Login HereThe Yoo "Torture Memo" is just the latest and most dramatic example of the Bush administration's adversarial relationship with the law and the Constitution. Republicans don't see the law as the foundation of a healthy nation, to be upheld and protected, they see it as an obstacle - to be evaded, ignored, twisted, and exploited.
The Bush administration didn't just use John Yoo's memo to justify torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights - they pressured Congress to legalize it and to suspend habeas corpus. They ignored FISA, then pressured Congress to make their warrantless wiretapping legal and grant their teleccomplices retroactive immunity.
They used the DOJ to slow-walk investigations of corrupt Republicans (wasn't Jack Abramoff supposed to sing like a canary?) and to prosecute Democrats like Georgia Thompson, Don Siegelman, and possibly Eliot Spitzer. They even used it to prosecute the Qwest CEO who refused to help them violate FISA. They pressured US Attorneys to trump up voter fraud cases so they could push "voter reform" which would disenfranchise minorities. US Attorneys who wouldn't go along with the program were fired.
Dubya used signing statements to exempt himself from laws which might constrain his executive powers. The White House used "executive privilege" to stonewall congressional oversight of the US Attorney firings, even when the president supposedly wasn't involved. And the Republican nominee, Straight-Talking Man Of Integrity John McCain, is in violation of campaign finance law every single day.
I'm sure I've left out countless examples, but I think you get the idea. Republicans in general, and the Bush administration in particular, simply cannot stand to be bound by the law. It chafes them, it burns them, and they must defeat it and subjugate it at any cost, even if that cost is democracy itself.
Share This 
Spotlight
my post from downstairs is on point right here
Eli!
the more they are exposed, the more brazen they become, the more laws they break in the light of day, the more they know they can break.
there is no stopping this coupe, they are above the law
let me ask something, I want everyone to take a long, desperate look at the next question;
does anyone…anyone here, believe these parasites, these bigots, these misogynists are going to forfeit this power to a black man, a women, or both?
I cannot believe we are allowing this to happen, each and every single crime should have gotten our buts in gear to remove these two from office, each and every one
yet they remain in power, stealing more of our infrastructure, stealing more middle class assets, destroying this country, her integrity, her ability to defend her self
yet they remain in power
the time is long past, long LONG past, the democrats need to march into pelosi’s office and have her step down, she is inept, she is the peter principle defined, she has risen to the position to which she is not capable
she must step down, the grownups have work to do
Hey, Eli. Now you’ve got me remembering go-go girls! Back to read.
Contempt for the law. I grew up listening to Republicans run on a “law and order” campaign slogan. Now the Republican motto is: “So?”
Ahhh… Eli, you’re so naive, remember the cardinal rule; IOKIYAR!
I think there are still limits to how far they can go; even Mugabe couldn’t steal the last election in Zimbabwe. They’ll miss the power, sure, but I really don’t think they have anything to fear from the Democrats in terms of actually getting prosecuted.
They *should* have reason to, but they don’t. The Democrats will just sigh with relief that the electorate took care of the problem for them, and that will be that.
You don’t have to convince me. Anyone who has read about Germany in the 1930’s can see the signs.
They really are all about gaming the system. Laws are for the little people.
Dammit, I meant to throw in a reference to them being the law & order party, and I completely forgot. Too many moving parts.
Left you an answer to your question in the last thread.
Yes, it’s actually legal doctrine now.
I keep wondering what will happen in January, 2009. The odds of people paying for their crimes is much greater if we have huge victories in congress.
moving parts and pixie dust.
High Status non troll Glenn Greenwald on (D) complicity in Bush’s crimes:
how about, the bipartisan washington elite hate to be bound by the law, maybe that would be more apt.
after all etymologically privilege = private + law.
Paying taxes is for little people too.
Good for you. I salute you for putting that sign on your door.
Cheneys has relentlessly worked at destroying the constitution since he took his oath. I don’t think hes been subtle or shy about what he is up to. There are plenty of quotes from him decrying the weakness of the presidency and how he was determined to make him emperor. Of course his pet monkey went along with the whole thing.
but there are not limits to how far they believe they can go
not one person, not even ONE, would have imagined they could get away with what they are have done and are doing, they began in the dark of night, now they mount their seige in the light of day, we are countenancing torture, rendition, INVADING COUNTRIES TO STEAL, on made up data that they knew was made up, we are countenancing arrests without evidence, without trial, we are writing laws after people are arrested when they are found out to be imprisoned having committed no crime
I do not believe you can say they won’t get away with it, what is left to do is far left for them then what they have done
eli, what makes you think there will be elections for them to steal?
they don’t want elections and they have set the table to suspend them
we are in tons of trouble, tons
eli, I do not believe there will b
In fairness to the Dems though, the Briefings were very limited in the actual scope, and, Yoo’s memo was only released two days prior to the initial briefing on torture, apparently, Ashcroft hadn’t even seen it…!
Republicans don’t hate the law, they just hate the ones that are inconvenient.
You’ll notice that I stopped short of saying that the Democrats embrace the rule of law. But I think most of them hate it less than the Republicans do. (Faint praise, I know)
Inconvenience is largely situational.
They’re used to me now… I introduce myself to all new hires as “the office crypto-Commie and the only real Democrat in Savannah.” Depending on how they react I’ll bother to remember their names…!
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think they’ll mess with the elections any more than they think they can get away with. I think their plan is to just go back to obstructing and making life hell for the Democratic president and majority, and then blaming them when Dubya’s chickens come home to roost.
O/T -
Related to the HRC tax data dump, on Friday before Final For weekend?
Yep, Cheney’s view is “no limits on our actions; no accountability for the consequences.”
I sometimes think Bush is different. He may actually think he’s doing the right thing but is incapable of seeing himself as in error.
Cheney, Addington, Cambone, and, Haynes evidently kept it under very close wraps…!
And the ones that are inconvenient are any of them that get in the way of trampling roughshod over the entire world to get what you want…
the law profession must begin the defense our our country since our leadership refuses
we have to start with yoo, we have a call to action, our country needs us and we must rise, yoo MUST be disbarred, there is NO choice, if he is not disbarred, his opinion will carry the weight of precedence
those of you that know Shakespeare know the true allusion to his quote, “first thing to do is kill all the lawyers”
they were discussing a coup, they wanted to overthrow the government and in order to do that they needed to silence the lawyers
the fourth estate is gone, our supreme court is gone, our militia is gone, our resolve is now gone
yoo is the answer, we must have him disbarred, this will be the start, and a very small start if we are to reclaim our once proud republic
ben franklin’s eyes are open, he is watching us, he told us we had a republic for as long as we would fight for it and now our republic is on the mat, possibly not to arise
zackly!
More…
*Every* time someone spits on the law with no consequences, the law gets weaker and more irrelevant.
“we have to start with yoo, we have a call to action, our country needs us and we must rise, yoo MUST be disbarred, there is NO choice, if he is not disbarred, his opinion will carry the weight of precedence”
__________
While I would love to see him disbarred — and in an orange jumpsuit — I won’t be holding my breath.
Who has the standing to initiate proceedings against Yoo?
Scarecrow, YGM
Heh, look what happened to Pakistan’s lawyers and Chief Justice, when they stood up… Maybe, Cheney visited to take notes…! ;-)
and here we are today eli
the president has created executive orders giving him supreme authority in ANY catastrophe, this “catastrophe” is not limited to our shore, any catastrophe anywhere
and HE is the one that determines what is or is not a catastrphe…HE is the one
if he thinks the housing crash were catastrophe enough to declare just such an emergency, he can do it
he has already taken control of the states own resources, our own militia is gone, the generals that would stand their ground have been retired or obsorbed, the supreme court is in his pocket and on board
this is really really bad
I beliege the bar does, and they must
Or gave directions.
Which is why Nancy taking impeachment off the table amounts to criminal negligence. She told Dubya he could do whatever he wanted, and she’d just let it slide.
bed, g’night all
she is an accomplice as far as I am concerned and I would love to see her removed from her seat of power
bed, later all
Which raises the question of where the hell has the ABA been?
Aloha, perris!
A lot of John Yoo’s arguments in his memo are on a level with: Let us take the sentence “Torture is really, really bad.” Note the comma. What is a comma? A comma in effect places a limitation on the phrase in which it occurs. If the author had wished to say that “Torture is really really bad” he could have done so. Instead the comma was used to indicate a limitation on the badness of torture, i.e. that it is not so bad. Since torture is deemed to be not so bad, then perforce it is to some extent good, and this is how it should be understood (especially if this ever comes up at your trial). When we torture, we torture the good way, not the bad way. But since we torture the good way, it is misleading to call what we do torture. Ergo and therefore, we do not torture. QED
I think we would should act like perris is right, even if he is wrong. The problem remains for me.. what the heck do I do?
Good night, perris. Sleep well.
Off topic? I don’t think so…
John McCain supports torture of human beings by teh United States of America.
John McCain:
Worse than Bush
Here’s a surprise. Not
You mean the one’s that aren’t Federalist Society members? In private practice, since they were either fired or told not to apply for Govt. jobs…!
Way back in the day when I was learning grammar I was taught to use commas that way. Which was really, really helpful because it adds emphasis.
RRRAAAWWWWWwww!!!111
My favorite argument was the one about how torture wasn’t cruel and unusual punishment because the detainees hadn’t been convicted of anything.
Good take, Hugh.
Scalia.
Great synopsis. What more does anyone need to know? Details are for junkies like me.
“And now, for something entirely different.” (Monty Python)
THE CREATION STORY….As Told By The Cat
On the first day of creation, God created the cat.
On the second day, God created man to serve the cat.
On the third, God created all the animals of the earth to serve as potential food for the cat.
On the fourth day, God created honest toil so that man could labor for the good of the cat.
On the fifth day, God created the sparkle ball so that the cat might or might not play with it.
On the sixth day, God created veterinary science to keep the cat healthy and the man broke.
On the seventh day, God tried to rest, but he had to scoop the litterbox.
(Thanx to Bill in Portland Maine - in C&J on DailyKos today)
Like I said, what more do ya need to know?
Yes. I was just starting a post over at my place asking just what exactly Dick & Tony talked about on those hunting trips of theirs.
Nothing in the rules about pre-punishment.
Scalia recently advanced the argument that torturing convicted prisoners as punishment was clearly unconstitutional, but torturing “terrorists” purely to extract vital information might well be OK.
Eli, thank you for standing up for our Constitution.
I dislike it extremely when people mess with our Constitution.
Can you Digg it?
Yes, and I’m wondering if it’s a coincidence that Scalia and Yoo used the same argument, or if they both got it from Cheney. Or Cheney passed it along from one to the other.
Well, the last seven years have just sucked for you, then. And for me.
From his interview, Yoo uttered this BS…
Powell, JCS Myers, Ashcroft… have all flatly denied that rubbish, he’s still deluded…!
Oh, thanks for that! As someone who serves a Siamese I can testify to its truth…
Nothing except for that obviously quaint notion of presumption of innocence.
Scalia BBC torture parsing linky here.
They’re all part of a conspiracy to evade accountability for war crimes.
So quaint it is. Along with the Bill of Rights. Downright antiquated.
Or, he’s the most recent SOB to be left twisting in the wind because they no longer have need of him. He still should be disbarred…
Feh, who needs a Manchurian candidate when you have a Manchurian lawyer.
Heh, I seem to recall the quaint argument used once or twice…!
Better yet, two! Addington and Yoo…
Yes, a very quaint notion, I am sure Cheney smiled when it was pointed out to him.
What amazes me most is how quickly everything unraveled. I didn’t think it was possible. If anyone had asked me 8yrs ago if it was possible the U.S. would sanction torture, violate the Geneva Convention, suspend habeus corpus, arrest war reporters….well, I would have considered it a ridiculous question. Yet, here we are.
And, in honor of Peris, I’ll add that I didn’t think we’d have dishonest elections either.
I personally think that Addington should be the one with the biggest bull’s eye painted on his back…
Rockefeller has got to go.
And probably Pelosi, too.
This is shameful.
rofl, foo, yoo!
Don’t forget Reid.
I have said for years now as Perris says, we are living in a coup d’etat. They would never use brute force to take over the apparatus of the state. But they nevertheless turned the law and the constitution in on itself and stole the nation.
And the sad thing is hardly anyone complained and those that did were so bland in the protestations and strategy to take this country back.
We need another MLK to tell it like it is and fire up the people to action.
What do we do? Sports, pop culture, distractions.
Why are americans so afraid of their government? Oh I forgot.. cops kill first and ask questions later.
How do cats that repeatedly commit undergrad Freshman Philosophy 102 / “Critical Thinking” Straw Man and Red Herring fallacies make it to the Supreme Court?
Antonin, you assume you got a Bad Guy in possession of the exigent intel. How can you know this in advance, so you don’t apply these atrocities to the innocent? (roughty 90% of the WoT collars to date)
Basic Straw Man. Were he a student in my class, I’d incinerate him.
ok, i rlly know foo == goat f*cker
Bread and circuses.
This is actually the argument that Yoo makes in his discussion of why the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) does not apply. Basically, if you fear an imminent attack (and in the war on terror all attacks are imminent) harsher interrogation methods are justified and not cruel or unusual.
Also the memo refers repeatedly to al Qaeda and Taliban and argues that as unlawful combatants they are covered by no legal protection, not the Constitution and not Geneva.
These congress critters are afraid.
I suppose you forgot about the anthrax attack. They were told that unless they quietly go along they will die. Wellstone paid with his life.
These critters are just play acting and will do nothing because they are scared that these guys play for keeps. Call it blackmail, if you like. Anyone else in their position will be read “into the program” and do the kabuki.
Wake up.
The real ugly part is coming.
In Viet Nam, the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Viet Nam, for short) routinely tortured Viet Cong or NVA (Army of North Viet Nam) prisoners during interrogations as punishment. The French have been accused of torturing prisoners in Algeria as punishment. Saddam certainly did. For Scalia to say that torture during interrogation may be acceptable is, in fact, unacceptable. We can now be listed with others who engage in this horrific, stupid activity.
Pregnant men…? ;-)
Which is what I’m saying.
By that reasoning I could cap Yoo before realizing, at the time, that he was gov official and be tried of “pedestrian” manslaughter.
Accountability for whom? How far does this extend?
My understanding based on the jurisdiction I practiced in is that any citizen who feels aggrieved by an attorney’s conduct has the right to file a complaint with the bar that the attorney is admitted to. I don’t know what bar(s) You is admitted to, nor do I know their specific regulations. But I think Yoo’s conduct stinks and I have faith that the legal profession will act accordingly.
Cheney is the target I’d like to see taken down. The rest are just his henchmen.
I think a lot of citizens are feeling pretty fucking aggrieved.
Dang, Eli, Scalia is spooky…
He’s as slippery as Rove - pulling the strings without leaving any fingerprints on them.
funny, how logical can run a course.
I am advocating a constitutional amendment to prohibit sociopaths from holding elective or judiciary office.
Do they need to have been personally affected by the behaviour about which they are complaining? eg - being a client of a dishonest or incompetent lawyer.
I just gotta say this (and I know you understand, Eli, so it’s not a criticism of you), but it’s absolutely pervasive out there in how people talk about this stuff.
When the Constitution doesn’t merely refrain from granting the government the power to engage in certain acts, such as torture, or search and seizure without a warrant issued on probable cause by an independent judiciary, but explicitly forbids it from doing so, then all the “laws” in the world can’t “make it legal” for it to do so.
Laws purporting to legalize torture, or warrantless wiretaps, or arrest and indefinite detention without charge or access to a lawyer or any judicial review of the appropriateness of such arrest, are nothing but propaganda intended to give cover to criminals acting under color of an authority they do not in fact have.
This fundamental point is not only not said often enough, as far as I can tell it is almost never said. And it needs to be. It needs to be an integral part of every speech given by every Democrat running for office from now until November and beyond.
It won’t be, but it needs to be.
It is a slippery slope. There is a very 24 aura about a lot of the memo. Here is what Yoo writes as an example:
It’s not far from there to more extreme measures which Yoo also defends by arguing while such methods may be extreme, the definition of torture is reserved only for those which are the most extreme of the extreme.
CA state bar.
Is Yoo receiving any sort of government pension? (impeach him now!)
Working as a law prof. anywhere, much less Boalt, should be out of the question for this cretin.
Oh, and the Hague.
Good point. Instead of presidential signing statements appended to legislation, they’re like legislative signing statements appended to the Constitution. Same principle, and same legal validity.
On the other hand, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy are the ultimate arbiters of what’s lawful and constitutional now.
But if we knew that the detainee had information, we’d know the information, wouldn’t we?
Damn, Skippy! But, under the Unitary Executive they obviously think they can…!
No, we definitely don’t want him working at the Hague.