Yoo and Bradbury are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the law (Scott Horton)

[kpete]

Bush Justice Department Goes After Another Democratic Lawyer (And Why This is Bad News for Yoo and Bradbury)
DEPARTMENT No Comment
BY Scott Horton
PUBLISHED February 9, 2008

Now if the prosecutors charging Kuehne are correct, then John Yoo and Steven Bradbury ought to be very worried. Each of them issued legal opinions at the Office of Legal Counsel crafted for the purpose of sanctioning the torture of human beings who have not been charged with any wrongdoing. They appear to have embraced a series of specific torture techniques, including

• Waterboarding
• Hypothermia
• Long-time standing
• Sleep deprivation in excess of 48 hours
• The use of psychotropic drugs
• The sensory deprivation- and overload program (“Kubark”)

The first four of these techniques were labeled as “torture” by all modern American administrations up to the arrival of George W. Bush. Each is a violation of multiple federal criminal laws, starting with the Anti-Torture Act and the War Crimes Act, and no serious issue exists on that point. In fact, the Judge Advocates General of each of the uniformed services testified to that effect before Congress, citing the existing statutory and case precedent. (Apparently, OLC hasn’t been paying its LEXIS bills, since it doesn’t seem to be able to locate the law, the treaties or the prior cases. That, unfortunately, won’t figure as much of a defense).

So if we apply the reasoning the Justice Department advances in the Kuehne case, Yoo and Bradbury are engaged in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the law and may be chargeable in connection with the underlying crimes. And indeed, while Michael Mukasey certainly won’t charge these cases, the Attorney General he cited to the Judiciary Committee as his personal model, Robert H. Jackson, absolutely would. In fact, we can cut from the speculative: he did. The case is called United States v. Altstoetter and the defendants in that case include two officials of the Justice Department who gave erroneous advice under international humanitarian law which led to more than a thousand persons being tortured or shot. The sentence? Ten years, less time served. And in fact the lawyers got off lightly–they were released after seven years for good behavior.

There is also a material difference between the Kuehne case and the future charges against Yoo and Bradbury. The Kuehne case looks very much like a cheap political stunt; payback for another lawyer who tried to stand in the way of Bush’s march to power. The Yoo and Bradbury cases will be deadly serious. Moreover, bringing them will be the cost of our nation’s restoring the world’s faith once more to the pledge that Robert Jackson gave in 1945. “To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well,” he said—he was talking about a commitment to abide by the rules of international humanitarian law which the United States largely wrote. Jackson left the nation a great and noble legacy. And the Justice Department today is a blight in the face of it.

much, much more at:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/hbc-90002346

[Qutzupalotl]

1. I'd love to see Yoo prosecuted.

Mr. Patriot Act. He is corrupt to the core.

[Greeby]

2. Corrupt? He's just absolutely sick nt

[jimshoes]

3. Yoo is the re-incarnation

of every evil prick that ever lived down through history. No punishment will be too severe for this monster.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Wonder if justice will reappear in the DOJ, come a new administration?

It would be extremely refreshing...

[malaise]

5. This is the same Bradbury who Bush

is demanding that Dems appoint to assistant attorney general

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gzzwHNfZgZK6luaPjSFcvijKUVNAD8ULNA500
<snip>
The nomination of Steven Bradbury for assistant attorney general is especially controversial.

In January, Bush renominated Bradbury, refusing to yield to Democrats who oppose a permanent job for the official who signed legal memos authorizing harsh interrogations for suspected terrorists. Bradbury has been serving as acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legislative Counsel. Bush wants the Senate to confirm Bradbury as permanent head of the office.

Senate Democrats complain that two secret memos from Bradbury in 2005 authorized the CIA to use head slaps, freezing temperatures and waterboarding — a practice that invokes drowning fears — when questioning terrorism detainees.
-------------------

Abrams and Turley on the subject
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23060738#23060738

[AzDar]

6. K & R....

:kick:

[formercia]

7. Thanks for bringing this up

I had the same thought.

I was also thinking the Kuehne case is a poison pill designed to water down the case law so when and if charges are brought against Yoo and Bradbury, their defense can cite the Kuehne case and claim political persecution.

[Solly Mack]

8. K&R

What's it going to be, America?

[BrotherBuzz]

9. It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate.

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

Jon Carroll
Monday, January 2, 2006

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[burythehatchet]

10. I would not mind seeing John Yoo experience the physical procedures he supports. n/t

[leftchick]

11. The KUBARK Manuel explicitly states that

TORTURE DOES NOT WORK!

[formercia]

12. It doesn't have to work

all it has to do is result in 'Intelligence' that fits a particular agenda.

[leftchick]

13. the point is

The CIA's KUBARK manual advises against using torture. Of any kind. But then it was written in the 1960s way before 9/11/01 changed everything. :(

[formercia]

14. I understand your point and agree it doesn't work

but this administration doesn't care if it works or not. They have shown that they ignore or actively supress any intelligence that disagrees with their position and have no hesitation to use any technique as long as it provides 'intelligence' that promotes their agenda.