CIA’s torturers asked DOJ to let them use mock burials. But DOJ said no.
PDF page 42 of the OPR Report (searchable copy here) includes a list of the torture techniques that Mitchell and Jessen recommended be used with Abu Zubaydah. Whereas the Bybee Two Techniques memo approves ten techniques, Mitchell and Jessen recommended twelve. In other words, Mitchell and Jessen asked for two techniques to be approved that did not get specific approval.
One of these (technique 10) is diapering. We know they used diapers anyway as it was a critical element of their sleep deprivation and stress position techniques.
Technique 12 remains redacted in this report. But as I pointed out last week, PDF page 178 of the First Draft includes an unredacted reference to the technique.
Goldsmith viewed the Yoo Memo itself as a “blank check” that could be used to justify additional EITs without further DOJ review. Although Yoo told us that he had concluded that the mock burial technique would violate the torture statute, he nevertheless told the client, according to Fredman and Rizzo, that he would “need more time” if they wanted it approved. [my emphasis]
The twelfth technique–which Mitchell and Jessen wanted approved but which Yoo excluded because of the rush to approve waterboarding–is mock burial.
There must have been significant discussion about the decision to exclude mock burial from the Bybee Two memo, because the reference to its exclusion in the report itself (PDF page 60 in the Final Report) includes a page and a half of redactions following the discussion of leaving it out.
That redaction almost certainly includes a discussion of why mock burial was so important to include in the memo: Because we know that James Mitchell threatened to use it in May 2002. And after Mitchell did threaten to use it, Ali Soufan called it “borderline torture.” After he told FBI’s Counterterrorism Assistant Director Pasquale D’Amuro about the technique, D’Amuro instructed him to leave the black site. As follow-up to this meeting, a bunch of DOJ bigwigs–including Michael Chertoff–had a meeting about Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation. At about the same time, Chertoff refused to give the CIA advance declination of prosecution for torture.
Curiously, the DOJ’s IG Report on torture says the CIA asked for 10 torture techniques to be included in its OLC memo, not 12.
Now, it’s not clear whether Mitchell and Jessen ever did use mock burial with Abu Zubaydah. Zubdaydah didn’t mention it in the narrative he gave to the ICRC of his treatment.
But there are two more reasons why Yoo’s refusal to approve mock burial is dangerous for the CIA. First, an FBI agent told CIA and DOJ that the technique was borderline torture. Nevertheless, the CIA asked to have the technique available to it.
Also, any legal discussion of why mock burial would be a problem would focus on how torture statutes prohibit the threat of imminent death. Yet after mock burial was specifically excluded as a torture technique, CIA torturers went on to threaten detainees with a power drill and a gun. In other words, someone at that CIA had already been told, specifically, that they could not use the threat of imminent death on detainees. But on at least two occasions, they did so anyway.



54 Comments




Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Emptywheel
RSS/XML Feed
Note, the passage that mentions mock burial above mentions Jonathan Fredman, so he must be the CTC lawyer who spoke to OPR on the phone.
Let’s assume that the CIA did mock burial anyway, in direct violation of the guidelines they’d received. Is there anyone interested in prosecuting that act who is in a position to do so?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
It’s enough to make one become a Christian, so one can hope they will at least answer to God.
Boxturtle (Hopes St. Peter meets BushCo, et al, at the gates with orange jumpsuits)
Incidentally, I bet you money that Chertoff told Yoo he couldn’t approve mock burial. But he was willing to try anyway!
This is another thing that Congress should investigate. But will they? and if they do, will they use their subpoena powers?
David Swanson has produced a new article on the death of the Congressional subpoena powers– at least, wrt the power to subpoena administration officials: Why Leahy Is Afraid to Subpoena Yoo. It is a somewhat depressing “announcement” of the death of Constitutional checks and balances, because Congress has become afraid to demand compliance with its subpoena powers. Yet another example of congressional spinelessness. I hope Swanson is wrong.
Bob in AZ
Well, I’m hoping if we can show that DOJ specifically refused to approve this, it might make it harder for Durham to decline prosecution.
Jonathan Fredman. To he whom “if the detainee dies, you’re doing it [waterboarding] wrong” is attributed.
What in the world makes you think that Skeletor would have disapproved of ANY technique that doesn’t put him in personal jeopardy? IMO he’s just as evil as the rest of them.
I’d bet that the stop on burial came from higher up in DoJ, who realized that wordsmithing could only hide torture so far.
Boxturtle (No burial. No burning alive. The knife to the genitals is as far as we go!)
Simple.
He knew that Soufan had already objected to it on legal grounds.
Given that his boss strongly supports moving forward and that Congress as a whole seems to have no interest in forcing the issue, I’m thinking that as long as he can justify himself to his wife and kids (if any) he’ll have no problem walking away with a “no comment”.
Boxturtle (I sure hope you’re right and I’m wrong, though)
okay, then I gotta ask a stupid question:
Why would Skeletor care what Soufan thought, given that Yoo thought he could justify mock burial with enough time? As long as he had a legal opinion to hide behind, his butt was covered.
If he actually killed it, it was because of time pressures. They needed to torture TODAY and to legalize yesterdays torture. They didn’t have time for wordsmithing.
Boxturtle (perhaps I just have a darker view of the man than is justified)
No, I think Yoo was saying he needed more time to get around Chertoff.
Remember this scenario. CIA went to Yoo in April asking for advance declination. Then Soufan comes back, complaining about torture. Two months later–at almost exactly the same time DOJ was talking about what Soufan and his partner were doing and whether FBI had to stay away from it altogether–Chertoff refused to give CIA advance declination.
So in response, Addington told Yoo to put in C-i-C power and defenses. (Think about what that would mean if Mitchell had ALREADY used mock burial.) But that’s not good enough for CIA–they want mock burial listed as well. ANd for some reason, Yoo finds a way to authorize waterboarding (which is worse than mock burial bc of the legal history and the physical threat of immediate death), but not mock burial? The only reason why it would be okay to approve waterboarding but not mock burial, IMO, is bc Soufan learned about the mock burial. They realized they had a problem with Soufan.
Yes, thanks for making this iron-tight clear.
Btw, mock burial is what the Egyptians, possibly under CIA directions, or certainly knowledge, did to Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, having been kidnapped there under rendition.
Al-Libi was “the unnamed source, according to Senate investigators, behind Bush administration claims in 2002 and 2003 that Iraq had provided training in chemical and biological weapons to al-Qaeda operatives.” He later recanted. One wonders if the mock burial had broken him so severely he started confessing to anything. So they liked it. They really liked it.
A chance, anyway, that the technique is directly related to the lies that brought us the Iraq War, and killed 100,000s of Iraqis.
You also have to wonder how this fits in with the Egyptian use of live burial on al-Libi. Did that give Mitchell and Jessen the idea or is it possible that they laundered the technique through the Egyptians – possibly hoping that a “good result” (and Cheney got just the result he wanted from that live burial) might enable Yoo to give them the approvals after all – his need for “more time” maybe being tied to a need to get in a CIA report on a positive outcome from the use of the technique.
Isikoff and Hosenball reported in 2008 that there is/was an August 7, 2002 CIA analysis of the unreliability of al-Libi’s statements and that article, plus the rest of the Senate report on which it was based, was examined in posts at this site as the Senate report was released. But the details of the Egyptian live burials, who knew what about it and when and what the US communications were have never been nailed down completely and certainly have been avoided in dicussions about US CAT obligations, CIA disclosures to Congress and basically to the world via the UN presentation, and the real results that flow from torture.
Related:
This sounds hopeful.
Bob in AZ
That makes sense too – a delay to end run everything with CIC powers, especially with Addington going apoplectic in Aug 2002 over the CIA memo challenging the labelling of many GITMO detainees as “unlawful enemy combatants” and his assertion that it didn’t really matter if anyone was innocent or not, all that mattered is that the President said they were unlawful enemy combatants and that was that.
That August 7, 2002 analysis that the live burial et al wasn’t really giving credible info was probably not very welcome. I bet those analysts didn’t get nearly the love as the analysts who put out the false info that the aluminum tubes could only be used for nukes.
I wonder if the technique of confining some of the detainees in boxes for perioids of time was the outcome of not getting mock burials approved.
I read it as needing more time to convince someone that mock burial was neeeded as a technique, also.
They were thinking that ’24′ is educational television programming, not entertainment prgramming. (Thanks so much, guys. We’ll make sure you get to watch TV in your cells … educational programming like ‘Sesame Street’.)
Right. There’s nothing like the rule of law.
I’m hoping too.
I thought about that–and whether they just said “fuck it, we’ll just consider this small box confinement.”
But we do know they asked for confinement at the same time as mock burial.
Also note that AZ said they kept the smaller box outside his cell as a reminder of what they were capable of.
Oh, and by the way.
It goes without saying that if Abu Zubaydah WAS mock buried, then it might provide explanation 125,395 for why the torture tapes were damaged and then destroyed.
On that note…
Should the Leahy’s staff read here, please let him know that Jedi mind tricks will not work today.
Okay, that makes sense explained that way. Skeletor would have seen personal danger if he allowed it after Soufan’s report.
OT: Anybody know if it’s a problem if a husky ate an ear of feed corn right out of the field, end to end including the cob? I’m thinking no, but this is a new one for me.
Boxturtle (Husky’s have a policy of trying to eat anything that doesn’t eat them)
But here’s something. Jane Mayer says that Abu Zubaydah used the term “tiny coffin” to describe the small box. So maybe they did mock bury him.
Government can still appeal. The idea is to delay cases like this, not win them. Even the government lawyers know when they’re fighting an unwinnable case.
I don’t think the govenment is going to care too awfully much in this case, a speedy trial defense isn’t going to go anywhere given the extraordanary circumstances. But the precident that such communications are discoverable might prompt a fight. Or there might be something in those communications embarassing in other ways.
Boxturtle (I’d bet on an appeal, but not a big bet)
I’d say the husky got about three days worth of dietary fiber.
And here from Andrew Sullivan:
Would sure make keeping it in his face all the more powerful eh?
Especially powerful if he knew that there was discussion about burying him alive.
Ya know, not threatening him with it and all, just letting him know “some people” were talking about it.
I think you’re right. Although, the fear of being buried alive is absolutely intolerable for most. I can’t really know, but I wonder if small box confinement doesn’t arouse some of those same fears anyway, without the pomp and props.
Yes. That kind of fear-inducement is especially powerful. The CIA discusses it at length in their KUBARK manual.
Good cop, bad cop is a time honored American tradition.
Boxturtle (Good torturer, bad torturer just doesn’t have the same ring)
Didn’t The Torture Report write that they believed the wording was “mock execution?”
The blue line has broken in New Orleans.
Considering the omerta, as EW has most precisely described it, as well as her suggestion as to who might be a weak link, one wonders who else might be such a link?
While this is a most noisome pile, the reek of fear may now be more clearly detected, however faintly, mingled among the other odors …
Whatever, “Oh shit!” moments may be occurring, the wheel house gang, is owed a continuing gratitude from the rest of us.
You’re having genuine effect on Those Who Need to Pay Attention.
Thank you, all, and now, back to your marvelous, regularly scheduled educational programing.
DW
That’s what I was wondering too….seems like it might, but it would probably be difficult to research…legally, anyway.
For those of you scoring at home, or even if you are alone, the Dawn Johnsen consideration in SJC has been set aside yet again. From Main Justice:
Any excuse is a good excuse. Note, however, that the SJC was able to find time today, in spite of the healthcare summit, to pass a witness protection bill the DOJ sought.
Wow, this is worth reading here and here
Do note the usage statement at the end of the post. It’s best to use the footnote material for links.
Very creepy “underlings”, klynn, “Canadian Sara” looks to be a most sensitive soul.
No weak links or weak sisters among those who threaten torture.
How many, Americans, and whomever they consider to be their “allies” are involved in this torture “business”? Tens, hundreds … thousands?
Gee, just think of all the jobs that will be lost if we don’t continue on the the manner to which somebody is accustomed?
Thanks, klynn.
Ought to be required reading by all citizens.
Swinging a bucket over one’s head for 45 minutes isn’t seen as ridiculous?
“Nuance” has not been the only thing missing at the highest levels of our intelligence agencies and the executive “branch”, it would seem
DW
My real concern here is that Yoo will try to hide behind his refusal on mock burial to try to claim that he isn’t a hack who just approves everything sent for approval.
Off track: I have a new anthrax diary. Gosh who could have predicted that a story involving DoD and lies in 2001 would include Judy Miller?
Is a mock burial a burial and a dig out after some science based time limit has occurred?
Thanks for the links.
The only information on usage I saw was found here- under copyright:LINK:
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-site-user-agreement
Is there another usage statement elsewhere?
At “The Torture Report” all I see is what is permitted to be posted on their site.
You got it. And yes you can quote material and link to portions of their posts.
I had not seen they had put updates up until this AM. They are great to read.
Next postponement lottery:
I say next time it will be because Leahy has to get a haircut.
Good.
To summarize for others:
See the statement on this located under the heading “Copyright” located at LINK:
http://www.aclu.org/aclu
Which begins:
“To the extent your use of material on the ACLU Site does not constitute “fair use” for which you do not need our permission, the following rules apply to use of the material:-site-user-agreement…..”
Or possibly implied what the box could be used for?
Please feel free to copy or quote from The Torture Report. Thanks!
Nice to have you here among the readers. We hope that you find much here that assists your work.
Bob in AZ
BTW, EW, this diary of yours was at the top of the BORDC News Digest today (2/25/10) (top seven news articles). (BORDC = Bill of Rights Defense Committee).
Bob in AZ
Off topic but related: National Archives wants an explanation from the Justice Department about Yoo/Bybee’s missing emails (and others). From Isikoff:
Paul M. Wester, director of the Archives’ modern records program, wrote Justice on Wednesday asking for an explanation for a passage in the department’s just-released Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, which stated that e-mails by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and another lawyer who worked on two torture memos “had been deleted and were not recoverable,” according to a copy of the letter obtained by Declassified.
Here’s the letter:
And here’s a letter CREW sent to DOJ also
Yeah, I saw that. Of course, even if they were to discover malfeasance, they are unlikely to admit it; and if they did, David Margolis would insist on changing the finding. That may be tongue in cheek or true, I am not sure which; but, of course, even if he didn’t that would leave the DOJ to prosecute……the DOJ for either a civil fine or the highly unlikely charge of criminal obstruction/destruction of material evidence.
Hey bmaz, great post on Dawn Johnsen, btw. You’re hammering away and that’s good. I’m just getting caught up on all my reading.
I think it would be hilarious if somehow Yoo could get in trouble for deleting emails but not for writing torture memos.
Yet another inquiry that will go on for half a decade or more.
By the way, the report didn’t say anything about Bybee’s emails. Unless I read that footnote wrong
me too!