March 14, 2003 - “John Yoo finalizes the expansion of his 2002 "torture memo" a document that would serve as the "definitive guidance" for the Working Group's conclusions.” [See also April 4, 2003] [16] “Mr. Yoo’s opinion, had been requested by Mr. Haynes at the initiation of the [OLC] Working Group process, and repeated much of what the first Bybee memo had said six months earlier. [August 1, 2002] […] [It stated that] criminal laws, such as the federal torture statute, would not apply to certain military interrogations, and that interrogators could not be prosecuted by the Justice Department for using interrogation methods that would otherwise violate the law.” (DD) [See January 15 and March 6, 2003] [9] For Yoo’s thoughts on these memos see [37] and [40] The OLC withdrew these Opinions in December 2003. This memo was made public on April 1, 2008. The First Bybee memo was replaced by a new OLC Opinion on December 30, 2004. See also [35; Lederman #2] Yoo suggests that the president can waive international laws. The memo is titled Re: Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States [47] This memo is repudiated again in the March 2, 2009 OLC Memo called: “Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2002.” [110]

January 15, 2009-Steven Bradbury at OLC writes a memo whose purpose is “to confirm that certain propositions stated in several opinions issued by the Office of Legal Council in 2001-2003 respecting the allocation of authorities between the President and Congress in matters of war and National Security do not reflect the current views of this Office.” Memos discussed are 3/13/02 Transfer Opinion; 4/8/02 Swift Justice Opinion; 6/27/02 Detention of US Citizens Opinion; 8/1/02 Interrogation Opinion; 3/14/03 Military Interrogation Opinion; 2/8/02 FISA Opinion; 11/15/01ABM Treaty Suspension Opinion; 1/22/02Treaties Applicability to Detainees Opinion; and the 9/25/01 FISA Opinion. See memo at [110]

QUESTION: Why does Bradbury call his recent memo: ““Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2002?”

Does he still see these Executive Branch usurpations of power as some kind of reasonable response to the September 11 attacks which can now be dispensed with?

Sources at http://www.webdsi.com/jebbie/tlpage44.html

And:

[103] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memodetentionuscitizens06272002.pdf

[104]

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memomilitarydetention06082002.pdf

[105] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memojusticeauthorizationact0482002.pdf

[106] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memorandumpresidentpower03132002.pdf

[107] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoabmtreaty11152001.pdf

[108] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memomilitaryforcecombatus10232001.pdf

[109] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memoforeignsurveillanceact09252001.pdf

[110] http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/memostatusolcopinions01152009.pdf

There is the Pinochet precedent, and the recent war crimes trials of Liberian officials in the US.

Your reference reminded me that the capacity of some people for self blindness is astounding:

December 16, 2008 - AG Mukasey gives a speech at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in which he says [in reference to Nazi Germany], “even the seemingly most advanced of nations can be led down the path of evil; […] we must confront horror with action and vigilance, not lethargy and cowardice” and [referring to the recent conviction for torture of former President of Liberia, “Charles Taylor’s] “conviction - the first in history under our criminal anti-torture statute […] sends a powerful message to human rights violators around the world that, when we can, we will hold them accountable for their crimes.”

http://www.speroforum.com/a/17226/Justice-gives-WWII-docs-to-Holocaust-Museum

Sysprog quotes Ed Morrissey:

First, it was drafted in the aftermath of 9/11 and the consensus that we would suffer another catastrophic blow. [...]Context is everything. Yoo forgot that when trying to divine ways to get around the Constitution in the counterterrorist fight. Let’s not forget the context of the times in which these advisory memos got written, and later amended or withdrawn.- - Ed Morrissey 03/03/2009

This is what I meant earlier when I asked:

QUESTION: Why does Bradbury call his recent memo: ““Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2002?”

Does he still see these Executive Branch usurpations of power as some kind of reasonable response to the September 11 attacks which can now be dispensed with?

We'll be hearing a lot more of this for a while.

I don't know if you've seen this DoJ announcement:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-181.html

FWIW

According to Dan Froomkin [Glenn's 3rd update], Holder sais this:

At about the same time the documents were being released, Attorney General Eric Holder was making a speech putting them in context: "Too often over the past decade, the fight against terrorism has been viewed as a zero-sum battle with our civil liberties," Holder said. "Not only is that school of thought misguided, I fear that in actuality it does more harm than good. I have often said that the test of a great nation is whether it will adhere to its core values not only when it is easy, but also when it is hard....

"There is no reason we cannot wage an effective fight against those who have sworn to harm us while we respect our most honored constitutional traditions. We can never put the welfare of the American people at risk but we can also never choose actions that we know will weaken the legal and moral fiber of our nation."

I'll also add that I beat Froomkin by about an hour. He said [at 12:52ET]:

But Bradbury was also making excuses for them. They were afraid, he wrote: "The opinions addressed herein were issued in the wake of the atrocities of 9/11, when policymakers, fearing that additional catastrophic terrorist attacks were imminent, strived to employ all lawful means to protect the nation." They were rushed, confronting "novel and complex legal questions in a time of great danger and under extraordinary time pressure."

No excuse. Not even close.

I said [at 8:43PST]

QUESTION: Why does Bradbury call his recent memo: ““Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2002?”

Does he still see these Executive Branch usurpations of power as some kind of reasonable response to the September 11 attacks which can now be dispensed with?

Just sayin' ;-)