These are medieval documents, these Office of Legal Counsel memos. And not just in the sense that torture techniques like the waterboard date back to medieval times, but in the way that the OLC acted for the CIA. These memos are basically colloquys between John Rizzo, then the acting CIA legal counsel and either Jay Bybee (in 2002) and Steve Bradbury (in 2005), the OLC chiefs, in which Rizzo asks OLC what the CIA can legally inflict on detainees. OLC, like a medieval priest, finds the right incantation to transform a dark act into a holy one. When Bybee’s OLC the OLC under Jack Goldsmith in 2004 withdraws the original basis for the CIA’s torture program, Rizzo comes right back to Bybee’s replacement, Goldsmith’s replacement, Bradbury, to restore the OLC’s holy writ, which Bradbury provides on May 10, 2005. [Apologies for the error. Naturally, Marcy Wheeler pointed it out to me!] Consider this, from the May 10, 2005 memo that dismisses the idea of a detainee experiencing "severe physical pain" from combinations of these techniques:
No apparent increase in susceptibility to severe pain has been observed either when techniques are used sequentially or simultaneously — for example, when an insult slap is simultaneously combined with water dousing or a kneeling stress position, or when wall standing is simultaneously combined with an abdominal slap and water dousing.
Bradbury knows because the medical and psychological personnel who assist in the interrogations report that to the CIA, and the CIA reports that to Bradbury. The system is holy, holy, holy, all the way up to God.
And here’s how it’s problematic for Obama, Blair and Panetta to indicate to the CIA that they’ll stand by CIA officers who relied on OLC guidance for the torture. Marc Ambinder observes that there’s some wiggle room in that promise, although every indication from the administration is that it doesn’t want to prosecute CIA officials. And for the most part, I think that’s right. The CIA officer assigned to an interrogation is no more responsible for the regimen of torture that he is asked to inflict — and told all the while is legal — than the soldier in Baghdad is responsible for the invasion of Iraq.
But that doesn’t go far enough.
Most of this story — the torture techniques (except for the insects); the OLC blessings and reblessings — has been thoroughly reported already. What the memos leave unclear is how much the CIA jumped into the torture game and how much the Bush administration pushed it. The memos are written to be responsive to the CIA lawyer — the malefactor going to the priest to give his work absolution. They’re written to guide the interrogators. But they leave unclear — as does most of the narrative so far — who’s compelling Rizzo in the CIA counsel’s office to keep pushing for more. The senior leadership of the agency? The heads of its directorate of operations, which overseas the interrogators? The Counterterrorist Center leaders? Without this information, we don’t have a clear sense of moral culpability for the torture. And then we’ll need to know what kind of pressure they were under from the Bush administration. Who was pressured? Who was eager to comply? Who resisted? Who pressed his or her colleagues into acquiescence or insubordination? All of these questions are related but seperate to the question of legal culpability.
The point is that the depths of this story are still unexplored, and only a congressional investigation, with appropriate subpoena power, can get at the truth. That’s what the ACLU is calling for; that’s what Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) is calling for. It’s not a question of a witch hunt, nor is it a backdoor way into prosecutions. It’s about closing this ugly chapter in American history. Leaving questions unresolved ensures that can never happen. If it’s the case that CIA officials are culpable for the torture, they should be held appropriately accountable; the same goes for Bush administration officials. The only blanket statement that’s appropriate in the wake of these memos is that torture is unacceptable, illegal and un-American.
Crossposted to The Streak. Now I’m going for a drink at PS7 and then the Black Cat. Holler if you want to commisserate.
Login Here




46 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
pardon me for my obligatory stupid question.
Why is Leahy still saying that his Committee isn’t gonna get anywhere without repub cooperation? The Committee has a D majority, does it not?
Dugg right here — please join me!
Torture is as American as apple pie & motherhood. Read Legacy of Ashes for the CIA record and Overthrow for U.S. conduct of the coin in Philippines in 1890s for evidence. It won’t stop in my lifetime.
Impeach
Bybee
Now
EPU’d: Bybee’s confirmation vote.
I think I read somewhere that the Red Cross thinks upwards of 100 people may have died under American interrogation (normally referred to as, tortured to death).. there’s probably worse that we haven’t heard about isn’t there?
Obama’s trying to take the easier, softer that that got US here in the first place.
Spencer:
My take is that Panetta lobbied for exemptions on Langley folks, in order to maintain positive relationships with foreign Intelligence agencies (read: coalition of the Renditioned host countries), who would prefer, all things considered, to not be moralized to.
They like to do things long term (relationship wise), and they do not necessarily cleave to the YoYo effect of on and off moralizing (read Church Commitee), which makes them Allies one minute, and Pol Potsters, the next.
Just a hunch!
“Torture is as American as apple pie & motherhood…It won’t stop in my lifetime.”
Maybe Obama is using this same excuse as his rationale for not prosecuting, eCahn? After all, if it’s not gonna go away, why try?
i don’t exactly agree that the soldiers aren’t culpable. this is a volunteer army and there’s no need to volunteer for an occupation.
i also don’t agree that the interrogators aren’t culpable. they are the ones who carried out the torture.
at the same time, i believe the people higher up the chain of command are the ones most culpable. the higher up, the more culpable. the higher up the chain of command, the more death, misery, homelessness and destruction they’ve caused.
John Yoo’s presence on a law school faculty defended by the dean at Chapman “University”.
Anderson Cooper said tonight that AP reported in 2005 that 108 had died due to treatment in facilities run by the CIA and the military.
However, assuming that torture continued after Obama said no more torture – those guys would be liable for prosecution, no?
shouldn’t there be disclosure (and investigation) of the circumstances of all of those deaths?
Reading this is nonsensical…unless one accepts that severe pain IS being introduced. The fact that a reaction (which is what I guess he means by “susceptibility”) isn’t increasing when two tortures are applied merely means that the pain is at its maximum threshhold. You can’t increase it any more.
What is most appalling to me is the fact that physicians and psychologists ignored well known studies on the impact of stress on healing rates of wounds, and the impact of stress on people with pre-existing psychological issues. In essence, they pulled a Yoo, ignoring research that would go against their capability to introduce the torture. They then misrepresented their knowledge to Yoo, who then misrepresented the law to the interrogators. I suspect that the acts of “enhanced interrogation” were misrepresented as well…as well as their effects.
One more point…the Harvey Wallbanger. The assertion that this would not cause physical or neurological damage is wrong. Concussions are not ONLY caused by a whiplash impact. It can also be caused when the body is forced onto a surface, compliant or not, at a velocity that causes the soft tissue (the brain) to continue onto the interior of the skull that is rebounding off the surface. If they were doing this regularly, repeated traumatic bleeding and scarring of the neural tissue might have occurred.
Oh, I don’t think that’s O’s rationale. I think he’s deeply into trying to make it disappear.
My own opinion is that if own distorts evidence or facts in order to create a legal rationale to commit a crime…that itself is criminal. It is the very definition of “the color of law”…and you are creating a circumstance where “action is under the color of law”. Simply because a gangsters lawyer tells him that he can gets away with something doesn’t mean that makes it suddenly and magically legal. In fact, if the courts determine it was illegal, the lawyer himself becomes culpable. It creates a conspiracy.
Much of the argument they use is akin to that Mafiosa performing a “hit” and then saying may lawyer said filling his body full of lead was okay because “I didn’t intend to kill him…he looked hot, so I wanted to ventilate his body”. As long as their goal was to get “information” and not to actually torture him, then all is well in the world? Heck, even crap information was good enough…he could have said he was having sex with the devil and it would be “information” {Memo to self : Al Qaida suspect appears to have belief in the devil. Also shows interest and claims prior participation in sexual activities of unusual types. More interrogation necessary.}
If these memos do not precipitate a public firestorm equivalent to the Saturday Night Massacre, then our country has truly gone down the tubes.
The problem is that the Bush administration has for years been inoculating the American public into a ho-hum attitude towards such things. This is just deeply awful.
Bob in HI
Let’s take Obama at his word and see where it leads. He sez he wants to move forward. Add to that John-pardoning-Nixon-was-the-best-thing-the-U.S.-ever-did-Dean, because the U.S. would have been torn apart if Ford had not pardoned. It is certainly true that a vocal, strong-feeling minority would try to tear the U.S. apart if Obama admin tried to prosecute W admin officials. Is it worth it?
DUGG!
War crimes are War Crimes and those who authorized or committed them MUST be brought to Justice!
If we as Country as a whole, do not pursue Justice then we are as guilty as the persons who did the torturing! And we will never live this down. George Washington refused to use Torture on the British(who did use it) at the very founding of our country and George Bush/ Richard Cheney threw away hundreds of years of good will in the world. Both of them deserve the severest penalty possible for authorizing it!!
My 2 cents..
Agree. But not responsive to my 19. Is it worth it?
So if the OLC said genocide was OK, then no one should go after mass murderers? If they said bestiality was perfectly fine, then only the sheep would need to be worried.
These OLC memos stink but they are being waved around like some magical talisman. And it is not just Bush, Cheney, the CIA, and the torturers that are hiding behind them but now it is Obama. The lessons of Nuremberg are being forgotten. The whole point of those trials was that states, statesmen, and those just following orders could not paper over their crimes with legalisms. Torture is torture whatever a stack of OLC memos might say. Those who committed torture, ordered it, or facilitated it are all culpable.
I say this often but Obama and his Administration never disagreed with Bush on fundamentals. Today’s weaselry is just another example of this.
Is it worth tearing the U.S. apart?
I’m sorry, but I can’t accept either your premise or he analogy you used o support it. There’s a huge difference between a soldier on a battlefield and a CIA employee interrogating a detainee in a secure US military prison. Both our military officers and CIA employees assigned to the military are fully aware of the Geneva Convention. It’s part of their training.
“I was only following orders” is no excuse participating in activities that violate the laws of your country and treaties to which your nation is a party.
IMHO YES! We lose much too much moral ground if we do not pursue these criminals. What Nixon and crew did were not War crimes I think there is a major difference between the two circumstances. And the fact of International law being broken.
here is an example of what can happen when you just let them (e.g. rush limbaugh) do what they want.
I don’t disagree. What I am trying to get at is how we handle the blowback intelligently. How do you thing that would work out?
Can you have a country without the rule of law? If we do not go after the excesses of the worst President in our history, then these excesses will come back in 5-10 years. We saw it with Nixon, with Iran-Contra, and we are seeing it now with torture, domestic spying, indefinite detention. Indeed we don’t have to wait 5-10 years. Obama is not only defending but validating the worst of the worst among us. He is aready reneging on all of his campaign rhetoric to bring real change. What he is doing is dusting off Bush’s policies and treating them as his own.
I think when all the facts are brought there will be few Americans who would not want Justice done! If they don’t it shows just how immoral they truly are and if it is the Republicans then it can and should be held against them come election time! Simply stated as ” Would you vote for a Torturer”? How could the Christian Right ever support such a candidate?? In fact in light of these memos they should be screaming at the top of their collective lungs!!
my 26 example should go here:
http://video.nytimes.com/video…..alley.html
Obama wants to keep the power to torture. Maybe there will be no more waterboarding but as we have already seen from Crawford the convening authority at Guantanamo accepted techniques used in combination equate to torture. So we will have torture. Obama has not turned his back on that. He only wants to blur the lines enough to make prosecutions for it that much harder.
Playing the devil’s advocate, the U.S. has always tortured and has always not been a country of the rule of law. Why should the country change now? Hasn’t the U.S. been successful following such a process?
Yes.
We either draw the line and stick to it or we give up pretense of being anything other than a corrupted, sick, man and brutal oligarchy of the rich and mighty weapons wise.
And if we don’t draw the line, well, game over for the republic AND the democracy.
Course, ya could argue it’s been game over for 40 years or more now . . . .
I think the difference this time is that we have Presidents from both parties in public making extremely lame arguments for torture even as they even more lamely deny that we are a nation that tortures.
The problem is that both Obama and Bush have made torture essentially our official policy. And despite overwhelming evidence of the culpability of those up and down the line, both have refused to pursue criminal prosecutions. In the past, wrongdoing occurred but when it came to light action, some action was taken. But now after Nixon, Iran-Contra, and Bush’s criminality and Obama’s covering for it, it looks like even partial attempts at rectification have gone by the board.
we still don’t have habeas corpus back. which means anyone can be declared an enemy combatant. the slide away from democracy has been accelerating: deregulation to benefit the rich, media to benefit the military industrial complex, fisa. the landscape has changed dramatically over the last 8 years. what was secret before is now blatant. our liberties have been curtailed and the ordinary people are standing in front of being shock doctrined.
What you and greenwarrior said.
“Just following orders” died at Nuremberg. Nothing OLC wrote changed that.
Maybe Bush was afraid bin Laden would come forward and talk about 9/11 and al Qaeda activities and his involvement with the CIA, so he tortured people to let bin Laden know he had better stay quiet.
There are many possible explanations for why all this was made to happen.
First Lieutenant Watada’s refusal to follow orders (refused to deploy to Iraq because he believed the war illegal and that it would be a war crime for him to participate) is interesting in that light.
He’s still not out of the woods wrt government/court martial shenanigans (shenanigans on the government’s part)
Spencer Ackerman wrote:
It takes a special kind of person to order these things and to do these kinds of things.
There won’t be any public firestorm, Bob. The msm will bury this story just like they did the Downing Street Minutes, and the great majority of the American sheeple will never know about it. Don’t ever forget who owns the msm, and where their interests lie. But the msm isn’t the only culprit; there’s a strong core of self-delusional American exceptionalism in the sheeple that plays right into the msm’s hands.
Hi eCAHN…yes it is worth it. The reason is that this nation is based upon the rule of law. That is why we have a criminal justice system to feret out, investigate and convict criminal behavior. If the perpatrators of and those complicit in the criminal act of torture are excused for their criminal acts it turns the very idea of the criminal justice system in this country on its head and renders it impotent and useless. We citizens are entitled to retribution for what was done in our name. We deserve justice. It is not a political issue. It is purely an issue of criminal conduct that requires to be resolved so that justice can be served. Anything short of that renders our society, as we would like to know it, dead.
eCAHN said “Is it worth tearing the U.S. apart?”
The U.S. is being ripped apart with the ratification of the war crimes having been conducted in our name. The only way to repair the damage which has been done is to investigate, charge those who perpatrated the crimes and put them in prison. That will begin to repair the damage.
Well said Hugh. Obama is taking actions to cover up the criminal conduct. As you know that is complicit in the underlying crimes. It is also a violation of his oath of office and the federal criminal code. He knows that but does not care. With such conduct on the part of Obama it will lead to him engaging in criminal conduct. Once a person starts on a path of criminality it is almost impossible to stop.
eCAHN said ” Hasn’t the U.S. been successful following such a process?”
Yes the U.S. has been very successful at being a bully in the world, starting unnecessary wars, committing war crimes, killing people for no good reason all over the world and committing other egregious acts. Is that the kind of success we can be proud of?
The rationale that it is “looking backward” to prosecute but “looking forward” not to prosecute begs the question “looking how far”?
Not looking past ones nose renders the direction one is looking moot:
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/…..obama.html
Yes it is. Only the tea baggers want to break up the USA. It’s our duty to clean up our own messes.