject of detention and interrogation conducted pursuant to the President’s Commander in Chief authority.

[snip]

The President, like all officers of the Government, is not above the law. 

He goes on from there. But then, in a passage not included in his responses to Kennedy (that is, a passage unique to this memo) he says, 

We recognize that a law that is constitutional in general may still raise serious constitutional issues if applied in particular circumstances to frustrate the President’s ability to fulfill his essential responsibilities under Article II.

To Teddy Kennedy: The torture ban is constitutional and the President is not above the law.

To the file earlier this year: … unless "applied in particular circumstances to frustrate the President’s ability to fulfill his essential responsibilities under Article II."

Psych!!

We Remain Noncommittal about the President’s Authority to Suspend Treaties

And then, in his discussion about whether or not the President is above the law, Bradbury cited a 2007 OLC memo (which we didn’t get yesterday), to say that OLC had not yet weighed in on whether the President can suspend treaties.

The above critique is not meant to be a determination that under the Constitution the President lacks authority to suspend treaties absent authorization from Congress, the text, or background law. The White House did not directly ask that question … and we did not purport to resolve it.

The Loopholes Remaining and the Outstanding Memos

Now, I consider these Bradbury comments very troubling given the memos that DOJ did not turn over.

Read more →

OLC Restores 4th Amendment after Hounding from Congress

/82 Comments/in /by

 

In her post on Steven Bradbury’s October 6, 2008 OLC opinion withdrawing the October 23, 2001 OLC memo eviscerating the 4th Amendment, Christy asks some important questions.

In fact, it reads like a thinly veiled, but ever-so-politely worded, call of “bullshit.”

It’s laugh out loud funny.  Or would be if it weren’t for the fact that it took more than 7 years to issue it — during which time the government was still operating under the craptastic legal assumptions, one presumes.

Why was this kept hidden?

I’ve got a pretty good answer why Bradbury’s opinion was kept hidden.

In the exchange between DiFI and Michael Mukasey above–which took place on April 10, 2008–Mukasey equivocated, badly, about whether or not that October 23, 2001 opinion remained in force.

DiFi: Is this memo in force? That the Fourth Amendment does not apply in domestic military.

Mukasey: The principle that the Fourth Amendment does not apply in wartime is not in force.

DiFi: No. The principle that I asked you about? Does it apply to domestic military operations? Is the Fourth Amendment, today, applicable to domestic military operations?

Mukasey: [unclear] don’t know of domestic military operations being carried out today.

DiFi: I’m asking you a question. That’s not the answer. The question is, does it apply?

Mukasey: I’m unaware of any domestic military operations being carried out today.

[back and forth]

Mukasey:  The Fourth Amendment applies across the board regardless of whether we’re in wartime or in peacetime.

[snip]

Mukasey: In my understanding it is not operative.

Well, it turns out it took another six months for Bradbury to withdraw the opinion.

Given Mukasey’s equivocations, I’d say there’s a very good reason they hid the memo (and, by association, the evidence that it had not been withdrawn when Mukasey equivocated wildly). I’d also suggest that, Mukasey knew well of a domestic military operation–DOD’s NSA wiretapping Americans domestically–that was ongoing at the time. And which, until the passage of the FISA Amendment Act, may well have been relying on Yoo’s October 2001 memo for legal cover.

Is the Obama White House Caving (Again) on Presidential Privileges?

/40 Comments/in , /by

I had this post mostly written as a screed against Greg Craig, who appeared to be caving again on Obama’s stated principles on presidential privileges. But after checking with three data points, I’m not so sure what is going on.

I covered the first data point on Friday: John Conyers’ letter, dated Friday, to Bob Luskin, refusing to give Rove yet another delay until such time as he feels the whim to testify before HJC.

I also cannot agree to your request for a delay to accommodate Mr. Rove’s schedule. As you know, the deposition was originally scheduled for February 2. On January 29 I in good faith acceded to your request for a delay since you were scheduled to be out of town at the time and requested more time to prepare. I also notified your office of the new February 23 date at that time. Thus, absent an actual commitment by Mr. Rove to comply with the subpoena, I am not in a position to agree to yet a further delay. In essence, given Mr. Rove’s public statements that he does not intend to comply with the subpoena, I am puzzled as to why Mr. Rove needs a mutually convenient date to appear.

The letter suggested that as of Friday, Conyers was unwilling to wait until the Appeals Court ruled on the Miers/Bolten (with Rove added) suit–he wanted to get a date with Rove for a week from Monday.

But then there was this report, revealing that Greg Craig is trying to make a deal.

White House lawyers and representatives for former president George W. Bush are engaged in discussions that could clear a path for congressional testimony by onetime Bush aide Karl Rove, three sources familiar with the talks said yesterday. 

[snip]

"The president is very sympathetic to those who want to find out what happened," Craig said in a statement yesterday. "But he is also mindful as president of the United States not to do anything that would undermine or weaken the institution of the presidency. So, for that reason, he is urging both sides of this to settle."

There’s a CBS report on this statement–but the reporter seems to be confused as much by the underlying issues as by Craig’s ambivalence. Both, however, suggest that Craig is granting Rove’s position with entirely too much credibility. Further, it hints that Craig might try to defend the utterly ridiculous absolute immunity claim so as to not "weaken the institution of the presidency." Read more →

The Push to Publish the OPR Report

/117 Comments/in , /by

Mike wants Yoo
(photo by Emilyschneider)

I was wondering when this would come out. After all, one of the advantages of having an easily-used journalist like Mikey Isikoff around is that when someone needs to leak something to increase political pressure, they know whom to go to.

So, those who want to make sure the OPR report damning John Yoo and Steven Bradbury is published in its current "very harsh" form will go to Mikey to make sure the report’s conclusions become public.

According to two knowledgeable sources who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, a draft of the report was submitted in the final weeks of the Bush administration. It sharply criticized the legal work of two former top officials—Jay Bybee and John Yoo—as well as that of Steven Bradbury, who was chief of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the time the report was submitted, the sources said. (Bybee, Yoo and Bradbury did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

But then–Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy, Mark Filip, strongly objected to the draft, according to the sources. Filip wanted the report to include responses from all three principals, said one of the sources, a former top Bush administration lawyer. (Mukasey could not be reached; his former chief of staff did not respond to requests for comment. Filip also did not return a phone message.) OPR is now seeking to include the responses before a final version is presented to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. "The matter is under review," said Justice spokesman Matthew Miller.

[snip]

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.

And in addition to those pushing to make the report public, there are those–speaking in a voice that sounds remarkably like certain lawyers associated with Dick Cheney–attacking the legitimacy of the report.

"OPR is not competent to judge [the opinions by Justice attorneys]. They’re not constitutional scholars," said the former Bush lawyer. 

David! How’ve you been now that you’ve been separated from your man-sized safe?

Read more →

“Very Harsh Conclusions” about Yoo and Bradbury

/80 Comments/in , /by

Remember that Office of Public Responsibility investigation that Congress requested, Bush squelched (by refusing the investigators clearance to do the investigation), but that, under Mukasey got reinstated?

Brad DeLong has word of what has happened to it:

[T]he OPR… came to "very harsh conclusions" about the professional competence of a number of the [Yoo and Bradbury] memos, making "recommendations for further action" with respect to both John Yoo and Stephen Bradbury. Attorney Genera Mukasey and Deputy AG Filip were reported to be apoplectic about the report and to have attempted to squelch it. Their concern is… for the defense of reliance on advice of counsel that Mukasey put forward in a series of speeches, and that the OPR reports will make, I understand, something of an absurdity…

There’s a lot to be said about this. But I’ll just start with the suggestion that–given that these "straws in the wind" have come to Berkeley Professor Brad DeLong–I can’t help but wonder whether Berkeley Professor John Yoo’s acceptance of a visiting position at Liberty University West Chapman University reflected some concern that Berkeley might see such "very harsh conclusions" to be the excuse they were looking for to get rid of the torture apologist.

Let’s hope this leak of Mukasey and Filip’s attempt to squelch this indicates that they have failed in doing so.

About those Missing OLC Opinions

/in , , /by

(Note: I’m scheduled to be on Mark Levine’s Inside Scoop today at 5PM ET. You can listen in here.)

Okay okay already. Here’s your damn missing OLC opinion post.

As a number of you have pointed out, ProPublica did a very cool database of all the OLC opinions on executive power, torture, and warrantless wiretapping that we know of. The database collects in one place, in sortable form, the opinions that track Bush’s abuse of power. 

I had done a timeline mapping the warrantless wiretap opinions to known events associated with Bush’s illegal program (though it’s not sortable like the ProPublica one). And don’t forget that John Conyers gave us a very detailed description of that opinion eliminating the 4th Amendment.

The memorandum, which was directed to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Defense Department General Counsel William J. Haynes, addresses whether the president has constitutional or statutory authority to use military force inside the United States in terrorism-related situations and, if so, whether such domestic military operations would be barredby either the Fourth Amendment or the federal Posse Comitatus statute. Examples of the type of force considered for purposes of the analysis include, but are not limited to: (1) destroying civilian aircraft that are believed to have been hijacked; (2) deploying troops to control traffic in and out of a major American city; (3) seizing or attacking civilian property, such as apartment buildings, office complexes, or ships, believed to contain terrorism suspects; and, (4) using military-level eavesdropping and surveillance technology on domestic targets.

Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty concluded that both Article II of the Constitution and the 9/11 use of force resolution would authorize these types of domestic military operations (even though Congress had expressly rejected language proposed by the Administration for the AUMF that would have authorized domestic military operations).292 The memorandum also contains extended discussion of a hypothetical example which posits that a domestic military commander has received information, not rising to the level of probable cause, suggesting that a terrorist has hidden inside an apartment building and may possess weapons of mass destruction. According to the memorandum, not only does the Constitution permit the commander to seize the building, detain everyone found inside, and then interrogate them – all without obtaining any sort of warrant – but information gathered by military commanders in this way could used for criminal prosecution purposes as long as the primary reason for the seizure was the military fight against terrorism and not law enforcement. Read more →