Pat Leahy

Leahy to Bybee: Why Not Give Us Your Side Of Torture Story?

Zachary Roth | April 29, 2009, 1:49PM

As the calls for his impeachment grow louder, Jay Bybee -- the Bush OLC lawyer who wrote one of the torture memos, and who is now a federal judge -- has been given the chance to share his side of the story.

The unlikely invitation comes from Pat Leahy, the chair of the Senate Judiciary committee. In a letter sent to Bybee today, Leahy invites him to testify before the committee about his role in writing the memos.

Read more »

Barack Obama

Court Rejects Obama Admin's State Secrets Claim

Zachary Roth | April 28, 2009, 2:29PM

A court has rejected the Obama administration's claim of the state secret privilege.

Via the blog Legal Pad: A three-member panel of the 9th circuit Court of Appeals ruled this morning on a request from the government that it dismiss the Jeppesen case, which focuses on the CIA's extraordinary rendition program.

Read more »

AIG

Report: Feds Probing Two Cassano Deputies

Zachary Roth | April 28, 2009, 1:02PM

CBS News has some new developments in the criminal probe into AIG...

We knew that Joe Cassano, the former head of AIG's Financial Products unit, was in investigators' crosshairs for potentially giving misleading public statements about AIGFP's position. But the network now reports that the Justice Department is also looking closely at two of his deputies -- Andrew Forster, an executive vice president, and Thomas Athan, a managing director -- for the same reason.

Read more »

AIG

Congress To DOJ And SEC: Hand Over AIG Docs Or We'll Subpoena Them

Zachary Roth | April 28, 2009, 10:21AM

Congress is upping the ante in its bid to get access to those insider reports on AIG compiled by a government monitor.

House Oversight chair Ed Towns, joined by ranking GOPer Darrell Issa, yesterday sent letters to the Justice Department and the SEC, threatening them with subpoenas if they don't hand over the information by this Thursday*.

Read more »

AIPAC

Hastert: Source Said Negroponte Blocked Me From Getting Briefed On Harman Wiretap

Zachary Roth | April 27, 2009, 12:29PM

The Jane-Harman/AIPAC story is only getting more interesting.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert has gone on the record with information that suggests a broader effort than we'd yet been aware of by the Bush administration to keep secret the fact that it had wiretapped a member of Congress.

Read more »

Alberto Gonzales

Did Harman Break The Law?

Zachary Roth | April 23, 2009, 4:03PM

We've been wondering about something on this whole Jane-Harman/AIPAC story. (For the background, go here.)

When the Justice Department heard Harman on the wiretap, and as a result started to investigate her (a probe later reportedly shut down by Alberto Gonzales), what was the underlying crime she was suspected of, and how strong does the case against her appear to have been?

Read more »

Ted Stevens

Justice Picking Up Tab For Stevens Six Defense

Zachary Roth | April 23, 2009, 11:39AM

Guess who's footing the bill for those fancy lawyers the Stevens Six have hired? We are.

The Justice Department confirmed to TPMmuckraker that the prosecutors -- who are being investigated for criminal contempt in connection to misconduct in the Ted Stevens case -- requested representation under a DOJ provision that applies to employees who run into legal trouble while doing their jobs, and that the request was authorized.

Read more »

Alberto Gonzales

Report: Angry Intel Officers Tipped Pelosi To Harman Wiretap

Zachary Roth | April 23, 2009, 11:18AM

Another day, another advance by CQ's Jeff Stein on his Harman-AIPAC story...

Late last night, Stein reported that, after Alberto Gonzales quashed the FBI probe into Rep. Harman for political reasons, intelligence officials, angry about Gonzo's move, told Nancy Pelosi about the wiretap that had picked up Harman talking to a suspected Israeli agent -- defying the AG's order that Pelosi not be informed.

Read more »

Condi Rice

Condi Aide: Bushies Told Me Anti-Torture Memo Was "Inconvenient"

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 5:50PM

As we noted, Philip Zelikow, a former top lawyer to Condi Rice at the State Department, yesterday wrote that the White House tried to destroy all copies of a memo he authored, which took issue with the legal opinions laid out in the infamous OLC torture memos.

Today, Zelikow appeared on MSNBC to flesh out that story. Among other things, he reveals that the Bushies said his memo was "inconvenient to have around." (Would it have been too much for Andrea Mitchell to have followed up by asking him who, exactly, said that?)

Watch:

Don Siegelman

Seventy-Five Ex-AGs To Holder: Review Siegelman Case

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 5:29PM

Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman is stepping up his campaign to persuade Attorney General Eric Holder to take another look at his case.

Seventy-five former state attorneys general, including ten Republicans, have sent a letter to Holder saying that Siegelman's defense lawyers have raised "gravely troublesome facts" about whether he got a fair trial, reports the New York Times. The letter cites Holder's recent decision to ask that the charges against Ted Stevens be dropped, thanks to prosecutors' failure to turn over evidence to the defense, as required. It argues that there is evidence of similar misconduct in Siegelman's case, and that the charges should similarly be dropped if that's borne out in an investigation.

Read more »

Alaska

Report: Stevens Prosecutor Hires Rove Lawyer

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 4:40PM

The Stevens Six have lawyered up. And what lawyers they are.

Legal Times reports that Nicholas Marsh, one of the public integrity prosecutors, has hired Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, of Patton Boggs.

Read more »

AIPAC

Harman-AIPAC: The Latest Developments

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 3:48PM

Some recent developments in the fast-moving Harman-AIPAC story to update you on...

- Nancy Pelosi told reporters that she was briefed "a few years ago" by the NSA that they had wiretapped Harman, but wasn't told what was found, and never alerted Harman.

Read more »

Jerrold Nadler

Nadler On Torture And Bybee

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 11:47AM

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), who sits on the House Judiciary committee (and also happens to be TPM's congressman) went on MSNBC's Countdown last night to repeat his call for the impeachment of Judge Jay Bybee, who, while a member of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, wrote one of the torture memos released last week.

Nadler also said he supported the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether Bush administration officials, including Bybee, committed crimes.

Watch:

Torture

Turley: We Need A Special Torture Prosecutor, Not Some Lame Commission

Zachary Roth | April 22, 2009, 10:02AM

Jonathan Turley, the media-friendly George Washington Law School professor, who's an outspoken advocate of curbing executive power, gave a bravura performance on MSNBC's Countdown last night, on the subject of possible torture prosecutions.

Arguing that investigations aren't just necessary but long overdue, Turley made two important points that have been getting a bit lost in the rapid-fire debate lately.

Read more »

Jay Bybee

Feingold Latest To Call For Bybee Impeachment

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 6:17PM

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) is the latest to call for the impeachment of Judge Jay Bybee, in response to the release of those torture memos last week.

Bybee wrote one of the memos in 2002, when he served in the Justice Department's Office of Special Counsel.

Here's Feingold's statement:

The just released OLC memos, including the 2002 memo authored by Jay Bybee, are a disgrace. The idea that one of the architects of this perversion of the law is now sitting on the federal bench is very troubling. The memos offer some of the most explicit evidence yet that Mr. Bybee and others authorized torture and they suggest that grounds for impeachment can be made. Clearly, the Justice Department has the responsibility to investigate this matter further. As a Senator, I would be a juror in any impeachment trial so I don't want to reach a conclusion until all the evidence is before me.

George Bush

CAP Circulating Petition To Impeach Bybee

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 2:46PM

Think Progress, the blog of the Center for American Progress, is circulating an online petition calling on Congress to impeach Jay Bybee, who, while at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, wrote one of the torture memos released last week. Bybee is currently a federal judge.

CAP is led by John Podesta, a close White House ally who helped run Barack Obama's transition.

Think Progress joins Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Jerry Nadler, the New York Times, and the Center for Constitutional Rights in calling for Bybee's impeachment.

Late Update: Sen. Pat Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary committee, has called on Bybee to step down from the bench, though he doesn't seem to have mentioned anything about impeachment.

Condi Rice

State Dept Lawyer: White House Tried To Destroy My Alternative Memo On Torture

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 2:06PM

As David noted over at TPM, there was some potentially big news in a blog post that was written this morning over at Foreign Policy by Philip Zelikow, a top State Department lawyer under Condoleezza Rice.

Zelikow wrote that, in 2005, he had written a memo on the legality of harsh interrogation techniques that expressed an "alternative view" to the OLC memos. He continued:

My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department's archives.

Read more »

Jane Harman

CORRECTED: CQ's Stein On Countdown

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 1:35PM

We didn't have the chance to get to this earlier but CQ's Jeff Stein went on MSNBC's Countdown last night to talk about his now-famous report on Jane Harman and AIPAC*.

Among other things, Stein said that there are "several people who have known this for some time."

And interestingly, he adds that, according to his sources,the investigation into Harman that Time first reported on back in 2006 "never got started" because it was quashed by then-AG Alberto Gonzales.

The whole segment is worth watching...

* This sentence has been corrected from an earlier version that wrongly said Stein had appeared on Hardball.

Alberto Gonzales

Harman: "If There Are Tapes Out There, Bring It On!"

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 1:19PM

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) just appeared on MSNBC to give a guns blazing denial of the allegations in CQ's explosive report from yesterday.

The congresswoman, speaking to Andrea Mitchell, reiterated her claim that she didn't intervene with anyone -- not the Justice Department, or the White House -- in the AIPAC case. And she renewed her call for DOJ to disclose all the material associated with the investigation into her that, according to CQ's report, Alberto Gonzales helped stymie.

Read more »

Barack Obama

Obama: Torture Prosecutions For Bushies Is A Question For AG

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 12:27PM

President Obama is leaving the door open for prosecutions of Bush DOJ officials who provided the legal rationale to support torture policies.

In comments to reporters this morning, Obama said he didn't support prosecuting CIA officers who were carrying out the policy. But:

Read more »

Jane Harman

Harman Calls For Release Of Wiretapping Materials

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 11:56AM

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) has just released a letter she sent to Attorney General Eric Holder. Harman calls on Holder to give her all materials related to the government wiretapping of her, and to the investigation into her, so that she can release them publicly.

Harman also, crucially, takes her denial further than yesterday, saying she never contacted either DOJ or the White House or anyone else to seek favorable treatment for anyone.

Read more »

Torture

Senator: OPR Torture Report Likely To Be "Devastating"

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 11:28AM

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) went on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show last night, to talk about the fallout from the release last week of the Bush administration's torture memos. And his appearance added to the growing sense that pressure is mounting to hold the memos' authors accountable.

Whitehouse, who sits on the Senate Judiciary committee, did temporarily pour a little bit of cold water on the spate of calls to impeach Jay Bybee, the author of one of the memos, who is now a federal judge. He said that it's "certainly possible" that Bybee should be impeached, but that first, we should wait for the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to release its long-held report into the authorship of the memos.

Read more »

Jane Harman

NYT: Harman Said She'd Have More Pull With White House

Zachary Roth | April 21, 2009, 9:20AM

The New York Times adds some details to yesterday's blockbuster CQ report about Rep. Jane Harman and AIPAC.

Here are the key nuggets from the Times story:

* The report confirms that the call on which Harman agreed to take action in the AIPAC case in return for helping her get the House intel chair job was indeed picked up by the NSA, as Stein reported, rather than the FBI or other agencies, as some reports yesterday had suggested.

Read more »

Justice Department

The Harman-AIPAC Story: A Timeline

Zachary Roth | April 20, 2009, 5:29PM

CQ's blockbuster story, about a wiretap that picked up Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) discussing the AIPAC spying case with a "suspected Israeli agent", picks up on a sequence of complex events from several years ago, and involves several moving pieces.

So we thought it would be worthwhile to put together a timeline of events laying out the major reported developments in this sprawling story.

Without further ado:

Read more »

Wiretapping

Harman: I Never Contacted DOJ On AIPAC Case

Zachary Roth | April 20, 2009, 2:51PM

Rep. Jane Harman's office has released a statement in response to CQ's report that the congresswoman was heard on an NSA wiretap telling an "Israeli agent" that she would press the Justice Department to ease up on the AIPAC spy case in return for political help.

The CQ Politics story simply recycles three year-old discredited reporting of largely unsourced material to manufacture a 'scoop' out of widely known and unremarkable facts - that Congresswoman Jane Harman is and has long been a supporter of AIPAC, and that some members of AIPAC regarded her as well-qualified to chair the House Intelligence Committee following the 2006 elections. Congresswoman Harman has never contacted the Justice Department about its prosecution of present or former AIPAC employees and the Department has never informed her that she was or is the subject of or involved in an investigation. If there is anything about this story that should arouse concern, it is that the Bush Administration may have been engaged in electronic surveillance of members of the congressional Intelligence Committees.

George Bush

Nadler And NYT: Impeach Bybee For Torture Memo

Zachary Roth | April 20, 2009, 2:36PM

More fallout from last week's release of the Bush DOJ's torture memos...

Both Congressman Jerry Nadler and the New York Times are calling for Jay Bybee, the author of one of the memos, who's now a federal judge, to be impeached.

Read more »

George Bush

Who Are the Torture Memo Authors?

Zachary Roth | April 17, 2009, 4:59PM

For all the (justified) clamor over the Bush administration's torture memos that were released yesterday, there's been surprisingly little attention paid to the two authors of those documents.

As officials in the department's Office of Legal Counsel Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury authored the four memos. The first was written in 2002 by Bybee, and the latter three in 2005 by Bradbury. So: who are Bybee and Bradbury?

Read more »

George Bush

Sleep Expert "Surprised And Saddened" To Find Research Twisted In Torture Memo

Zachary Roth | April 17, 2009, 2:03PM

A British professor whose research on sleep was cited in one of the just-released Bush administration torture memos has expressed outrage that his work was used to justify extreme sleep deprivation, including keeping subjects awake for up to 11 days.

In an interview with TPMmuckraker, James Horne, a leading authority in the field of sleep research, said he was "surprised and saddened" to see Bush officials "misrepresent" his research to argue that such sleep deprivation does not cause serious harm to its subjects.

Read more »

Justice Department

Torture Memo: Detainees Can Be Naked In Front Of Women, Causing "Pyschological Discomfort" For "Modest" Detainees

Zachary Roth | April 16, 2009, 6:25PM

From one of the May 2005 OLC memos by Steven Bradbury:

Nudity. This technique is used to cause psychological discomfort, particularly if a detainee, for cultural or other reasons, is especially modest ... [I]nterrogators can exploit the detainee's fear of being seen naked. In addition, female officers involved in the interrogation process may see the detainees naked; and for purposes of our analysis, we will assume that detainees subjected to nudity as an interrogation technique are aware that they may be seen naked by female.

George Bush

Torture Memo: Waterboarding Is "Simply A Controlled Acute Episode," Not Torture

Zachary Roth | April 16, 2009, 5:21PM

Here's the official Bush legal rationale for waterboarding -- which Eric Holder recently confirmed was torture -- from that 2002 memo by Jay Bybee.

Finally, you would like to use a technique called the "waterboard." In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort to breathe. This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths. the sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated. The water is usually applied from a canteen cup or small watering can with a spout. You have orally informed us that this procedure triggers an automatic physiological sensation of drowning that the individual cannot control even though he may be aware that he is not in fact drowning. You have also orally informed us that it is likely that this procedure would not last more than twenty minutes in any one application.

As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning -- even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, "pain and suffering" as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of "pain" as distinguished from "suffering".... The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict "severe pain and suffering". Even if one were to parse the stature more "finely" to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering.

Of course, thanks to today's announcement by DOJ, CIA officers can't be prosecuted for this.

Torture

Torture Memo: As Long As You Don't Keep The Guy Awake For More Than 11 Days, It's Fine

Zachary Roth | April 16, 2009, 4:41PM

Here's a taste of the Bush administration's legal rationale, exemplified in one excerpt from the 2002 OLC memo written by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda member:

Sleep deprivation may be used. You have indicated that your purpose in using this technique is to reduce the individual's ability to think on his feet and, through the discomfort associated with lack of sleep, to motivate him to cooperate. The effect of such sleep deprivation will generally remit after one or two nights of uninterrupted sleep. You have informed us that your research has revealed that, in rare instances, some individuals who are already predisposed to psychological problems may experience abnormal reactions to sleep deprivation. Even in those cases, however, reactions abate after the individual is permitted to sleep. Moreover, personnel with medical training are available to and will intervene in the unlikely event of an abnormal reaction. You have orally informed us that you would not deprive Zubaydah of sleep for more than eleven days at a time and that you have previously kept him awake for 72 hours, from which no mental or physical harm resulted. (our itals)

If you have time, comb through the memos yourselves (they're here) and let us know what else you find.

Torture

Rights Group Decries Waterboarding Immunity

Zachary Roth | April 16, 2009, 4:20PM

It's worth making sure we don't lose sight of the apparent price that the Obama administration paid to the intelligence community to mollify them over the release of the torture memos: a pledge not to prosecute agency personnel for waterboarding.

Here's a statement from the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has led the fight against torture, calling the decision "one of the deepest disappointments of this administration".

CCR Decries Immunity for Torture, Secrecy

April 16, 2009, New York - In response to President Obama's decision to guarantee immunity to CIA officials who carried out the drowning torture known as waterboarding, which his attorney general has classified as torture, the Center for Constitutional Rights issued the following statement:

"It is one of the deepest disappointments of this administration that it appears unwilling to uphold the law where crimes have been committed by former officials. Whether or not CIA operatives who conducted waterboarding are guaranteed immunity, it is the high level officials who conceived, justified and ordered the torture program who bear the most responsibility for breaking domestic and international law, and it is they who must be prosecuted. In the president's statement today, the most troubling contradiction is the contrast of the words, 'This is a time for reflection, not retribution,' followed shortly by, 'The United States is a nation of laws.' Government officials broke very serious laws: for there to be no consequences not only calls our system of justice into question, it leaves the gate open for this to happen again."

Since the first days of the public revelations regarding the Bush administration's torture program, the Center for Constitutional Rights has made efforts to hold high level officials and their lawyers accountable for their crimes. CCR, along with the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), has tried three times, twice in Germany and once in France, to bring criminal cases in Europe against former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, former CIA director George Tenet, and former White House Counsel/Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as well as the other lawyers who were part of the conspiracy that authorized the torture program in Guantanamo, Iraq, secret CIA sites, and elsewhere. The German case is still pending. CCR also has torture cases pending in U.S. courts.

Read more »

Barack Obama

Torture Memos Released

Zachary Roth | April 16, 2009, 4:03PM

Here are the OLC torture memos just released by the Justice Department...

An 18-page memo [PDF], dated August 1, 2002, from Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 46-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 20-page memo [PDF], dated May 10, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

A 40-page memo [PDF], dated May 30, 2005, from Steven Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, OLC, to John A. Rizzo, General Counsel CIA.

Go to it!

Barack Obama

Obama Releasing Four Torture Memos

Zachary Roth | April 16, 2009, 3:05PM

One of the memos is from 2002, the other three are from 2005.

According to the AP:

One memo specifically authorized a method for combining multiple techniques, a practice human rights advocates argue is particularly harmful and crosses the line into torture even if any of the individual methods do not.

...

The methods include keeping detainees naked for long periods, keeping them in a painful standing position for long periods, and depriving them of solid food. Other tactics included using a plastic neck collar to slam detainees into walls, keeping the detainee's cell cold for long periods, and beating and kicking the detainee. Sleep-deprivation, prolonged shackling, and threats to a detainee's family were also used.

Among the things not allowed in the memo were allowing a prisoner's body temperature or caloric intake to fall below a certain level, because either could cause permanent damage, the officials said.

The techniques were applied to 14 suspects considered very senior terrorists.

In addition, the Justice Department announced in a statement that CIA employees won't be tried for waterboarding.

Here's the full statement from the White House. The statement from DOJ follows it.

Statement of President Barack Obama on Release of OLC Memos

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.

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.

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America's ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again.

Here's the statement from Attorney General Eric Holder:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RELEASES FOUR OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OPINIONS

In connection with ongoing litigation, the Department of Justice today released four previously undisclosed Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC") opinions - one that OLC issued to the Central Intelligence Agency in August 2002 and three that OLC issued to the CIA in May 2005.

"The President has halted the use of the interrogation techniques described in these opinions, and this administration has made clear from day one that it will not condone torture," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "We are disclosing these memos consistent with our commitment to the rule of law."

Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct.

The Attorney General has informed the Central Intelligence Agency that the government would provide legal representation to any employee, at no cost to the employee, in any state or federal judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the employee based on such conduct and would take measures to respond to any proceeding initiated against the employee in any international or foreign tribunal, including appointing counsel to act on the employee's behalf and asserting any available immunities and other defenses in the proceeding itself.

To the extent permissible under federal law, the government will also indemnify any employee for any monetary judgment or penalty ultimately imposed against him for such conduct and will provide representation in congressional investigations.

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Holder said.

After reviewing these opinions, OLC has decided to withdraw them: They no longer represent the views of the Office of Legal Counsel.

Torture

Greenwald On Torture Memos: These Aren't Intel Docs, They're Legal Docs

Zachary Roth | April 16, 2009, 2:16PM

A great point from Salon's Glenn Greenwald, to keep in mind as we wait for more information about the possible release of those torture memos:

I want to underscore one vital point about this controversy that is continuously overlooked and will be undoubtedly distorted today in the event of non-disclosure: these documents are not intelligence documents. They are legal documents and, more specifically, they constitute what can only be described as secret law under which the U.S. was governed during the Bush era. Thus, the question posed by the release of these OLC memos is not whether Obama will release to the public classified intelligence programs. The question is whether he will release to the public the legal doctrines under which the U.S. Government conducted itself regarding interrogation techniques he claims are no longer being used.

Torture

Report: Obama to Release Torture Memos

Zachary Roth | April 16, 2009, 2:02PM

The New York Times is reporting that the Obama administration has decided to release the "torture memos" written by the Bush Department of Justice, that justify harsh interrogation techniques.

It's not clear from the Times's unsourced report whether this is a compromise, in which only some of the memos will be released, or whether they all will.

Today is the deadline for the administration to weigh in on a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, which is seeking the memos.

We'll have more as things become clearer.

Alaska

Justice Unit Being Probed For Contempt In Stevens Trial Brought Similar Case In 2006

Zachary Roth | April 15, 2009, 4:02PM

Are the Ted Stevens prosecutors in line to get a taste of their medicine?

As we've reported, six federal prosecutors from the Stevens case -- members of DOJ's Public Integrity unit, including its head, William Welch -- are now being investigated for knowingly withholding evidence, a potential criminal act.

Prosecutions for this offense -- known as a Brady violation -- are exceedingly rare. But it turns out that in 2006, an Assistant US Attorney was tried on the charge -- and acquitted amid allegations that his prosecution was over-zealous. In fact, the prosecutors who argued the case against the AUSA were with -- you guessed it -- the Public Integrity unit. And for part of that time, they were supervised by Welch himself. (For more on the Stevens Six, go here.)

Read more »

AIG

Source: SEC (Unlike DOJ) Cooperating With Congress's Request For AIG Docs

Zachary Roth | April 15, 2009, 12:17PM

Earlier this morning, we reported that the Justice Department is dragging its heels on a demand from Congress to hand over information compiled by a highly placed government monitor at AIG.

But DOJ's recalcitrance is underlined by the approach of the SEC, which was also asked to turn over the monitor's information. According to a source on the House Oversight committee, the SEC has said it's complying with the request, and is expected to turn over the information shortly.

Read more »

AIG

Justice Dragging Heels On Congress's Request For AIG Docs

Zachary Roth | April 15, 2009, 9:50AM

Last month, as we noted at the time, House Oversight committee chair Ed Towns formally asked the Justice Department for records kept by a government monitor, who since 2004 has had access to high-level internal deliberations at AIG.

But DOJ seems to be dragging its heels.

Read more »

Barack Obama

Biden Mum On State Secrets Bill He Once Supported

Zachary Roth | April 14, 2009, 2:15PM

Et tu, Joe?

Last year, while trying to win the Democratic nomination for president, Joe Biden co-sponsored a bill to restrict the use of the "state secrets privilege" by the Department of Justice. But today, asked by the Huffington Post for Biden's current stance on the legislation, a spokesman for the vice president replied: "No comment on this from here." That "no comment" follows a similar tight-lipped stance from the White House itself.

Read more »

Alaska

Stevens Rejected No-Jail Plea Deal Last Summer

Zachary Roth | April 14, 2009, 1:40PM

You can say one thing for Ted Stevens -- he's got cojones.

Court records that were just unsealed show that the former Alaska senator last summer turned down a plea deal with prosecutors that would have resulted in no jail time.

Read more »

Barack Obama

Obama Admin Fighting To Block Detainees From Challenging Detentions In Court

Zachary Roth | April 13, 2009, 2:58PM

On Friday, we reported the comments of a lawyer for four Gitmo detainees, who told us that, in his view, the Obama administration is continuing the Bushies' policy, by stonewalling efforts by detainees to appeal their detentions in federal courts.

And that same day, another data point emerged suggesting the new administration is taking a hard line on detainee policy.

Read more »

Barack Obama

White House Won't Say Whether It'll Back Effort To Roll Back State Secrets Privilege

Zachary Roth | April 13, 2009, 9:51AM

A good advance on the state secrets story, from Greg Sargent over at the Plum Line.

Greg reports that the White House declined to tell him whether it would support a Democratic effort to roll back the use of the state secrets privilege.

Read more »

Barack Obama

Not Just State Secrets: Obama Continuing Bush's Stonewalling On Gitmo Cases, Lawyer Claims

Zachary Roth | April 10, 2009, 3:43PM

Yesterday we told you about the Obama Justice Department's invocation of a sweeping state secrets privilege in a warrantless wiretapping case. But that may not be the only area in which the new administration's war on terror tactics recall the worst excesses of the Bush years.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo had the right to appeal their detentions in federal courts. But since then, only a few cases have been completed. And in an interview with TPMmuckraker, David Cynamon -- a lawyer for four Kuwaiti Gitmo detainees who are bringing habeas corpus claims against the government -- said that the Justice Department has been consistently dragging its heels in the case, denying detainees their basic due process rights and furthering what he called the "abandonment of the rule of law."

Read more »

Barack Obama

Justice: We Invoked State Secrets Only "After Careful Consideration"

Zachary Roth | April 10, 2009, 11:19AM

We told you yesterday about the developing consensus in opposition to the Obama administration's state secrets claim in the Jewel v. NSA case, in which the government is being sued over the warrantless wiretapping program.

Here's the Justice Department's statement on the matter:

The administration recognizes that invoking the states secret privilege is a significant step that should be taken only when absolutely necessary. After careful consideration by senior intelligence and Department of Justice officials, it was clear that pursuing this case could unavoidably put at risk the disclosure of sensitive information that would harm national security.

An examination by the Director of National Intelligence and an internal review team established by the Attorney General determined that attempting to address the allegations in this case could require the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods that are used in a lawful manner to protect national security. The administration cannot risk the disclosure of information that could cause such exceptional harm to national security.

While the assertion of states secrets privilege is necessary to protect national security, the intelligence community's surveillance activities are designed and executed to comply fully with the laws protecting the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. There is a robust oversight system to ensure this compliance.

Barack Obama

Obama Website Slams Secrecy Claim That Obama Now Invokes

Zachary Roth | April 10, 2009, 10:49AM

A great catch from our old friend Greg Sargent over at the Plum Line...

Barack Obama's campaign website still cites the fact that "the Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." The site declares: "Secrecy Dominates Government Actions."

Read more »

Barack Obama

Expert Consensus: Obama Mimics Bush On State Secrets

Zachary Roth | April 9, 2009, 6:20PM

Is the Obama administration mimicking its predecessor on issues of secrecy and the war on terror?

During the presidential campaign, Obama criticized Bush for being too quick to invoke the state secrets claim. But last Friday, his Justice Department filed a motion in a warrantless wiretapping lawsuit, brought by the digital-rights group EFF. And the Obama-ites took a page out of the Bush DOJ's playbook by demanding that the suit, Jewel v. NSA, be dismissed entirely under the state secrets privilege, arguing that allowing it go forward would jeopardize national security.

Read more »

Alaska

Who Are The Stevens Six?

Zachary Roth | April 9, 2009, 4:25PM

Earlier this week, Judge Emmet Sullivan formally dropped the charges against former Alaska senator Ted Stevens, thanks to prosecutorial misconduct. And Sullivan also announced that he's appointed a special prosecutor of his own to investigate contempt charges against the six Justice Department lawyers whose string of missteps -- the most serious of which involved withholding key evidence -- doomed the case. That misconduct is also the subject of an internal DOJ probe.

Since then, there's been a tangle of competing claims from all sides. We've seen some critics of the Bush administration suggesting that Justice intentionally sabotaged the prosecution, in order to let Stevens, a Republican, off the hook. Meanwhile, some of the more paranoid figures on the right are arguing that the entire prosecution was an (ultimately successful) effort by liberal DOJ bureaucrats to use bogus charges to create a cloud of suspicion around Stevens and thereby win another Senate seat for Democrats.

Read more »

Alaska

Alaska Lawmakers Want Government To Apologize To Stevens

Zachary Roth | April 9, 2009, 10:00AM

The Ted Stevens pity party continues.

The Associated Press reports:

Alaska lawmakers want the U.S. government to apologize to former Sen. Ted Stevens, whose corruption conviction was dismissed this week by a federal judge.

...

The Alaska House passed a resolution Wednesday calling for the apology to Stevens.

Read more »

Eric Holder

Justice Official Who Probed US Attorney Firings Will Now Lead US Attorneys Office

Zachary Roth | April 8, 2009, 4:22PM

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility -- which has lately been in a number of internal DOJ investigations into high-profile issues -- will soon have a new chief.

The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Eric Holder will name as the head of the office Mary Patrice Brown, a respected career prosecutor who currently leads the criminal division at the US Attorney's office for Washington DC. Brown will replace Marshall Jarrett, who has been there since 1998, and will shift over to lead the executive office of the US Attorneys.

Read more »

Alaska

Did Mukasey Ignore Evidence Of Misconduct In Stevens Case?

Zachary Roth | April 8, 2009, 12:58PM

Buried in the news about charges against Ted Stevens being dropped, there's an additional serious indictment (as if more were needed) of the Bush Justice Department -- and specifically, of Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Reporting from yesterday's hearing, at which Judge Emmet Sullivan formally announced that the charges would be dropped, the Washington Post notes:

When the judge heard that Stevens's attorneys sent three letters about prosecutorial misconduct to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey but received no response, he called it "shocking -- but not surprising."

Read more »

Alaska

Keying Off Stevens Decision, Siegelman Steps Up Push To Have His Own Charges Dropped

Zachary Roth | April 7, 2009, 2:23PM

In the wake of the charges being dropped agaisnt Ted Stevens, is pressure building on the Justice Department to make a similar decision on behalf of Don Siegelman?

A lawyer for the former Alabama governor -- who last week told TPMmuckraker that the misconduct in his own case "dwarf[s]" that in Stevens' -- sent a letter Friday to Attorney General Eric Holder, asking that Holder review the evidence of "serious and pervasive" prosecutorial misconduct in Siegelman's case.

Read more »

Alaska

Stevens Judge Seeking Contempt Charges

Zachary Roth | April 7, 2009, 1:37PM

It looks like Judge Emmet Sullivan didn't just leave things at a few harsh words for those government prosecutors who botched the Ted Stevens case by failing to hand over evidence.

Politico reports that the judge will seek contempt charges against the six-person prosecution team for their misconduct. That team includes William Welch, the head of the Public Integrity Section, Brenda Morris, the lead prosecutor in the case, and trial lawyer Nicholas Marsh, all of whom were replaced earlier this year, as a result of the missteps.

Sullivan also appointed a lawyer, Henry Schulke, to investigate the Justice Department in relation to the contempt issue. DOJ has said that its Office of Professional Responsibility is conducting its own probe of the misconduct, but clearly Sullivan wants an independent inquiry.

This could get interesting...

Alaska

Dismissing Charges, Stevens Judge Slams Government Misconduct

Zachary Roth | April 7, 2009, 12:51PM

The judge in the Ted Stevens case has granted the government's motion to drop the charges against the former Alaska senator -- but not before slamming the government prosecutors on the case.

"In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case," U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said at a hearing on the government's motion, reports the Associated Press.

Read more »

Allen Stanford

In Interview, Stanford Plays World's Smallest Violin

Zachary Roth | April 6, 2009, 3:34PM

Texas billionaire Allen Stanford has given ABC News his first interview since being charged by the SEC with orchestrating a massive Ponzi scheme. And he doesn't offer a sympathetic portrait.

Amid protestations of innocence -- "I would die and go to hell if it's a Ponzi scheme," and "if it was a Ponzi scheme, why are they finding billions and billions of dollars all over the place?" -- Stanford revealed he expects to be indicted by a federal grand jury in the next two weeks. (A senior official at the Justice Department told ABC News the case is "moving along rapidly.")

Read more »

Eric Holder

Stevens Judge Weighing Sanctions Against Prosecutors

Zachary Roth | April 6, 2009, 9:14AM

The charges against Ted Stevens may be about to be dropped -- but the fallout isn't over.

The judge in the case yesterday ordered the Justice Department to hand over documents relating to allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in the case, reports the Washington Post.

It was because of this misconduct that Attorney General Eric Holder last week decided to ask the judge, Emmet Sullivan, drop the charges against Stevens.

Read more »

Alaska

Begich To Alaska GOP: Yeah, Right!

Zachary Roth | April 2, 2009, 5:29PM

We told you how the Alaska Republican party earlier today reacted to the news that the Justice Department is dropping the charges against Ted Stevens by absurdly calling for the resignation of Sen. Mark Begich, the Democrat who beat Stevens last fall.

Well, now Begich has put out a statement in response:

Read more »

Alaska

Alaska GOP: Stevens Decision Means Begich Should Resign

Zachary Roth | April 2, 2009, 3:48PM

Here's the logical (read: nuts) conclusion to the fast-growing Poor-Ted-Stevens movement:

Via Think Progress, a press release from the Alaska GOP:

Read more »

Justice Department

Beltway Establishment's Misplaced Orgy Of Stevens Sympathy

Zachary Roth | April 2, 2009, 1:02PM

We told you yesterday about Chris Matthews' flub on the Ted Stevens news -- telling viewers that the decision by Justice to drop the charges, thanks to prosecutorial misconduct, means that "the charges should never have been brought."

But it looks like Matthews was just the tip of the iceberg. Since yesterday morning, the self-appointed guardians of the Beltway discourse, in Congress and the press, have been lining up to express their sympathy for Stevens and lament the way the case has unfairly "besmirched" his sterling reputation.

Please.

Read more »

Alaska

Siegelman: Stevens Case Is Dropped, So Why Not Mine?

Zachary Roth | April 1, 2009, 7:04PM

For Don Siegelman, DOJ's decision on Ted Stevens just adds insult to injury.

"There seems to be substantial evidence of prosecutorial and other misconduct in my case, that would dwarf the allegations in the Stevens case," the former Alabama governor told TPMmuckraker in an interview moments ago.

Read more »

Alaska

MSNBC's Matthews Goofs On Stevens Decision

Zachary Roth | April 1, 2009, 6:03PM

Chris Matthews says a lot of things. So it's to be expected that sometimes they're smart and insightful, and sometimes they're embarrassingly wrong.

Just now, the MSNBC anchor, opining on the news that DOJ is dropping the charges in the Ted Stevens case, declared that the decision means "the charges should never have been brought, there should never have been a prosecution."

Read more »

Alaska

Decision To Drop Stevens Case Was Triggered By Latest Government Fumble To Emerge

Zachary Roth | April 1, 2009, 12:10PM

It sounds like the decision to drop the charges against Ted Stevens was prompted by a new example of prosecutorial misconduct, which only came to light recently.

Here's the key excerpt from the Justice Department's motion:

The Government recently discovered that a witness interview of Bill Allen took place on April 15, 2008. While no memorandum of interview or agent notes exist for this interview, notes taken by two prosecutors who participated in the April 15 interview reflect that Bill Allen was asked about a note dated October 6, 2002, that was sent from the defendant to Bill Allen. The note was introduced at trial as Government Exhibit 495 and was referred to as the "Torricelli note." The notes of the April 15 interview indicate that Bill Allen said, among other things, in substance and in part, that he (Bill Allen) did not recall talking to Bob Persons regarding giving a bill to the defendant. This statement by Allen during the April 15 interview was inconsistent with Allen's recollection at trial, where he described a conversation with Persons about the Torricelli note. In addition, the April 15 interview notes indicate that Allen estimated that if his workers had performed efficiently, the fair market value of the work his corporation performed on defendant's Girdwood chalet would have been $80,000. Upon the discovery of the interview notes last week, the Government immediately provided a copy to defense counsel.

Defendant Stevens was not informed prior to or during trial of the statements by Bill Allen on April 15, 2008. This information could have been used by the defendant to cross- examine Bill Allen and in arguments to the jury. The Government also acknowledges that the Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for a New Trial provided an account of the Government's interviews of Bill Allen that is inaccurate.

Read more »

Alaska

DOJ's Motion To Dismiss Stevens Case

Zachary Roth | April 1, 2009, 9:31AM

Here's the Justice Department's undated motion to dismiss the case, which lays out the rationale in detail, and was presumably filed yesterday or this morning.

Eric Holder

Holder: Withholding Evidence Was Key Factor In Decision To Drop Charges

Zachary Roth | April 1, 2009, 9:21AM

So which of the many well-documented prosecutorial missteps was most important in leading to the Justice Department's decision to drop the case against Ted Stevens?

The initial read, based on DOJ's statement, is that it was prosecutors' withholding of evidence from the defense.

Holder:

After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial. In light of this conclusion, and in consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this particular case, I have determined that it is in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial.

We'll have more on the details of this soon.

Alaska

DOJ Statement On Stevens Case

Zachary Roth | April 1, 2009, 9:10AM

The Justice Department has released a statement on the decision to drop the Ted Stevens case:

STATEMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER REGARDING UNITED STATES V. THEODORE F. STEVENS

Read more »

PERMALINK | COMMENTS (10) | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (10)
Topics: Alaska, Justice Department, Ted Stevens

Alaska

Justice Department To Drop Stevens Charges

Zachary Roth | April 1, 2009, 8:43AM

NPR:

The Justice Department will drop all charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, NPR has learned.

It added that Attorney General Eric Holder decided the conviction could not be defended thanks to problems with the prosecution.

The news of the case being dropped has now been confirmed independently by the AP and CNN.

Read more »