More possible clues about the OPR report from Murray Waas:
The investigators closely tracked drafts of the four legal opinions until they reached final form. In some instances, the drafts changed progressively over time to afford those who wanted to engage in aggressive interrogation techniques additional legal cover, according to people who have read the draft OPR report. One source indicated that at least two of the earlier drafts were "equivocal" and "nuanced" -- but noted over time they became "more advocative" of the views of then-Vice President Dick Cheney and others in the Bush administration that aggressive interrogation techniques were necessary to prevent new terror attacks.
If that evolution occurred alongside emails from the White House explaining their desire for more and more torture, then the case that the legal cover was rigged gets much stronger. When you take a few steps back, this seems obvious to me. But the documentary proof is harder to nail down with characters as slippery as these.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.