| British lawyer Phillipe Sands was on Fresh Air yesterday, claiming that there's likely to be some sort of investigation into "high-ranking government officials and top military figures" over the use of torture during the Bush years. Essentially the pressure to investigate isn't likely to stem from any sense of righteousness on behalf of the Obama administration, but from international pressure. Torture is one of the few crimes -- alongside genocide and war crimes -- that can be prosecuted within any country that's a party to the international agreements to ban torture. In short, if the U.S. government doesn't do something to look into its use of torture, another government probably will. Like, say, Britain. Needless to say, a major international incident between the U.S. and the EU is something the Obama administration wants to avoid, given its public commitment to end our nation's diplomatic isolation in the world community.
Anyhow, it's a great interview and well worth a listen. But here's the part I'd like to quote, about administration lawyer, John Yoo:
I think the author, the principle author, of the infamous torture memo -- that's to say, John Yoo -- must be at serious risk of possible investigation. I mean, he is, in a sense, impressively unapologetic...he sticks by what he has done, I fundamentally disagree with what he has done. But he has said he believes he has done the right thing.
His legal opinions are truly appalling. There's no one I know -- and respect -- who supports them. It appears he was essentially used to rubberstamp a predetermined policy. And that, I think, takes him across a line. It's not just bad lawyering, it's not just unprofessional legal advice, it takes you into the realm of complicity.
And I think if evidence emerges from further investigation that abusive techniques of interregation had already been embarked upon without appropriate legal authorization, and they needed to find someone to sign off on it, and he was the person to sign off on it, then I think it becomes particularly certain.
I have to admit, I've long found John Yoo one of the more contemptable members of the Bush administration, precisely because of his willingness to distort U.S. law and the Constitution into politically convenient opinions. And, yes, administration lawyers have a history of doing so -- Renquist and Scalia greased their path to the SCOTUS by being the legal bag carriers for Nixon. But Yoo subverted the law for torture.
For a while, Yoo furiously penned op-eds defending the administration's incredibly weak legal basis for breaking the law, but recently broke tradition-- after the election of a Democrat to the nation's highest office, coincidentally -- by opining (along with "loyal Bushie" sidekick, John Bolton) that the president should give up power to the Senate on trade matters.
That's right: Yoo's arguing for something less than absolute powers for the executive branch, and by doing so, enters Bill Kristol territory, crassly and ineptly carrying water for the GOP. If there ever was any doubt that Yoo isn't simply a misguided ideologue, it's this op-ed. I'm not sure what he's after -- a consulting gig? an eventual appointment to a federal court by some future, grateful conservative president? a shot at political office? -- but it's weak and infuriating. Let's hope investigations do occur, and Yoo gets swept up with them... |
