Skip to main content.

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

So far Dick Cheney’s notorious former legal counsel and confidant, David Addington, has managed to maintain the pretense that he was not directly involved in authorizing the use of torture and cruel or degrading treatment of prisoners under the Bush administration. Now we have documentary evidence of his direct involvement.

The very right-wing Judicial Watch has just released a batch of CIA documents it obtained through a FOIA request. Judicial Watch is seeking to embarrass congressional Democrats by showing that the CIA briefed them under Bush about the abusive interrogation methods. Whether or not the documents actually manage to embarrass those Democrats, one of them does embarrass Addington.

Here they are (PDF). One formerly classified memo from February 4, 2003 summarizes a CIA briefing given to Sen. Roberts and the staffers for Sen. Rockefeller regarding the ongoing abusive CIA interrogations of terrorism suspects. It reads in part (my emphasis):

The enhanced [interrogation] techniques were described in considerable detail, including how the water board was used. The [CIA] General Counsel described the process by which the techniques were approved by a bevy of lawyers from the NSC, the Vice President’s office and the Justice Department, including the Criminal Division and the Attorney General, who opined that the techniques were legal under U.S. law.

The Vice President’s lawyer is almost certainly Cheney’s eminence gris, David Addington.

In the past Addington has frequently been linked to the development of torture and abusive techniques. But none of these allegations have been documented and Addington has denied or evaded the charges.

In 2004 Newsweek’s Daniel Klaidman reported (the original link evidently is defunct) that aides to presidential counsel Alberto Gonzales said that it was Addington, not Gonzales, who drafted the January 25, 2002 memo that argued some provisions of the Geneva Conventions were “quaint” and “obsolete”. Addington continued for years to lead the fight in denigrating the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, so he may well have been involved in drafting the January 25, 2002 memo.

Addington also reportedly played a key role in shaping the August 1, 2002 Bybee Memo authorizing a list of abusive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding - which plainly was treated as torture under established US law. The recently released OPR final report into misconduct by the DOJ torture memo authors (especially John Yoo and Jay Bybee), focuses at length upon revisions to the draft Bybee memo that seemed to be requested in July 2002 by Addington and Gonzales. The OPR report highlights what appears to be an elaborate attempt by Yoo, Bybee, Jennifer Koester (another unindicted torture memo author), and others in the Bush administration to cover the tracks that led back to the direct involvement of Gonzales and Addington in shaping the Bybee Memo. I’ll write more later about this episode because it is critical, I believe, to understanding why David Margolis rejected the OPR’s finding that Yoo and Bybee engaged in misconduct. Suffice it to say here that the apparent attempt by Yoo and others to shield Gonzales and Addington from any direct responsibility for the Bybee Memo involves a series of bizarre and incredible assertions, laid out by OPR at pp. 46-53. Among other oddities, nobody from DOJ or the White House who attended a critical July 16, 2002 meeting to discuss the draft memo can remember what Gonzales or Addington said about it, even though that meeting immediately preceded the most controversial additions to the memo.

Philippe Sands has also reported that Addington was part of a high-level delegation (which also included Gonzales) that visited Guantanamo prison in September of 2002 and pressured the military there to introduce more abusive interrogation techniques.

With the help of friends over the years, Addington issued dismissive and vague denials that he was directly involved in drafting or shaping any torture memos or advocating for specific abusive practices. When called to testify before Congress about his activities, Addington was snidely dismissive of questions and frequently evasive. He did however deny that he pressured anybody at Gitmo in 2002 to adopt abusive techniques. Addington also insinuated that he made no suggestions to the OLC lawyers at the July 16, 2002 meeting. In response to their briefing about the draft Bybee Memo, Addington claims, he said nothing more than “Good” before sending them on their way.

In short, until now David Addington has managed to bob and weave, obfuscate and deny every time he has been implicated in direct involvement in shaping or authorizing torture and abuse of prisoners. Now however we have a CIA document that says the Vice President’s lawyer approved of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” being used by the CIA at the start of 2003.

Say so long to plausible deniability, David.

Update: Emptywheel had already noted that this CIA briefing memo links Addington to the torture memo(s), as had The Center for Constitutional Rights.

Comments

16 comments

[1]
One thing that the Feb. 4, 2003 memo highlights is the degree to which Cheney's office was involved inappropriately in decision-making within the Executive Branch.

The issues of developing interrogation techniques, and of interpreting the domestic and international legal protections affording to prisoners, had nothing whatever logically to do with the Vice President. Neither Cheney nor Addington should have been involving themselves in this issue, except to the extent that the President might consult them.

And indeed Addison seems to acknowledge in this testimony that it would be inappropriate from him to be directly involved in monitoring the development of interrogation policies. Here was Addington being questioned by the House Judiciary Committee. He was asked whether he assumed any such responsibility, and responded "No", adding that (a) OLC ought to be in charge of developing legal advice on these matters, and (b) that it would normally be the President's counsel who would approach OLC in this (rather than the VP's counsel, he implies).

>>Mr. ELLISON. So did you and Messrs. Gonzales and Haynes have sort of an ongoing responsibility or authority to guide and make decisions about legal matters for the Administration with regard to torture of detainees, the conduct of the war on terror?

Mr. ADDINGTON. No. I think it is more monitoring what is going on, discussing it and if you need legal advice on the subject, you would ask a question to the Office of Legal Counsel, which typically would be done either by the counsel to the President, if it is the White House that wants the advice, which the law, by the way, that you all passed provides for.<<

Addington was describing the way things should have been, rather than the way they actually happened under Cheney.

Posted by smintheus at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 17:06:02

[2]
Addington seems to acknowledge monitoring the OLC work in the quote in your comment. Monitoring and approving of the OLC work aren't the same as shaping it, of course.

It's hard to believe Addington would be embarrassed by this. He might well want to keep White House involvement under wraps as much as possible, to avoid the appearance of the OLC advice not being independent. But has he ever suggested he found the OLC justifications or the EIT embarrassing?

Posted by Sanpete at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 17:36:22

[3]
Addington has never denounced the abusive interrogation techniques, no, though he's never tried to tie their gestation around his own neck either, for obvious reasons - waterboarding was prosecuted as torture by the US as recently as 1982 (United States v Lee, one of those stunning omissions from Yoo's analysis of torture case law).

If being found to have approved the use of a method that is treated as torture under established law is not embarrassing, then I don't know what would be.

If OLC advice was approved by the Vice President's lawyer, then it was not regular and scarcely can be termed independent.

Posted by smintheus at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 18:50:22

[4]
Lee doesn't rely on the current torture statute, which came a couple years later in 1984, and doesn't even specify what definition of "torture" it does rely on, so it's no wonder Yoo didn't bother with it. The opinion that replaced the Bybee Memo, the Levin Memo, which remains in force, doesn't refer to Lee either. As Margolis points out, the Levin Memo says that only the definition in the current statute is relevant, and Lee doesn't use that definition.

So waterboardng (particularly as circumscribed by the Bybee memo) hasn't been found by a court to be torture under the definition in the current torture statute.

In any case, Addington probably sees nothing shameful about it. He probably feels just like Cheney does. I suppose he might be embarrassed if it was shown he had been lying about his role.

Approving of something and approving it aren't necessarily the same thing. Approving it might be irregular, but approving of it ("Good") might not be.

As for independence, knowing what the client wants, or even being asked by the client to achieve a particular result if possible, doesn't necessarily entail lack of independence.

Posted by Sanpete at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 19:20:28

[5]
The height of absurdity. A new torture statute makes all previous prosecutions for waterboarding irrelevant? You and Yoo have curiously elastic rules for what is and is not relevant.

Reagan's rejected interpretations of CAT? Relevant.

Reagan's prosecution of the crime of waterboarding a prisoner? Irrelevant.

Posted by smintheus at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 19:45:13

[6]
"A new torture statute makes all previous prosecutions for waterboarding irrelevant?"

No (you have a tendency to overread things), but Levin's memo implies that only the ones that use a definition similar to the current one are relevant. Lee doesn't even give a definition, and appears to be using the term colloquially, not in a legal sense. Of course it's still relevant in a broad way, and Yoo should have considered it, I think, along with lots of other broadly relevant points, but he would have pointed what I have about it and that would have been the end of it. It wasn't a crucial point.

Posted by Sanpete at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 20:21:31

[7]
(a) "Lee doesn't rely on the current torture statute, which came a couple years later in 1984, and doesn't even specify what definition of "torture" it does rely on, so it's no wonder Yoo didn't bother with it."

(b) "Of course it's still relevant in a broad way, and Yoo should have considered it, I think, along with lots of other broadly relevant points, but he would have pointed what I have about it and that would have been the end of it."

You were right the first time. It is no wonder that Yoo didn't bother with Lee...precisely because it is relevant, as are the other times the US has taken the position that waterboarding is torture.

I think you're also right in saying that you can predict how Yoo would have argued away the relevance of Lee...because you both have the same tendency to minimize the significance of every part of the substantial legal tradition that otherwise would have disconvenienced the Bush administration as it proceeded to abuse and torture prisoners.

Anyway, among the lots of other broadly relevant points that Yoo should have considered, would you include the fact that waterboarding has been considered torture pretty much everywhere for hundreds of years?

Or that sleep deprivation has been considered torture since at least ancient Roman times?

Or that, given the US understanding of Article 16 attached to the ratification of CAT, one obvious implication of Yoo's defense of the EITs is that they would not be considered cruel treatment if applied to any prisoners taken into custody and interrogated in the US?

Posted by smintheus at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 21:14:44

[8]
"You were right the first time."

I was right both times, thank you.

"I think you're also right in saying that you can predict how Yoo would have argued away the relevance of Lee...because you both have the same tendency to minimize the significance of every part of the substantial legal tradition that otherwise would have disconvenienced the Bush administration as it proceeded to abuse and torture prisoners."

Empty rant.

"Anyway, among the lots of other broadly relevant points that Yoo should have considered, would you include the fact that waterboarding has been considered torture pretty much everywhere for hundreds of years?

"Or that sleep deprivation has been considered torture since at least ancient Roman times?"

Sure. That doesn't settle anything in relation to the legal definition, but it's good to cover all the bases.

"Or that, given the US understanding of Article 16 attached to the ratification of CAT, one obvious implication of Yoo's defense of the EITs is that they would not be considered cruel treatment if applied to any prisoners taken into custody and interrogated in the US?"

How is that implied?

Posted by Sanpete at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 22:05:53

[9]
Article 16's prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are taken to be coterminous with US constitutional guarantees. Therefore if e.g. waterboarding is not considered a violation of Article 16, then it is not unconstitutional either.

Constitutional guarantees against mistreatment are not contingent on the crimes committed or the allegations, or birth or time or other incidental circumstances; they're absolute no what a prisoner in US jurisdiction is suspected or guilty of.

So any treatment meted out under Article 16 can constitutionally be applied to any prisoner in the US, at least by what passes for the logic of the torture memos.

Posted by smintheus at Wednesday, February 24, 2010 23:50:57

[10]
Yoo argues the consitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply because the detainees aren't held as criminals and the EIT aren't criminal sanctions.

Posted by Sanpete at Thursday, February 25, 2010 01:06:43

[11]
The 8th Amendment does not specify that cruel punishments are prohibited only for criminal defendants, nor for criminal convicts.

In any case, the US understanding asserts that Article 16 protections are equivalent to constitutional guarantees, and thus no new legislation was needed to enforce them. CAT applies to all prisoners held in US jurisdiction, not just alleged criminals in custody. Therefore the US understanding implies that the constitutional guarantees also apply to all prisoners held in US jurisdiction.

Yoo had to admit that CAT applies to prisoners, so he was just trying to find a pretext to push Article 16 off a cliff. It's absurd.

Posted by smintheus at Thursday, February 25, 2010 09:50:14

[12]
Yoo might agree that the 8th Amendment applies to detainees, should they be held for criminal punishment, but he maintains they aren't being punished in the relevant sense. He cites case law on this and OPR doesn't take issue with it.

Posted by Sanpete at Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:31:42

[13]
Bush's executive order says that the 8th applies to detainees. The 8th does not say it applies only to criminal defendants or convicts. Otherwise e.g. people held as material witnesses or held pending being charged with a crime or held for misdemeanors could be subjected to cruel punishment.

Anyway, you don't come to grips with my argument that the 8th and Art. 16 cannot both be said not to apply to the prisoners. If the 8th did not cover them, then the US could not treat it as a stand in for Art. 16.

Posted by smintheus at Thursday, February 25, 2010 14:30:40

[14]
As I said, Yoo cites case law to support his view, and OPR doesn't take issue with it. People abused while being held as material witnesses and such can make claims under the 5th Amendment, but not the 8th, according to Yoo and his cites. If you have contrary citations OPR overlooked, by all means produce them.

Yoo may allow that the 8th Amendment applies to detainees as to anyone else to the extent they are being punished for a crime. He may not be reading the understanding regarding the CAT the way most would read it, but it seems it may be technically correct.

Posted by Sanpete at Thursday, February 25, 2010 19:02:52

[15]
It's irrelevant what OPR did or did not address. As Scott Horton's latest commentary points out, OPR addressed a narrow range of issues.

Nor am I interested in how Yoo would interpret the 8th or CAT. His tendency is well known.

You simply cannot dismiss the applicability of Art. 16 by saying that it's already covered by constitutional guarantees, and then when push comes to shove that those constitutional guarantees don't actually apply. A child could see through that ploy.

Posted by smintheus at Thursday, February 25, 2010 19:32:50

[16]
If you're not interested, why did you bring it up?

Since you do care what Horton thinks, please explain what he says about why OPR would fail to address the errors in material they took the trouble to summarize in the facts section of their report.

"You simply cannot dismiss the applicability of Art. 16 by saying that it's already covered by constitutional guarantees, and then when push comes to shove that those constitutional guarantees don't actually apply."

Apparently Yoo can.

Posted by Sanpete at Thursday, February 25, 2010 21:01:16

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it

Buy Viagra