My, that response certainly addressed the issue of the tapes, didn't it. "Thank you for your interest, we know what we're doing, go piss up someone else's rope".

This is all about GW's arrogant disregard for the law. He believes that he is above the law and rules don't apply. And, if they do - they are either
amended or ignored. This tape thing will be a pain in George's ass until he is gone and hopefully afterwards when he is called to answer for what was on those tapes.

sarge
Indianapolis

Answers to my own questions - This was the infamous "Democrats knew and asked if it was tough enough" meeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664_pf.html

Bob Graham (D-FL) was Chairperson in September 2002.
Pat Roberts (R-KS) became Chair in January 2003.

Why is the 18 letter phrase redacted? It is identified as "practices" and "enhanced techniques" later in the letter, so the fact of the redacted words is not a secret. It can't be secret that the redacted portion refers to the torture/enhanced interrogation methods this whole matter is about. Does CIA have a special secret (plural) code word for torture?

oh well -I guess “Verschärfte Vernehmung” is more than 18 letters

We have plenty of solid reasons to move forward with an impeachment inquiry. Let's go!

How widely was it known that the 9/11 Commission wanted to get a hold of these tapes? Wouldn't Harman have known that the tapes were in existence at the same time the CIA was telling the Commission that no such recordings were made?

Michael Scott: are you twinfan?

"Attorney-deliberative" privilege? Never heard about that privilege while studying for the bar. Regardless, any attorney-client privilege or other sort of privilege (except self incrimination under 5th amendment) wouldn't apply to gov't lawyers.

Scott Muller writes in his response
"While I do not think it appropriate for me to comment on issues that are a matter of policy, much less the nature and extent of Executive Branch policy deliberations, I think it would be fair to assume that policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the Executive Branch."

Well, I find it funny that a General Counsel member does not feel he can comment on policy deliberations, but he can assume that the legal matters have been addressed by the administration?

So he is saying that while he cannot comment on the legality deliberations by the White House(which is odd, considering he is a lawyer for the CIA, and he would be one that would have input on this very subject to his higher ups) he can make broad sweeping assumptions that his bosses have approved this brand of torture. An assumption he willingly express, but had no say in. Some counselor.

What a joke we have on our hands and as much as I hate to commit the sin of pride... I hope Bush and his croneys get their come-up-ance before they slither out of office.

The letter asserts the following, "limited use of the handful of specially approved interrogation techniques we described."

- Who "determined" that the interrogation techniques [read='torture'] were "limited".

- Who "determined" that the techniques were "approved"?

Once the "decision" to "approve" them was made, all _subsequent_ communications related to "that decision" are not protected. They fall outside the privilege. They are _post_ deliberative.

- When the Congress learned that the "decision" had been made, what effort did Congress make to ensure, per 32 CFR 2800, the OVP was "retaining" all _subsequent_ discussions related to the tape?

Addington is reported to have been "concerned" about moving prisoners from Eastern Europe to Guantanamo -- because of the alleged concern that a "change in position" would be an admission of original mistreatment.

- If Addington was "concerned" about "perceptions" related to the prisoner treatment/transfer/original treatment, what evidence exists showing us when he was notified of the original mistreatment?

- Was the existence of the tape merely confirmation the OVP legal counsel was aware of prisoner abuse; and had not taken all legally required actions to prssever evidence, ensure POWs were treated with respect to Geneva?

- Once the JAGs in 2001 going forward reminded DoJ-WH-DoD that civilians could be prosecuted for war crimes in re prisoner mistreatment, what plan was in place to ensure the prisoners were treated per Geneva; when evidence of mistreatment was disclosed in these tapes, how were the JAG's concerns reconciled at NSC, CIA, DoD, and DoJ?

There is too much evidence floating around suggesting Congress knew what was going on; and yet Congress would have us believe that because of "secrecy requirements" they were not able to do anything about evidence in re prisoner mistreatment on the tapes. However, ORCON rules prohibit the classification of evidence related to illegal activity, including prisoner abuse, Geneva violations, and other war crimes.

- What evidence, after the Senate disclosed these JAG memoranda, did the Congress secure to review what post-review of prisoner treatment occurred; and revisited the JAG's concerns raised after 2001 at the POW working group meetings?

Legal counsel under the DC Bar well know they have a duty to not make frivolous legal arguments. Legal counsel working for Members of Congress have a duty to adequately advise counsel. We've also learned Members of Congress were told -- in 'secret' -- about the FISA violations. This has become an all-too-convenient excuse: "Hay, we've known, but we were bound by secrecy rules." No, they should know -- especially having had it happen once -- that the "promise to be bound to secrecy" as it relates to evidence of illegal activity -- is not an enforceable agreement.

- Where is the DC Disciplinary board on reviewing these multiple alleged problems with DC Bar-affiliated counsel: How has CPE been enhanced; what peer reviews are occurring, and what's going to happen to better regulate DC-affiliated legal counsel; or does the public have to have a separate commission to oversee the legal counsel in the US government?

- What review did Congressional staff counsel make of the ORCON rules, and seek discussion with Members of Congress to determine: "To what extent have we been improperly given evidence under a promise of secrecy, but that evidence cannot be secret, and we cannot be bound by that agreement to remain silent about this evidence?"

- What evidence can Members of Congress provide showing they raised concerns not just about the tape, but the conditions upon which the "existence of the tape" was known?

Once Harmon issued a note, we have to consider the nature of the discussions she had with counsel that would tell her, "This needs to be documented."

- What discussions -- by way of timing, and the issues which prompted the discussions -- did Members of Congress have with counsel: What prompted Harmon to know, despite the agreement to be silent about this, that she would know enough to challenge the legal counsel assertions about the contents of the tape?

The "types of information" which prompted Harmon to act give us some insight into the nature of Congressional staff counsel discussions with Harmon. Arguably, because Harmon is drafing a letter, we could presume there was some sort of discussion with counsel; yet, this is in apparent contrast with the supposed conditions were were told in re FISA: That "no discussion" with counsel was allowed. It appears, other than FISA and CIA tape destruction, there were other issues prompting Members of Congress to say, "Yes, we've agreed to not discuss this with counsel, but we need to ignore that agreement and raise our concerns with counsel on the CIA tape destruction."

Recall, Rockefeller was "concerned" about Cheney's FISA disclosures, but kept the letter in a safe, but did not discuss this with counsel; Harmon appears to have done something slightly different and discussed this with counsel.

- Why two different approaches by Members of Congress on whether to consult or not consult with counsel.

- What prompted Harmon to say (implicitly, as evidenced by the Memo), "Unlike FISA, we need to discuss this with counsel?"

- Were there "other issues" which Congress had realized they'd been given information under the condition of "secrecy", but later learned that secrecy-promise was improper?

- What information did Harmon specifically learn that would tell her, "Yes, we've agreed to keep this secret; but this is different: This information cannot be left "undocumented"; but I have to do the opposite: Protest, put this in writing, and expect an answer."

- To what extent did the "improper grant of secrecy in re Iraq WMD" (which proved to have been exploited) act as a catalyst for Harmon to draft this Memo?

Here's the point: Out of the blue, Harmon would have us believe that she's suddenly realized, "I need to document this." But, the record suggests she's concerned this secrecy-agreement is being abused; yet, she wants us to believe that she's only drafted a memo. This is absurd: There are likely _other actions_ which were taken related to _other issues_; and the experience with thos "other issues" should have reasonably triggered a wider Congressional concern -- when the existence of the tapes was first raised.

- What other mitigating actions did Members of Congress and their staff counsel discuss _after_ "the decision" was made to "not destroy" the tapes?

- Given this "other experience" (in areas TBD), did Members of Congress adequately move to oversee, safeguard, and take appropriate actions to secure this information on the tapes?

- How many tapes does Congress have or does Congress know exist at contractors which were _not_ provided to the FISA Court, nor to the 9-11 Commission?

- Does Congress have copies of these tapes in any of the intelligence vaults; has Congress known about any tapes at any CIA contractors that Congress has not reported to the FOIA court reviewing the CIA tapes?

We've heard two different stories on whether the information from torture/abuse was or was not useful. WH Counsel on Frontline reports they were aware of progress; while the UK reported the opposite: The information was worthless.

- When did Congress, after it was aware of the CIA tape existence, ask why there were two different stories on whether information gleaned from torture/abuse was or was not useful?

- Once Congress learned there were two different stories on whether information was or wasn't useful, why didn't Congress secure the tapes so it could contrast the WH counsel assertions with those of the UK?

- How did Congress react when it was disclosed on PBS Frontline that WH Counsel had learned of the 'success' of the interrogations; Was there any effort to review "how" the WH counsel on the PBS Frontline series "knew" the interrogations were or were not successful?

- How does the PBS Frontline series -- where counsel discussed their "indirect" knowlege of the interrogation program -- shed light on what we know from the UK Ambassador in Uzbekistan [Craig Murry]: That the information gleaned from this prisoner torture was _not_ worth anything. Did Congress not get concerned _when_ the tape was disclosed that there was contradictory information from the UK about the intelligence gathering; and this information did not match what the Members of Congress were hearing from the WH Counsel discussing the interrogations on the PBS Frontline series?

- Is it not the role of the Joint Committee on Intelligence to review whether intelligence program are or are not working: Why, when Congress learned of two different "reports of results" in re prisoner abuse-torture did the Intelligence Committee not immediately find out what was going on inside the CIA; and review the nature of the UK-US intelligence sharing arrangement?

- Are they same Members of Congress who've said "we've taken impeachment off the table" teh same ones who would like to do nothing about the bungled WMD oversight; and the inaction in re prisoner mistreatment?

- How long has Pelosi known about the CIA tapes, the prisoner abuse, but still said impeachment is off the table?

- When did Pelosi and Conyers take an oath to the US COnstitution which includes an aoth to enforce all treaties including Geneva, and the requirements to humanely treat all prisoners?

- When was the last time Pelosi, Conyers, or Congressional staff counsel read Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions imposing a legal duty on legal counsel to ensure Geneva was fully enforced, trained, and part of the Commanders oversight program in re prisoner treatment?

- What do Pelosi and Conyers have to say about the apparent disconnect between [a] their legal obligations under the oath of office, 5 USC 3331 in re Geneva; and [b] their apparent decision to do nothing about these alleged war crimes and keep impeachment off the table: How many alleged war crimes would put impeachment back "on" the table?

Without doing any investigation, some have said that impeachment is off the table, and "not" the best way to conduct oversight of the President.

- What was the basis for this assertion that inaction and non-investigations -- after 2001 -- was the "best" way to assert ones oath of office, 5 USC 3331?

Harmon and others appear to have been involved with various reviews and assurances related to the NSA "minimization" procedures. However, the tape's existence -- and apparent known problems with using fault intelligence gleaned from these torture sessions for NSA targeting -- appears to be outside the public discussion.

- How were the NSA assurances in re "minimization procedures" adequately incorporating the lessons from these tapes?

- Were there phrases within the interrogations believed by some to be unreliable, but still included within the NSA targeting?

- How do we have confidence that the Statements about the "minimization procedures" were accurate; but there's no clear story on which contracts were changed to explicitly not use the data from these interrogations?

- Is someone asking us to believe "we had the minimization procedures under control" but they can't give us a straight story whether they were or were not accurately including or excluding information from these interrogations depicted on the tape?

- How many tapes exist of interrogations done on innocent Pakistanis who were captured under the bounty program?

- How many DoD-DoJ tapes were destroyed?

- Have all non-CIA tapes been adequately accounted for for the court reviewing this FOIA request?

- What information gleaned from abusing/torturing innocent Pakistanis -- captured under the bounty program -- was not adequately incorporated into this review of the minimization procedures?

- When did the telecom GCs discuss with the JAGs, WH counsel, DoJ OLC, and CIA concerns that the "bounty program" would violate Geneva; and be an ICC interest area; how was this issue discussed with Harmon in re minimization, tape preservation, and evidence for ICC? [Geneva prohibit putting a price on the enemy's head. This is intended to prevent civilians from engaging in war-like actions, and stripping civilians of their Geneva-protected status as civilians. Civilians induced with a bounty to turn people in would result under Geneva those civilians being classified as unlawful combatants.]

- When was information gleaned from torture allegedly put into a separate bucket/account/category which did not require an accounting relative to the minimization procedures?

- Which data sets captured through these interrogations by CIA-DoJ-DoD-contractors were allegedly excluded by the Attorney General as part of a special "Presidential program" which did not get briefed to Congress; and was not adequately incorporated into the minimization assurance/certification provided to Congress?

- Conversely, when did Members of Congress allegedly get briefed that various "key words" gleaned from prisoner abuse were still part of the NSA targeting programs; and had violated the minimization procedures; but this problem was not to be discussed in public?

- How long have Members of Congress allegedly known that the minimization assurance/certification did not adequately exclude _all_ data which may have included data sets gleaned from torture?

- Is there an explanation why the telecoms continue to lobby for immunity, but these telecoms apparently have allegedly not provided information about the AG programs of excluding various data sets from being reported to Congress?

- Does the AG plan to review and report to Congress meaningful assurances that all data allegedly gleaned through prisoner abuses and captured on any recording device has been fully incorporated into all assurances to Congress in re minimization procedures?

- Is there a reason the telecoms have allegedly waited until 2007 for immunity; but the information the telecoms were relying on to engage in domestic surveillance was apparently known since 2001 to have been related to illegal abuses under Geneva?

- When did the telecom General Counsels allegedly understand that information they were asked to include in various targeting programs was linked with information gleaned through abuse; captured on recording devices; and of concern to the JAGs in re ICC?

- Do the telecom GCs plan to provide a straight story to Congress about when they allegedly first learned of the target sets they were using; how these key words were known to have been the fruit of torture; but were not adequately briefed to Congress under the minimization procedures?

- When did the telecom GCs allegedly fully understand, or should they have understood, that their targeting software was using information from CIA-DoJ-NSA-DoD taping products which relied on illegal prisoner interrogations, were illegally captured, and unreliable?

- What is the plan of the telecom GCs to provide a full accounting of the alleged timeline used to ensure that all targeting done for NSA included an adequate scrubbing program to exclude all information deemed to be unreliable, outside what was permissible under the minimization procedures?

- When does the NSA-DoJ-CIA GCs with the telecoms plan to provide an open report to the Congress, FISA Court, and American public related to alleged use of "information gleaned from prisoner abuse as depicted on these tapes" for purposes of creating target-data sets which were outside what the NSA minimization procedures allowed?

- When did it sink into the minds of Members of Congress, telecom GC, and US government legal counsel that "using information gleaned from prisoner abuse, as depicted on these tapes" and using that information to target American civilians would be an illegal Geneva violation directed unlawfully at US civilians?

- When did the Members of Congress, DoJ OLC, CIA, DoD, NSA, and NSA contractors allegedly discuss the concern that information on the destroyed tapes could implicate US government personnel in alleged war crimes/illegal targeting of American civilians?

- When was the alleged agreement made to not report the full scope of NSA monitoring which relied on data which fell outside what the minimization procedures permitted; but relied on information gleaned from illegal prisoner treatment as was captured on recording devices?

- Where are the e-mails from all discussions _after_ this alleged agreement to not discuss the full scope of the prisoner abuse, mistreatment, and unreliable information on the tape_s_?

- How were these issues incorporated into discussing between DoJ OLC, WH Counsel, OVP, and Congress in re MCA language to provide funding for all US personnel appearing before the ICC: Alleged war crimes committed by the US government personnel against American civilians in re mistreatment, abuse, and unlawful treatment of civilians unrelated to any combat?

- Which information which is lawfully subject to this FOIA request would show the US government personnel and contractors knew unreliable information was used to target American civilians; and the destruction of the CIA tape is less about hiding war crimes against GTMO POWs, but about hiding evidence of alleged war crimes committed against American civilians?

- How many American civilians were impermissibly abused, mistreated in contravention to the laws of war on the basis of information the US government knew was gleaned from torture; and the Congress knew was in violation of the agreed to minimization procedures?

- Which private corporations have not allegedly adequately removed themselves from supporting contracts that have as one objective to use information gleaned from illegal abuse, as captured on these destroyed tapes, and hide their use of this illegally captured information to create media messages and domestic propaganda in violation of the Smith Act? [Smith Act prohibits US government from directing propaganda against US civilians].

- When discussing issues of "telecom immunity," does the US government plan to include the alleged agreement to provide immunity to firms which are allegedly knowingly using information gleaned from illegal abuse -- as captured on this destroyed tape -- for purposes of targeting American civilians with propaganda?

- What was the plan of Harmon and others in Congress to respond when the alleged "larger issues" in re "unreliable intelligence" were publicly discussed in the context of Geneva, alleged abuse against American civilians, and alleged known-but-secret breach of the NSA minimization procedures?

Looks like everyone was covering their asses...just in case the tapes were accidentally destroyed.

How dare she question the authority of the "executive branch." What does she think-This is a democracy?

So Mr Juicy do you think the OVP cretins , both present & PAST , have figured out finally that the CIA employees at Langley really did make a copy of whatever it was that was given to them that "authorized " war crimes -re torturing among others - KSM ?. And further do you think that all the career personel both past & PRESENT - out at Langley remember what happened at the Church hearings? And will these same career "CIA-ers" be particularly forward leaning to make very certain that this time around the likes of Yoo, Addington & even the VEEP don't get to skate away scott free from this criminal wrong doing ?
And for you Anonymous - would the Padilla civil legal team be able to enter into evidence any "WHATEVER " that the career professionals had copied at Langley that would prove that Yoo, Addington and others did in fact order the CIA to committ war crimes ?
And if the Padilla civil discovery did turn up evidence of "HIGH CRIMES " - could WE THE PEOPLE " file impeachment charges ourselves. Anonymous how can we take the iMPEACHMENT filings out of the hands of Madam Speaker & the rest of the Vichy Quislings Democratic lEADERSHIP.
Meanwhile me ( & Bob Barr.. I'll wager ) will be reviewing all of our civil liberty options - paying very close attention to the 2nd Amendment especially ...

"Doubts About Explanations"-link above outlines doubts about the "deliberations" since 2003. The WH legal environment was not consistent with these retroactive explanations: Contrary to statements in 2007, there was no "doubt" about what to do: It was "_certain_ for the lawyers involved" that the law "wasn't relevant."

Other events and factors appear to be shielded, TBD. If there are no other events, then legal counsel appears to have inconsistently acted in re Iraq and rendition/prisoner: Taking inconsistent approaches to deliberations. This inconsistency is admissible before ICC to assess whether OVP-DoJ-DoD-CIA legal counsel assertions are allegedly frivolous.

Link speculates the 2003-2005 "deliberations" were not real, but intended to shield evidence between 2003 and 2005 that could otherwise prove fatal before the ICC. Link raises a number of questions about asserted events, timelines, and key decision dates.

Link emphasizes it is likely incorrect that the only tape is the CIA tape that was supposedly destroyed. Rather, there are likely other tapes which depict rendition-related activity, which WH-DoJ-DoD-CIA-OVP hopes to shield in this 2003-2005 window. Link is silent on whether rendition-related videos, activity, or prisoner transfers are still occurring in 2007 outside this 2003-2005 "deliberative window".

FYI, for discussion.

Gene and mo2 discuss the 18 character redaction in Jane Harman's letter (the pdf file shows this redacted gap). The letter appears to use Times New Roman font which is a proportional font. The redaction could exceed 18 letters. In fact, a phrase which might have appeared in that gap and seems to fit perfectly using this font is "torture techniques" (without the quotes). Of course since we in the USA don't torture, that term appearing in an official document would need to be redacted. But this is merely speculation. Perhaps some other term would fit this space more appropriately.

WSJ Editorial: "Far from being rogues, they had legal authorization from the Justice Department." This incorrectly assumes "Justice Department coordination/review" is the same thing as "lawfulness." Incorrect. DoJ has, allegedly, illegally approved unlawful torture.

That the DoJ Staff "approved" of something does not make it legal; nor does the DOJ 'authorization' mean there were no illegal acts. If "DOJ approval" were sufficient, there would be no need to review Harmon's letter. Getting a "DOJ approval" is, for the President, a rubber stamp from his team. Congress is on a separate team. Yet, the final forum to decide legality rests with the courts.

We've seen with Yoo, Gonzalez, and others involved with DoJ: JUst because DoJ says something, it doesn't mean its lawful. It should be; but where' not there yet. That's why this review is needed: To ensure American lawyers -- when they say something -- are saying something that is legally defensible, not merely, "They say I can do it, so I will." There's the issue of self-restraint and complying with laws which DoJ would have us incorrectly believe "do not apply" or "are quaint."

The way forward includes strongly encouraging the Presidential Candidates to outline "their specific plan" to ensure this doesn't happen agaain; that the JAGs are given a fair chance to make their views known to the leadership; and that lawyers allegedly complicit with war crimes are adequately investigated, disbarred, and prosecuted. Timely. Something needs to change in the American legal community and the oversight of those lawyers to ensure this never happens again. Otherwise, the ghosts of Iran-Contra/Cheney will continue to rattle their chains.