Share

Torture Memos Drafted by Ex-DOJ Official Steven Bradbury to Be Released

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

photo
One of the cells at the newly opened Baghdad Central Prison in Abu Ghraib. (Photo: Getty Images)

    The Obama administration intends to declassify and publicly release three Justice Department memorandums drafted in May 2005 that gave CIA interrogators the legal authorization to torture "high-value" detainees as well as a list of techniques to use against the prisoners, according to a report in Newsweek.

    According to a list of still-secret documents related to the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation techniques" obtained from the ACLU, the May 2005 memos were signed by Steven Bradbury, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).

    However, one of the memos Bradbury signed, dated May 10, 2005, was largely one in which he reinstated elements of an August 2002 torture memo drafted by Jay Bybee and John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney generals at OLC, which spelled out exactly what techniques interrogators could use against prisoners and was written for the CIA.

    That memo, along with another August 2002 memo written by Yoo and signed by Bybee, was withdrawn in October 2003 by Jack Goldsmith, former head of the OLC. Goldsmith wrote in his book, "The Terror Presidency," that the August 2002 memos were "legally flawed" and "sloppily reasoned."

    But Bradbury, who succeeded Goldsmith in early 2005, quietly reinstated the memo. Bradbury's May 10, 2005, legal opinion on "whether CIA interrogation methods violate the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment standard under federal and international law ... reportedly concludes that past and present CIA interrogation methods do not constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," according to the ACLU.

    Another May 10, 2005, memo Bradbury drafted expanded upon a list of approved methods for interrogating detainees. According to an Oct. 4, 2007, story published in The New York Times, "the new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."

    Documents obtained from the ACLU identified the subject of this memo as "Authorized Interrogation Techniques."

    "Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on 'combined effects' over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion's overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be 'ashamed' when the world eventually learned of it," the Times report added.

    Comey's prediction will likely be borne out. According to Newsweek, one senior Obama administration official who spoke to the magazine on condition of anonymity described the memos as "ugly" and said they could cause embarrassment for the CIA.

    These memos were the subject of a four-year-long internal investigation conducted by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility. The probe centered on whether Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury provided the White House with poor legal advice and violated "professional standards." The probe was completed last year and a classified report on the matter is said to be highly critical of Yoo, Bybee and Bradbury's legal work in areas related to interrogation, detention and domestic surveillance. Bybee is now a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judge in San Francisco. Yoo is a visiting law professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif.

    The May 30, 2005, memo Bradbury wrote is the "use of enhanced interrogation techniques by the CIA." The ACLU was unable to obtain a further description of Bradbury's memorandum.

    In a January 22 executive order, President Obama outlawed the use of such aggressive interrogation tactics. As such, the administration concluded there was no longer a valid reason to continue to classify the memos, Newsweek reported.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Intelligence Committee, announced earlier this month that her committee will conduct a year-long secret investigation into the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" and detention practices and whether the methods resulted in actionable intelligence as Bush administration officials have maintained.

    The California Democrat also responded to excerpts of a secret report prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that concluded the abuse of 14 "high-value" detainees the agency interviewed "constituted torture."

    "In addition, many other elements of the ill treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment," according to the ICRC report, a copy of which was obtained by journalist Mark Danner, who published excerpts from it in The New York Review of Books. Since the ICRC's responsibilities involve ensuring compliance with the Geneva Conventions and supervising the treatment of prisoners of war, the organization's findings carry legal weight.

    The ICRC report also found that there was a consistency in many details from the detainees who were interviewed separately and that the first "high-value" detainee to be captured, Abu Zubaydah, appeared to have been used as something of a test case by his interrogators. Zubaydah told the ICRC "interrogators wrapped a towel around my neck; they then used it to swing me around and smash me repeatedly against the hard walls of the room. I was also repeatedly slapped in the face."

    Feinstein told Newsweek, "I now know we were not fully and completely briefed on the CIA program."

    Last year, Dick Cheney admitted in exit interviews that he personally "signed off" on the waterboarding of Zubaydah and two other alleged terrorist detainees and personally approved brutal interrogations of 33 others.

    "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the [Central Intelligence] Agency, in effect, came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do," Cheney said in an interview last December with ABC News. "And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."

    Last week, CIA Director Leon Panetta enlisted the help of former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire to assist him with the Senate Intelligence Committee's probe of the agency's Bush-era interrogation and detention practices, Panetta's office said.

    Panetta said he does not support any inquiry that would lead to the prosecution of CIA personnel who carried out the interrogations.

    Panetta told agency employees in a letter March 16 that he has been "assured" that the Intelligence Committee's goal "is to draw lessons for future policy decisions, not to punish those who followed guidance from the Department of Justice. That is only fair."

    But the imminent release of the May 2005 memos will no doubt lead to further calls for investigations and prosecutions of Bush officials who signed off on, and approved, the torture of prisoners.

    In fact, the ACLU has already called on Attorney General Eric Holder, last Wednesday, to appoint a special prosecutor to launch a probe into the Bush administration's torture practices.

    "The fact that such crimes have been committed can no longer be doubted or debated, nor can the need for an independent prosecutor be ignored by a new Justice Department committed to restoring the rule of law," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said last week, a few days after excerpts of the ICRC report were published.

    "Given the increasing evidence of deliberate and widespread use of torture and abuse, and that such conduct was the predictable result of policy changes made at the highest levels of government, an independent prosecutor is clearly in the public interest," Romero said.

    Newsweek reported that former CIA Director Michael Hayden was "furious" that the Bybee/Bradbury memos were going to be released publicly and he tried to try to thwart plans to declassify the memos by intervening directly with the Obama administration. Apparently, the White House has sided with Holder, who is said to have made the case for releasing the documents publicly.

    "Faced with a court deadline in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit regarding the memos filed by the ACLU, Justice lawyers asked for a two-week extension because the memoranda are being reviewed for possible release," Newsweek reported.

    Last Thursday, Holder issued sweeping new Freedom of Information guidelines for all executive branch agencies to "apply a presumption of openness when administering the FOIA.

    "The American people have the right to information about their government's activities, and these new guidelines will ensure they are able to obtain that information under principles of openness and transparency," Holder said.

    Holder said FOIA requests would be denied and records withheld "only if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions, or disclosure is prohibited by law." But even then, all federal agencies were directed to at least "release records in part whenever they cannot be released in full."

  

»


Jason Leopold is the Deputy Managing Editor at Truthout. He is the author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Truthout readers: look at

Truthout readers: look at Feinstein's, Panetta's and Hayden's statements. Do they outrage you? Panetta's logic is amazing; it's like not prosecuting Nazi-era criminals because they "followed guidance from above". Incredible.

I think we are going to be

I think we are going to be hearing a lot more Di-Fi .... .. I now know they lied to me .... Diane , methinks , at best , you wanted to believe them ... You didn't want to know .

Torture is illegal. Special

Torture is illegal. Special prosecutors should determine who / what / where and federal and international courts should be pretty active in dealing with these evil doers. Should North Korea be allowed to torture those American journalists because they were spies? NO. So, the Bush Administration should be allowed to torture people in the event that they might be terrorists? NO. These are illegal acts and people should be held accountable.

Newsweek actually REPORTED

Newsweek actually REPORTED something? I am shocked and amazed. Will the mainstream media actually be expected to investigate and disclose information about evil doers? Holy Mackerel, Batman!! Can the other media be expected to come out of the closet and actually tell us things our government has hidden (God bless Olbermann, Maddow, Stewart and those other irreverents for their work in putting the News back into the business of actually reporting!).

I am so tired of this. When

I am so tired of this. When are these criminals ever going to be prosecuted? Bybee should be in jail, not on the bench. And "just following orders" isn't good enough. A war crime is a war crime is a war crime. As your mother used to say, if your friend jumped off a cliff would you do that, too? It wasn't a defense for Eichman and it shouldn't be one now.

Feinstein was fully briefed

Feinstein was fully briefed on the Bush torture regimen while they were carried out. She therefore bears at least moral responsibility for keeping quiet until now. Is it any wonder that she has decided start a year-long delaying action, and to obfuscate the no-ifs-ands-or-buts clarity of the war crimes statutes, by focusing her committee work on the issue of whether the tortures led to 'actionable intelligence'. Does it matter whether they do or not? The law clearly says no. But the public might give the criminals and their accessories after the fact (such as Feinstein) a pass if she keeps her committee focused on 'actionable intelligence' instead of war crimes. We are such fraiddy-cats, don't you know?

What about those low

What about those low ranking "bad apples" of Guantanamo, whose humiliation of prisoners, the Bush administration told us was individual criminal behavior, but not policy? How many of those guys are doing time while those at the top walk around free. What holds back action?

These "enhanced" techniques

These "enhanced" techniques are classified specifically as torture, and are considered illegal to international and American law. Cheney has said publicly that he gave the thumbs up and helped this policy come about. So what's the holdup on the prosecution?

Disgraceful Bush legacy for

Disgraceful Bush legacy for the once great ideals of the USA. I would like to see the people at the top in jail, including the lawyers involved. I feel shame and sorrow for the people that administered the torture, they will have to live with themselves and I hope they find ways to reclaim their souls and to make penance somehow. God did bless America when President Obama was elected, at least we might be able to reverse a few evil policies.

Core Element of our

Core Element of our Democracy at Issue Are we a nation ruled by law, or are we a nation ruled by serial fascism? Must we suspend our laws and let fascism rule until the next election cycle? Clearly not. This is a fundamental element: nobody is above the law and equally critical the ideal that war is no pretext to for abolishing our principles. Our founding fathers would cringe to see what Bush did, and what we, the people, failed to do.

How can it be said that

How can it be said that these memos "gave CIA interrogators the legal authorization to torture"? Since when do legal opinions constitute the law? The criminals don't make the law. The law on torture is well-known: torture is illegal, in every circumstance. Nobody can claim ignorance, and nobody can claim authorization from above.

Let's assume for now that

Let's assume for now that part of the regimen of torture to find actionable intelligence was to force suspects to tell of things they know that could help CIA et al find bigger fish. How many of those tortured individuals were actually innocent people turned in by those being tortured and wanted the pain to stop? My guess based on all I've seen and read is they were torturing anyone they wanted to in their bloody search for more "terrorists". Most of these "terrorists" are just soldiers protecting their country like our soldiers are made to do. And others I suspect were just caught up in the pain and fear of others who were trying to escape the torture. How utterly monstrous. And the lies designed to cover up their behavior, and to minimize (only 14 high level detainees tortured?) their involvement? ...unforgivable. Our free press has been bought out, and/or bludgeoned into compliance with threats from you know who. Feinstein and Panetta are part of the problem, not the solution.

I am not a violent person

I am not a violent person BUT I pray to God that John Yoo , Jay Bybee , Dick Cheney , Steven Bradbury or Gonzales , at least one if not two of them are kidnapped and then TORTURED with the same methods as they had approved of using on other human beings . They are the real TERRORISTS . They are sub human .

I have just one simple

I have just one simple question here: why was it not acceptable for Nazis to use the defense "I was just following orders," but it is o.k. for CIA interrogators to acceptably use the defense "I was just following orders"? Leon Panetta has said that CIA operatives who were just following orders laid down by the Justice Department shouldn't be the objects of prosecution. Same crimes. Different rules, eh? Wonderful! This way, nobody has any real moral responsibility. How great we are as a nation!