This document (identical to ACLU-RDI 4590, 4592, and 4593) is an undated draft memo from the OLC analyzing whether the CIA interrogation program would violate Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture. The document argues that they do not ...
A Vaughn index of CIA records, including cables sent from the field to headquarters, relating to the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. The CIA stated that the index includes the first half of the records created in August 2002 that describe ...
Judicial (Vaughn Declaration/Index)
John L. McPherson
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein
Abu Zubaydah
This letter from Levin to Rizzo addresses the use of waterboarding on a specific detainee. It concludes that "although it is a close and difficult question, the use of the waterboard technique in the contemplated interrogation of ...
Legal Memo, Letter
Daniel B. Levin
John A. Rizzo
John A. Rizzo, Daniel B. Levin, Jay S. Bybee
EIT, Use of water, Waterboarding
An OLC memo to the CIA addressing whether the use of "twelve particular interrogation techniques (attention grasp, walling, facial hold, facial slap (insult slap), cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep depravation, ...
Legal Memo, Letter
Daniel B. Levin
John A. Rizzo
Daniel B. Levin, John A. Rizzo
EIT, Use of water, Water dousing, Physical assault, Face slap or insult slap, Stomach/abdominal slap, Attention grasp, Facial hold, Walling, Stress positions, Cramped confinement, Sleep deprivation, Dietary manipulation, Nudity
This letter is the CIA's response to questions raised by Daniel Levin, OLC, regarding the use of waterboarding. The letter describes the CIA's limits in administering the technique. [OLC Vaughn Index #72]
Non-legal Memo, Letter
Daniel B. Levin
Daniel B. Levin
EIT, Use of water, Waterboarding
This letter is the CIA's response to questions raised by Daniel Levin, OLC, regarding the use of waterboarding. The letter describes the CIA's limits in administering the technique. [OLC Vaughn Index #73]
The memo discusses whether a change to the FISA law would render it unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Specifically it considers and concludes that changing the law from requiring that foreign intelligence gathering be “the ...