Yoo memo results in bad reporting

posted at 8:45 am on April 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday, the Bush administration declassified and released the controversial memo by John Yoo that had argued that criminal law did not restrict the war-time powers of the presidency. The 2003 analysis sought to resolve a conflict between statutory law and the Constitutional authority granted to the executive as Commander-in-Chief when dealing with “alien enemy combatants held abroad”. The US also had a duty to uphold the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) but only to the extent that interrogations refrained from activities that qualified as “cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment or “shocks the conscience” under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Needless to say, this got quite a bit of attention after years of speculation on the memo’s actual contents — as well as some misreporting, as in this effort by Dan Eggen and Josh White at the Washington Post:

The Justice Department sent a legal memorandum to the Pentagon in 2003 asserting that federal laws prohibiting assault, maiming and other crimes did not apply to military interrogators who questioned al-Qaeda captives because the president’s ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

The 81-page memo, which was declassified and released publicly yesterday, argues that poking, slapping or shoving detainees would not give rise to criminal liability. The document also appears to defend the use of mind-altering drugs that do not produce “an extreme effect” calculated to “cause a profound disruption of the senses or personality.” …

Nine months after it was issued, Justice Department officials told the Defense Department to stop relying on it. But its reasoning provided the legal foundation for the Defense Department’s use of aggressive interrogation practices at a crucial time, as captives poured into military jails from Afghanistan and U.S. forces prepared to invade Iraq.

Sent to the Pentagon’s general counsel on March 14, 2003, by John C. Yoo, then a deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the memo provides an expansive argument for nearly unfettered presidential power in a time of war. It contends that numerous laws and treaties forbidding torture or cruel treatment should not apply to U.S. interrogations in foreign lands because of the president’s inherent wartime powers.

First, the 2003 memo didn’t authorize the start of coercive techniques. As early as September 2002, Congressional leadership of both parties got briefed on interrogations of three al-Qaeda operatives. The CIA gave members of both parties dozens of classified briefings which detailed such techniques as waterboarding, stress positions, and other controversial methods that Congress later acted to ban. This obviously predates the Yoo memo.

Yoo also didn’t occupy any position that could have authorized any interrogative techniques. He provided a legal analysis when asked, but the responsibility for relying on the analysis falls to the CIA, Pentagon, and White House. Congress certainly appeared to agree in that same time frame; the reporting on the briefings notes that none of the Congressional delegation raised any objections during the briefings. One specifically asked whether the interrogations should be made tougher.

Also, to be accurate, Yoo didn’t suggest that laws and treaties don’t apply to the President. What he gave was an interpretation as to how they apply, and he made a clear point about the limits of Congress to intrude on the executive branch in its exercise of duties as Commander in Chief. Yoo argued that the laws relating to the US certainly applied to the executive related to its domestic duties — ie, the President could not torture civilians on US soil as part of a criminal investigation because of the laws passed by Congress.

However, Yoo notes that the CinC would still be bound by CAT and the Constitution in interrogating alien combatants held abroad. The reliance on standards held in the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments show that Yoo did not envision “nearly unfettered presidential power”, but power bounded by treaties and the Constitution. The question then falls to what these standards mean, and whether they exclude such techniques as waterboarding, stress positions, and the like.

I’m not necessarily in agreement with the memo, especially Part IV, which lays out a self-defense argument for potential violations of the limits Yoo notes.  This gets to the “ticking time bomb” scenarios that John McCain mentioned in the debate over his 2006 bill as an exception for national defense.  If we have restrictions on techniques with the force of law, then the law itself had better allow for those exceptions.   Otherwise, it essentially means that a President will have to guess whether he or she will face prosecution for torture, especially when the results succeed in stopping an attack.  Critics will later claim that the danger wasn’t significant enough for the exception.  We write laws precisely to identify the legality and illegality of acts so that we don’t have that kind of ambiguity and risk.

I think Congress should have the ability to set boundaries on war practices without going to the option of a Constitutional amendment to put them in place, and in that sense, Yoo’s analysis seems faulty — but it’s also not indefensible. It didn’t argue for an unrestricted exercise of power, and it was written in a period of time when Congress appeared to have decided that the techniques in question were within the limits of treaties and the Constitutional limits Yoo presents.

Perhaps this is too subtle for the American media to grasp, but this is a much more interesting and nuanced issue than their reporting has thus far revealed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Wonderful analysis. Unfortunately I think the most nuanced response you’ll receive from the left will include the words baby killer and Abu Ghraib.

NeoconNews.com on April 2, 2008 at 8:58 AM

Good read. Thanks Mr. Morrisey~
This is what I come to the internet for.
Actual Reporting. Thoughtful analysis, with real references.
Imagine that.

bridgetown on April 2, 2008 at 9:12 AM

Mr. Morrissey said:

“I think Congress should have the ability to set boundaries on war practices without going to the option of a Constitutional amendment to put them in place, and in that sense, Yoo’s analysis seems faulty — but it’s also not indefensible.”

Congress “setting boundaries” on war practices? Even from an historical prepective Ed, this would never have worked had the legislative branch been involved in the decisions of how wars are prosecuted. What if Truman had to seek the approval of congress to drop two bombs that ended our war with Japan? There are endless examples that enforce the premise that our founding fathers believed that once congress authorized, the executive, (C in C), should be in charge of the prosecution.

Rovin on April 2, 2008 at 9:15 AM

CIA does not equal the military.

funky chicken on April 2, 2008 at 9:28 AM

because the president’s ultimate authority as commander in chief overrode such statutes.

Notice that they didn’t mention the Constitution as the source of that “ultimate authority”. And those powers didn’t “override” such statutes. Such statutes, according to Yoo’s legal analysis, were un-Constitutional limits on the executives powers.

Rightly argued or not, Yoo’s role was to provide his best analysis on the legal issues re the powers of the commander in chief. He didn’t say – nor should he – whether rough interrogation techniques were good or bad or moral or immoral or just or unjust. His job was to determine whether the President had the authority granted by the Constitution to authorize such techniques.

SteveMG on April 2, 2008 at 9:29 AM

If I captured someone who kidnapped or killed any of my loved ones and I knew that he had information about further plots against my family, I would not give a damn about laws, memos, the media or anyone, I would do anything and everything to make the son of bitch talk.

Now, imagine this:

That victim is the American people and the killers are the Muslim terrorists.

And surely, you don’t need an imagination to see reality, although many are still blind.

Indy Conservative on April 2, 2008 at 9:32 AM

I would not give a damn about laws, memos, the media or anyone, I would do anything and everything to make the son of bitch talk

.

Yes, but you’re not sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

If you’re the president and the Constitution forbids you from doing “A”, you can’t do “A” no matter how appropriate “A” may be.

The question is whether “A” is permissible or not.

SteveMG on April 2, 2008 at 9:48 AM

I would not give a damn about laws, memos, the media or anyone, I would do anything and everything to make the son of bitch talk

.

Yes, but you’re not sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

If you’re the president and the Constitution forbids you from doing “A”, you can’t do “A” no matter how appropriate “A” may be.

The question is whether “A” is permissible or not.

SteveMG on April 2, 2008 at 9:48 AM

I don’t believe in this bullcrap. If I have the right to defend my home and shoot a trespasser, kidnapper or anyone who threatens me and my family, then America, as a nation, should have the right to do the same.

Whatever existing laws that prevent America from saving the lives of her citizens by using any means, do not make any sense, should be revised, modified or deleted from the Books.

What kind of a nation where its promulgates laws that are hindering saving the lives of its own citizens?

Indy Conservative on April 2, 2008 at 9:59 AM

The USA has lost the will to ruthlessness. To be ruthless is a requirement to victory in war.

Rigel on April 2, 2008 at 10:06 AM

If I have the right to defend my home and shoot a trespasser, kidnapper or anyone who threatens me and my family, then America, as a nation, should have the right to do the same.

Private citizens can defend themselves if they’re attacked. The law permits people to do that. E.g., necessity defense, self-defense, et cetera.

But if Congress passes a law or the US signs a treaty that becomes law, the President must abide by those laws.

Again, the question is whether those laws/statutes violate the Constitutionally-given powers to the president.

They may be stupid laws, immoral laws, dumb laws, but that’s what the rule of law means.

SteveMG on April 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Private citizens can defend themselves if they’re attacked. The law permits people to do that. E.g., necessity defense, self-defense, et cetera.

But if Congress passes a law or the US signs a treaty that becomes law, the President must abide by those laws.

Again, the question is whether those laws/statutes violate the Constitutionally-given powers to the president.

They may be stupid laws, immoral laws, dumb laws, but that’s what the rule of law means.

SteveMG on April 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM

And laws are not made to be holy.

The Constitution was amended.

Laws can be modified or deleted.

Nothing is sacred that is made by men.

What’s wrong is wrong and should be corrected.

And preventing the U.S. government from taking any action to defend the citizens is wrong.

The president should have available laws that give him the power to defend the American people by using any possible mean.

Heck, if the Constitution needs to be amended to protect the American people, so be it.

What’s more important? The Constitution which is a piece of paper or the life of a human being that is lost because of that piece of paper?

Did we reach a time where a piece of paper or law can kill a human being or prevent his or her defense?

That’s why we will not win. Because we don’t dare adjust to the new reality. We don’t have the guts.

Mass-murder was in our home and we’re still debating how to be gentle and kind with terrorists who want to mass-murder more of us.

What a sissy nation!

Indy Conservative on April 2, 2008 at 10:20 AM

Really good work, Ed.

drjohn on April 2, 2008 at 10:35 AM

Thank you for this piece Ed. Sadly, the moniker John “Torture” Yoo will stick for a lifetime among the lefties.

mram on April 2, 2008 at 11:48 AM

“Perhaps this is too subtle for the American media to grasp, but this is a much more interesting and nuanced issue than their reporting has thus far revealed.”

Not forgetting the ratbags who release a slanted view of the information to the press.

davod on April 2, 2008 at 12:00 PM

So, will Frontline be re-editing and rebroadcasting their report on this issue that, to all intents and purposes, was premised on a lie? Hmm. I wonder.

andycanuck on April 2, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Ed

Of course it’s not too subtle for the American Media. However, it would mean they can’t write stories or books or pontificate endlessly in Congress about a DICTATORIAL (republican) PRESIDENCY!

aLoha Tim on April 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM