Will Obama Block Release of Key Bush-era Torture Memos?

The "Bradbury" memos outline CIA 'enhanced interrogation' techniques and provided legal cover for US torture. Obama needs to stop protecting the Bush administration and release the memos--uncensored and unredacted.

As has been pointed out by several diligent journalists, human rights lawyers and critics, President Obama has continued--and continues to defend--some of the Bush administration's most repressive "War on Terror" policies, although Obama prefers to not use that term anymore. On several occasions, Obama has invoked the "state secrets" doctrine, including to argue that a lawsuit filed against the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping should be thrown out. As former constitutional lawyer turned Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald wrote, the move "demonstrates that the Obama DOJ plans to invoke the exact radical doctrines of executive secrecy which Bush used."

Meanwhile, the White House is continuing to defend its use of the US prison at Bagram in Afghanistan. On Tuesday, White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs was confronted about this by the great Helen Thomas:

Q Why is the President blocking habeas corpus from prisoners at Bagram? I thought he taught constitutional law. And these prisoners have been there --

MR. GIBBS: You're incorrect that he taught on constitutional law.

Q -- for many years with no due process.

MR. GIBBS: Well, there are several issues relating to that that have to do differently than in some places than others, particularly because you have detainees in an active theater of war. There's a review that's pending of court cases and decisions, and we want to ensure -- we want to ensure protection and security of the American people as well as rights that might be afforded.

Q Are you saying these people in prison are a threat to us?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that part of that is the determination based on our detainee policy that the President announced on the 21st of January, that that's part of that review, yes.

Chuck.

Chuck then changed the subject. (David Swanson has a humorous take on this back and forth at AfterDowningStreet, while Liliana Segura takes it on at AlterNet.)

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal is reporting today that "The Obama administration is leaning toward keeping secret some graphic details of tactics allowed in Central Intelligence Agency interrogations, despite a push by some top officials to make the information public." The 2005 "Bradbury memos represent an effort by the Bush administration to keep the CIA program of 'enhanced' interrogations of certain detainees on a legal footing after the Bush administration in late 2004 withdrew earlier Justice Department memos on interrogation."

The ACLU, which is suing the Justice Department for the release of the three memos, which were authored by Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from 2005 to 2009, as such:

The memos reportedly provided legal justification for the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation methods that amounted to torture. And they also reportedly provided legal cover for the CIA's interrogation methods in anticipation of Congress's expected effort to outlaw "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment," which it did in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, passed several months after Bradbury issued the memos.

According to the WSJ:

Among the details in the still-classified memos is approval for a technique in which a prisoner's head could be struck against a wall as long as the head was being held and the force of the blow was controlled by the interrogator, according to people familiar with the memos. Another approved tactic was waterboarding, or simulated drowning.

A decision to keep secret key parts of the three 2005 memos outlining legal guidance on CIA interrogations would anger some Obama supporters who have pushed him to unveil now-abandoned Bush-era tactics. It would also go against the views of Attorney General Eric Holder and White House Counsel Greg Craig, people familiar with the matter said.

Top CIA officials have spoken out strongly against a full release, saying it would undermine the agency's credibility with foreign intelligence services and hurt the agency's work force, people involved in the discussions said. However, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair favors releasing the information, current and former senior administration officials said.

Human-rights groups and many in the administration have called the techniques torture.

On Thursday, the Obama administration faces a deadline in the suit brought by the ACLU, which originally asked for the public release of the 2005 Bradbury memos. The WSJ paints a picture of the Justice Department on one side, arguing for greater disclosure and the CIA on the other, arguing against release of the documents. "In the middle," the paper says, "is deputy national-security adviser John Brennan, a former CIA official, who has generally sided with the CIA."

Remember, this is the John Brennan who was described by Greenwald as as "an ardent supporter of torture and one of the most emphatic advocates of FISA expansions and telecom immunity." It is also the Brennan who described the CIA's extraordinary rendition program as an absolutely vital tool. Here is the CIA's case to Obama in a nutshell:

"Intelligence officials also believe that making the techniques [described in the Bradbury memos] public would give al Qaeda a propaganda tool just as the administration is stepping up its fight against the terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Some former administration officials have also argued that releasing all the memos could help terrorists train to endure the most extreme interrogation techniques."

On the other side is the Justice Department, which has been at the frontline in Obama's use of state secrets. But, according to the WSJ, in this case it has "argued aggressively for releasing operational details. Justice Department lawyers argue that the agency shouldn't be in a position of defending practices the new administration has disavowed. They say releasing the documents would help fulfill the president's promise of greater transparency." The paper indicates that it is possible the Obama administration will release some skeletal details of the memos without fully disclosing the contents, which seems to be the position of CIA director Leon Panetta.

On April 2, the original deadline to release the memos, the Justice Department asked for a two week delay to decide whether to release the memos. The ACLU "reluctantly consented" in return for the administration agreeing to review releasing "another key memo, authored by Jay Bybee, Assistant Attorney General for the OLC from November 2001 to March 2003. (Bybee is now a federal appeals court judge for the 9th Circuit, and the subject of an ethics probe by the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility.) The Bybee memo, like the Bradbury memos, is critical to understanding the foundations of President Bush's torture program."

The ACLU notes:

As important as these memos are, they will likely not tell the full story of the treatment of detainees in secret CIA prisons and elsewhere. That is why it's crucial that Congress appoint a select committee with subpoena power and the necessary resources to fully investigate Bush administration abuses. And that is why the Justice Department should appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the abuses and, if the facts warrant, initiate prosecutions. In order for us to begin fixing the damage done to this country by the last administration, Congress must fully investigate what took place and show the American public that nobody is above the law by holding those responsible accountable for their actions.

Read more from Jeremy Scahill at RebelReports.com

Comments

[CraigBurton]

I'm amazed this isn't getting more coverage here at Huffington Post. There are a couple of good articles over at rawstory.com; here's one:

http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/04/17/bush-torture-memos-align-with-account-that-911-suspects-children-were-tortured/

[MPeter]

Jeremy, Is Mr. Obama still leaning towards witholding Bush's torture memos? You can go eat eat crow. They have been released.

[bbbtmenw]

RELEASE THE MEMOS

SEND BUSH TO PRISON

Maybe this would help the people out at tea parties to realize they are more mad at themselves for being so stupid and voting and rooting for that guy for 8 years, and maybe they can let Obama try and straighten out the mess.

[Vinca]

WHY IS OBAMA, SOOO PROTECTIVE OF GEORGE BUSH, IT SEEMS HE IS DETERMINED TO KEEP SECRET THOSE TORTURE MEMOS

[kimleehan]

Obama could go after Bush and the Bush goverment, It would be very easy, Bush's war crimes and human rights abuses are well documented.
Bush planned and initiated a war of aggression on a sovereign country that was not threatening the U.S. and had no ability to do so, and during the commission of that war of aggression war crimes and human rights abuses were committed, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo detainee tortures, the destruction of Fallouja & Rammadi, tens of thousand Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haitha, So why no investigation. Answer the U.S. can't afford to investigate, its that bad.

[AirForce Vet]

These memos should be released. I remember a movie entitled “ The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” This title reminds me of the reality of life. There are good, bad, and ugly things that occur in our life. The good we like to put forth and trumpet it, the bad we attempt to push aside or to block it from our minds, and the ugly we try to hide or forget. We in this country can’t continue to live and parade with only the good things we have achieved. We have to deal honestly and openly with those things that we consider bad and ugly. We can’t continue of a road to hopefully an open government, truth, and prosperity when we don’t wish or have the fortitude to face how bad and how ugly we have become. Not facing these issues don’t negate our responsibilities for them or ownership of them. To continue on with the farce of keeping these documents secret only enables these deeds to continue and the ownership of those deeds will become deeply ingrained in our society. If it is our destiny to hide and to deny, then we don’t have the right to have other nations justify their behaviors to us, because we only need to look in the mirror to find the answers we seek.

[howcome]

Or maybe as each day goes by Pres Obama ( like the rest of America) is coming to realize that Pres Bush' policies were actually good for the country and is continuing them... And that enhanced and harsh interrogation do not equate torture and in fact helped keep this country safe

[AirForce Vet]

Inhuman treatment in any form is not good for any country and course not for the person or persons being subjected to that treatment. However, it may satisfy the persons performing the treatment in various ways. This does not justify the act. What is torture and harsh treatment is in the eye of the beholder? You may see it differently than the one being subjected to the treatment or the rules of law. I direct your mind to the treatment of millions by the Nazis. Would you like to have been on the receiving end, even though the treatment was performed for the defense and for the good of the German state?

[loper2008]

Obama should release the memos. I wrote the White House about this.

[MossyOak]

People who claim to have voted for Obama but are now disappointed... you're acting like children. This is a complex issue with severe ramifications. The important part is that the president has stated "We don't torture people" and has stopped the practice. Cleaning up Bush's mess will be a dirty, dangerous job fraught with land mines. He's completely right that releasing these memos to the public will provide fuel for the terrorists and put our current serving troops in more harm's way then they already are. Try to think past your nose.

[kimleehan]

Talk about sending mixed messages, Obama trying his best to block investigations of the Bush administration for human rights abuses than requests a seat on the United Nations human rights council this May --- What did the President say about American arrogance, this is arrogant.

[freddiefreeloader]

Actually we can hold a seat on the U.N. Human rights council, We just excuse ourselves when- ever the subject of human rights abuses come up.

[1088]

If he release the memos, then what? The Corporate Media doesn't care and will not say a word about it. So why bothered!

[Manx]

If Obama withholds the release of the Bush torture memos, he will have reneged on his promise of "transparency." He will become part of the cover-up.

As one who campaigned vigorously for Obama, I would find this profoundly disappointing.

[indyleftist]

It was clear before the election that Obama supported torture
He actually voted to formally legalize it while in the Senate. He stated continuously that the United States will not follow international law because he feels it impedes on Americas "sovereignty".
So why are you all acting surprised now?

[Bruupo]

There is a huge difference between "supporting" torture and not wanting the US military to be subject to justice at The Hague. I think you probably know that, and yet willfully conflated the two.

Is it regrettable that we cannot live up to everything we say as a nation, and subjugate ourselves fully to an international court? Sure. But there is more juice in that political third rail than in gun control, the military and everyone who supports them simply will not stand for it.

We can end our own policies of torture without being subject to The Hague, and that will happen. The Hague can wait until after marijuana legalization, as far as I'm concerned.

[indyleftist]

"There is a huge difference between "supporting" torture and not wanting the US military to be subject to justice at The Hague. I think you probably know that, and yet willfully conflated the two."
No there really isn't a difference. You either support the prosecution of people who have engaged in torture, or you support torture
And infact Obama supports further torture, not just blocking past torture prosecutions

[andygaus]

This is really dispiriting. More than for any other reason, I voted for Obama in the hope that the Constitution would come back. He simply isn't doing it. At most, he's only setting an example of following the Constitution a little more but not too much, and not in any way that could cause any previous perpetrator to account or obligate a future administration to play by the rule of law.

[takeBackUS]

Obama is no better than Bush.

[loper2008]

yeah, right. The trolls do come out here often.

[Mauiboy]

As long as there are groups out there trying to get at these memos, then Obama can stay above the fray and keep intact Presidential Power, which would point to a weakness if he abrogated them. Politically he can hold this decision over the heads of the Republicans if they continue to refuse to play ball with the administration. There are more important things on our plates right now and these memo won't be going away anytime soon.