John Yoo

[JoeTheJuggler]

So is John Yoo still practicing law? Wiki says he's "is currently serving as a visiting professor of law at the Chapman University School of Law in Orange County, California."

After the torture memo, we now know he was the single person who told the Bush administration that the warrantless domestic wiretapping was legal.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...nce/index.html

There's obviously plenty of guilt to go around surrounding these things, but this guy in particular should NOT be a professor of law anywhere, and he should be disbarred at the very least.

Either his legal reasoning is so bad that he's grossly incompetent, or he's got some severe ethics problems (giving a client the legal advice the client wants rather than what he knows is legally accurate).

[pgwenthold]

I heard a claim the other day that the DoJ prosecuted a Texas sheriff in the early 70s for waterboarding a suspect, and described the practice as torture. However, John Yoo apparently either didn't know about that case, or did not think it bore any significance on determining whether the US government considered waterboarding to be torture or not.

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

I heard a claim the other day that the DoJ prosecuted a Texas sheriff in the early 70s for waterboarding a suspect, and described the practice as torture. However, John Yoo apparently either didn't know about that case, or did not think it bore any significance on determining whether the US government considered waterboarding to be torture or not.

A more serious problem is that John Yoo totally ignored Supreme Court rulings that found that the President was indeed constrained by the laws written by Congress. While claiming that the President could ignore any law, treaty, court or Congressional act.

He also ignored a clause in the FISA law that specifically mentioning procedures during time of war and claimed that FISA never applied during war.

Before Yoo, legal opinions developed by the OLC were reviewed by lawyers in other affected Federal agencies. Yoo's opinions were kept a closely held secret, not subject to the normal review process and not even shown to the other agencies afterwards. In some cases, Yoo even kept his opinions secret from the head of the OLC.

[leftysergeant]

Actually, I would spread the blame over five people.

1. The Shrub authorized it because he had delusions of majesty.

2. Cheney wanted to do that sort of thing because he is morally depraved and not bright.

3. Rummy thought it would actually work and he has less intellectual horsepower than he has moral integrity.

4. Yoo is a snivelling sycophant willing to work any kind of evil his superiors want him to in order to gain their favor.

5. Gonzo was in on it, and he falsely presumes himself to be a competant lawyer, and he is willing to endorse and abett evil if his client wishes to pay him to endorse such evil, and he stupidly thought that he was still the Shrub's lawyer instead of ours.

Frog march the lot of them to The Hague.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Actually, I would spread the blame over five people.

1. The Shrub authorized it because he had delusions of majesty.

2. Cheney wanted to do that sort of thing because he is morally depraved and not bright.

3. Rummy thought it would actually work and he has less intellectual horsepower than he has moral integrity.

4. Yoo is a snivelling sycophant willing to work any kind of evil his superiors want him to in order to gain their favor.

5. Gonzo was in on it, and he falsely presumes himself to be a competant lawyer, and he is willing to endorse and abett evil if his client wishes to pay him to endorse such evil, and he stupidly thought that he was still the Shrub's lawyer instead of ours.

Frog march the lot of them to The Hague.

Should Obama be on this list, and if not, why not?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by mortimer

Should Obama be on this list, and if not, why not?

Of course not. Obama was not in charge when our government went medevial. Obama did not order or endorse torture, and he is not taking the advice of that mumbling nosferatu from the previous regime who has been going around the country trying to scare us into believing that we are screwed because Obama does not conduct himself like a plundering barbarian king.

The Shrub and his band of merry misfits are totally responsible for the pain, anguish and murder that has been done in our name since 2001, and should pay for it.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Of course not. Obama was not in charge when our government went medevial. Obama did not order or endorse torture, and he is not taking the advice of that mumbling nosferatu from the previous regime who has been going around the country trying to scare us into believing that we are screwed because Obama does not conduct himself like a plundering barbarian king.

The Shrub and his band of merry misfits are totally responsible for the pain, anguish and murder that has been done in our name since 2001, and should pay for it.

But Obama has argued in favor of extending warrantless wiretapping and detention without trial. Even after promising during his campaign to end these practices. Does he get off scot free, because he didn't start these practices?

[SezMe]

Violating campaign promises is not unconstitutional. But, yes, Obama is going to pay a heavy price if he continues Bush policies which then found to have violated law.

But let's not get distracted into another torture/Bush/Obama derail. This is about Yoo.

[Cain]

Agree with Sez, let's not get taken off-topic with Obama nonsense. As for Yoo, I think he should go back to directing, but like back in the day, when he did Hard Boiled. Some of his early American actions films were watchable (Broken Arrow, Face-Off), but started getting over-the-top ridiculous with Mission: Impossible 2, which has been compared to waterboarding (I hear there's a legendary four and a half hour director's cut, and I have to admit, I'd watch it, but with remote in hand). I still don't understand that guy's obsession with doves.

[Dancing David]

Um, this is an interesting approach to government where it might seem that a single memo or series of memos is the fault of a single person and led to the overturning of the COTUS and legislative authority.

Of course it was a lot of people behaving deliberately to get around the COTUS and legislation and then hiding behind the memos.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

Um, this is an interesting approach to government where it might seem that a single memo or series of memos is the fault of a single person and led to the overturning of the COTUS and legislative authority.

Of course it was a lot of people behaving deliberately to get around the COTUS and legislation and then hiding behind the memos.

I agree there were plenty of people who did wrong, and they should all be held accountable. In this case, though, it seems that Yoo was the single person who created the legal fiction that justified warrantless wiretapping. (Yes, his bosses at Justice should be held accountable, and certain Bush and company are even more culpable for implementing policy based on this terrible legal advice.)

BUT, what really bugs me is that the guy is still allowed to practice law and even teach at a law school.

[mortimer]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I agree there were plenty of people who did wrong, and they should all be held accountable. In this case, though, it seems that Yoo was the single person who created the legal fiction that justified warrantless wiretapping. (Yes, his bosses at Justice should be held accountable, and certain Bush and company are even more culpable for implementing policy based on this terrible legal advice.)

BUT, what really bugs me is that the guy is still allowed to practice law and even teach at a law school.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know much about the bar, but what exactly did he do that you believe warrants his disbarment? That he issued a flawed legal opinion? There wouldn't be any lawyers left in the bar if that was a criterion.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by mortimer

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know much about the bar, but what exactly did he do that you believe warrants his disbarment? That he issued a flawed legal opinion? There wouldn't be any lawyers left in the bar if that was a criterion.

Are you familiar with the concept of "criminal facilitation of murder?"

I think that leaves him vulnerable to a lot more adversive actions than disbarment. Hanging, for instance, is an accepted penmalty in a lot of otherwise civilized countries. His is one of the cases in which I would even consider it acceptable, right along with those involving serial-killer pedos.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by mortimer

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know much about the bar, but what exactly did he do that you believe warrants his disbarment? That he issued a flawed legal opinion? There wouldn't be any lawyers left in the bar if that was a criterion.

He basically used Richard Nixon's legal theory: if the president does it, that means it's not a crime.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I do know that the Fourth Amendment says:

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by mortimer

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I know much about the bar, but what exactly did he do that you believe warrants his disbarment?

Accessory to abduction and other federal crimes (felonies).

Under USC 18, section 2, this is a felony.

Commission of a felony is a disbarment offense.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I think that leaves him vulnerable to a lot more adversive actions than disbarment. Hanging, for instance, is an accepted penmalty in a lot of otherwise civilized countries.

Under US (Federal) law (USC 18 sec 2), accomplices are subject to the same punishment as principles except that mere accomplices cannot be subject to the death penalty.

"Criminal facilitation of murder" could put Yoo away in Club Fed for life.

[leftysergeant]

Under the theory of "agency" which Morris Dees used to gut the KKK, Yoo could be described as a perp as well.

[pgwenthold]

A complaint I've heard about Yoo and the memos is that, generally, the job of the person in his position is to provide a legal perspective on the issue. Basically, he/she should be acting like a judge, making the legal ruling. Yoo, OTOH, viewed the position as a lawyer working on behalf the client, trying to advocate the cause as opposed to giving a comprehensive legal ruling. As I mentioned, he didn't reference or even mention a previous stated DoJ ruling that waterboarding was torture. It's not that he would have to agree, but he would have to provide a rational explanation for why that case does not apply.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

A complaint I've heard about Yoo and the memos is that, generally, the job of the person in his position is to provide a legal perspective on the issue. Basically, he/she should be acting like a judge, making the legal ruling. Yoo, OTOH, viewed the position as a lawyer working on behalf the client, trying to advocate the cause as opposed to giving a comprehensive legal ruling. As I mentioned, he didn't reference or even mention a previous stated DoJ ruling that waterboarding was torture. It's not that he would have to agree, but he would have to provide a rational explanation for why that case does not apply.

I think you're getting at the point I made before: if Yoo didn't do something criminally unethical, then he'd have to argue that he's grossly incompetent as an attorney.

At any rate, it sounds like AG Holder is considering appointing someone to investigate these and other matters. The problem is that there is also a push by some to grant these characters immunity before the investigation even gets going (that is to take prosecution "off the table"). I hope that doesn't happen.

The Obama administration's line has been something like, "we just want to look forward, not backward". That's pure BS. If that were really the case, it would essentially mean the end of all criminal prosecutions. Or do we only avoid looking backward when the suspects of crimes are high government officials? We certainly look backward when it comes to drug dealing, rape, murder, and so on.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

The Obama administration's line has been something like, "we just want to look forward, not backward". That's pure BS. If that were really the case, it would essentially mean the end of all criminal prosecutions. Or do we only avoid looking backward when the suspects of crimes are high government officials?

No, we avoid looking backwards when the social cost of doing so is too high, because the act of looking backwards is likely to be extremely divisive.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. What good would be served by disbarring John Yoo? How will it benefit society?

There comes a point when it is sensible to walk away from sunk costs instead of throwing good money and effort after bad. Has that point been reached?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

A complaint I've heard about Yoo and the memos is that, generally, the job of the person in his position is to provide a legal perspective on the issue. Basically, he/she should be acting like a judge, making the legal ruling. Yoo, OTOH, viewed the position as a lawyer working on behalf the client, trying to advocate the cause as opposed to giving a comprehensive legal ruling. As I mentioned, he didn't reference or even mention a previous stated DoJ ruling that waterboarding was torture. It's not that he would have to agree, but he would have to provide a rational explanation for why that case does not apply.

Lefty Sergeant brings up a worthy point: the decision was made by Bush, and others, who have a statutory requirement to be lawful in their actions. (His hyperbole I'll overlook.) Calling Yoo an accomplice strikes me as aiming at the wrong target.

By the way, Lefty, no, not to the Hague. Our problem, we clean it up.

If the people he was advising were fools enough to only listen to a single legal opinion (were they? good question) and then act on that basis, they behaved irresponsibly, whether or not it can be shown that they behaved illegally to a standard necessary for any criminal.

Ashcroft and Gonzo: out of the loop?

I don't think so. Yoo's advice or no, the AG has statutory responsibilties to the Executive. (Recalls story on Ashcroft in hospital and DoJ underlings trying to sandbag him into signing ... what was it? And he would not sign off on it.)

FISA Follies happened on Ashcroft's watch, and if I recall my FISA reading from a few years ago, he was hands on with that program.

@ drkitten on reaching a certain point: in Yoo's case, probably, but maybe not for the people he worked for.

DR

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by drkitten

No, we avoid looking backwards when the social cost of doing so is too high, because the act of looking backwards is likely to be extremely divisive.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. What good would be served by disbarring John Yoo? How will it benefit society?

It will demonstrate that no one is above the law. It will serve as a standard for future government leaders to obey.

It would avoid bringing up a generation of children that if you commit a big enough crime, people will just shrug it off out of fear of going up against anyone that powerful.

Criminal acts should have adverse and publicly observable consequences, for the good of the children if for nothing else.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. What good would be served by disbarring John Yoo? How will it benefit society?

For one thing, he wouldn't be able to abuse the law again as a practicing lawyer. More importantly, he wouldn't be teaching law to new students and possibly giving rise to a whole bunch of lawyers with very strange ideas.

There's also the same reasons why we prosecute any kind of criminal action (or hold any licensed professional accountable for their actions): a sense of justice, to deter similar things from happening in the future, and so on.

There's also our reputation in the world as being a law-abiding country. Do we really recognize the laws against torture, for example? Or does it depend on who's in office at any given moment?

Quote:

There comes a point when it is sensible to walk away from sunk costs instead of throwing good money and effort after bad. Has that point been reached?

I don't agree there is such a point in important matters. For example, we don't worry overmuch about the cost of prosecuting a murder case. Nor do such serious crimes have a statue of limitation. It's that important. The issues with Yoo and the others are torture, warrantless wiretapping and so on--very important, fundamental issues--those that address the natural rights that are so important to our form of government.

******

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Lefty Sergeant brings up a worthy point: the decision was made by Bush, and others, who have a statutory requirement to be lawful in their actions. (His hyperbole I'll overlook.) Calling Yoo an accomplice strikes me as aiming at the wrong target.

I agree that Bush is ultimately responsible for all this stuff, and probably the most open to criminal prosecution, but there's no legal or moral reason that going after anyone else who is culpable would prevent that prosecution. Also, if you convict Yoo as an accomplice, you would have a strong case already that there is a principal criminal.

Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that someone will be made to take the fall for all of them, which is a darn shame. Ideally, anyone who participated in these serious crimes should be made to answer for them.