Congressional hearings have revealed that John Yoo was the favored candidate to lead the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department based on a single resume item: his tolerance and support of torture. Alberto Gonzales and Cheney aide David S. Addington fought former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who submitted five names for the position that conspicuously omitted Yoo’s name.
The confrontation in 2003 resulted in a different candidate — Jack Goldsmith — being put into the position as a compromise. The vacancy was produced by the departure of Office of Legal Counsel chief Jay S. Bybee for the courts as a new federal judge. While Ashcroft submitted a list of qualified candidates including Paul Clement (who became solicitor general), the White House wanted someone who was torture-certified. It is an insight into how important the torture program was to the White House.
Once the torture program was revealed, the White House and military repeatedly defended itself by insisting that lawyers had reviewed the program and found its clearly lawful. Many scoffed at the notion — given the ability of the Bush Administration to hand pick such lawyers (who proved to be wrong repeatedly on these questions). Now, we have an insight into the lengths to which the Administration would go to guarantee the “right” lawyers reviewed such questions. It is also another ignoble moment for Yoo, whose supporters have insisted that he has more to his background than simply torture. Not according to the White House, it appears. It was Yoo’s willingness to sign off on torture that made him a viable candidate for Bush and Cheney zealots.
This seems to fall into a pattern of earning your bones (or your bona fides) in the Baba Bing! Bush Club.
For the full story, click here.
I always knew that Mr. Yoo was specially qualified for this position. The only thing I don’t get is how a prestigious university Law School could retain this guy as a law professor. I am talking about his political views. I am talking about his insane logic in trying to claim torture is legal and somewhere the Constitution allows the President to overturn laws just because he is the President during “wartime”.
The problem is your definition of “torture” doesn’t fit with what the vast majority of Americans, maybe 85%, would call torture. Nor does 85% of America view harsh interrogation that may result in saving American lives wrong.
dundar:
“The problem is your definition of “torture” doesn’t fit with what the vast majority of Americans, maybe 85%, would call torture. Nor does 85% of America view harsh interrogation that may result in saving American lives wrong.”
********************
Maybe 85%, maybe 19%, what’s the difference? Thank you for the totally unsupported polling “facts.” I suppose you polled persons who “think” as you do. Regardless of misguided opinions, the law is clear, and that’s why Bush wanted a “yes man” to fill the top job. When you can pick the referee, getting the result you want is no problem, and it allows you some cover for your crimes. This is the most unethical group of thugs I have ever seen, and I reserve much of my contempt for shills like John Yoo and David Addington, who knew better, and played along for profit. Throw “Judge” Bybee in there too.
This isn’t a “majority rules” issue, dundar. It’s a matter of the law and of integrity. If we could randomly apply that concept whenever it suited the need, we could have been rid of the baffoon in the White House a long time ago given that about 85% deem his performance a dismal failure.
For members of a political party that professes to believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution and used to be known as the “law and order” party, folks on the right are willing to play pretty fast and loose with the laws of the land. The US is a signatory to multiple international agreements and treaties that specifically prohibit much of the torture activities employed. There are also US laws banning such tactics.
I am reminded that a definition of integrity is doing the right thing when no one is watching. Following this issue and watching the mental gymnastics the administration has used to stonewall and parse words exposes their complete lack of integrity and a deep seated contempt for America’s rule of law from the top down. It’s an embarrassing display of anti-American facsist behavior and any one who loves America should be ashamed to try to defend or justify it.
Why do Republicans hate America so?
RCampbell and Mespo,
How right you both are. Dundar as usual, doesn’t understand that until you change the law, you can’t violate the law without being subject to the punishment. I know he is used to George doing whatever he pleases under the imaginary Unitary Executive theory that Cheney and people like Yoo tried to advance. So it will take Dundar a little time to adjust to the reality of the rule of law.
rafflaw:
dundar’s “law” comes from the jungle where might makes right. He’s just another panty waist Machiavellian trying to promote and justify his ideological buddies’ grab for power.
As citizens whose laws have been broken and who have definitely been effected by the results of those laws having been broken, may we not join in a class action civil suit against cheney/bush and their high paid minions? We were lied into a war and so many of our people have died and become disabled (not to mention the hell in other countries). May we not seek personal damages for having to pay in lives and money for a deliberate lie?
Mespo,
I like the name for your show. I just saw a VA driver with the license place: X TY C. He was driving a BMW. I sure hope that guys a cop! If he’s not, he will be aquainted with many cops in his driving career.
rafflaw,
I too wonder why a prestigious university keeps on a 5th rate legal mind who happens to be a war criminal.
Jill
Dundar,
Exactly which false confession elicited from “harsh interrogation” (torture) saved an Americans life?
Josh,
I was thinking the same thing. What we know for certain is that engaging in torture has radicalized people to kill our soldiers.
Mespo,
I like that term,”Dundar’s Law”. It sounds so scientific.
Jill and Josh,
The reason we haven’t been told of the information that allegedly saved lives is that there isn’t any. The Bush felons would have leaked that years ago to try to get some political traction if it really existed.
10/4 on that one rafflaw.
To the lawyers:
Really haven’t we been defrauded financially by this govt.? I don’t mean to be crass but money gets people’s attention. A lot of people are angry about the trillion or so being dumped into a deliberately/knowingingly false investment (war). Isn’t that a kind of investment fraud? The govt. is cracking down on those people of late. May we sue?
dundar
1, July 18, 2008 at 8:22 am
The problem is your definition of “torture” doesn’t fit with what the vast majority of Americans, maybe 85%, would call torture
Waterboard 85 percent of them, and watch that number do a 180.
Worked for Chris Hitchens.
The “official lie” about waterboarding, Hitchens says, is that it “simulates the feeling of drowning”. In fact, “you are drowning - or rather, being drowned”.
Christopher Hitchens
Believe me, it’s torture
Christopher Hitchens
And of course, your percentage figures are clearly fabricated.
85 percent of perhaps, “Inbreedia USA” might have responded that way, but I doubt a wide sampling poll returned those figures.
Unless you are polling only America’s Trailer Parks with this question, I think you’ll find the majority of Ameircans are not ok with being “kept safe” by the Gestapo.
BARTLEBEE,
Did C. Hitchens have himself waterboarded? I wish every advocate would do that before they speak about how it’s no bid deal.
I do have a criticism. There’s too much classism in this nation. Ignorant opinions don’t have a class or education level. They aren’t located by address. As much as I do not like PANCers they are some of the most well educated people in America. Yoo is teaching at a prestigious university. Classism hides the reality that educated people believe/spout and act on some very destructive lies.
White Trash and Proud!
Jill
I meant, PNACers!
Sorry.
Jill,
The war in Iraq is fraud. It is intentional and that is one of the reasons why we are in Iraq is for the money for Bush and his corporate sponosrs.
We came for the oil but stayed for the contracting.
Jill
1, July 18, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Did C. Hitchens have himself waterboarded?
He sure did. In fact he wrote an entire article that came out in I believe the May edition of Vanity Fair.
In the article, Hitchens, a former proponent of waterboarding, now declares, having experienced it firsthand, “YES, IT’S TORTURE”.
He also admits that in his experience, he always knew it was a faux experience, that is, it was no where near as severe as when its done to prisoners, who don’t have a “safe word” or a “dead-mans lever” (his hand holds an object, and if he drops it, it means he’s essentially dying and can’t speak) that will save them when it gets too intense.
Hitchen did have these safety’s and he still paniced, and immediately asked for it to stop.
He declared it was unequivocally torture, and thus, one of the strongest, most (and possibly only)articulate and educated proponent of the Bush administrations program of torture, now is one of its opponents.
He was lost, but having been baptized himself, is now found.
In fact, the title of the Vanity Fair article is “Believe me, it’s torture”
You can read Hitchens article, and see photo’s, here.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808
Its a great read, and I’m surprised not more people in the MSM are talking about this.
It pretty much does away with the few sad holdouts in this country who still want to call it something humane, which its not.
The photos are just wonderful, as are the quotes.
The “official lie” about waterboarding, is that it ’simulates the feeling of drowning’.
..you are drowning - or rather, being drowned.”
Christopher Hitchens
—-
The “official lie”….. gee I love that kind of talk.
The fact is, we’re tying people….human beings…to boards… and then drowing them.
Like rats.
Then, we revive them, and do it all over again…unless they tell us what we want to hear.
Which is exactly what they do.
Tell us what we “want” to hear.
Jill:
“Really haven’t we been defrauded financially by this govt.? I don’t mean to be crass but money gets people’s attention. A lot of people are angry about the trillion or so being dumped into a deliberately/knowingingly false investment (war). Isn’t that a kind of investment fraud? The govt. is cracking down on those people of late. May we sue?”
***********************
Well maybe under the ancient writ of Qui Tam which allows for suits by private citizens for fraud against the government. Maybe these guys have committed fraud against us all.
Thanks for the link, BARTLEBEE.
Oh and sorry Jill about the trailerpark thing. Just an expression, but probably not the best one. I”ll stay with “Inbreedia”. More generic that way. Inbreedia’s more of a state of mind, than an actual place.
And for those members of the village of “Inbreedia”, who still think that they have a leg to stand on when mocking opponents of waterboard calling it “safe” and “humane”, listen up.
Before being voluntarily waterboarded, the military has you sign a “waiver”, which includes the following;
“Water boarding” is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.
Any questions?
That’s very interesting Mespo!
That explains alot. Cheney and minions were all waterboarded. No wonder their neurological systems ain’t right!
I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”
Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.
Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens story should have made a much bigger splash if the Main Stream media wasn’t asleep at the wheel.
Agreed Rafflaw.
I was just re-reading it on Vanity Fairs website, and I think I see the problem.
Its for the “August” issue of Vanity fair, not the current one.
So when it comes out towards the end of this month, I am hoping it makes that big splash.
The press has been slack on talking about this, mostly because they know their own culpability in not condemning it sooner.
But when a neoconservative author and pundit, comes out with an article declaring unequivocally “YES, ITS TORTURE”, then who is left that wants to argue its not?
And if its torture, then Bush and his Reichstag Rejects, are guilty of authorizing torture, and should be arrested and thrown into prison.
At the Hague.
“and we would’ve gotten away with it too…. if it wasn’t for those meddling kids…”
George W Bush (from his cell in Nuremburg)
January 21, 2009
” Well maybe under the ancient writ of Qui Tam which allows for suits by private citizens for fraud against the government. Maybe these guys have committed fraud against us all.”
*****
Sovereign immunity aside, along with Whistle-Blower status,
I think it ‘could’ be done under Torts Claims, although with an unlikely positive result - unfortunately.
Otherwise, one needs ‘permission’ to sue the US Government
- as most of us learned in grade school Civics Class!
Mespo?
Patty here’s an answer to your question. The govt. may be involved but doesn’t have to be.
“If the government does not decide to participate in a qui tam action, the relator may proceed without the Department of Justice, though such cases classically have a much lower success rate. Relators who do prevail in such cases will get a higher relator’s share in the neighborhood of 25-30%. Conventional wisdom states that this is due in part to the fact that the government will get involved in what it believes are winning cases, but will avoid losing cases.”
Of course, Mespo and other attorneys will have more information.
Patty/Jill:
I think that is correct. Here you need not obtain government permission. The tricky part is separating the fraudulent actor from his immunity as a government official. Maybe by arguing his actions were ultra vires –sort of a “Wednesbury unreasonableness” standard in American law.
Jill and Mespo thanks for the primer on Qui Tam actions. I am in favor of any measure that can be taken to put pressure on this out of control Bush regime.
I was expressing my opinion as to the present likelihood of prevailing.
“The tricky part is separating the fraudulent actor from his immunity as a government official”
Believe me, there is nothing I would enjoy more than seeing the Bush crime family’s foreign and domestic assets frozen - while we do some accounting of our own…
I hope Mr. Yoo is picked up one day by Al Qaida or if there is ever a war against Korea and he is “interned” like the Japanese during WWII and someone “harshly” interrogates him. The reason why the US doesn’t want any trials for most “detainees” in Guantanamo is that all those that weren’t terrorists (and that’s probably almost all) before they were tortured, will probably become terrorists once they get out.
I would suspect that 100% of people would call it torture if it were happening to them. Too bad they didn’t finish the job with Hitchens (another Jew who hates Islam but will write or say whatever sells).
And by the way, how is someone that fights an occupying army in their own country a “terrorist”. I guess all the people above and Bush doesn’t know who Nathan Hale was and that Nelson Mandela was also a “terrorist”.