FUCK YOO!

[garybeck]

Just had to say it, considering the news.

Obama attorneys step up defense of torture memo author

Citing an argument that hallmarked the Bush years, Obama administration attorneys have asked a San Francisco court to drop all charges against Berkeley law professor John Yoo, who authored legal opinions that permitted the torture of prisoners.

...snip

Yoo should not be held accountable for his actions as it would have a chilling effect on advice provided to future presidents.

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/obama-attorneys-step-defense-torture-memo-author/

[MNDemNY]

1. Gobama!

This is why I voted for him!!

[DrDan]

2. "Medals of Freedom all around!!!"

[Forkboy]

This guy just wants his pony.

[treestar]

3. A lot of these same people were "bush attorneys" last year

IMO this is no more than leaving lawyers out of it - it is a slipper slope to punish lawyers for their advice.

[garybeck]

9. i believe that is a shortsighted view

i think the legal advice is really just cover for cheney and rumsfeld. they can say "the laywers said it was OK" but in reality, they told the lawyers exactly what to say. they should go after Yoo and he will spill the beans and point the finger where it needs to be pointed.

[treestar]

12. Yoo is obviously a right wing tool

But both sides have lawyers. The side that argues against Yoo's argument definitely wins. But starting the precedent could put the lawyer's on the good side in danger in another administration (which right wing administrations would be only too glad to use).

I agree that Yoo's arguments were just tailored to Bush and Cheney's desires - it was wrong and bad law. But as long as the courts don't go for it, and they don't have to, it's a danger to make it a problem.

Now maybe Yoo could be said to have made frivolous arguments. But again, that is dangerous and it chills any new argument ever being made.

[garybeck]

13. talk about setting a precident....

I'm not an expert but my understanding is that the law is very clear on torture. it's illegal, period.

what if a lawyer advised a president it's OK to shoot someone in the head? Or cancel elections for no apparant reason?

we can't give lawyers the power to interpret the law any way they want with no checks and balances, using this as cover for politicians to do whatever they want.

THAT would be a HORRIBLE precident to set.

[mmonk]

15. Yep. We need to fight to turn us back into a rule of law country.

The current administration isn't going to do it and righwting judges aren't going to do it.

[phasma ex machina]

32. "what if a lawyer advised a president it's OK to shoot someone in the head?"

Probably already happened, truth be known.

During Japan's WWII conquest of Corregidor the powers that be kicked around the notion that MacArthur might very well best serve his country as a martyr.

[flyarm]

30. " it was wrong and bad law"..nooooooo it was breaking the law!!!!!!!

big fucking differencSto with the fucking excuses will ya..it is getting disgusting so many that make excuses for this bullshit!

[MNDemNY]

29. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7194785

[katandmoon]

4. Yes we CAN protect Bush war criminals!

[YOY]

5. First the War hawks get their ponies and now the torture folks???

Wow. This administration is just a fucking cavalcade of ponies!

Let's just hope the Patriot Act gets that true thumbs up...I mean the anti-constitution folks need their ponies too!!!

[dwnorman]

6. your intellect is showing

[YOY]

16. Clearly John Yoo is a savior of due legal procedure.

Clearly this man who justified torture in our name needs to be defended.

Clearly.

So clearly.

[aquart]

7. Not with a ten foot pole.

Well, maybe then. Would it be considered torture?

[garybeck]

8. not if it's during the "war on terra"

[Subdivisions]

10. So, what they're saying is if Yoo is convicted that future advisors will be reticent to

advise that torture be used to illicit confessions from criminals?

Um...so what was the problem again?

[garybeck]

26. Exactly!

and the antithesis is true as well... if he is NOT convicted or punished in any way, this will only show that a politician can do anything they want as long as they can find an lawyer to say it's OK. How's that for a precedent?

[spanone]

11. ain't that america.....fuck yoo, fuck me

[omega minimo]

14. NO EFFEN WAY!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS THE SHIT THEY PULLED WITH OLLIE NORTH, THE "HERO"

[loyalkydem]

17. He's not my type

no thanks

[Xicano]

18. Two Sets Of Laws! How Blatant Does It Have To Get?

There is absolutely no excuse here. The law is unambiguous as to how to handle these situations, its called "due process." John Yoo is entitled to due process, AND, equally we THE PEOPLE are entitled to due process with respect to investigating, arresting, arraigning and prosecuting Mr. Yoo if there is sufficient evidence - which in this case there is.

Given these facts, plus, the fact that the Obama administration is taking the extra judicial step of obstructing justice on behalf of Washington insiders - not just John Yoo. Given the fact that other administrations have done the same exact thing. Plus, given the fact that none of us are excused from investigation/prosecution of alleged crimes supported by sufficient evidence. Given these facts there is only but one conclusion. There are two sets of laws in this country. One set for us holding us accountable for all our unlawful actions if we had indeed violated a law -and- a different set of laws for them where they are only held accountable if the stink and visibility of their crimes are as such where they couldn't get away with just sweeping it under the rug.

How does that make you feel serf? Now get your ass back down to steerage where you belong so the good ladies and gentlemen up here don't have to look at your sorry ass. Oh, and here's 25¢ go and clean and press my laundry like a good little serf - now run along.

When they TAKE our money. When they violate our freedoms (i.e. reproductive rights, marriage rights, rights to do to our bodies what we wish, etc.). When they have a different set of laws than what are forced upon us. When they listen to themselves over listening to us. You can't call it anything else than what it is. The oligarchy we defeated in the revolution and beat back a few times since is back and back bigger than ever before.

And here we sit looking just like these fools >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv6dYxf6xg8#t=4m13s

[ThomCat]

23. +1

And the Obamatons go on blindly cheering everything this administration does, claiming that Obama is somehow the most progressive president we have ever had. :grr:

[Enthusiast]

27. Times change. nt

[Individualist]

19. DLC is enabling republicans again...and again and again and again, etc.

[booley]

20. Chilling Effect?!

Would this have a "chilling effect?

Yes.

OF course the natural follow up is a chilling effect on what exactly?

Lawyers can already be held accountable if they give their clients advice that it is legal for them to do illegal things. They are not supposed to help their clients commit a crime.

This could have a chilling effect on not enforcing that basic ethical rule.

[n2doc]

21. ...

[Toasterlad]

22. Obama's Lawyers Just LOVE to Use Bush's Legal Arguments

[depakid]

24. This administration's turning out to be an utter and complete disgrace on this front

No excuse whatsoever for this.

Fact is, neither I (nor others I know) were ever much impressed with the notion of Obama as some sort of "constitutional scholar" simply becuase he wrote a law review note and taught a few classes.

This (and other similar deals) just goes to show that our perceptions were correct.

[philly_bob]

25. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist. Canceled my subscription. /nt

[Soylent Brice]

28. i'm getting really depressed.

[amborin]

31. is he still raking in a second salary in so cal?