TPMM reports ACLU has new DOJ OLC memos. One of the memos was written one month before Addington, Rizzo, and Chertoff visited Guantanamo, but asked no questions.

We reviewed the SASC25 memos showing the visit was September 2002 12 of 63; the previous month, DOJ OLC wrote a memo to the CIA in August 2002.

It doesn't matter whether the now-disclosed Bybee Memo was sent only to the CIA or Addington/OVP or the President. As chief legal advisor, DOJ OLC memos would have been widely disseminated. Once Bybee wrote this new memo in August 2002, Addington, Rizzon, and Chertoff would have known exactly what was proposed for interrogations.

The problem is these DOJ OLC memos are a distraction. Geneva bar all abuse. The DOJ OLC memos would have us believe that there were "permissible" types of interrogation abuses. There were none.

The DOJ OLC memos are not a defense, but evidence of an established policy to violate Geneva. The evidence of the trip report links the following:

A. The knowledge of the DOJ OLC memo of August, which "legalized" Geneva violations and POW abuse;

B. The actual methods being used, in alleged breach of Geneva;

C. By-name legal counsel attached to the reading list, trip to Guantanamo, and their legal training on Geneva; and

D. Alleged breaches of Geneva, which MajGen Teguba asserts "without a doubt" was linked with an Administration policy.

The fact that the trip reports states that there were no questions suggests the visitors were comfortable with the (non-existent) Geneva compliance program.

Evidence of previous, non-disclosed memos


Note the key words on page 18 of 18:

"Your review of the literature. . ."

Note the paragraph on page 18 of 18 is slightly indented, suggesting
the comment is from a previous letter, still not disclosed. The left
and rigth columns of this paragraph are indented slightly more the text before and after this paragraph.

This suggests that Bybee restated the response to a previous DOJ OLC
meme. Presumably, DOJ OLC did a literature review, sent a memo (Memo 1), and
prompted a response (Memo 2), which Bybee quoted in this memo.



Once a memo is referenced -- like this -- it forms the basis to ask
questions and ask for the disclosure of that previous memo. "Your
review" suggests this indented paragraph is a written response to that original literature review from DOJ OLC.



Ask for at least two (2) memos sent before August 1st, 2002:

A. Memo 1: The original memo where Bybee or someone from DOJ OLC discloses the literature review in the memo;



B. Memo 2: The response to that DOJ OLC literature review of Memo 1, containing the words, "Your review"

Note, the Aug 2002 memo is the earliest for this most recent release, strongly suggesting there were memoranda written in or before July 2002 on this subject. This  moves the timeline for the start-date of these discussions closer to 9-11, and suggests it was well known from the outset in late 2001 that there were foreseeable requirements for the CIA to retain evidence.

The timing of the memos, the Geneva bar against all POW abuse, and the refusal to directly answer for the CIA tape destruction hardly supports the government's contention that the interrogations were legal; or that the legal memoranda in "good faith" did anything. It appears the memos were written retroactively after the original abuses started under the orders of the President and at the hands of US government military personnel, CIA, and contractors.