So, not only did Holder's DOJ...

[Yonivore]

...screw up in it's attempt to politicize the enhanced interrogations investigation; it appears they may have broken the law, as well.

Stolen...ChumpDumper will google it and let you know from where. But, please note the source from which I plagiarized this, also links to the DOJ regulations and Privacy Act and Washington Post Opinion piece containing all the relevant facts.

From a Washington Post editorial

Investigations of this type are usually kept secret unless and until the investigating en y determines that wrongdoing has occurred. There's a certain logic and decency to this: Mere news that someone is under investigation is often enough to tarnish that person's reputation -- even if charges ultimately are not brought. Yet the existence of the investigation and many details of the OPR report have already found their way into the public arena. For example, The Post and other news outlets have reported that the OPR will recommend that Judge Bybee and Mr. Yoo be referred to their respective bar associations for possible sanctions.

The Post makes it sound like the leaks of the OPR report, which is still a preliminary do ent, are nothing more than a deviation from the usual way of doing things. In fact, they are a violation of OPR's rules and, it would appear, a criminal violation of the Privacy Act.

The Justice Department has clear rules governing the cir stances under which OPR's findings may be publically disclosed:

Public Disclosure of OPR Findings

OPR's findings in certain cases may be publicly disclosed. The Department may consider disclosing the final disposition, after all available administrative reviews have been completed, of any matter in the following categories:

A finding of intentional or knowing professional misconduct in the course of litigation or investigation where the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General finds that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the attorney and any law enforcement interests;

Any case involving an allegation of serious professional misconduct where there has been a demonstration of public interest, including referrals by a court or bar association, where the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General finds that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest of the attorney and any law enforcement interests;

Any case in which the attorney requests disclosure, where law enforcement interests are not compromised by the disclosure.

If a matter appears to meet these criteria, OPR prepares a summary of the matter including the attorney's name, sufficient facts to explain the context of the allegation, and the final disposition. This summary is submitted to the Department's Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, which determines whether the Privacy Act permits disclosure of the included information and whether revisions should be made to the summary prior to disclosure. If Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties advises that the statement is appropriate for disclosure, the summary is sent to the attorney and the appropriate supervisory official, and both are given the opportunity to make written comments and objections to the proposed disclosure on grounds of privacy or law enforcement concerns. Any such objections are reviewed by Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties.

OPR forwards the proposed summary to the Deputy Attorney General with its recommendation regarding release and attaches all comments that were received. The final decision as to whether to release a summary is made by the Attorney General. If the Attorney General decides that disclosure is appropriate, the summary is forwarded to the Office of Public Affairs for release.

Here, the key conditions for disclosure have not been satisifed. For example, the draft was leaked before Bybee, Yoo, or their lawyers had an opportunity to comment and before the Department of Justice determined that the preliminary report should become final.

The leaks also appear to consi ute a criminal offense under the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. section 552a(i)(1) provides:

Criminal Penalties.-- Any officer or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not en led to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000.

Agency "records" are "any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph." 552a(a)(4).

DOJ regulations make it clear that the Privacy Act's strictures apply to exactly the class of OPR records that were leaked to, and used, by the Post. (I understand that there have been some minor modifications to the regs, but none that would change the analysis here). Thus, the leaking of such do ents under cir stances that violate DOJ/OPR rules would appear to be a criminal offense.

The "fairness" the Washington Post calls for is, I assume, out of the question on this issue with this administration. But is it too much to ask that the Obama-Holder Justice Department comply with the law?

It seems to me that DOJ should consider the appointment of a Special Counsel to look into this matter. Surely this is what the Democrats, and the Washington Post, would be calling for if leaks like these had occurred under a Republican adminstration.

[ChumpDumper]

I don't know why yoni can't just link powerlineblog.

That's all he has to do.

He must like whining about me as much as he hates America.

[Yonivore]

Why Doesn't the Left Call for Pelosi's Resignation?

Right after Obama released the interrogation memos, John Podesta, the head of the Center for American Progress and Obama's chief transition adviser, called for the impeachment of federal judge Jay Bybee, who signed off on the memos while at the Justice Department. "Bybee has neither the legal nor moral authority to sit in judgment of others," Podesta wrote in a letter to House judiciary chairman John Conyers.

So here's the question: Do people who believe that harsh interrogations were gravely immoral and violated the law think that Nancy Pelosi retains the moral authority to serve as speaker of the House? Based on the 2007 Washington Post story, Porter Goss's testimony, and the latest CIA memo--which reports Pelosi was given a "Briefing on [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed”--don't opponents of 'EITs' think it's time for Pelosi to go?

The excuses trotted out in her defense so far are pretty pathetic. See this anonymously authored Center for American Progress post as a good example. One talking point--that Pelosi wasn't specifically informed about waterboarding--is particularly laughable. As Goldfarb notes below, Rep. Hoekstra says there are do ents showing otherwise, and Allahpundit points out that Pelosi was briefed just a month after Zubaydah was waterboarded repeatedly: "Consider the context of when the briefing was held — one week before 9/11/02, when fears of an anniversary attack were sky high — and ask yourself why the CIA wouldn’t have told Pelosi they had waterboarded Zubaydah." It certainly looks like Pelosi knew about waterboarding, and if she didn't she was certainly briefed about other interrogation techniques. Do her apologists think that waterboarding is the only technique that qualifies as torture?

Even if you take Pelosi at her (latest) word--that she was briefed on the authorization of harsh techniques but not that they had been used--that's all the more damning, as Charles Krauthammer argued last week:

If you are told about torture that has already occurred, you might justify silence on the grounds that what's done is done and you are simply being used in a post-facto exercise to cover the CIA's rear end. The time to protest torture, if you really are as outraged as you now pretend to be, is when the CIA tells you what it is planning to do "in the future."

Some people like Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Glenn Greenwald, and Andrew Sullivan have talked a good game about the need to find out who knew what and when they knew it no matter who is implicated. But don't they already know enough to demand Pelosi's resignation?

That would be sweet...

[ChumpDumper]

So now you want people who approved of waterboarding to be punished?

Make up your mind.

[Winehole23]

He can't remember which side he's on. It's probably a side effect of being such a big bull ter.

[Yonivore]

So now you want people who approved of waterboarding to be punished?

Make up your mind.

No, I want the Left to stand by their principles...

But, I guess that's too much to ask.

I believe the articles says, IF they believe Bybee should be impeached for writing the memos, shouldn't Pelosi be similarly treated for condoning enhanced interrogation techniques, (or, at the very least, standing by while they were used)?
Frankly, I'm with Pelosi, Bybee, and the rest on this.

Waterboarding isn't torture and the enhanced interrogation techniques saved American Lives.

Too bad Pelosi is such a coward. Maybe she should resign for that.

[ChumpDumper]

Waterboarding isn't torture and the enhanced interrogation techniques saved American Lives.

[Winehole23]

Everyone who had knowledge of torture and remained silent is morally complicit, and must face his/her own conscience. As for legal culpability it makes more sense to focus on the makers of the policy and the official path of authorization, than US officials compelled by law to remain silent about it IMO.

Chances are, no one gets prosecuted for this in the US.

[Yonivore]

And there you have the debate in a nuts .

[Yonivore]

Everyone who had knowledge of torture and remained silent is morally complicit, and must face his/her own conscience. As for legal culpability it makes more sense to focus on the makers of the policy and the official path of authorization, than US officials compelled by law to remain silent about it IMO.

Chances are, no one gets prosecuted for this in the US.

Because no crimes were committed...except, of course, those by the New York Times (and their traitors in the NSA and CIA) in leaking sensitive National Security Information.

[ChumpDumper]

And there you have the debate in a nuts .

Exactly. Your claims are laughable.

[Winehole23]

[FaithInOne]

Leave my Pelosi alone.

[Winehole23]

[Winehole23]

Leave my Pelosi alone.

I whacked her pretty good in the Reid/Pelosi thread, or didn't you notice?

That's right, you don't really read. You just like to pop off, don't you?

[Winehole23]

[Yonivore]

Exactly. Your claims are laughable.

The maniacal laugh of one who's out of ideas...

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, that waterboarding is torture has been well-established. Your continued willful ignorance has no influence on that.

The "saving lives" claims is especially dubious, since there is no record of the interrogations themselves. Seriously -- if nothing was wrong with it, why would anyone destroy the videos of the interrogations?

[Yonivore]

Nah, that waterboarding is torture has been well-established. Your continued willful ignorance has no influence on that.

Which version of waterboarding? The type used by the Japanese in World War II that resulted in permanent injury and death or the type used by the U. S. on both al Qaeda and military SERE participants which causes no harm?

Because, to my knowledge that type has not been determined to be torture...other than by idiots like you.

Calling something a name doesn't mean it is what you call it.

The "saving lives" claims is especially dubious, since there is no record of the interrogations themselves. Seriously -- if nothing was wrong with it, why would anyone destroy the videos of the interrogations?

Four former DCI's disagree with you.

[ChumpDumper]

Which version of waterboarding? The type used by the Japanese in World War II that resulted in permanent injury and death or the type used by the U. S. on both al Qaeda and military SERE participants which causes no harm?

You do know why SERE started training US soldiers to resist waterboarding right?

Or are you completely ignorant of that as well?

Because, to my knowledge that type has not been determined to be torture...other than by idiots like you.

As I said, your ignorance isn't a factor in that determination.

Four former DCI's disagree with you.

again. Where are the tapes?

[Yonivore]

You do know why SERE started training US soldiers to resist waterboarding right?

Or are you completely ignorant of that as well?

It's okay if you don't want to answer the question.

But, I'll ask it again... Are you talking about the waterboarding employed by the Japanese that resulted in injuries and death or the, pardon the pun, "watered down version" of waterboarding used by the U. S. on al Qaeda and SERE participants?

As I said, your ignorance isn't a factor in that determination.

Nor does your continued insistence make it torture.

again. Where are the tapes?

Weren't they destroyed?

Again, were any of the al Qaeda detainees injured or killed by this procedure?

[ChumpDumper]

It's okay if you don't want to answer the question.

But, I'll ask it again... Are you talking about the waterboarding employed by the Japanese that resulted in injuries and death or the, pardon the pun, "watered down version" of waterboarding used by the U. S. on al Qaeda and SERE participants?

How does anyone know that's what was done? No tapes.

Nor does your continued insistence make it torture.

Simple legal precedent did that.

Weren't they destroyed?

Why would they be destroyed?

Again, were any of the al Qaeda detainees injured or killed by this procedure?

How would anyone know?

[Yonivore]

Alexander: Why not probe Congress on briefings?
Can't wait to see how Pelosi dances this coming week.

[Yonivore]

How does anyone know that's what was done? No tapes.

So, you admit you don't know if what was done is torture. Thanks.

Simple legal precedent did that.

See above

Why would they be destroyed?

I have no idea, goverments have retention schedules.

How would anyone know?

Well, the three against whom the government admits to using the technique are alive and well.

[ChumpDumper]

So, you admit you don't know if what was done is torture. Thanks.

If it is what you claimed it to be, yes. Thanks.

I have no idea, goverments have retention schedules.

Yes, their retention "schedule" is to destroy tapes when a judge asks for them. You love being ignorant, don't you?

Well, the three against whom the government admits to using the technique are alive and well.

People who are tortured can indeed live.