« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Senate Releases Declassified Narrative Of OLC Torture Opinions
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) of the Senate Intelligence committee has just released a declassified narrative (pdf) of the OLC's development of its opinions on torture.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has already picked out a key excerpt, that sheds some light on just who in the Bush administration helped devise and approve the torture policies:
In the spring of 2003, the DCI asked for a reaffirmation of the policies and practices in the interrogation program. In July 2003, according to CIA records, the NSC Principals met to discuss the interrogation techniques employed in the CIA program. According to CIA records, the DCI and the CIA's General Counsel attended a meeting with the Vice President, the National Security Adviser, the Attorney General, the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, the Counsel to the President, and the Legal Adviser to the National Security Council to describe the CIA's interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. According to CIA records, at the conclusion of that meeting, the Principals reaffirmed that the CIA program was lawful and reflected administration policy.
So that looks to us like Tenet, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, and Miers, among others.
In a statement, Rockefeller explained the "genesis of the attached narrative"
Last year, I sought declassification of the August 1, 2002 OLC opinion, along with a short contextual narrative to accompany it. While declassification of that opinion was resisted, we engaged instead in a joint effort with Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to declassify a broader narrative surrounding all of the OLC's opinions on these matters.The objective was to produce a text that describes the key elements of the opinions and sets forth facts that provide a context for those opinions, within the boundaries of what the DOJ and the Intelligence Community would recommend in 2008 for declassification.
By late 2008, the DOJ, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) all had approved the public release of this narrative, but the Bush Administration National Security Council (NSC) held it and would not agree to its declassification.
I renewed the declassification effort as soon as Attorney General Eric Holder took office in early February 2009, and I am pleased to have received the support again of the DOJ, DNI and CIA, and now also of the NSC, for its release as a contextual description of the OLC memos.
We'll have more on this as we dig into this...
Josh
Zachary
Let the sunshine, let the sunshine in, the sun shine in.
Music to my ears.
April 22, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
To all those who think we should "move on"...go forward, not look behind...we have been asked to move on..from illegal break-ins..illegal spying..illegal drug-running (to pay for the illegal sale of guns and weapons to Iran)..now, to move forward and not look back on the illegal invasion of a Sovereign nation, torturing detainees, "into confessing" ("that there really was a connection" between Hussein and Al Queda, therefore justifying an illegal "war" to the American people) and even more invasive wiretapping....what will be the next illegal activity that we should forgive, forget and move forward from...a Chief Executive who hires contract "hits" on members of Congress, etc., he/she doesn't like?...where does it stop..when does it end...?
April 22, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right, Chabuka!
If everybody should just "move on, forget the past and look into the future", how come Holocaust survivors are still trying to get Demjanjuk and other suspected Nazis extradited for trial SIXTY YEARS LATER????!!!!
Why can't all the Nazi hunters just move on????
April 23, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which members of Congress knew what when in what detail?
If they gave approval, tacit or otherwise, to what exactly did they approve?
What interesting parts have been left out of this sanitized narrative?
April 23, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Nancy Pelosi, for one, was briefed on CIA torture plans. I am glad to see this pursuit moving forward, and I credit people like the Att. General and Sen. Rockefeller. Criminals should pay for their misdeeds. A guy smokes dope or doesn't pay his traffic tickets and they put him in jail. These criminals shredded our Constitution, OK'd torture, started a war based on lies, ruined our International reputation, weakened our military, buried our government in debt and made sure their cronies (big oil, etc.) made billions of dollars, and we're just supposed to let bygones be bygones.
April 23, 2009 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does "briefed" mean in this context? Since she couldn't share the info, what power did she have over the plans? Just how deep was the briefing - did she see the full Top Secret gory details and have a chance to have an independent legal expert review them, or was it a kind of courtesy notice, a superficial, "Hey we thought you should know that we might implement some enhanced interrogation techniques which the OLC has reviewed and not barfed on."?
Things like those.
April 23, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. I have zero faith in Sen. Rockefeller, or the Senate Intelligence Committee, to investigate this issue. They are among those who need to be investigated; it makes no sense for them to be the investigators. DOJ is equally compromised. This issue cries out for a special investigator. Barring that, though, impeachment hearings of Judge Bybee in the House Judiciary Committee would be a good start.
April 23, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
They should not investigate themselves, but it's not clear just what investigation is needed here. I think that Congress can investigate a lot of this, and I have no reason to dis Rockefeller.
April 23, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2003, Senator Rockefeller was the top Democrat in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which I believe means he was part of the "Gang of Four." He failed to object to the torture. Perhaps there were good reasons for that: Senator Rockefeller denies being fully briefed, and the Bush Administration refused to allow the members of Congress full access to their staff. Even so, Senator Rockefeller is too compromised to lead this investigation.
Senator Rockefeller is also notorious for leading the Democratic charge to grant telecoms retroactive immunity.
April 23, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We still don't know the depth or detail of the briefing.
You hate Rockefeller. Tough, I suggest it's your bad faith not his, here. I don't have a problem with telecom immunity, as far as I understand it. I might have a problem with wiretapping, but don't blame ATT et al for cooperating with NSA or DOJ et al.
I think you're confusing the symbol with that which is to be symbolized.
April 23, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your position is that I am arguing in "bad faith" because I don't think we ought to leave it up to Senator Rockefeller to tell us whether he was complicit in the torture or not.
Needless to say, I think that's nonsense.
April 23, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's your nonsense, not mine. I already said we should not expect a person to investigate him/herself, silly. But I do think you carry bad faith re Rockefeller, based on what you posted here.
April 23, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did I precisely did I post that you feel shows "bad faith" on my part?
April 23, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I already said. You are prejudiced re Rockefeller.
April 24, 2009 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that's a weak explanation of your ad hominem attack, but perhaps I am simply more reticent of accusing others of bad faith than you.
I think I amply explained above why I have no faith in Senator Rockefeller on this issue. Everyone has prejudices, so of course I do as well. Those prejudices, however, don't change these two, simple facts: (1) fairly or not, Senator Rockeller is implicated in this torture scandal; and (2) Senator Rockefeller led the charge on telecom immunity. The latter point may not matter to you, but to me - and many other progressives - it indicates that the Senator values "moving on" over accountability.
It's fine that you disagree with my opinions. Your viewpoint is every bit as valid as mine, but I think you ought to bring more to the table before you start tossing around ad hominems like "bad faith".
April 24, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"your ad hominem attack"
That is your bad faith characterization of my original usage. You really don't get how prejudiced you are? I don't use fallacies, but I sometimes make jokes or tease a little.
You said you had no faith in R. I followed up with: "I have no reason to dis Rockefeller"
You allowed that, you didn't challenge it directly. That is, you admit you were dissing him.
Me next: "You hate Rockefeller. Tough, I suggest it's your bad faith not his, here."
Then you said this, "So your position is that I am arguing in "bad faith" because I don't think we ought to leave it up to Senator Rockefeller to tell us whether he was complicit in the torture or not." which is bad faith again, re me this time instead of re R. It's your own strawman which you then called "nonsense". So you attacked me with a strawman, apparently to deflect from the correct conclusion I formed, that you're prejudiced and thus acting/thinking in bad faith re R.
I very clearly had said that people should not investigate themselves, so your "because" is also in bad faith. Not only are you prejudiced against R., but you're abusive re me. No big deal except that you keep making it one.
I hope that clarifies my view, whether it satisfies you or not.
To summarize, you somehow believe that R. on telecom immunity makes him unreliable here. You did not make a case for that. We agree that individuals should not investigate themselves.
April 24, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I'm on pretty solid ground here. When you accuse someone of "bad faith," you are attacking the source rather than the substance of the argument. That's an ad hominem attack.
No. I stated that I have zero faith in Senator Rockefeller or the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate this issue. In my next post, I provided a brief narrative of the Senator Rockefeller's role, conceding that there may have been good reason for him not to object to the interrogation policies. In a one-sentence aside, I mentioned his role in the telecom immunity.
You took this to mean that I "hate" Senator Rockefeller, and you accused me of arguing in bad faith.
I thought the relevance of the telecom immunity was fairly clear, but I also explained it here: "...to me - and many other progressives - it indicates that the Senator values "moving on" over accountability."
In case that isn't clear enough, let me explain further. The wiretapping scandal presented Congress with a choice. One option was to "move on" by granting the telecoms immunity. This would remove an issue that the Democrats saw as a loser in the upcoming elections. The other option was to hold the telecoms accountable. I personally preferred the latter option. (I see telecom liability as a vital part of the scheme for protecting our privacy interests against government intrusion. Telecoms are the only entities in a position to ensure that the government complies with the law when wiretapping. Only liability will effectively motivate telecoms to do so.) By leading the charge to immunize telecoms, Senator Rockefeller chose "moving on" over accountability.
The torture scandal presents a similar choice. President Obama would like the country to move on to his policy initiatives. I - and many other progressives - feel that those responsible must be held accountable because otherwise there will be no meaningful disincentive for future torture.
Senator Rockefeller's choice to value "moving on" over accountability on the wiretapping scandal suggests to me that he would make a similar choice in the wiretapping scandal. That reduces my faith in him handling the scandal in a way that I consider appropriate.
But, again, that is an aside. My main reason for having no faith in his handling of this issue is that Senator Rockefeller is one of the people who needs to be investigated, and I don't trust people to investigate themselves.
April 24, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Senator Rockefeller's choice to value "moving on" over accountability on the wiretapping scandal suggests to me that he would make a similar choice in the wiretapping scandal."
I think the second 'wiretapping' there is a typo.
I cannot directly compare the two "scandal" situations directly, thus I don't accept your judgment. But we can each have different opinions on this.
April 25, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might have a problem with wiretapping, but don't blame ATT et al for cooperating with NSA or DOJ et al.
Of course not. They were, after all, just following orders.
April 24, 2009 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, not exactly.
April 24, 2009 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just an observation, but don't the regulations put forth by the Bush administration (and all those supporting enhanced interrogation) state that the acts would not be torture if they fell short of causing major organ damage?
If so, I believe it would have been perfectly legal and moral to crucify Jesus (probably upside down while pouring water in his mouth and nose)... as long as the crucifixion was halted before he died....
Looks as though the Christian Right has come full circle, hasn't it...
April 23, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see Bush named at the meetting the spring of 2003. Like his old man during Iran-Contrs;"I was out of the loop!"
April 23, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the current Bush Library blueprints allow adequate room for all this incriminating torture documentation?
Can you image these ex-Shrub Admin peeps watching this unfold from their liars? I betcha there's a whole lotta lawyering-up going on in Tejas and WhyOhming.
April 23, 2009 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see that Sean Hannity has volunteered to be waterboarded for charity.
Please, if there is a God in heaven...
April 23, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
Hannity says he'll do it for charity. Here's my suggestion: Raise a pool of money to be donated to charity. Give Hannity a panic button during the waterboarding. If Hannity can last through 6 bouts of waterboarding in one day for the full amount of time that Yoo and Bybee say isn't torture, then the funds go to a charity of his choice. If Hannity hits the panic button, then the funds go to ACORN.
April 23, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Last night Keith Olberman issued a challenge to Hannity. Olberman woulf donate $1,000 to the charity of Hannity's choice foe each and every second Hannity endured his volunteer waterboarding. So, if Hannity endures the full 12 minutes allowed by the torture memos, Olberman would have to fork over $720,000.
The only condition Olberman placed on it was that other news organizations had to be present to prevent fraud on the part of Hannity.
It will be interesting to see how far Hannity will go to avoid being waterboardrd.
April 24, 2009 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice! Thanks for the info.
April 24, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How exactly do we get accountability in this unprecedented situation? Who is not involved and truly non-partisan and truly qualified to handle the situation? If we need an independent prosecutor to handle the situation because it may involve many people in the judiciary, military, and in public office, how do we get clarity that a truly independent and clearly qualified person or group of individuals will be chosen?
I am concerned that things will be handled badly intentionally or unintentionally that will make it impossible to prosecute those who should be prosecuted.
April 23, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the ACLU that we need is DOJ to appoint a special counsel. Both DOJ and Congress are tainted.
Barring that, I think House impeachment hearings into Judge Bybee would be a good start. When holding impeachment hearings, the House is acting squarely within its Constitutional mandates, which puts it on very strong footing to overcome any assertions of executive privilege. Furthermore, the House is not burdened by filibuster procedures like the Senate.
April 23, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink