CIA Memo: Communications from the CIA to OLC re: interrogation techniques

<p>(A CIA affidavit states that this was a 1-page memo dated Aug. 4, 2004 from CIA to OLC and that it contained &quot;communications from the CIA to OLC on a matter in which the CIA requested legal advice from OLC.&quot;)&nbsp; The document itself shows that the CIA relied on the Justice Department's conclusion that certain interrogation techniques,&nbsp;&quot;including the waterboard,&quot; did not violate the torture&nbsp;statute.&nbsp; The document also indicates that, after the Supreme Court decided Rasul v. Bush in June 2004, the CIA was concerned about the possibility that its actions would ultimately be subject to judicial review. &nbsp;[Oridinally identified in the ACLU's litigaiton as OLC 70]</p>

Legal Memo
Wednesday, August 4, 2004
Wednesday, July 23, 2008

1. Intelligence gained using the interrogation techniques has saved American lives and oropert and it is 2. The interrogation should proceed only with a clear understanding of all the legal and policy matters involved wt. the Interrogation techniques ., including: The classified Auonst 2002 DoJ opinion stating that'll interrogation techniques including. he waternOard, do not violate the Torture Statute,. The United States 1,1Sesthe Constitutional standards of conduct described above to implement Article 16 of the CET within its iuris4iction. The Administration's stated 22112 y a is to treat all detainees and conduct all interreg ticnS, wherever they mav occur, in a manner consistent with (thel commitment' trade by the United States under Article 1E. (Emphasis added) The President's 7 February. 2002 .memorandum to the Vice. President, the Secretary of Defense, the DCI and others, addressing the Armed Forces support for the Geneva.. Conventions, which states in pertinent part: 'Of course,our values as a Nati-On.- . -call for us to treat' detainees humanely, includinc. those who are not legally entitled to such treatment .l . As a matter of Policy, the Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and, consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of C-eneva. 4 -' * The Wrbin amendment to the FY 2905 National Defense Authorization Act, which recently passed the.Senate ., but is not, at of now, law, States that ''Elspfa9a1.11jili.!mEts1K..„ osgzieliItephysical control of the United States shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment cr-PunistRent that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US.' (EmphasiS. added) The Supreme Court's decision in Rasul v, Bush, 542 U.S. (2004L which raises possible concerns about future US judicial review of the Program, and these issues. TOPl nTO DOJ OLC 600