Turley: Obama bags Peace Prize while his lawyers are ‘gutting’ Nuremberg

[babsbunny]

Turley: Obama bags Peace Prize while his lawyers are ‘gutting’ Nuremberg

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/turley-obama-ignores-nuremberg/

By David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Thursday, December 10th, 2009 -- 11:03 am

The Obama administration has asked the Department of Justice to dismiss a lawsuit brought by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla against torture memo author John Yoo, asserting that Yoo cannot be sued for legal opinions he offered in the course of advising then-President Bush on national security matters.

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley finds ths decision inexplicable. "The president literally has gotten onto a plane this evening to go to Norway," he told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday, "to accept the Nobel Prize, while his Justice Department is effectively gutting a major part of Nuremberg."

[Why Syzygy]

1. Bush's right hand man.

Perhaps he can fill a position in the next administration.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. K&R

[JuniperLea]

3. Here's some clarification...

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

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. why has the report been delayed? I guess it's only mid Dec?

[treestar]

14. Thank you

Yoo is being prosecuted for war crimes. And this is a civil suit.

[harkadog]

37. Yoo is not being prosecuted for anything.

[Cha]

29. And, does not turley know this? Or is he one of those

who go after Pres Obama and the facts be damned?

Thank you for this Juniper Lea..if it were not for many posters on here who are interested in the reality of the issue..this place would be run over with disingenuous subterfuge.

I knew there had to be a reason for this but the disingenuous wing thought "defending Yoo" would get more donations.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Unrec because Turley supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton

:thumbsdown:

[Captain Hilts]

6. He's a 'the law's the law' kind of guy. So, at least he's consistent. nt

[onenote]

36. actually, he's an attention whore kind of guy

[depakid]

10. And that's relevant to this issue how?

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. It's a demonstration of how fucked in the head and untrustworthy Turley is.

As if this latest Godwin hyperbole wasn't enough.

[depakid]

16. The guy makes a legitimate argument- and all folks can do is shoot at the messenger

Turley's NOT the only once who's appalled at these events, btw.

As he (and I have in the past) said- it's an international disgrace.

(as well as an affront considering the timing).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. No he doesn't.

And if you really think it's a legitimate argument, you should try to find a non-racist, teabagging source.

[depakid]

24. See my post below

You haven't the first clue what you're talking about on this issue.

Not that that's ever stopped you.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Yes, that automatically makes him DoublePlusEvil. eom

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Well, yeah.

Puts him on par with John Yoo, if you want to get right down to it.

[treestar]

5. Of course he cannot be sued for his legal opinions

A "constitutional law professor?" Let him explain what would be the legal basis for this. How is it "gutting a part of Nuremberg?" What is he talking about?

No matter how much you dislike someone's behavior, you can't sue them unless there is a precedent or statute that allows for it.

Maybe Rule 11 but Yoo may not have advanced any argument in court.

[Kdillard]

9. Thank you. This has been explained but people prefer to be outraged and to

Slam Obama.

[treestar]

11. At the very least to understand this we'd need to see the legal briefs

It's like defending the free speech of people whose speech we don't like. Yet at another remove, lawyers' whose legal opinions we don't like.

I despise Yoo for torturing logic and trying to make torture legal under U.S. law. But some future repub administration could make it illegal to give other advice. And that might be advice we'd agree with.

[depakid]

12. Did you even bother to read the article

(much less research the issue).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Turley's a crazy racist douche.

Just another Pat Buchanan.

[polichick]

25. What specifically makes you say that? (A link would be good.) nt

[ClarkUSA]

26. I'll never forget or forgive his trashing of Sonya Sotomayor.

:puke:

[mcablue]

30. He wanted to impeach Bill Clinton, who wasn't black

And Turley slammed Bush regularly.

[NYC Liberal]

15. "We're talking about the most extreme case"

Really? A legal opinion is "the most extreme case"? Yoo is a piece of shit whose opinions are garbage, but what about the people who actually engaged in the torture? Or who ordered it? Surely those are "more extreme."

[depakid]

17. Actually, these knowingly false- and falsified "opinions" are the basis for the actions taken

Yoo should have been disbarred long ago at the very least- and certainly is criminally and civilly liable for his willful malfeasance.

[NYC Liberal]

22. Disbarment is one thing, though not up to Obama at all.

You say that he is "certainly" liable, but that is not certain at all. What is the legal basis for that?

[depakid]

23. Are you kidding me?

Willfully (and through the provision of false and misleading information) advising entities to violate federal and international law?

You try that and see how far you get.

Yoo & Bybee both belong in prison- which is where you or I would be in comparable circumstances under a responsible administration-and they certainly ought to be held to account in civil court as well.

[NYC Liberal]

40. You need to read this thread:

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

Quote

1. This case was filed in 2008, *before* Obama became President. The defense by the DoJ is a continuation of their defense that began before the Obama Administration.

2. This latest filing by the DoJ was regards to an Appeal filed by the Plaintiff who lost their case. Again, the DoJ is, by law, bound to support their case and defendant as it is appealed.

3. Yoo is under investigation by the DoJ for criminal acts (again, separate this Civil case from a Criminal one). The case isn't closed. The DoJ should have released their Torture Report at the end of November, but has failed to do so. It is fair to criticize them on this. However, according to TPM, a leak indicates it will be critical and judgmental of Yoo's conduct and will likely include some form of discipline. If this is anything less than a trial for war crimes, again, I would say criticism is fair, but not to the extent of saying that Obama is defending Yoo.

[Cha]

31. Turn's out there's more to this story..did you see this?

Our bernie over in GD is on the case.. Cross posted

berni_mccoy (1000+ posts) Thu Dec-10-09 11:33 AM
Original message
On the DoJ's Defense of Yoo
Edited on Thu Dec-10-09 11:41 AM by berni_mccoy

First off, Yoo should be tried for War Crimes. That much is clear.

However, all the hyperbole of late about Obama defending Yoo, is well, just hype.

As has been discussed here before, the recent "Defense" of Yoo by the DoJ is against a Civil case. And just as the law says that every defendant can have a lawyer, even if they cannot afford one, the law also says that the DoJ is bound to defend Yoo, as he is being sued for acts he committed on behalf of the government.

A couple of facts that must be considered here:

1. This case was filed in 2008, *before* Obama became President. The defense by the DoJ is a continuation of their defense that began before the Obama Administration.

2. This latest filing by the DoJ was regards to an Appeal filed by the Plaintiff who lost their case. Again, the DoJ is, by law, bound to support their case and defendant as it is appealed.

3. Yoo is under investigation by the DoJ for criminal acts (again, separate this Civil case from a Criminal one). The case isn't closed. The DoJ should have released their Torture Report at the end of November, but has failed to do so. It is fair to criticize them on this. However, according to TPM, a leak indicates it will be critical and judgmental of Yoo's conduct and will likely include some form of discipline. If this is anything less than a trial for war crimes, again, I would say criticism is fair, but not to the extent of saying that Obama is defending Yoo.

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

[harkadog]

38. This is false being posted by someone who doesn't know what

they are talking about. Common on the net. The DOJ can change their position at any time and can drop a case at any time. There is no law compelling them to do anything.

[NYC Liberal]

41. Thanks for the link!

:hi:

[Occam Bandage]

20. I don't believe advisors should be sued for legal opinions they provide. Criminal charges, sure,

if their briefs amount to conspiracy to violate the law, but private suits don't seem appropriate, nor do I see a connection between private suits and Nuremberg.

[O is 44]

27. I can not stand this guy..

Nothing but hot air. Hey Turley my Con Law Professor was 10 x's better then you, come down off of your high horse you are not the end all on legal matters.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Turley believes in the Constitution

unlike the assholes that voted for PATRIOT and gave a pass to the telecoms that spied on Americans.

[O is 44]

32. I happen to like the constitution too..

He is not the only one that believes in the constitution. You like him fine, but I don't.

[ProSense]

33. How much were they suing for at the Nuremberg Trials?

He's comparing a civil lawsuit to the Nuremberg Trials?

[O is 44]

34. Very good point! n/t

[Cha]

35. There's a certain contingent on

on the internet that knows they don't have to worry about facts when they're throwing out red meat to those who don't bother to check anything behind the "Obama is bad" facade.

[struggle4progress]

39. Turley is a noisy attention seeker, who seldom examine anything in depth and usually provides

no useful analysis. Sometimes I agree with him; sometimes I disagree; but I hardly ever learn much from his noise