USDOJ Seal

U.S. Department of Justice
COW1Sel
Office of
of Legal Counsel

I~MR
Office
Office of the
the Assistant Attorney General

Washington.
20530
Washington,D.C.
D. C.
20530

May 27,
27,2004
2004

Mr.
Mr. Scott Muller
General Counsel
Counsel
Central Intelligence Agency
Room 7C24 Headquarters Bldg.
Washington,
"Washington, D.C.
D.C. 20505

Scott:
Dear Scott:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the Inspector General Report concerning
cOllceming the
Central Intelligence Agency's program for enhanced interrogation techniques.
Information in that report has raised concerns about certain aspects of
of
interrogations in practice. As you know, the opinion that the Office
Office of
of Legal Counsel
Cotmsel
John Rizzo in August 2002 addressing ten enhanced interrogation techniques
provided to Jolm
of factual assumptions as well as limitations concerning how
depended upon a number offactual
Office
those techniques would be applied, and it is my understanding that this Office
subsequently agreed that the same legal principles, subject to the same factual
assumptions and limitations, could be applied for interrogations of persons other than the
the
specific individual addressed in that August 2002 opinion. Our initial
iilltial review of
oftlle
Inspector General's Report ntises
raises the possibility that, at least in some instances and
particularly early in the program, the actual practice may not have been congruent
congru.ent with
all
of
these
assumptions
and
limitations.
all 0 f thes e assumptions and limitations.

of the waterboard technique may have
In particular, it appears that the application of
deviated in some respects from the descriptions in our opinion. We have not yet
reviewed all the pertinent facts to determine whether such deviations are material for
of the advice we provided. Some facts discussed by the Report had clearly been
purposes of
Department of Justice persormel
personnel in 2003. Some other infom1ation,
information,
discussed with Department
however, appears to
to have
have been
been generated
generated in the
course of
of the
however,
the course
the Inspector General's inquiry.
inquiry.
raises aa concern,
concern, for
for example,
example, that
that the
the Inspector
Inspector General
General has
It raises
has suggested,
suggested, among
among other
other
things, that
that the
the "SERE
"SERE waterboard
waterboard experience
experience is
different from
is so
so different
from the
the subsequent
subsequent Agency
Agency
things,
usage
as
to
make
it
almost
irrelevant."
IG
Report
at
22
n.26.
As
you
know,
usage as to make it almost i.rrelevant." IG Report at 2211.26. As you know, the
the use
use of
of the
the
waterboard in
in SERE
SERE training
training \vas
was aa significant
significant factor
factor in
in this
waterboard
this Office's
Office's legal
legal analysis.
analysis. II
understand that
that the
the waterboard
waterboard technique
technique has
has not
not been
lU1derstal1d
been used
used since
since March
March 2003.
2003. In
In light
light of
of

IO~/M:R

7)

IO~
the
the assertions in the Inspector General's Report, and the factual assumptions underlying
underlying
our advice,
tins technique remain suspended until
advice, we strongly recommend that any use of
of this
we have had a more thorough opportunity to review the Report
Repan and the factual assertions
in it.
it.

We recommend that with respect to the use of the other nine techniques, you
review the steps you have already taken to ensure that in actual practice any use of
of those
techniques adheres closely to the assumptions and limitations stated in our opinion of
of
August 2002.
2002.
Finally, the Report also includes information concerning interrogations that are
not part of the enhanced interrogation techniques program. As you know, we have not
of the Report.
provided advice on practices described in those portions of

Sincerely,

nA,J~;z.
~j;;
Jack L.
L. Goldsmith III

TO~