Some time ago, British lawyer Phillippe speculated that Bush administration officials were likely to be investigated for their role in approving the use of torture by the US.
This is what he said about LiTW kicking-boy, John Yoo:
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.
It turns out the Mukasey DoJ started an internal investigation into Bush lawyers' role in approving torture -- and rumor has it that the findings are grim...for Bushies.
OPR investigators focused on whether the memo's authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted, according to three former Bush lawyers who asked not to be identified discussing an ongoing probe. One of the lawyers said he was stunned to discover how much material the investigators had gathered, including internal e-mails and multiple drafts that allowed OPR to reconstruct how the memos were crafted. In a departure from the norm, Jarrett also told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee last year he would inform them of his findings and would "consider" releasing a public version. If he does, it could be the most revealing public glimpse yet at how some of the major decisions of Bush-era counterterrorism policy were made.
Naturally ex-administration officials are apopelectic. ("'OPR is not competent to judge [the opinions by Justice attorneys]. They're not constitutional scholars,' said [a] former Bush lawyer." Sounds suspiciously like David Addington, doesn't it? Of course, what does he know about the Constitution?)
In any case, just the fact this story appeared in print may mean we'll see the results of the report...and might create more public pressure to investigate and prosecute Bush officials for their role in the illegal government activities of the last eight years.
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 morecontemptablemembers 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...
If the Divine Comedy has any merit, John Yoo will find himself someday encased in flame, the fate reserved for fraudulent advisors in the Eighth Circle of Hell. In short, this guy has used his legal background and education to willfully misrepresent the Constitution and framers' intent all in the name of serving ideology that fighting to overturn "secular-based government touting individual liberties and a weak executive."
Recently, some of Yoo's handiwork was declassified.
Read the editorial. Have you ever seen such contempt for our legal system in print before? Read this passage:
But Padilla and his Yale Law School attorneys think that these decisions are better second-guessed by plaintiffs' lawyers and judges rather than our elected leaders.
Look, I'm no law professor, but even I know that "elected leaders" don't interpret the law - that's the role of the judiciary. You'd think by reading this that John Yoo has yet to read the Constitution. Yet he holds a teaching job at UC Berkeley's prestigious Boalt Hall school of law.
What a disgrace to his profession, UC Berkeley, and to the country.
