Letter from Daniel Levin, OLC, to Scott Muller, CIA, re: waterboarding a particular detainee

<p>This letter from Acting Assistant Attorney General Levin to Muller regards whether a certain detainee may be subjected to waterboarding. Levin asks the CIA to provide specific details of the technique in practice, including &quot;whether the technique on which we would now opine differs in any respect from the one considered in our earlier memorandum.&quot;&nbsp;[OLC Vaughn Index #65]</p>

Legal Memo
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Sunday, August 23, 2009

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel TO CRETit djsivetur Offire of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 July 22, 2004 Scott W. Muller, Esq. General Counsel Central Intelligence Agency Washington, D.C. 20505 Dear Scott: We have been asked whether a certain detainee in the war on terrorism may be subjected to the "waterboard" interrogation technique, consistent with 18 -U.S.C. ยงยง 2340 and 2340A. In connection with this opinion, we would be grateful if you could. provide us with a precise description of the technique. As you know, the CIA Office of Inspector General, in its Special Review: Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 200I-October 2003) (Inlay 7, 2004) ("OIG Revieur), raised several questions about whether the technique, as actually used, conforms to the description in the Memorandum for John A. Rizzo, Acting General Counsel, CIA, from Jay S. Bybee ; Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Interrogation of al Qaeda Operative(Aug. 1, 2002). For example, the OIG Review repeatedly disputes that the technique, in practice, matches the technique as used at the U.S. Air -Force Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape ("SERE") training program, although our opinion assumed that we were addressing the SERE technique. See OIG Review at 21 n.26, 37, 44. It would greatly assist us if you could address the details of the technique, including whether the technique on which we would now opine differs in any respect from the one considered in our earlier memorandum. If there are differences but you believe those differences should not alter our conclusion that the technique is lawful under the statute, we would appreciate receiving an explanation of your view, including any medical or other factual support on which you rely. Finally, we would be grateful if you could provide information about the facts and circumstances of this detainee, including his medical and psychological condition, of the so provided with respect to the detainee discussed in our earlier opinion. DOJ OLC 001091 TOP CRET/, Thank you for your assistance. (U) TOP CRET: Sincerely, Daniel B. Levin Acting Assistant Attorney General DOJ OLC 001092