Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration’s Office of Legal Counsel. I did not do this because I disagreed with the enhanced interrogation techniques that those memos authorized, or because I reject their legal rationale – although I do on both counts. I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known, the Bush Administration had acknowledged its existence, and I had already banned those methods. The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded – we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited. In short, I released these memos because there was no overriding reason to protect them. And the ensuing debate has helped the American people better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used.

That was Barack Obama at the National Archives on May 20. It’s worth remembering this quote because on Friday the CIA is scheduled to release its 2004 inspector-general’s report on torture. There’s a fair amount we know about that report, thanks to the declassification of the OLC memos Obama discussed last month. The 2005 memos are filled with factual footnotes drawn from the content of the 2004 IG report, which is how, for instance, Marcy was able to determine how many times Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded.

I’m just now seeing the Washington Post’s piece about CIA trying to redact a whole lot of the IG report. Let’s be real for a moment: the only reason to redact stuff that we already largely know will be to cover up embarrassing or criminal activity. The report covers how torture techniques were applied in practice and the discrepancy between that and what the Office of Legal Counsel approved. How, for instance, did sleep deprivation become dependent on stress positions? How did CIA decide on the proper caloric restrictions for "dietary management," and how did a lawyer distinguish between torture at 999 kcal/day and non-torture at 1000 kcal/day? The IG report is probably the most thorough exploration of that question. The Post:

"The argument was that combining the techniques amounted to torture," said a former agency official who read the report. "In essence, [Helgerson] was arguing in 2004 that there were clear violations of international laws and domestic laws."

Another former official who read the report said its full text laid bare "the good, the bad and the ugly" and added that "I believe that some people would find offensive" what was done, because it was "not in keeping with American values."

Here’s an interesting question. Most often it’s considered acceptable to restrict from public release details of sources and methods intelligence agencies employ in intelligence gathering. Most often it’s considered unacceptable to restrict from public release information that’s embarassing or criminal. This is a case in which details of sources and methods are embarassing and potentially criminal. What to do? Well: if this is a case where the administration has actually forsworn the use of these methods, as Leon Panetta swears to Jane Mayer, then redaction is unacceptable.  Your move.