Obama lawyers: Drop John Yoo's charges

[jgraz]

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.

An http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/DOJ-Amicus.pdf">amicus curiae brief filed by the Department of Justice with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday essentially argues that because he was giving advice to the president on a national security matter, Yoo should not be held accountable for his actions as it would have a chilling effect on advice provided to future presidents.

In other words, the DoJ explained, accusations of torture in this case present "special factors" that the court should not address "in the absence of congressional action."

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

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Each day I find myself more speechless than the day before....

[HowHasItComeToThis]

22. WE DON'T WANT THAT KIND OF ADVICE IN THE FUTURE

[IndianaGreen]

2. Torture is now a virtue!

Still going on as we post here.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Team Obama is probably right on this one

We cannot have private lawsuits against presidential advisors for what they advised. In a case like this it sucks, but as precedent it would be a bad way to run a government.

(The phrase "drop all charges" in the article is confusing since he is not charged by the government with any crimes.)

If Yoo broke laws he should face a criminal trial, of course.

And he should be probably disbarred by whatever state(s) have been foolish enough to allow him to practice law.

[tblue]

13. Really? If he 'advised' the president to torture, knowing that's illegal?

It's illegal to, say, torture but is okay to tell the president it's legal? Just trying to understand.

Or is the problem that it's a private lawsuit?

And is the door still open for Congress to act? (Doubt that it will.)

[jgraz]

16. This is Bush League chicanery. Yoo was part of a criminal conspiracy.

If Obama had any spine Yoo and his clients would be in prison right now.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. I STRONGLY favor criminal charges against that whole crew

What is at issue in the OP is not a criminal case, however.

[jgraz]

23. Yes, what's at issue is Bush Regime legal arguments

And Obama's attorneys using them to protect a war criminal.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

27. Convict Yoo of a capital criminal offense and I will throw the switch personally.

My comment was about setting precedents in suits against the government, not about whether Yoo is an evil man.

The administration would be making the same argument in a suit against the Interior Department over land use that named an adviser to the Secretary.

[tblue]

38. I don't thInk it's a matter of spine.

I think Obama is doing what he wants to do. He doesn't want Yoo or anyone else in the B/C admin prosecuted, for whatever reason. I take Obama at his word, so to speak. I am done trying to read his mind or question how he's being manipulated. I can only judge him by what he does anyway.

[jgraz]

39. You might be right there

Which is even more depressing. :-(

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. It's not a criminal defense

A presidential adviser doesn't have any special right to commit crimes.

But a wronged party suing the government cannot sue individual advisers who do not have actual authority... or at least that's the administration's argument, and it makes some sense to me.

The guy who actually implemented/ordered the bad actions against Padilla was Ashcroft, IIRC.

[EFerrari]

18. I see what you mean but disagree. The government doesn't have enough checks

on its impunity. And private citizens or individuals need more protection.

[vaberella]

4. Why do people keep posting this information?! It's bloody misleading.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=44837&mesg_id=44869

Federal court can't legally pursue a case against the President's legal advisor. Hello!!

[jgraz]

6. Probably Obama doesn't want to interfere with the massive investigation he's called for.

Oh wait...

[vaberella]

7. Hello----they are investigating John Yoo---read the article.

He's under investigation by the DOJ.

[jgraz]

15. You mean the DOJ that swept the US Attorney scandal under the rug?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/11/bradley-schlozman-wont-fa_n_283678.html

Oooh, I feel better already. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

10. That's a claim being made by the president's legal advisors,

not an established fact.

[vaberella]

12. I guess they're all John Yoo's then. Lord. n/t

[EFerrari]

14. Well, they're not exactly neutral parties.

By the same logic, John Dean could not have testified.

[AndyA]

5. THIS IS NOT CHANGE, OBAMA. THIS IS MORE OF THE SAME.

And if advice as poor as the advice Yoo came up with is offered to future Presidents, there SHOULD BE a chilling effect on it!

[tabatha]

11. See #7

[jgraz]

21. #7 is just repeating the arguments of Obama's attorneys

Who are repeating the arguments of the Bush Crime Family.

[2Design]

8. wow no holding anyone accountable - our one dem president gets impeached

for a blow job and these murderers and torturers get off scott free while a single mother in seattle gets audited because she makes to little to be living in seattle and since she didn't have a receipt for every little thing, they said she could not take her two boys as exemptions - she lives with her parents because she can't make it on her own - I was outraged with Bush did this - and now we have the dem president who said he was for change doing the same old crap - we have the last dem president as the adopted son of the former presidents and willing doing joint ventures with both losers so they get some type of crowd - color me dumbfounded

[vaberella]

9. Post # 4. n/t

[jgraz]

19. You seem awfully invested in dismissing this latest betrayal.

Just because Obama's lawyers are parroting a Bush/Cheney legal fiction, that doesn't make it true.

[ClarkUSA]

25. You seem awfully interested in pushing Outrage when replies #3, #4, and #7 contradict you.

Just because you're parroting Counterpunch rhetoric doesn't make it true.

[EFerrari]

26. #3 is opinion and #4 & 7 are inaccurately asserting an opinion as a fact.

Pot, kettle.

/grammar

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. Thank you for noting that #3 is opinion

I think my opinion is valid but it isn't the law.

And, of course, the administration's opinion is in the same limbo as mine since it is before a court but not decided.

[EFerrari]

33. I appreciate you giving (and owning) a reasonable opinion

devoid of any invective whatsoever, lol.

Are you lost :silly:

[ClarkUSA]

32. That's your opinion, of course. I have yet to see them proved wrong.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

36. No, objectively, it not my opinion. Kurt owns his

and Obama's people are giving theirs.

ETA: A fact isn't an opinion that hasn't been disproven yet. :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

41. Yes, it's your opinion that they're offering opinions instead of facts.

:hi:

[EFerrari]

43. LOL. Obama's lawyers are making a claim about presidential lawyers

that isn't established law.

Kurt already claimed his opinion.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. :)

[ClarkUSA]

44. And you know this how? Because you're such a brilliant legal mind? P.S. The case isn't settled.

:eyes:

[jgraz]

46. No, because she has an above-third-grade understanding of basic logic.

You should look into it.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Childish taunts aside, you have yet to provide any facts that this is a "betrayal"

I don't recall Candidate Obama promising to jail John Yoo. :shrug:

[jgraz]

51. Here's some facts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20952&mesg_id=23291

[ClarkUSA]

52. Fiction-writing aside, Candidate Obama never promised to jail John Yoo, so where's the "betrayal"?

:eyes:

[jgraz]

59. .

Compare to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/business/economy/07shadow.html?_r=1

A year after Washington rescued the big names of American finance, it’s still hard to get a loan. But the problem isn’t just tight-fisted banks.

The continued disarray in debt-securitization markets, which in recent years were the source of roughly 60 percent of all credit in the United States, is making loans scarce and threatening to slow the economic recovery. Many of these markets are operating only because the government is propping them up.

<snip>
“Given the imperative for securitization markets to fuel bank lending, we won’t have meaningful economic growth until securitization markets are re-established,” said Joseph R. Mason, a professor of banking at Louisiana State University. Mr. Sachs agrees: “It’s very important these markets come back to get credit to businesses and families who need it, and also as a sign of confidence.”

Enormous swaths of this so-called shadow banking system remain paralyzed. Depending on the type of loan, certain securitization markets have fallen 40 to 100 percent.

A once-thriving private market in securities backed by home mortgages has collapsed, from $744 billion in 2005, at the peak of the housing boom, to $8 billion during the first half of this year.

The market for securities backed by commercial real estate loans is in worse shape. No new securities of this type have been issued in two years.

“The securitization markets are dead,” said Robert J. Shiller, the Yale University economist and housing expert who predicted the subprime collapse. The government is supporting them, he said, but it’s unclear what will happen when it extricates itself. “We’re stuck,” he said.

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

71. Obama took an oath to uphold the law

Torture is against the law.

What's next for Obama, pardon Cheney?

[EFerrari]

50. Exactly. The case isn't settled. That's why it isn't settled law.

[ClarkUSA]

53. You said it wasn't "established law" which was smoke-and-mirrors because the case isn't decided yet.

Nice try at bait-and-switch. :)

[EFerrari]

55. Thick much? Obama's lawyers are making a claim.

That claim has not been upheld.

It is only the opinion they are forwarding.

And now I'll go do something more pleasant and rewarding like tile setting. Have a good night.

/grammar

[ClarkUSA]

56. I "thick" just fine, thank you. Like I said, nice try at a bait-and-switch.

Have a good night. :)

[jgraz]

30. Sorry, are you accusing me of being unoriginal in my posts?

You mean like this? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20952&mesg_id=23291

[ClarkUSA]

42. No, I'm saying you're making a false accusation as is your 24/7 anti-Obama wont...

The same way you falsely accuse Obama supporters of all sorts of evil stuff without any facts to back your bullshit up.

[jgraz]

45. Except I have facts to back up my accusations about you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20952&mesg_id=23291

Facts you've never denied.

[ClarkUSA]

47. lol! Those aren't "facts". That's manufactured bullshit you made up via your keyboard.

Boy, you're obsessive about smearing Obama supporters who proved you wrong on that OP you keep linking to...

:rofl:

[jgraz]

49. Uh huh. It's pretty obvious from the thread that you're stone-cold busted.

Which is why you should probably stop replying to my posts. You've proven your complete lack of integrity and I have no plans to take anything you say seriously ever again.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Really? Is that why you refused to answer my questions to keep up your fiction writing?

You are the one who's shamelessly pushing a fraudulent charge in order to smear an Obama supporter
who showed you up badly on that OP you keep linking to.

Regarding this OP, you have yet to explain what's Obama's "betrayal" if he never promised to jail John Yoo.
What are you gonna do? Make up another bullshit smear story to avoid answering my questions on THIS
thread?

:eyes:

[jgraz]

68. .

Compare to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/business/economy/07shadow.html?_r=1

A year after Washington rescued the big names of American finance, it’s still hard to get a loan. But the problem isn’t just tight-fisted banks.

The continued disarray in debt-securitization markets, which in recent years were the source of roughly 60 percent of all credit in the United States, is making loans scarce and threatening to slow the economic recovery. Many of these markets are operating only because the government is propping them up.

<snip>
“Given the imperative for securitization markets to fuel bank lending, we won’t have meaningful economic growth until securitization markets are re-established,” said Joseph R. Mason, a professor of banking at Louisiana State University. Mr. Sachs agrees: “It’s very important these markets come back to get credit to businesses and families who need it, and also as a sign of confidence.”

Enormous swaths of this so-called shadow banking system remain paralyzed. Depending on the type of loan, certain securitization markets have fallen 40 to 100 percent.

A once-thriving private market in securities backed by home mortgages has collapsed, from $744 billion in 2005, at the peak of the housing boom, to $8 billion during the first half of this year.

The market for securities backed by commercial real estate loans is in worse shape. No new securities of this type have been issued in two years.

“The securitization markets are dead,” said Robert J. Shiller, the Yale University economist and housing expert who predicted the subprime collapse. The government is supporting them, he said, but it’s unclear what will happen when it extricates itself. “We’re stuck,” he said.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

77. lol! I never posted that. You've gone to alot of trouble to fabricate this fiction.

Wow, you're totally obsessed. Guess you can't get over the fact you were bested on that thread, eh?

:crazy:

[jgraz]

79. It took you 24 hours to work up the stones to completely deny the facts.

Now I know how low you're willing to go. And you know I know.

That's enough. It was worth holding this pic until you dug yourself a nice deep hole.

[ClarkUSA]

83. Nah, I forgot all about this crap OP until now. BTW, where's the link to the actual post I made?

Not the one you doctored on your computer. :)

[jgraz]

85. You mean the post you edited after I called you out on your plagiarism?

Right here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20952&mesg_id=23262

Seriously, what do you think is going to come from your denials? No one is buying your bullshit. No one.

[ClarkUSA]

87. Oh, please. I was editing my post while you were jumping to false conclusions.

"No one is buying your bullshit" except your anti-Obama buddies. Oy vay, you're obsessed. Everyone who knows me
knows that I edit my posts multiple times to get it right. Many have complained about it but no one has ever tried to
make up such a strange story about it before. You need to get over yourself.

Oh, and you still haven't explained about what is Obama's "betrayal"? Guess you can't.

:eyes:

[jgraz]

90. The time stamps tell a very different story

Posted at 5:07pm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20952&mesg_id=23262

By 5:11pm, you were working on this LONG post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=19654&mesg_id=21510

Note that your last edit on THAT post was 5:25pm.

You get called out on your plagiarism at 5:29 pm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20952&mesg_id=23291

While you were putting up THIS post at 5:32 pm: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=19654&mesg_id=21543

At 5:33 pm, your plagiarized post gets edited and you put up your first of many denials: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20952&mesg_id=23301


So, want to tell us again how you were furiously editing your post for 22 minutes? :rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

93. This is ridiculous. You're really obsessed with making up shit now.

The funny part is you still won't explain just what is Obama's "betrayal".

Keep playing with timestamps and concocting conspiracy theories. Whew.

[Moochy]

94. I guess the mods only know

[jgraz]

97. And we know.

Which is enough for me.

[jgraz]

95. Dude, the timestamps are at the links

No edits, no screen shots -- just follow the links. Your cover story has been proven false.

[ClarkUSA]

98. Whatever. I feel sorry for you. "timestamps" prove nothing. Get a life.

That's all there's left to say except to repeat... get a life.

Preferably where I'm not the center of your internet interest.

[jgraz]

99. Last refuge of the busted.

At least you're not trying to come up with yet another easily falsifiable cover story. That's a bit of progress, at least.

[jgraz]

100. Your first version of this was better.

At least you didn't sound so completely guilty. :rofl:

[Moochy]

82. google indexes this whole site

AHEM, you edited it after the screenshot.

Follow the link in the excerpt.
NOTE: "Edited on Sat Nov-28-09 08:33 PM by ClarkUSA."

THE SCREENSHOT DOES NOT SHOW AN EDIT DATE.

Gee, I wonder why? It couldn't be because they're all good ideas, right?

<<A 5% hold-back on securitized loans is less than the amount that banks held prior to the collapse. A 5% hold-back on
securitized loans is less than the amount that banks held prior to the collapse. This effectively reboots the secondary loan
market that drove the economy into the dirt. It's a total capitulation to the banksters and a slap in the face to taxpayers.>>

The WH has a duty to save the economy and free up lending rather than satisfy the Counterpunch crowd's desire to let the
banks go under so as to welcome another Great Depression with oh so much purity of principle.

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=20952&mesg_id=23262

[ClarkUSA]

84. Blah, blah, personal attack, blah, bullshit, blah... so what? I edited my post, like I usually do.

My post still does not show what you claim. If anything, it shows that I edited my reply in midstream, which I do often.

You're grasping at straws.

:shrug:

[Moochy]

88. Hey I just thought others should see, your claim he faked the screenshot is ridiculous

Hey I don't know either way... but im not saying I *know* you posted that, but your claims that jgraz faked it seem sillier given what I saw... .and figured i'd post what i found.

occam's razor and all that.

[ClarkUSA]

89. Sure looked that way to me, since I know that my actual reply was edited and different.

My actual post is something jgraz has yet to link to, I might add. This is ridiculous.

[Moochy]

91. I linked to the post ... it's from your edit.. i found it in the googles

that's all i claimed. nothing more. It seems like if you were editing down a set of links an *honest* mistake might have been to leave it in , but it seems a more farfetched claim given that the screenshot does not show the edit.

If it had never been edited then your counterclaim that jgraz faked it would be evident.

[ClarkUSA]

96. So what? I often edit my replies.

jgraz is using smoke and mirrors to make up shit. Have fun with that.

[jgraz]

92. If it's links you want, you'll LOVE post 87

SO busted. :rofl:

[jgraz]

74. Just one more... since this is such a blatant denial

Compare to: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/business/economy/07shadow.html?_r=1

A year after Washington rescued the big names of American finance, it’s still hard to get a loan. But the problem isn’t just tight-fisted banks.

The continued disarray in debt-securitization markets, which in recent years were the source of roughly 60 percent of all credit in the United States, is making loans scarce and threatening to slow the economic recovery. Many of these markets are operating only because the government is propping them up.

<snip>

“Given the imperative for securitization markets to fuel bank lending, we won’t have meaningful economic growth until securitization markets are re-established,” said Joseph R. Mason, a professor of banking at Louisiana State University. Mr. Sachs agrees: “It’s very important these markets come back to get credit to businesses and families who need it, and also as a sign of confidence.”

Enormous swaths of this so-called shadow banking system remain paralyzed. Depending on the type of loan, certain securitization markets have fallen 40 to 100 percent.

A once-thriving private market in securities backed by home mortgages has collapsed, from $744 billion in 2005, at the peak of the housing boom, to $8 billion during the first half of this year.

The market for securities backed by commercial real estate loans is in worse shape. No new securities of this type have been issued in two years.

“The securitization markets are dead,” said Robert J. Shiller, the Yale University economist and housing expert who predicted the subprime collapse. The government is supporting them, he said, but it’s unclear what will happen when it extricates itself. “We’re stuck,” he said.

C'mon, tell me again how it's "manufactured bullshit I made up via my keyboard." :rofl:

[Moochy]

75. this explains the "parroting counterpunch" remark

pure projection.

:rofl:

[jgraz]

76. My favorite part, aside from the fact that he totally pwned himself

is that he not only plagiarizes the Times writer, he plagiarizes two other people quoted in the story. Then he denies he ever did any such thing.

You gotta hand it to him, that takes some stones.

[ClarkUSA]

78. See reply #77. Doctored computer graphics aside, where's the actual link to the alleged post?

:)

[jgraz]

81. That's really not where you want to go with this.

You've been outed as a plagiarist, and I'm willing to let it go. If you continue pressing your ridiculous denials, I'll just have to keep posting the reminders.

[ClarkUSA]

86. lol! You're grasping at straws.

I'm well-known for both my multiple edits and my sourced links. You simply are fabricating a story out of insinuation.

Let it go, because you look really obsessed and foolish.

[Moochy]

67. Clark USA's talking point of the day "parroting Counterpunch rhetoric"

[jgraz]

69. He's been using that for weeks.

When he's not plagiarizing the New York Times.

[ClarkUSA]

80. Blah, blah, personal attack, blah, bullshit, blah...

:hi:

[izquierdista]

24. Chilling?

Drop him in liquid nitrogen then. Freeze that kind of advice out for the next two centuries.

[rateyes]

28. Fuck Yoo.

And, any lawyer that would defend Yoo.

[struggle4progress]

31. Come, let us reason together. Probably anyone in their right mind wants Yoo held responsible

for his role in the Bushista's torture games

But to hold Yoo responsible, of course, one must take the position that lawyers who work for the Executive Branch can be held liable at law for their advice. And no matter who the President is, you will probably never find a lawyer, who works for the Executive Branch, taking the position lawyers who work for the Executive Branch can be held liable at law for their advice: they will all uniformly say that they cannot afford to work for the government if they are liable at law for the advice they give. This is an entirely predictable result of self-interest. I expect the proper position should be lawyers who work for the Executive Branch can seldom be held liable at law for their advice, but in certain limited circumstances they can be held liable at law, but I cannot imagine any lawyer, who works for the Executive Branch, willingly spending time to work out what the exceptional circumstances would be

[jgraz]

35. Here's an idea for Executive Branch lawyers who don't want to be sued

Don't advise the President to crush the testicles of a child while his parents watch.

Is that so hard?

[struggle4progress]

57. Agree 100%. But for the reasons I indicated, Executive Branch lawyers won't be helpful here:

the pressure simply must come from elsewhere

[Hippo_Tron]

58. I think they're worried about precedent, though

Don't get me wrong, this isn't fair or just by any means. But Struggle4Progress is right. You would have an impossible time finding a bunch of government lawyers in support of being allowed to sue government lawyers.

[rateyes]

34. And, BYBEE IS ONE OF THE FUCKING JUDGES

deciding his case.



:wow:

[EFerrari]

37. Are you SERIOUS?

[rateyes]

60. Read this from the article:

"An amicus curiae brief filed by the Department of Justice with the 9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS on Thursday essentially argues that because he was giving advice to the president on a national security matter, Yoo should not be held accountable for his actions as it would have a chilling effect on advice provided to future presidents."


AND, THEN THIS LAST PARAGRAPH:


"Yoo, while at the Office of Legal Council in 2002, authored a majority of the department’s opinions on torture along with JAY BYBEE, WHO NOW SERVES AS A JUDGE ON THE U.S. 9th CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, and Steven Bradbury, the former OLC chief who now practices law in Washington, D.C."




AND, OF COURSE DON'T FORGET THE GOOGLE: http://search.aim.com/search/search?&query=jay+bybee&invocationType=tb50-ie-aim-ab-en-us



Think there is justice in the world? :eyes:

[jtrockville]

61. Wouldn't he have to recuse himself?

[rateyes]

63. He sits on the court.

You think his fellow judges would put his head in a noose along with Yoo's?

How in the HELL did the Senate agree to confirm his sorry ass?

[jtrockville]

64. Chief Justice Roberts recused himself in Hamdan v Rumsfeld

Why wouldn't Bybee do the same? Am I still deluding myself into thinking we have justice in this country?

[rateyes]

70. My point is to ask

why the hell isn't Bybee on trial alongside Yoo?

[jtrockville]

72. Surely he should be. But to have him sit in judgement is...

simply outrageous. It's a mockery.

[EFerrari]

73. Sorry, I think I'm just starting to block out stuff that might make me explode.

Thanks for the quotes and the links.

[timtom]

40. I have no further questions, Your Honor.

[arcadian]

62. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

[Moochy]

65. It must be news dump week

I'm sure there will plenty of justifications from the idol worshippers.

[neshanic still]

66. Wow, he's really on a roll!

[grasswire]

101. Turley sez that defense was tried at Nuremburg

....the defense that an advisor can't be held responsible.

That's how disgusting this matter is.