« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Is Footnote In OLC Memo Designed To Protect Its Author?
There's an interesting detail buried in those OLC memos released yesterday, that perhaps hasn't gotten the attention it deserves.
In the January 15, 2009 memo written by then-acting OLC head Steven Bradbury -- in which he repudiated many of the previous OLC memos that articulated an expansive view of presidential power in the war on terror -- there's a footnote stressing that the memo is not "intended to suggest in any way that the attorneys involved in the preparation of the opinions in question did not satisfy all applicable standards of professional responsibility."
Why would Bradbury have gone out of his way to make this point -- especially in the context of repudiating those opinions?
Perhaps because the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has been working on a report on whether OLC lawyers violated standards of professional responsibility when they approved harsh interrogation tactics like water-boarding. And, as Newsweek revealed last month, a draft of the report is sharply critical of three senior OLC lawyers in particular -- John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury.
The report's release was delayed after then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey and his deputy Mark Filip objected that responses from Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury should be included. As of February 6, Attorney General Eric Holder had not yet reviewed the report, and it had not yet been turned over to Congress.
So the fact that the earlier memos have been repudiated could potentially still affect the OPR report's conclusions about the lawyers' actions. As a result, Bradbury would have had good reason to explicitly state in his recent OLC memo that the repudiation of the original opinions did not bear on issues of professional responsibility.
It'll be interesting to see, when the OPR report is released, whether its authors agree with that take.
Josh
Zachary
1) He is being careful to deny that his letter attacks his colleagues. This is gentlemanly and also helps him in the future.
2) He is covering his own ass in fear. This is disgustingly self-serving.
3) The timing is pathetic, disgusting.
4) What does it mean to repudiate earlier opinions? -- Does he personally do that, or can he in fact speak for an ensemble or even the Executive Branch as a whole?
5) How does this affect the conduct taken given those earlier opinions?
It's my general view that many of the earlier opinions sought to be unConstitutional while keeping those who would follow a given path from stepping on lower level legal landmines.
March 3, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe my views are not unsimiliar to those of most Americans watching for the results of these lawbreaking events.
No one who played a major roll in the torture episodes, the manipulation of evidence in order to attack Iraq, warrantless wiretaps, the current Wall Street collapse and whatever else known and unknown that has been illegal, will be ever held accountable in a meaningful way that will put the fear of god into others contemplating doing the same kinds of things.
By meaningful way, I mean hard time behind bars.
The American people are just stuck, because the US Congress doesn't not have the stomach nor the ethics for it.
March 3, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN.
dar, you have nailed it.
.
March 3, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
dar,
I think the Democratic party sees any actions by them to hold the Bush/Cheney gang responsible for their 8 years of misfeasance, malfeasance and irresponsible behavior would be so controversial as to threaten their hold on Congress and the White House.
They're protecting their seats and their majority status....f**k what's right.
By the way, I think they will handle this economic crisis with the same objective in mind,
and they'll do it by protecting the sources of large campaign contributions. Actually, I think you can already see this.
March 3, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is no blot upon the honor of a consigliere to recommend the torture of rival gang members, the wiretapping of political enemies, reporters and citizens, the potential use of an army to round up suspects. And therefore it does not impugn a lawyer's professional responsibility to have been reined in, especially when his memos are rescinded just before the capo he faithfully served goes into retirement.
March 3, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we at least disbar these jerks? How can UC/Boalt Hall allow John Yoo to teach there?
March 3, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Boalt Hall website says he is not teaching any classes this semester. IMHO he should never be allowed to practice law again, let alone teach it.
March 3, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Yoo is now teaching at Chapman University in Orange, CA. Here is their mission statement:
"Chapman University is a learning community dedicated to the following core values that define the university's character and help guide the actions of its members:
Value the dignity of every person by treating people with civility and respect;
Act with integrity and accept personal responsibility for our actions;
Live a life of services to others;
Undertake the search for truth and meaning through critical thinking and the never-ending pursuit of knowledge and creative expression;
Engage in and promote an atmosphere of open and honest communication with others;
Seek a just and caring community that embraces a diversity of ideas and experiences."
Ironies abound.
March 4, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems pretty obvious to me that the January 15, 2009 memo was a case of pardon-fishing.
March 4, 2009 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink