DOJ Watchdog "Revising" Critical Report on John Yoo's Legal Work on Torture

[babsbunny]

http://www.truthout.org/040109J

Wednesday 01 April 2009

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report

A Justice Department watchdog report that is said to be highly critical of the legal work conducted for the Bush administration by three attorneys who worked at the agency's powerful Office of Legal Counsel, is in the process of being revised after the agency received responses on the report's conclusions from the attorneys under scrutiny, according to a letter sent to two Democratic senators by a Justice Department's acting assistant attorney general.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is apparently "watering" down some of the more critical conclusions related to legal opinions on "enhanced interrogation" policies based on responses from John Yoo, Steven Bradbury and Jay Bybee. It's now unknown, the DOJ said, when the revised version of its report would be complete.

[pleah]

1. K&R

[DCKit]

2. Since when do the losers get to write the history?

The housecleaning at the alphabet agencies isn't going well.

[rgbecker]

3. I'd like to ask Yoo what he would change about a decision he made when under so much pressure.

I never heard the rightwinger suggest he made a mistake as he rushed to tell Bush its OK to waterboard whomever he wants.



Here's the last paragraphs of the article at Truthout:

In an apparent response to criticism of the quality of his legal opinions that gave President George W. Bush virtually unchecked power, Yoo said working for the federal government gave him "very little time to make very important decisions.... You don't have the luxury to research every single thing and that's accelerated in war time."

"You really have decisions to make, which you could spend years on," Yoo told the Orange County Register in an interview published March 3. "Sometimes what we forget as private citizens, or scholars, or students or journalists for sure , is that in hindsight, it's easier to say, 'Here's what I would have done.' But when you're in the government, at the time you make the decision, you don't have that kind of luxury."

In response to a question about the OPR investigation, Yoo said he wished "they weren't doing it."

"But I understand why they are," Yoo told the OC Register. "It is something one would expect. You have to make these kinds of decisions in an unprecedented kind of war with legal questions we've never had to think about before.

"We didn't seek out those questions. 9/11 kind of thrust them on us. No matter what you do, there's going to be a lot of people who are upset with your decision. If Bush had done nothing, there would be a lot of people upset with his decision, too.

"I understood that while we were doing it, there were going to be people who were critical. I can't go farther into it, because it's still going on right now. I'm not trying to escape responsibility for my decisions. I have to wait and see what they say."


Here's what I say: Fuck You.

[Spazito]

4. Geez, he is so despicable...

Anyone with one eye and half an asshole would know those actions behind the "questions" were illegal under the constitution, full stop.

"You have to make these kinds of decisions in an unprecedented kind of war with legal questions we've never had to think about before."

I suggest, Mr. Yoo, you should have watched "Judgment at Nuremberg", those "questions" were asked at that time and lawyers/judges just like you, no doubt, gave the same kind of "answers".

Despicable, beyond despicable.

[chill_wind]

5. Mukasey? This reeks.

"Faith Burton, the DOJ's Acting Assistant Attorney General, confirmed that the report was completed in late December 2008, and that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip reviewed it and demanded that Bradbury, Yoo and Bybee be given an opportunity to respond."


Emptywheel has more on this:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/31/durbin-and-whitehouse-why-did-mukasey-give-olc-a-peek-at-the-yoobradbury-results/

Durbin and Whitehouse: Why Did Mukasey Give OLC a Peek at the Yoo/Bradbury Results?

Some of the questions Whitehouse and Durbin are asking the DOJ such as "whether allowing the subjects of an investigation normally get to comment on the outcome of it.":

1. Was Steven Bradbury involved in reviewing and commenting on the draft OPR report?

2. Is there any precedent for allowing the subject of an OPR investigation to review and provide comments on a draft report on OPR’s findings and conclusions?

3. Have the former Justice Department attorneys who are the subjects of the investigation been given a deadline for responding?

4. Will OPR provide Attorney General Holder and Deputy Attorney General Ogden with the draft report that it provided to Attorney General Mukasey so that Attorney General Holder and Deputy Attorney General Ogden will know what revisions have been made to the report?

Here's the best part (back to the OP link):

"OPR will then provide a final report to the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. After any additional review they deem appropriate, the Department will determine what disclosures should be made. Due to the complexity and classification level of the draft report, the review process described above likely will require substantial time and effort."

Burton, however, said she could not make any promises that the report would be publicly released, nor could she predict if and when Durbin and Whitehouse would get an opportunity to review the report.

"While we appreciate your request for a disclosure commitment, we can only fully evaluate the scope of appropriate disclosures once the review process is completed," Burton said. "We trust you understand that those decisions depend in part on the content and conclusions of the OPR final report and the outcome of any further Departmental review."

"if and when" even Durbin and Whitehouse might get it.