« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Conyers Schedules Hearing with John Yoo
House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) wants to former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo to discuss his now-infamous March 14, 2003 memo that broadly authorized the use of torture by military interrogators of unlawful combatants.
Conyers has gone ahead and scheduled a hearing for May 6th on the memo and invited Yoo in a letter today. But it's apparent from the letter that Yoo is not too enthusiastic about the prospect of testifying to Congress. He's apparently raised concerns to committee staff that the topics covered might "implicate executive confidentiality interests" and generally indicated that he'd rather not appear.
But given that Yoo has spoken with a variety of news outlets about the memo and other matters, Conyers points out, there's no reason why he couldn't talk to Congress. And while Conyers has invited Yoo to appear voluntarily, he makes it clear that he will issue a subpoena if Yoo declines.
Hopefully lawmakers will use the opportunity to ask Yoo why it was that he signed the memo himself, bypassing even the attorney general.
The full letter is below.
April 8, 2008Professor John Choon Yoo
University of California, Berkeley
School of Law
890 Simon Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720Dear Professor Yoo:
I write to invite you to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary at our May 6 hearing scheduled to explore issues regarding the nature and scope of Presidential power in time of war and the current Administration’s approach to these questions under U.S. and international law. Among the subjects likely to be explored at the hearing are United States policies regarding interrogation of persons in the custody of the nation’s intelligence services and armed forces, matters addressed in some detail in opinions that you authored during your service as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. Given your personal knowledge of key historical facts, as well as your academic expertise, your testimony would be invaluable to the Committee on these subjects.
I understand that, in discussions with my staff, you have expressed reluctance to testify voluntarily on such matters. I am hopeful that you have reconsidered that stance, however, given your extensive public comments on these very issues. For example, on April 3, 2008, Esquire magazine published an interview in which you made frank and on-the-record comments regarding the origination, drafting, and scope of OLC interrogation memoranda. Similarly, you provided on-the-record comments on the recently released March 2003 interrogation memorandum to the Washington Post just last week, describing that document as “near boilerplate” and asserting that, in pulling back from the analysis in that memorandum, the
Department had “ignored [its] long tradition in defending the President’s authority in wartime.” Overall, you have made such extensive public comments on these and related matters, that it is extremely difficult to understand why you would continue to decline to present your views to the Committee.
To the extent you have raised concerns with my staff that some questions on these matters might call for responses that you believe would be covered by executive privilege or that would implicate executive confidentiality interests, I am confident such concerns can be effectively managed in a setting where you are voluntarily appearing before the Committee. Indeed, just two months ago, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Bradbury testified before the Committee on many legal issues raised by Administration policy on the interrogation of detainees. If the current head of OLC was able to testify on these matters, and especially given that OLC’s current interrogation memoranda remain classified unlike at least some of the opinions that you authored, I can see no principled basis on which you might decline to appear.
During your recent executive branch service to the Nation, you played a key role in momentous, and controversial, events of great interest to all Americans. And I am sure that, from your prior service as General Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, you would agree that it is the unique responsibility of Congress, the representative branch, to explore such issues and to bring relevant information to light. As you once wrote,”Congress’ power to conduct such inquiries inheres in its power to study and pass legislation, and it has used this power from the very beginning of the Republic to investigate maladministration in the Executive Branch, to determine whether social conditions require new legislation, and to review the success of existing laws.”
In that vein, let me repeat my hope that you will voluntarily appear before the Committee on May 6. If that date poses a particular scheduling problem, please contact my staff as described below and we will be happy to discuss reasonable alternatives. Should you continue to refuse to testify on a cooperative basis, however, the Committee must of course proceed with its investigation and will be left with no option but to compel your appearance.
Thank you for your careful consideration of this invitation. So that we may plan accordingly, please contact Committee staff at (202) 225-3951 as soon as possible and no later than the close of business on Thursday, April 17, 2008, to discuss the details of your appearance.
Any further responses and questions should similarly be directed to the Judiciary Committee office, 2138 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (tel: 202-225-3951, fax:: 202-225-7680).
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.
Chairmancc: Hon. Lamar S. Smith
Hon. Brian A. Benczkowski





VERY O.T., but apropo of the top item on the main TPM page about breaking away on all three networks from the Petraeus hearings--did it happen during Biden's apparently very astute questioning? (See DDay at Digby's.)
the way DDay's talking it up, it sounds like a key moment and I'm dying to see it...
April 8, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be mistaken, but didn't I read somewhere that Yoo's memo never passed through the accepted chain of command?
I think the burden is on Yoo to prove he had a client that he was advising - and not just pontificating about torture in a memo.
Now if Yoo had a client that needed advice about torture, wouldn't Yoo's product have flowed up through the official chain of command?
And to claim "client confidentiality" we must first have a client. But how could we have a client if he wasn't following SOP?
C'mon, Yoo, name your client. Otherwise, your memo is just opinion -- and that's how you've tried to pass it off. And opinion is not priviledged info.
April 8, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has "executive privilege" written all over it. No way the Bush Team lets him talk.
I'm surprised Yoo hasn't just written a memo that says he's not allowed to testify.
April 8, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear jolly ranchero,
Executive privelege can not possibly pertain due to his extensive public discussions of the memo. Yoo is a private citizen and cannot be legally compelled by the shrub not to testify.
I realize the snail like pace of the Contempt of Congress process is infuriating, but Mr. Yoo will indeed testify, and he will indeed hang (figuratively speaking... there is no death penalty at the Hague)
April 9, 2008 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't the appropriate place for those who commit crimes against humanity and the architects of such plans behind bars. I would say subjected to their own torture plans but we should be more humane than barbarians like Yoo.
April 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find mind blowing is the amount of hubris exuded by the John Yoos of this world. If he could have just kept his mouth shut, he may have made to Bush's Pardonpalooza without testifying. Instead Yoo gives interviews to Esquire.
What a dolt!
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
April 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is kind of OT but I'm disgusted that I attend the same school that he teaches at...
April 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've asked before, but still have no answer.
Is Yoo a Moonie? Does he believe that Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the messiah and the Unification Church his vessel.
The Moonies and the Bushes have history - so it would only be appropriate here...
April 8, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Yoo will testify openly and freely and withjout invoking Executive Privilege on the exact same day that a large elephant clad in glod flake and smelling of boysenberries wafts gently from my sphincter and floats on gossamer wings about the dome of the Capitol Building.
Subpoena, reject, negotiate, reach impasse, threaten contempt of Congress, wring hands, fret, issue contempt vote, litigate, wait, rinse repeat.
April 8, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot write Sternly Worded Letter!
April 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good... more questions.
I think Congress has decided to just... well... embarrass the bad guys to death. My opinion, however, is that Congress is just embarrassing our Constitution, forefathers and generations to come. If the powers to be have no accountability, WE HAVE NO DEMOCRACY, folks... IMHO
April 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I'd like to believe that Yoo will be forced to talk and we may start to see some justice, I am convinced that LarsThorwald is 100% correct and nothing will be done.
How terribly depressing.
April 8, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Choon... can be abbreviated to JC... shorthand for Jesus Christ...
April 8, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wanna make John Yoo's week even worse?
Here's how to reach the administration and faculty at Boalt Hall, the law school at UC Berkeley where Yoo teaches:
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/facultyList.php
It has links to each faculty member and administrator's bios and contact info. The individual pages have handy email links.
I sent 31 emails to selected members of the Boalt Hall faculty and administration. There are descriptions of the members' specialties and interests, and I had ample opportunity to choose those whose areas of law—including human rights, ethics, and international law—might make them more disposed to getting John Yoo out of their department.
Have fun!
April 8, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, I'm even going to fire off a letter to the University of Trento, Italia where he taught a seminar in Globalization and Constitutional Law in 2006. We should really find every place he's ever taught and fire off letters to them.
April 8, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
good point, I agree!
Who do you want teaching your kids? Yoo or Charles Manson? Each advocated violence that others followed?
April 8, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Facilitrix, err The Focilatatrix...Oh, you know who you are!
-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
April 8, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Kiel,
May I call your attention to your use of the term "illegal combatants" here?
The assault on our Constitution is simultaneously an assault on our language. 1984 came in 2001.
The term "illegal combatant" has no meaning in the context of GTMO (subject of most of Yoo's 3/14/03 memo, which was addressed to his Defense Dept counterpart). There is no paper trail, available for scrutiny, of GTMO detainees. There is probably no paper trail on many of them, period.
Given the size of the rewards offered by the US military, some GTMO detainees are most certainly truly innocent.
So please, use "so-called 'illegal combatants'," or simply "detainees" if you want to use language that respects the government's nonsensical terminology.
Personally, I think "prisoners" is the apt word. With all that implies for invocation of certain treaties. Journalists and bloggers have the right and duty to use language MORE accurately than the government does.
As in, "authorizing torture on prisoners the Bush Administration characterizes, without legal precedent, as 'illegal combatants."
DLS
vidhardt.blogspot.com
April 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond the issue of this memo's content, which is indefensible, there is the issue of why it was classified in the first place:
“The disappointment I feel with respect to the abuse of the classification system in this instance is profound,” said Mr. Leonard, who recently retired as director of the Information Security Oversight Office, which reports to the President on classification and declassification policy.
“The document in question (pdf) is purely a legal analysis,” he said, and it contains “nothing which would justify classification.”
Beyond that crucial fact, the binding technical requirements of classification were ignored.
Thus, he explained: There were no portion markings, identifying which paragraphs were classified at what level. The original classifier was not identified on the cover page by name or position. The duration of classification was not given. A concise basis for classification was not specified. Yet all of these are explicitly required by the President’s executive order on classification.
April 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
As mentioned above did Yoo have a client? If not, was he just innocently doodling his thoughts around on a piece of paper? If so, how and why did this innocent doodling make its way into the White House and become a presidential policy? If this scenario is not the case, then Yoo had a client. Who was the client?
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
April 8, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, I am NOT defending him. He makes a mockery out of legal arguments and relies on an understanding of the executive branch that is weak at best.
But with that said, I think there's an argument that he had a client, because he worked for OLC - so his client is the President.
And, since the AG(DOJ)'s office is also an administrative agency under the executive, the AG's powers are derivative of the executive.
So, I'm guessing some conservative could argue that there's no need to go through Ashcroft et al. because both bodies (AG/DOJ and OLC) serve the same master -- the President. And with that said, I'm fairly certain that OLC doesn't always send every legal opinion it issues to the AG for approval/vetting.
However, with that said, it certainly makes it look (and smell) like Yoo knew he'd have problems with his opinion's viability - hence the reason why he bypassed Ashcroft et al. And this also makes any argument about serving the same master look like post hoc justification.
April 8, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't help but notice that nearly all the neocons are double (or triple) chinned pudgy boys. They're all out of shape, lacking exercise, and must overeat chronically. The statistical probability they're all genetically obese, rather than a personality and behavioral choice, seems rather unlikely. I don't see a lot of Samoans and Inuits in the neocons.
Of course, this isn't about a beauty contest. But there are very important, I would even say critical, mental health benefits to regular exercise. And a group that collectively doesn't exercise and maintains high average levels of obesity is going to be dysfunctional. I can't help but think Yoo and other neocons would have vastly increased mental health if they improved their physical health. I notice couch potatoes are often ill tempered and somewhat obsessive compulsive, which seems to be a common trait among neocons.
Exercise increases cardio fitness which also increases capilaries in the brain delivering oxygen. About 20% of calories and metabolic activity occurs in the brain. A sluggish body often produces sluggish mental activity.
Exercise releases chemicals which greatly increase clear headedness and calm perspective. People who exercise regularly experience feelings of tranquility and calm during and afterwards which is excellent for ordering and putting things into perspective. Exercise tends to cancel compulsive or obsessive behavior and promote emotional stability.
Exercise has been shown to greatly reduce and even reverse the effects of Alzheimer's.
Exercise outdoors, in the sun, synthesizes vitamin D which has important neurological and metabolic function. Only recently was it discovered the body synthesizes a form of Vit D in sunlight which can't be eaten or supplemented, and studies indicate seasonal depression as well as various other illnesses are related to deficiency in this unique type of Vit D.
Exercise develops a healthy metabolism which is essential for clear headedness throughout the day, and it encourages a good nights sleep, both of which are essential for a healthy brain.
It's very difficult to have a healthy brain while failing to exercise and create a healthy body.
April 8, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very difficult to have a healthy brain while failing to exercise and create a healthy body.
ummm...
However, plenty of exercise and being physically fit presents no causal relationship with having a healthy brain. For evidence, I present The Shrub... I rest my case.
You shouldn't judge a person's mind by the state of their body. Given that, I still have to say that Yoo really is a pudgy, over-ripe, fat fuck. He's going to have lots of nice "friends" at the Federal Penitentiary.
April 9, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's potentially interesting because there are federal criminal penalties associated with not following classification rules. (Of course, that also gives Yoo an excuse for asserting the Fifth in response to all questions unless he's given immunity for having conspired to commit war crimes, but that's another matter.)
April 8, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we know that the Office of the Vice President regularly "classifies" things in its own manner - and keeps much of it in a man sized safe in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
Furthermore, we know that the White House has claimed for about a year that it is not bound by the Executive Orders that it issues.
Methinks these Yoo documents were Cheney classification specials, never meant to see the light of day but someone "mishandled" them over at DoD. As we know, classified info handling states that declassification can happen only by the hand of the original classifying agency.
Here, we've got DoD declassifying a DOJ document. So that could mean that DOJ issued it unclassified, and someone at DoD classified it. Or the classification marks were so slipshod, DoD didn't even know what they had - and declassified. Remember, only four or five people had ever seen the memo (all of them since left the department), so the line declassification staff would have not known its substance or significance.
April 9, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conyers should just have the sargeant at arms cuff him and drag him down to the lockup.
April 8, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole mess...is much ado about nothing that will make a difference to anybody WHO HAS BEEN TORTURED (like me) IN THEIR OWN HOMES WITH DOD'S DARPA WEAPON CALLED A DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON (DEW).
I also got torturted with an RFID chip, illegally inserted in my skull while I was asleep.
When I sought to get the chip out (a due process liberty interest in a course of medical care) my SIOUX FALLS, SD, MEDICAL DOCTORS took x-rays...and...ACTUALLY HID THE FIRST SET OF X-RAYS SHOWING THE CHIP WHERE I SAID IT WAS.
So...DR. CHAD CARDA (member of SD National Guard) ordered a second set of x-rays...with another x-ray tech who put the film on the viewer while I waited in the room. UNKNOWN TO THE DOCTORS...I VIEWED THE X-RAYS (two) showing the chip with a 90 degree angle.
THEN, MY DOCTORS FRAUDULENTLY OFFERED FIVE X-RAYS THAT did not show my skull? I asked the doctors for the first two x-rays showing the chip...they then made excuses and said they were lost somewhere.
I WROTE OUT A SD BD OF MEDICAL AND OSTEOPATHIC EXAMINERS COMPLAINT NAMING DR CHAD CARDA AND JENNIFER BURGER. The SD Atty General LARRY LONG was contacted by WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL HARRIET MIERS a/o JOSH BOLTEN (subpoenaed by Leahy...8 months went by before legal action was used to get these subpoenas in court?).
SO WHAT IS PAT LEAHY doing with my complaint and his oversight function?
NOTHING...NOTHING...NOTHING.....NOTHING.
Do you understand the significance of CHENEY/DUMSFIELD creating "plausible credibility" by creating a bogus legal memo that pins the criminal and civil liability on John Yoo (who mysteriously resigned a WH counsel post?...to teach law at a liberal law school?...who got Yoo the job?...Yoo also taught law in Italy at the same school that former FBI OPR directer DEFIO went to, after I sent him an FBI OPR complaint that he was not allowed to investigate.
The next FBI OPR director appointed by Mueller...also...DID NOT ACKNOWLEDGE POSSESSION OF MY DOJ OIG COMPLAINT THAT WAS MOVED BY DOJ HQ UNDER GONZALEZ TO FBI OPR (taped phone conversation with Denver DOJ OIG ass Dir).
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT AN INNOCENT MEDICAL DOCTOR NAMED MARK GORDON was tortured in his apartment where MINNEAPOLIS FBI coerced Gordon to live across the street from THE ST. PAUL FED BUILDING WHERE MARK WAS FORCED TO TAKE POLYGRAPH EXAMS BY FBI AGENT STEVEN PLUTA.
DID YOU KNOW THAT GORDON'S BROTHER, RICH GORDON (SD US Sen Tom Daschle's ex chief of staff), was also fried with a directed energy weapon causing a fatal brain tumor? TWO OTHER KNOWN ASSOCIATES OF MINE ARE DEAD, OTHERS HOSPITALIZED WITH BRAIN STROKES including SD US SENATOR TIM JOHNSON whose office recieved my information.
Did you know that FBI/NSA illegally picked up an email I sent to Mark Gordon...mentioning my threat to get a Daschle supported congressional hearing into the RCMP canadian warrant for MIAMI FBI AGENT TERRY NELSON'S MONTANA DRUG CONSPIRACY...with GOP Gov Racicot (Waxman subpoenaed his emails in 2007) laundering the drug money into GOP campaigns.
April 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink