The so-called “torture memo” released by the Pentagon has the uber “Terrorists Rights before Naitonal Security” usual suspects huffing and puffing, but it’s really much to do about nothing.

“The Justice Department late Tuesday released a declassified 2003 memorandum long sought by congressional Democrats and other administration critics that outlines the government’s legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques used by the military against captured enemy combatants outside the United States.

The memo, written by John Yoo, then a key architect of legal policy in the wake of 9/11, dismisses several legal impediments to the use of extreme techniques.

Yoo was long a proponent of an aggressive approach in the war against terrorism and a believer in executive branch authority. But the memo was withdrawn as formal government policy less than a year after it was written.

In the March 14, 2003 memo, Yoo says the Constitution was not in play with regard to the interrogations because the Fifth Amendment (which provides for due process of law) and the Eighth Amendment (which prevents the government from employing cruel and usual punishment) does “not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.”:

The memo goes on to explain that federal criminal statutes regarding assault and other crimes against the body don’t apply to authorized military interrogations overseas and that statutes that do apply to the conduct of U.S. officials abroad pertaining to war crimes and torture establish a limited obligation on the part of interrogators to refrain from bodily harm.

It also defines the United States’ obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other international treaties prohibiting torture to be confined to ensuring that interrogators do not apply “cruel and unusual punishment” as defined by American constitutional law, regardless of differing international standards.

And it restates the oft-repeated view held by administration officals that the Geneva Conventions, which governs the treatment of prisoners of war, does not apply to members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.”

Yoo’s memo never saw the light of practice, but the views he put forth were completely valid and go to the heart of the argument of whether the US constitution applies to terrorists living in a cave in Tora Bora. Secondly, Yoo was not a “key architect”, but a second rung JD lawyer who was asked - along with others - for his legal opinion in the wake of 9/11 on how to treat those terrorists captured or detained.

Besides the long established criteria that the Geneva Convention - which by the way only the US seems to follow - does NOT apply to non-soldier/military personnel, nevertheless we have seen in all these “smoking memos” that the Bush Administration took every careful measure possible to assure the legality of actions. Not something you would see from a “rogue administration.” Additionally, this is all old news and again, Yoo’s memo wasn’t placed into practice and subsequent reforms make it basically moot at this point.

Ed at Hot Air has a little more.

UPDATE: WSJ Law Blog, the point:

“The DOJ has since withdrawn both the Yoo and Bybee memos, issuing a 2004 legal opinion that declared ‚Äútorture is abhorrent both to American law and values and to international norms.‚Äù The memos, however, demonstrate how sweeping the Justice Department viewed presidential power in the post 9/11 world.

Peter Carr, a DOJ spokesman, said the department’s current legal view “does not conclude that the President can supersede statutes regulating detainee treatment.”

The left is foaming out of the mouth about this (funny they don’t feel that way about partial-birth abortions - or any abortions for that matter - I digress) but the fact is that serious times called for serious measures. One would have to ask the question, “Is one terrorist’s comfort greater than the deaths of innocents?”

Look in the mirror when you ask it.