John Yoo, Unindicted War Criminal, Praises President Obama's Approach to Executive Power

[Land Shark]

Early in December, Department of Justice lawyers in the Obama administration moved to dismiss Jose Padilla's suit against John Yoo, former Bush administration lawyer and infamous author of torture memos for the Bush administration. The DOJ lawyers argued

From: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/07/MN061AVC89.DTL#ixzz0bcXHqwV4

Such lawsuits {As Jose Padilla's} ask courts to second-guess presidential decisions and pose "the risk of deterring full and frank advice regarding the military's detention and treatment of those determined to be enemies during an armed conflict," Justice Department lawyers said Thursday in arguments to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Well, I thought, then I guess the entire fields of law known as crimes against humanity, war crimes, the Convention Against Torture and customary international law, can all be written off as mere "second-guessing" of a President. They all provide that rules against torture are "without exception" for any circumstance "whatsoever" and that merely acquiescing in or tolerating such crimes, much less actively ordering them or advising them, creates criminal culpability for acts flowing from such encouragement, writing, toleration and so forth. A very broad standard, but designed specifically to fit the enormous gravity of the crimes and the need to climb up the chain of command to those who ordered or facilitated "bad apples" to do what they did.

Now, about a month after DOJ lawyers appeared in support of Yoo, comes John Yoo's new book, scheduled to be out January 5, 2010 and entitled "Crisis and Command."

It was reviewed on HuffingtonPost, whose reviewer had this to summarize the "Afterword" Yoo appended to his book now coming out, with the Afterword apparently being in praise of Obama's executive power philosophy as Yoo sees it (defined more by actions than by words):

In his new book, former Bush administration attorney and infamous torture memo collaborator John Yoo favorably argues that President Barack Obama is wielding executive powers in the same manner as his White House predecessor.

Titled "Crisis and Command," Yoo's 500-plus-page work looks at the evolution of presidential powers from Washington to Bush, but with an afterword added for the current White House occupant.
More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/31/john-yoo-obama-is-a-conti_n_408441.html

What does DU make of this? An as yet unindicted war criminal being privately sued nevertheless, and Obama's administration's DOJ appears in court to urge dismissal on the (not) legal ground of not second guessing? And the unindicted war criminal adds an afterword to his book praising the use of presidential power by Obama?

Not so long ago, 96% of DUers in an unscientific poll said Yoo should be tried and imprisoned.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7195318 Protecgting Yoo from a mere civil suit by someone is not headed in this same direction (UNLESS... there's a strategy to exhaust domestic remedies which in some cases helps facilitate international prosecutions which is where the fairest possible trial would likely be. Yet I doubt that's a motive).

Also, I've had a law degree since 1995 but I've not come across this apparent legal doctrine of "no second guessing" of a President. Can anybody help me? I'm no expert on Executive Power issues.

on edit:

Quoting our own federal court, noting that torturers have reached the level of ignominy long held by even the most violent of pirates, here's a passage from Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, 630 F.2d 876 (1980):

"...the torturer has become, like the pirate and the slave trader before him, hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."

But that's about the torturer - the one who follows somebody else's order. I don't know what the one who issued the order to torture and/or said it was all legal has become? A fan of President Obama's use of executive power? THIS JUXTAPOSITION IS TOO CONFUSING.

[Nikki Stone1]

1. John Yoo: the gift that keeps on giving.

:(

[Land Shark]

10. And gift recycling is the one form of gift giving I'm not so sure about ;) n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

41. I hear you. This guy is just the worst.

And well rewarded for it.

[RoyGBiv]

2. He's a brilliant idiot ...

He knows how to parse words to their maximum effect, and the neo-conservatives to whom he has sworn his never-ending allegiance have a vested interest in attempting to associate the current administration with its predecessor. They have used every opportunity to do so, and the targets of their propaganda campaign are falling for it at every opportunity. It's almost too easy for them.

Regarding the so-called doctrine, surely you know that this argument is simply an extension of the legal logic behind "executive privilege"? I'm not saying I agree with it, because I don't, but that is its origin. Yoo has never varied from that, and it is another brilliantly idiotic maneuver. To successfully prosecute him calls into question the very basis of executive privilege, which in other contexts and within strict boundaries does have some degree of merit. No one in power will seriously challenge it, and he knows that.

[Land Shark]

4. I understand the "extension in logic" regarding exec power: The collision with Int'l * national law

though, is enormous. Huge. Could hardly be more glaring. The law of torture is non-derogable, it preempts any national laws to the contrary, we've signed treaties saying so (and on and on and on...)

[RoyGBiv]

8. Agreed ...

But leave it to John Yoo and what I'm sure is a crack legal team to push the envelope. He's been doing it his whole career.

[Zhade]

71. And obama is supporting him.

NT!

[Brother Buzz]

53. Logic? I got some twisted Yoo logic

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

January 02, 2006
By Jon Carroll

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president’s foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It’s in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

But isn’t there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn’t that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America’s safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It’s a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It’s not torture if the president says it’s not torture. It’s merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won’t the American people object?

Not if they’re scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No they haven't which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let’s just say that we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[whatchamacallit]

11. Talk about "tortured logic"

it's not neocon propaganda that associates the current administration with its predecessor, it's Obama's own policies.

[RoyGBiv]

12. No, not really n/t

[bleever]

3. I distrust John Yoo's interpretations of law. So I tend to have no regard

for his opinions of the Obama administration's interpretation of law.

He is a useful idiot, a cut-out.

[Land Shark]

6. I wouldn't trust his opinion either, BUT I tend to trust him to know WHAT HE LIKES when he sees it.

Yoo's not giving an opinion so much as looking at Obama and recognizing the similarities and pretty much liking it. I'd tend to think he's doing that to damage Obama but then you've got DOJ lawyers running to, in effect, support Yoo in litigation, so......?

[Echo In Light]

16. Damn liberals...always downplaying others' trivial dismissals of unfavorable data

;)

[bleever]

39. I didn't mean to contradict your main point,

I just have a hard time controlling my hatred of Yoo and what he stands for.

:hi:

[pissedoff01]

5. What kind of people take his class at Berkeley?

Young Republicans?

[Land Shark]

7. Good question. Some committed opponents too I hope. Only ? is: Protest inside or outside class???

[KittyWampus]

26. young lawyers looking for a good argument?

[2 Much Tribulation]

32. I'll bet he has strict rules regulating class participation (or students are screened) or something.

[Brother Buzz]

50. Maybe now but....his classes have been disrupted

"I'm going to umm end class now I'm afraid."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EwTPQjT0hA

[Land Shark]

54. Thanks for video footage/update on Yoo's UC-Berkeley law class. n/t

[2 Much Tribulation]

9. Enemies during "armed conflict" -- ironically,that's the phrase that triggers the Geneva Convention.

[H2O Man]

13. Recommended.

The Obama administration's attempt to push the "no second guessing" bit is simply an example of a "professional courtesy" in a "gentlemen's club." And it is simply wrong -- wrong legally, wrong politically, wrong morally. Wrong. It damages respect for the rule of law, and attempts to undermine that rule of law.

Thank you for this series of essays. This is the "Best of DU" -- exactly the type of article that makes this forum the best on the internet. It is much appreciated.

[G_j]

23. agreed

that it is an attempt to undermine the rule of law. serious stuff..

[Land Shark]

29. Law w/o Justice = Tyranny. Habeas corpus is necessary but not sufficient, because....

all habeas is, is a procedure to require "producing the body" and explaining the legal basis for detention and whether it's consistent with law. But if the substantive law is executive discretion and catch-22 or otherwise greatly unfavorable, habeas corpus is unavailing. At a habeas hearing where the substantive law provided for this one could simply say, for the prosecution, "the defendant is legally held because the law says, and I quote, "we can hold whoever we want for as long as we want." Barring a successful attack on the constitutionality and legality of such a statute, the habeas right would have been granted and yet it's not helpful in the least.

See Rasul v. Myers et al, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, April 2009 (holding that foreign, innocent persons held at Gitmo are not "persons" entitled to constitutional rights and not "persons" entitled to protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 USC secs. 2000bb et seq. Thus, under applicable supreme court precedent, Gitmo prisoners have a right of habeas corpus per the Boumediene case, but the substantive law is being read or interpreted to be bereft of any visible rights, constitutional or otherwise. Rasul v. Myers, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8980 (D.C. Cir. April 24, 2009) In fact, the per curiam DC Circuit opinion gives just this kind of history, having been remanded for re-ruling by the US Supreme Court in light of their habeas ruling in Boumediene, with the first paragraph in the re-ruling saying:

The Supreme Court vacated our decision in Rasul v. Myers, 512 F.3d 644 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Rasul I), and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008). Rasul v. Myers, 129 S. Ct. 763 (2008). We do not believe Boumediene changes the outcome in Rasul I. We therefore reinstate our judgment, but on a more limited basis.

[G_j]

37. disturbing

it all gets so murky and convoluted.

[Soylent Brice]

28. +1

:thumbsup:

[midnight]

14. It is confusing. I think that was the intended goal... Shock and awe...

Yoo should title his book as such "Shock and Awe".

[Echo In Light]

15. Nuff said

[Starry Messenger]

17. I have to say...

I honestly don't understand the current Administration's relationship with the DOJ. The President seems to have a very hands off approach to this Branch. Am I seeing this correctly and if so, is this normal? I ask this because when I've criticized the Administration/DOJ on decisions made in the cases having to do with GBLT human rights, the answer from people here is invariably that the DOJ is a separate branch of government and the President shouldn't interfere in its workings. Is this still true when it comes to war crimes? I really want an answer to this...

[Land Shark]

18. With war crimes or crimes against humanity (may occur in peace) the ? is: Could this person stop it?

"respect for a coordinate branch" goes out the window and the analysis is whether something triggering a duty under the international law regarding crimes against humanity has occurred (which includes responsibility for the government officials in the regime following the one against which violations are stated). There's not a duty to retain a hands off attitude or any lower level duties or aspirations of "civility" but instead an overriding emergency under the highest laws of humanity requires attention.

There's a duty to investigate triggered by a reason to know substantial grounds that a violation may have occurred. There's a duty to protect any apparent victims. A duty to cooperate in gathering evidence. A duty to prosecute timely and diligently. And more.

What distinguishes crimes against humanity from individual acts of torture or other grave human rights violations is their systematic or widespread basis, such as occurs when it is incorporated on a de facto basis into government policy, or orders given to others.

Given the duty to intervene, the defense "not in my job description" or "I might not succeed" does not excuse one from trying.

[Starry Messenger]

20. They key word there being "duty".

That seems to be an unpopular word lately. It's been exchanged for "It is what it is" and other corporate massage phrases.

Also re: Could this person stop it? I'm asking myself lately, Do they want to stop it? Sad thoughts going into the new year.

[Land Shark]

27. And in the relative calm of the courtroom, what seemed 'impossible' to stop = you shoulda tried hard

[spanone]

19. this fact alone should shock the President of the United States

[2 Much Tribulation]

33. I hope Helen Thomas is not the only reporter that might think to ASK THE QUESTION: What about Yoo?

[Land Shark]

21. By the way, an exception to attorney client privilege is communications in furtherance of crime n/t

[tomp]

22. it's hyper-chess, don't you get it? nt

[Land Shark]

25. Multiple levels of playing boards, each piece w/different rules of capture... But please explain

[tomp]

64. my meaning is in complete support of your post...

...in opposition to obama acting like bush. i was trying to suggest that obama is working behind the scenes, or has information we don't, or whatever other excuse the pathological obamaphiles spout to excuse obama's bush-like activities. i guess i failed to convey that. sorry.

[shadesofgray]

24. Scary as shit.

[Land Shark]

35. Not scary, just repulsive as that s-word you referred to. No "shadesofgray" in this area.

At the extremes, like crimes against humanity and genocide, etc., there's not really any substantial gray area (taking off your name, which otherwise applies broadly to tell us truths about various areas of life)

[Solly Mack]

30. K&R

[2 Much Tribulation]

31. Regarding "aliens" the DC Cir Crt of App quotes approving "The Bill of Rights is a futile authority"

See Rasul v. Myers (aka Rasul v Rumsfeld) (April 2009). Here's a link to an excerpt which by no means captures the full paleontology of the legal theory in the opinion, which is linked to in the first sentence or so for those interested: http://fourthamendment.com/blog/index.php?blog=1&title=dc_cir_dicta_in_lemgrasull_emg_on_remand&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

on edit: Yes, I'm aware some of these precedents have existed for some time, but it's the consolidation of them all combined with plugging holes that is especially wrong, combined with the regret or caution that a JUDGE ought to feel before publishing, for ANY purpose no matter how limited, (and with apparent pride or at least no distress in this) that "the Bill of Rights is a futile authority." No matter how qualified, one sworn to uphold the Constitution should give pause here and probably not quote such words with approval, even for a qualified or limited purpose, as if denying any human beings of their most fundamental human rights is a "limited" purpose. I recall from the Declaration of Independence that is the very reason for government's being created is to "guarantee these rights" that we're "born" with.

[Land Shark]

34. Sunday's NYT:Guess who argued to Sup Crt that illegality of torture "not clearly established"???

from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/opinion/04mon1.html

"The party that urged the Supreme Court not to grant the victims’ appeal because the illegality of torture was not “clearly established” was the Obama Justice Department."

[G_j]

36. ouch!

depressing isn't it?

[Land Shark]

40. For me, I feel inclined to action/speech by this kind of stuff. n/t

[G_j]

46. that too! nt

[Land Shark]

55. Depression is the pause and sinking to catch breath before Action - the antidote to despair n/t

[G_j]

56. absolutely

that's the way I see it also.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

77. I can attest to that. Although, that is the most succinct expression of the fact

that I have ever come across. Thank you!

[amborin]

38. KNR

[glitch]

42. Well, isn't that just spiffy. K & R

OT glad to see you posting regularly again Land Shark.

[defendandprotect]

43. Ouch! Compliment to Obama . . . ??? Don't think so --

[ProudDad]

44. I'll bet Yoo loved Obama giving a sickening pro-war speech

while picking up the Nobel Peace Prize!

:puke:

[sabrina 1]

45. In March of last year, after a Spanish court

opened an investigation, in response to a complaint, into the possible crimes committed by Yoo, Bybee, Gonzales, Addington and two others.

Obviously, Yoo became a bit scared and wrote an Op-ed in the WSJ I think. He played the old 'national security' card, iow, if Obama were to go along with investigating war crimes, he argued, it would threaten US National Security. Looks like he had nothing to worry about.

Airc, the Spanish court, which has the right to file charges in this case, said they would hold up the investigation to give the US a chance to prosecute their own war criminals. Obama was a new president then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html

Spanish Court Weighs Inquiry on Torture for 6 Bush-Era Officials

The complaint under review also names John C. Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote secret legal opinions saying the president had the authority to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, and Douglas J. Feith, the former under secretary of defense for policy.

Most of the officials cited in the complaint declined to comment on the allegations or could not be reached on Saturday. However their defenders have said their legal analyses and policy work on interrogation practices, conducted under great pressure after the 2001 terrorist attacks, are now being unfairly second-guessed after many years without a terrorist attack on the United States.

The court case was not entirely unexpected, as several human rights groups have been asking judges in different countries to indict Bush administration officials. One group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, had asked a German prosecutor for such an indictment, but the prosecutor declined.

Ironically, as this article points out, the US prosecuted Charles Taylor, the son of the Liberian Dictator for war crimes and sentenced him to 97 years in prison. U.S. officials praised the decision, with absoltely no sense of the irony involved.

The US clearly needs an intervention. It is obvious that US top officials who commit crimes against humanity, are perfectly safe from consequences in this country. But the world is watching and sooner or later there will be consequences, if not to actual perpetrators, to the reputation and the moral authority of this country, which is already weakened. Sad to see a Democratic president continue the practice of what we thought was the worst administration ever.

[Land Shark]

47. AS mentioned, "exhausting" domestic remedies helps give green light for international prosecutions

It's not necessary or required, but as in Spain above, prudence often dictates seeing if the country can clean up their own mess. But everyone is a poor investigator, poor prosecutor and a poor watchdog OF THEMSELVES (and Dems prosecuting republicans or vice versa is dubious at best since it will be perceived as partisan no matter how good faith it is)

[sabrina 1]

49. If that is the strategy it would be something. But there's nothing to

indicate that it is. As far as countries being poor prosecutors of their own, that is true and whenever the US finds a country that is reluctant or incapable of doing that, they have not hesitated to interfere, as in the case of Taylor, eg, or Saddam Hussein. When you hold yourself up as a moral authority on the crimes of other countries, don't you have an obligation to at least at least try to uphold domestic and international law in your own?

I agree that if this administration were to start an investigation, the right would go wild. However that didn't stop them from going after Clinton. At least appointing a Special Prosecutor and explaining to the public that if this country is going to keep its standing in the world, there has to be accounting here also.

I know what the ramifications would be. And I know Democrats would be accused of being weak on 'national security'. But the argument against that is, that it is the policy of not punishing those who have violated the law, that actually threatens our national security, far more than not doing so. By the silence of the Democrats for so long, we now have a population which has become apathetic at best, and at worst supportive of the US using torture as a weapon and making it a policy. In that case, then we have to stop criticizing others and let countries that still have some ethics, deal with those who engage in these war crimes.

Democrats did not do a good job when the Abu Ghraib crimes were revealed and the public was shocked to find that this was happening in US detention centers, of showing appropriate outrage and demanding that it stop.

However, maybe you are right, and we will see some accountability coming from outside the US because it is clear that it won't happen under this administration.

[Land Shark]

52. Agreed. I see no sign of intent to set this up for a fairer int'l tribunal. n/t

[newtothegame]

48. Regarding John Yoo, I'm sorry, but I am not comfortable at all...

with imprisoning or even executing someone (as some DU'ers have suggested) because they wrote a paper. Under this kind of thinking, half my college term papers would get me beheaded under a Republican administration.

[Land Shark]

51. If that's all they were ("papers") there wouldn't be any trouble.

You have too limited an idea of lawyers, especially when they are giving legal advice to a President (action-recommendations based on law, that is). It's quite unlike "writing a paper" even if it is on "paper" technically (in words), and quite more like the words of an order though not 100% - the non-lawyer president is in no position to argue effectively with a trained lawyer though the President has the right to make any decision. When lawyers file frivolous pleadings they can be and are sanctioned (though not as often as the other side would like). Legal advice is powerful in determining courses of actual action, often it is decisive in this regard. When the actions involve the torture of other human beings, it's quite serious, and just as with frivolous pleadings, the lawyer is not above rebuke, sanction or sentence. In fact, when a lawyer gives advice that facilitates the commission of a crime the attorney client privilege goes away and lawyers can be charged with crimes as well. (one can write a book about, and some have, "how to kill" but the smallest action step in that direction, and legal advice to a president is an action step itself and urging more action steps, crosses the line into actual and potential criminality of various kinds)

This is quite different from philosophical speculations in anyone's college papers.

[sabrina 1]

57. Well, first I don't think anyone sane is demanding imprisonment

and especially execution (which I am against) without an investigation and fair trial. And the demands both here and overseas are not prompted because he 'wrote a paper' for his college law courses.

He participated in aiding and abetting an administration who made it clear that they were above the law and he was asked to find a way of getting around those laws. He could have refused, or at least after writing his paper, added a note to let them know that in his opinion, attempting to make excuses for torture, no matter how brilliantly distorted they may be, was not advisable. I am not aware of him making any statement about the policies of torture until he was accused of being an accessory to those crimes.

You need not fear being beheaded by anyone for writing a college paper. But if you enable a criminal administration to break the law, using your legal knowledge to help them pretend they are not breaking the law, then you should have reason to fear. At least in a law-abiding society that respects human rights.

[Land Shark]

59. Actually, quite a few favor prison if facts as appearing; otherwise, WHAT's ACCOUNTABILITY?

[sabrina 1]

62. Prison, yes, after a thorough investigation and a fair trial, as I said

in my comment. I'm not in favor of just throwing people in prison no matter how guilty they appear to be without using the propor procedures. I think that was the implication in the post I responded to.

[Land Shark]

75. Yes, on closer reading, you are correct. n/t

[Brother Buzz]

58. Would you be happy if the UC Board of Regents gave Yoo his walking papers?

I know I would, but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on television so I have no idea what blowback there would be. I'd also be happy if Arnie put Yoo a permanent furlough but the courts have put the kibosh on that furlough thing.

[Land Shark]

61. No. Losing one job (or a bar license) is both too small and/or inappropriate sanction

He has his rights too, including speaking and writing in freedom, with (as many state constitutions say) "being responsible for the abuse of that right. Pure ideas shouldn't be punished. Rather, a fair trial on actions initiated, acquiesced in or encouraged that led to grave breaches of the laws of humanity need to be had, with appropriate sanctions after that. Based on the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, that would be a prison term of some length.

Yoo shouldn't be fired because of his PURE views. He might be fired for incompetence since his theories don't really hold up, but that would politically be hard to distinguish from retaliation for his ideas, plus there's the matter of any employment agreement he may or may not have, tenure, etc. The real issue is actions during the Bush administration and criminal and civil culpability for those.

[flyarm]

60. Hmmm and how many of Nixon's people that were not held accountable have been forced down our

collective throats for so much of my lifetime..

when will we ever learn..when will we everrrrrrrrr learn??????

Who could blame Yoo for kissing the ass of the very guy who is protecting his smarmy law breaking ass??????????

[Land Shark]

63. A counted number would be good. With names and items unaccounted for even better. n/t

[flyarm]

65. Start with Cheney and Rumsfeld...

Start with Cheney and Rumsfeld...


http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051230.html

George W. Bush as the New Richard M. Nixon: Both Wiretapped Illegally, and Impeachably;
Both Claimed That a President May Violate Congress' Laws to Protect National Security
By JOHN W. DEAN
Friday, Dec. 30, 2005


so many criminals were not held accountable for crimes against this nation under Nixon..

My fear is if Obama allows the criminals under Bush to walk scott free from their crimes , crimes of Treason, crimes againt humanity, crimes covered under the Geneva conventions..we will see a repeat over and over again of evil bastards like Cheney and Rumsfeld to rear their ugly fucking heads against this nation once again!

I remember the days of Nixon..saying .. never again..I still have my copy of the NYTimes the day Nixon resigned..only to see this nation sink further into dispicable crimes against our nation and her people.

If Obama holds none of these criminals to the rule of law, that every other American is subject to..I will never vote again and will look to another country for my senior years home...as my country will have left me, and our government will have desolved into a pile of shit..our democracy as i have believed in for 57 years will have died.

[Dinger]

66. Can Presidents Change Their Party Identification?

Senators and congressman can. I'm just curious.

[Land Shark]

72. Political parties aren't even in Constitution (and were disfavored back then) so, yes, it's possible

[slipslidingaway]

67. Another New Month, and Still No OPR Report

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/04/another-new-month-and-still-no-opr-report/

"...Meanwhile, it has been 48 days since Eric Holder said the OPR Report on John Yoo and other OLC lawyers would be released by the end of November. And yet we still don’t have that report.

That’s particularly interesting because–as I pointed out a month ago, just days after Holder promised the OPR report imminently, the lawyers for Jose Padilla got an extension on their appellate response to Yoo and the government’s claim that Padilla couldn’t sue Yoo for all the bad lawyering he did. Their deadline? January 15, now just 11 days away.

In the government’s amicus brief in this suit, they boasted that Padilla didn’t need to sue Yoo personally, because the government had means to punish him for bad lawyering on its own. One means they boasted of? An OPR investigation..."

[rhett o rick]

68. It is clear that the current admin isnt interested in prosecuting fellow ruling class members. nt

[slipslidingaway]

69. Sadly, I agree. n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

70. Could it be any worse that the Pharm Cartel praising HC "reform"?

[Land Shark]

73. Yes. It could involve the torture and death of human beings. n/t

[bleever]

74. K&R.

Of course.

[bkohatlanta]

76. After sending Yoo to Nuremberg, then we can send

Obama to Nuremberg. Nobody has a right to torture and murder anyone. Everyone deserves justice, both victims and perpetrators. That is what real villains are afraid of.
Hitler didn't believe us, that is why we tried his associates for War Crimes, Atrocities and Crimes Against Humanity. If he hadn't committed suicide we would have tried him too.
After that we can try George W. Bush and Karl Rove, et al.

[Land Shark]

78. Today, "Nuremberg" is just a metaphorical place. n/t