I wonder if anyone who posts on DU can defend this

[Stinky The Clown]

I hope my cite is considered legitimate and sufficiently mainstream and credible:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/07/MN061AVC89.DTL



White House wants suit against Yoo dismissed

(12-07) 11:33 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- The Obama administration has asked an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing former Bush administration attorney John Yoo of authorizing the torture of a terrorism suspect, saying federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/12/07/MN061AVC89.DTL#ixzz0ZJ9SK986

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. They're trying. It's a tough row to hoe. nt.

[vi5]

2. IOIODI

It's O.K. If Obama Does It

Sad that we've come to that, but I'm guessing that's the closest thing to a defense that you'll get from a lot of people on here.

[spanone]

5. sad that YOU"VE come to that.

[vi5]

23. Well played.

[JuniperLea]

12. Interesting that you've come to this point...

And not an excuse in sight from anyone here that could even come close to your snide assumption.

[Lorien]

60. Look downthread. nt

[VMI Dem]

3. The pro-war brigade will put a nice shiny spin on it.

[Marr]

8. Probably the same spin Bush used, and they will be oblivious to that fact.

"The president needs to be able to get real, unvarnished advice!"

[WilliamPitt]

4. FWIW

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7195490

[JuniperLea]

16. Thanks, Will...

I had a feeling this pudding hadn't quite set up yet.

[Warpy]

29. Justice is also doing a lot of preening and posturing

hoping to save their own asses down the line should the Republicans in their present form ever gain power again and decide to go on a vendetta.

That's really what this is about. We know Yoo is scum and likely guilty of trying to justify war crimes to an administration determined to commit them.

However, there is more at stake on both sides than one criminal. One side wants to protect future advisors and the other wants to squeeze Yoo until he pops and gives up Addington and Cheney.

That's what this case is all about and Obama doesn't have anything to do with it personally.

[quiet.american]

51. Stop making sense, Will. It isn't in fashion, haven't you heard. nt

[Hekate]

52. That helps, Will. nt

[Vincardog]

6. Hopefully they are going to hire him the same quality legal mind the mr. yoo

brought to bear in advising the booosh maladministration. His Defense council will open with the statement that "My client is innocent because he wants to be innocent. The Defense rests".

[gateley]

7. If it's accurate that fed law doesn't allow these claims, then I'd defend not

going after him THIS way - if we tried and had to drop it because of the federal law, that would be bad. So, in this instance I'd defend it, but they should find another way to prosecute him. If they don't try to get him some way, it will appear that they are picking and choosing based on political concerns.

If Yoo was still in place, he'd juggle the law around in order to continue, but as tempting as it is, I don't want to see Holder stooping to their level.

[JuniperLea]

9. The only excuse I can think of...

Is a plea bargain... with Yoo throwing Bush and Cheney under the bus to save his own smarmy ass. The flood-gate statement is complete bullshit... a sense of justice motivates most of us to want to see prosecution of the Bush Crime Family... I'd want it just as badly if some dumbass Democrat pulled hideous stunts like torture. It's the torture, not the party.

[Taverner]

10. Its indefensible - that is, unless you're a tow-the line War Underground fan

[atreides1]

11. They won't, not openly

As you can see by the unrecs for your post, the cowards will just try to keep this from getting the recognition it deserves.

[berni_mccoy]

13. SEE HERE:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7195490

[Stinky The Clown]

17. I DID

[berni_mccoy]

21. THANK YOU.

:P

[Stinky The Clown]

32. .....

Bernie, there's no way I can type in all caps again. It goes against my sense of aesthetics!

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

[Solly Mack]

27. Except the DOJ is NOT representing Yoo nor did Padilla lose his case against Yoo

The judge in the lawsuit ruled that the suit could go forward back in June of 2009. Now, the government is paying the private lawyers but they are still private lawyers and not DOJ lawyers.


June 2009

Judge Allows Civil Lawsuit Over Claims of Torture


Here's the actual ruling: Ruling

December 2009

The Obama DOJ no longer represents former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo in Yoo’s suit against Jose Padilla. The DOJ ended its representation in June, after a federal judge ruled that Padilla’s suit could go forward. (Since then Yoo has used Gibson Dunn’s Miguel Estrada.)


Now, Padilla did appeal his criminal conviction but this case isn't the criminal one, it's the civil one. BIG difference. It is true that this started while Bush was still in office. But to be fair, and I know you want to be fair, you didn't get all the facts right.

[Snazzy]

55. exactly, er, +1

And the amicus brief is here:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/DOJ-Amicus.pdf

See the lawyers told them to torture (especially this slimeball), so the torturers can't be held accountable. And the lawyers, well they just told them to torture, they didn't do the torturing, so they can't be held accountable. Nice little system.

[Cirque du So-What]

14. Not defending that decision

but if it's true that 'federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues,' then I fail to see how the lawsuit can proceed.

An international war crimes tribunal, however, wouldn't take such weaselly laws into account when pursuing justice against war criminals.

[jobycom]

15. I don't understand the suit, I don't think. Could you explain

(and this isn't asking a loaded question, I really don't understand) what he's being sued for, and what he did? From the article I can't tell if he is being sued for giving Bush and/or his administration bad legal advice that Bush followed, authorizing torture of Padilla, or whether Yoo had some actual authority over the case and authorized the torture himself, so that he didn't just give bad legal advice but actually gave some orders to torture Padilla?

If it's the second, I can't think of a defense. It's a war crime, he should be under prosecution, not just a civil suit.

If it's the former, I don't understand why he's being sued. That would be like someone suing an advisor to Obama if healthcare got passed (yeah, I know, right?) because his kid later died due to a bad decision by an administrator somewhere. The legal advice wouldn't be the cause of the problem, in that case.

If it's something between the two or altogether different, then I can't tell from that article, and I admit to not having followed this case.

[jgraz]

18. They're trying. Proof that anything can be spun if you just ignore a few key facts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7195490&mesg_id=7195490

[Blue Owl]

19. If they sweep this under the rug

then there can be no other explanation other than they are protecting the Bu$h administration and legitimizing the illegal wars we're in.

Which leads one to believe that the same behind-the-scenes people are running the show in Obama's administration.

[glitch]

31. Yes, and welcome to DU. Wish it were on a happier occasion. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

20. From the Atlantic - Why the Obama Administration defends John Yoo

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/12/obama_administration_defends_john_yoo.php
Dec 10 2009, 10:03 am by Max Fisher

Why The Obama Administration Defends John Yoo

skip

My sense is that, as his critics charge, Obama is indeed working to keep his own DoJ lawyers free from investigation for their national security recommendations. At the same time, the OPR report, which is expected to condemn Yoo's actions as unethical, would publicly distance the administration from the practices of Yoo and Bush's DoJ, much as the White House wants to distance itself from the prison at Guantanamo while maintaining the one at Bagram. The detention centers are just one example where Obama has tried to reduce and soften, but not sever, Bush-era national security tools. (The Bagram center still appears legally and ethically dubious but, with detentions limited to months rather than years and waterboarding replaced with isolation, it's certainly less horrifying than it was seven years ago.)

That aside, the primary concern here could be Afghanistan. Obama is putting a great number of American lives, American money, and personal political capital at stake in the war in Afghanistan. That war appears to include extensive operations in Pakistan, much of it by shadowy agencies like JSOC and CIA with assistance from Blackwater. Whether those actions are prudent or imprudent, legal or illegal, he's not going to want them exposed to daylight, especially as he tries to convince Pakistan that America is its ally and the Taliban is its enemy, and not the other way around. But if Yoo goes to court, practices of rendition, detention and surveillance will certainly be explored. Even if Obama took great care to bring those practices within the law (an open question), his own policies and the legal reviews behind them are likely deeply tangled with Yoo's Bush-era work on them.

In 2006, then-Senator Obama made a fiery speech condemning torture and the legal abuses that permitted it. As a former professor of constitutional law, this is something he cares about. Since he took on the presidency, his priorities have clearly shifted. Either he has decided that the costs of trying Yoo so outweigh any benefits of recrimination that the trial should be dismissed, with the OPR report and public shaming as Yoo's only punishments. Or, as his critics contend, Obama has taken up practices he once lambasted Yoo for justifying and fears the precedent of judges peeking into his DoJ. Given Obama's past actions, I am inclined to believe the former. But with the White House's use of secrecy and executive privilege still going strong, I have little but faith to go on.

[HughMoran]

22. Edit

I was not aware of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7195960&mesg_id=7196014 - so my post was premature.

[baldguy]

24. The traditional role for the US Justice Dept is to defend the decisions of the White House.

And that means *ANY* White House - current & previous. In a court of law, they have to defend the decisions & policies of the Bush Regime just as they would those of Eisenhower, Reagan or Clinton - even if the current administration disagrees with them.

It's not the job of the courts to provide oversight of the Executive Branch - that's the job of Congress.

Now, if Congress were to, say ... declare the previous "administration" to be invalid & illegal, then that would open up the officials of that regime to the judgment - and protections - of the courts.

[ItNerd4life]

62. Sure, you give a professional and reasonable explanation, and you're ignored.

It doesn't look like many people who posted after you read what you wrote.

I did, and it's a clearly written and true explanation.

[Parker CA]

63. Too bad individual posts cannot be rec'd!! You and Will Pitt both nailed it.

[asdjrocky]

25. This is really the worse thing so far.

This is black and white. And very, very sad.

[huskerlaw]

26. I don't know enough about law in this area

to defend or attack it, and I have a strong suspicion the vast majority of the people who post here don't either.

If, in fact, federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers in this situation, then this is the right thing to do. We do not need to twist the law to suit our purposes like the Bush Administration did.

If, however, someone can show me a federal law that DOES allow this lawsuit, I'll be all over the Obama Admin for this.

I wish I was at work today, I'd do the research myself.

[treestar]

38. Thank you!

The usual crowd of course thinks they have found their smoking gun in this! Mainly because they don't know crap about the system or the law.

[Thickasabrick]

28. K&R nt

[ashling]

30. OK, I'll play devil's advocate here

My con law students sometimes have a hard time understanding that constitutionality of a law rests not on the rationality of the law, but on Congress's Authority to legislate in that area.

The same issue is at play here:

If you go to an attorney, and ask if how to legally get around some regulation, and the lawyer renders his best opinion, and then you act upon that opinion and it later turns out that the lawyer's opinion was incorrect, it is not the lawyer that pays the fine, goes to jail, or whatever -- it is YOU.


when I was in law school, an attorney told me to beware of a guy called "Canaman." He is the guy who comes up to you on the street or at a party and says "Can a man report such and such on his tax return, or not report, etc." The appropriate answer is "Yes, a man can . . . if you would like to find out what will happen to a man that does, my office hours are..."

ok, that doesn't really apply, except to say that there is a difference between seeking asking a question and getting competent advice. Another issue: privity.

If I go to an attorney and receive advice that it is ok to shoot someone for walking on my grass, and you step on my grass and I shoot you, your civil recourse is to sue me, not my attorney. I can sue the attorney, because I have privity of contract, not you.

That's all I got....

My office hours are...

[treestar]

43. I always love it when family law clients will say

"he can't do that, can he?"

Well of course he can. He may eventually go to jail for it or suffer some sanction, but he CAN do it. Whatever it is.

If you are ordered to pay child support, you don't have to pay. You may have consequences like wage attachment or passport denial or suspended driver's licenses. But if you are willing to live with that, you don't "have to" pay.

People think the law is self enforcing. If that were so, there would be no murders, ever, since I'm pretty sure that's against the law.

There are some people who don't want lawyer's advice so much as they want the lawyer to find an "angle" for them to circumvent the law. No surprise that Bushco would fall into that category.

[ashling]

47. That is precisely what they want

they want the lawyer to find an "angle"

When I had just started practicing I thought I had made it big when a local car dealer wanted to hire me to do all their work. Turns out that he wanted someone to make it alright to circumvent repo safegaurds . . . and I was not the first to tell hime he couldn't do it that way.

"I just want my day in court!" Yeah, I've heard that one before.

[valerief]

33. No Fuck Yoos allowed, I guess, just a big Fuck You to America. nt

[zipplewrath]

34. A bit out of order

Yoo deserves to be brought up on criminal charges of conspriacy to commit torture. Once that charge is successful, THEN he should be tried for damage claims. I will agree that as a general principal, we don't want to expose our "civil servants" to civil liability for their governmental positions. However, that protection should not extend to individuals who criminally abuse their authority.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. "However, that protection should not extend to individuals who criminally abuse their authority."

My sentiment, exactly.

[county worker]

36. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander

[paulsby]

37. it's a question of law, not of policy

thus, i defend it- IF it is in fact the correct position on the law.

since this is an area i have no knowledge of, i defer to the legal experts.

but IF it is the case that federal law says what the obama admin claims it does, then yes - i support it

because i support rule of law, even though it sometimes has unfortunate results

[treestar]

39. Read the briefs first

Before that, you really have no idea what this means.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. They are trying....

and with this they now own the crime as well.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Professional courtesy. n/t

[LostInAnomie]

42. Well, does it?

"...federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues."

[librechik]

44. Obama does not have control of the Justice Dept. The burrowed-in do.

and they are doing everything (with the help of the Republicans in the Senate) to see that it stays that way.

Almost NONE of Obama's appointees are making it into let alone through the process of approval. Many who assist in the obstruction are lifetime civil servants who can never be fired. I don't see this ending any time soon since the Big O is so avoiding of confrontation. It'll probably just stay this way the whole 8 years and then people will wonder what we were upset about.

[kiva]

46. This is a poor argument, given that the Republicans

could have said exactly the same thing when * was in office - every president must deal with people who they did not hire and have no authority to replace with their own people. There is a reason that we (as a country) chose to remove many government jobs from political patronage, so that the positions are filled with people who are competent rather than political hires.

Do you have any citations or links to studies that show career federal employees support Republicans and oppose Democrats?

[librechik]

50. well here's a few, but really-it's dangerous for a country when the

body of the Justice Dept as well as the CIA will not obey direct presidential orders, sending lawyers to court to demand they do so only to be rebuffed. Who's in charge here?


Siegelman:Bush Attorneys still in charge
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/siegelman-bush-lawyers-justice/

Obama attempts and fails to crack down on burrowing in
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/obama_admin_cracks_down_on_burrowing_--_right_crie.php

Bush Appointees Refuse to Step Down
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111703537.html

Incompetent Moron still draws salary
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/04/paulose-sec/

why 2 Bush appointees refuse to step down
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-16/bushs-dead-enders/p/

Bush remakes Civil Rights Division (None of Obama's new appointees have survived to serve)
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/23/civil_rights_hiring_shifted_in_bush_era/

What did Bush Jr. do when he took office?
demanded--and got--resignations from all 93 US Attorneys--exactly as all previous presidents have done. Bush allowed the ones "in his corner" to stay on and Rove went after the rest. (see Siegelman above)
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2001/March/107ag.htm

Republicans block Obama Justice nominees
http://tabacco.blog-city.com/republican_blackmail_gop_threatens_filibuster_blockage_of_2.htm

http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-did-republicans-boycott-senate.html

Lots of them being held up by various Republican Senatorial procedure scams
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/senate-leader-blasts-holdup-on-obamas-nominees/

Did that happen to Bush?
NO

Did it happen to Clinton?
YES
http://www.civilrights.org/publications/turning-right/ch2.html

It's what they do--because they can't do anything constructive.

[harkadog]

54. Absolutely not true

Most of Obama's appointments to DOJ have been confirmed. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2009/federal-appointments/agency/justice-department/

[Bluebear]

57. *TOTALLY INACCURATE*

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2009/federal-appointments/agency/justice-department/

[librechik]

61. thanks for the link--but in politics it has more to do with which person in which position

than the actual number 13 confirmed out of 20? And he left all the USAs in place--and there's more people there than "political appointees" who are also influential. I maintain that the DOJ has barely felt a bump from Obama's presence.

Obama to keep all US attorneys
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/15/obama-to-keep-all-us-atto_n_158166.html

Then in May he said he would replace a batch, but that only amounted to two, --the number at this point is six, and does not include the clearly corrupt attorney in Alabama.

[Lurks Often]

45. it's about precedent

The executive branch of the government is extremely reluctant to set a legal precedent that could bite them in the ass down the road. They are also unwilling to set a precedent that might bite a FUTURE administration, regardless of party, in the ass. The same applies to Congress and the Supreme Court.

Also if this goes to trial, a lot is going to come out in court that BOTH parties in Congress don't want to see come out. My guess is that most of the senior (by prestige/importance, not necessarily by length of service) members of BOTH parties in the House and Senate were perfectly aware of what was going on in the lead up to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. They like their positions too much to willingly allow their involvement come out since it could cost them their seats.

[L0oniX]

48. Does he own torture yet?

[gleaner]

49. There is no defense for this ....

I think he should be criminally prosecuted along with Alberto Gonzalez who wrote the infamous torture memo. The whole Bush administration should be tried for crimes against humanity.

I heard this about Yoo last night and I literally got sick to my stomach. This is one of the worst let downs Obama has given us. What is "acceptable" as business as usual becomes business as usual and we become de facto, a nation of torturers.

[sabrina 1]

53. It will be defended with the usual 'logical' arguments.

Instead of defending this however, I would prefer that the DOJ do it's job and start prosecuting these war criminals. They can do whatever they want with this civil case. But when are we going to see Yoo et al be charged with violating the laws of this country and international law?

[brettdale]

56. Why

What was his reasons why?

[Goldstein1984]

58. Wow! I don't know what to make of all of this, but...

If I ever decide to commit a crime, I'm definitely going to try to get a job in the Federal Executive Branch first. Total unaccountability--a nice deal.

And the "let's look forward, not back" crowd is running a special on war crimes this year.

[Echo In Light]

59. K&R - the true motivation behind the "Look Ahead!" meme = pure American evil

[Echo In Light]

64. Kick