home

Gonzo Approved Torture Months Before the Bybee Memo

Remember when?

Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday [January 4, 2005].

It turns out Gonzo was approving torture months before the Bybee memo was produced:

The use of "borderline torture" against Zubaydah months before the first Justice Department memo authorizing harsh interrogations raises the question of whether Mitchell had legal permission to use abusive techniques. The CIA suggests that he did. "The Aug. 1, 2002, memo from the Department of Justice was not the first piece of legal guidance for the interrogation program," according to agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano. But the CIA will not describe what the first legal guidance was.

. . . One source with knowledge of Zubaydah's interrogations agreed to describe the legal guidance process, on the condition of anonymity. The source says nearly every day, Mitchell would sit at his computer and write a top-secret cable to the CIA's counterterrorism center. Each day, Mitchell would request permission to use enhanced interrogation techniques on Zubaydah. The source says the CIA would then forward the request to the White House, where White House counsel Alberto Gonzales would sign off on the technique. That would provide the administration's legal blessing for Mitchell to increase the pressure on Zubaydah in the next interrogation.

. . . "At the very least, it's clear that CIA headquarters was choreographing what was going on at the black site," says Jameel Jaffer, the ACLU lawyer who sued to get the document. "But there's still this question about the relationship between CIA headquarters and the White House and the Justice Department and the question of which senior officials were driving this process."

'A Complete Charade'?

All through the summer of 2002, top officials across the government were trying to sort out the ground rules for legal interrogations. "I can't believe the CIA would have settled for a piece of paper from the counsel to the president," says one former government official familiar with those discussions. "If that were true," says the former official, "then the whole legal and policy review process from April through August would have been a complete charade."

(Emphasis supplied.) BTW, during his Senate confirmation hearings, Gonzo expressly denied that he had expressed an opinion on the legality of torture to ANYONE, much less to the CIA. He clearly lied to Congress under oath:

SEN. FEINGOLD: . . . the issue is whether you disagreed with that [the Bybee] memo and expressed that disagreement to the president. You're the president's lawyer. Isn't it your job to express your independent view to the president if you disagree with the opinion of the Justice Department? Or do you just simply pass on the DOJ's opinion no matter how erroneous or outrageous, and just say to the president, in effect, this is what the DOJ says the law is?

MR. GONZALES: Thank you, Senator, for that question. Let me try to clarify my comments regarding my role in connection with the memo, and my role generally as I view it as counselor to the president. It is, of course, customary, and I think to be expected, that there would be discussions between the Department of Justice and the counsel's office about legal interpretation of, say, a statute that had never been interpreted before, one that would be extremely emotional, say, if you're talking about what are the limits of torture under a domestic criminal statute. And so there was discussion about that. But I understand, and it's my judgment that I don't get to decide for the executive branch what the law is. Ultimately that is the president, of course. But by statute, the Department of Justice is given the authority to provide advice to the executive branch. And so while I certainly participate in discussions about these matters, at the end of the day that opinion represents the position of the department and, therefore, the position of the executive branch.

In case anyone cares about such things these days.

Speaking for me only

< Mid-Day Open Thread | Miami Forces Sex Offenders to Live Under the Bridge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Lying to Congress (none / 0) (#1)
    by pluege on Wed May 20, 2009 at 07:25:18 PM EST
    is a republican badge of honor.

    I'l bet John Dean wouldn't (none / 0) (#2)
    by oldpro on Wed May 20, 2009 at 08:18:18 PM EST
    agre with Gonzalez' assesment of DOJ role vs. counsel's role in White House.

    And if Gonzalez were correct, why would you even need a White House Counsel?  In which case, wouldn't the WH counsel then be just...say...a DOJ deputy?

    Trying to remember the vote to confirm Conzalez as AG in '05...

    60-36 (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 20, 2009 at 08:35:00 PM EST
    Feingold voted for Ashcroft (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed May 20, 2009 at 09:02:41 PM EST
    and then against Gonzo.

    I wonder why.

    Parent

    Maybe he draws the line at (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oldpro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:39:33 AM EST
    stupid.

    Ashcroft was a wacky religious nut but not without ethics and not a Bush robot.  Feingold knew Ashcroft as a legislator, up close and personal, in all his vainglorious complexity.

    Parent

    Thanks...yes...4 not voting... (none / 0) (#7)
    by oldpro on Wed May 20, 2009 at 09:57:29 PM EST
    ...6 Dems voted yes...Landrieu, Lieberman, the Nelsons, Pryor and Salazar.

    Parent
    WH counsel is ostensibly (none / 0) (#5)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 20, 2009 at 09:18:33 PM EST
    the president's lawyer in his role as president.  DoJ is the entire executive branch legal arm.

    But since Bush declared he was the executive branch personified -- the "unitary executive" -- then of course the WH counsel could decide government policy and legal standing.

    Their excuse would be, of course, that it was a national emergency and there was no time to go through the exercise (charade) that ultimately produced the Bybee memo.

    In their view, I think, Gonzo would have been the de facto attorney general when he was WH counsel.

    It's really breathtaking.

    Parent

    I think this is why it is critically (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Anne on Wed May 20, 2009 at 10:12:14 PM EST
    important for Obama to put as much distance between his administration's decisions and policies and procedures and what happened during the eight years of the Bush administration; the danger of perpetuating the policies - aside from the fact that I, at least, think they are terrible policies - is in the assumption people will make about the process by which it happens.  

    I really see this as the fork in the road that will determine who we are going to be for the forseeable future - and it kills me that it's looking more and more like Obama is legitimizing the Bush policies.

    Parent

    Obama, yes..but not all by (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldpro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:33:16 AM EST
    himself.  Who else is holding sway in the inside discusions in the halls of power?

    Not everyone can be on the same page...and is that why the OLC is 'hanging out there' a la Erlichman, "twisting slowly, slowly in the wind"?

    Something is rotten in Denmark.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:18:23 AM EST
    and I would really like to hear why Obama is apparently so sanguine about reinforcing the Bush precedent on what I consider extra-constitutional actions and powers-- the processes, as you say.

    I understand that he trusts his own good intentions and that he also doesn't want massive distraction by the public, Congress and the media from stuff like health care reform and climate/energy legislation.  But in so many other ways, he appears very much to me to be thinking long-term, and on this kind of issue he seems to be blocking out the very real long-term consequences.

    I can live, just barely, with an Obama having some of this power, but someday in the not too distant future we're going to have another Georgie Bush, and his path will have been hugely smoothed by a fella named Obama.  I don't understand why he doesn't see that.

    Parent

    I suspect he does (none / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:47:47 AM EST
    I don't understand why he doesn't see that.

    But he doesn't seem the sort to deliberately limit his own options and prerogatives.  He is no George Washington and won't ever refuse to accept additional power.

    In my opinion.

    Parent

    In other words...a coup! (none / 0) (#6)
    by oldpro on Wed May 20, 2009 at 09:41:24 PM EST
    From the inside, of course. Not unlike some other duly-elected regimes whose totalarian bent let them redefine the roolz as needed.

    Parent
    Disgusting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:08:09 AM EST


    The Bush administration (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:12:45 AM EST
    was a crime syndicate, nothing less.

    In a way I can sympathize with Obama wanting to just move on - prosecuting them all would take years, and I can understand not wanting the distraction.

    However, I would rather be known as the president that put a stop to criminal activity at the highest levels and restablished the supremecy of the Constitution than the president who made made timid baby steps toward health care reform and economic recovery. But I guess that's just me.

    I can't sympathize with him wanting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:30:58 AM EST
    to move on at all.  It isn't fun addressing criminal actions, but just like this stupid thing we now get to go through with our daughter being assaulted.......who do you help by not addressing the criminality?  One step at a time and one day at a time.  It's a pain in the neck or is it?  Certainly we could find things to do that are more fun but how long does anything remain fun if we aren't maintaining the structure of the life we live?  How do we live a full life if we refuse to lead our lives fully?

    Parent
    Nothing more than a criminal conspiracy (none / 0) (#17)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Thu May 21, 2009 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    "I can't believe the CIA would have settled for a piece of paper from the counsel to the president," says one former government official familiar with those discussions.

    "If that were true," says the former official, "then the whole legal and policy review process from April through August would have been a complete charade."

    As is the Rule of Law.

    Parent

    I suppose one should (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilburro on Thu May 21, 2009 at 09:20:23 AM EST
    be able to build a case against these contractors.  And then get it thrown out on the basis of the "state secrets" privilege...