« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Internal Justice Dept. Investigation Includes Yoo Torture Memo
Just how bad were John Yoo's now-infamous torture memos?
After numerous calls from Congress for the DoJ to get digging, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility told Congress in February that it is busy investigating Yoo's infamous August, 2002 torture memo. That one, signed by then Office of Legal Counsel chief Jay Bybee, limited the definition of torture to physical pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." It was the administration's so-called "golden shield" which permitted the CIA to use its most aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.
And then in March of 2003 came Yoo's memo broadly authorizing the use of torture by military interrogators on unlawful combatants. Now OPR has told Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) that it will be investigating that memo, too.
It is far short of a criminal investigation. OPR's job is to police whether the Department's lawyers behave professionally, and so in this case, OPR's chief Marshall Jarrett has informed Congress that the investigation will be covering "whether the legal advice contained in those memoranda was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys."
So the question for OPR will be whether Yoo came to his roundly-denounced conclusions in a professional, ethical manner. OPR's investigations are usually not publicly released, but Jarrett wrote that "OPR will consider releasing to Congress and the public a non-classified summary of our final report." There's no telling when that would be.
There are plenty of grumbles that the limited scope and independence of OPR's investigation (OPR reports to the attorney general) mean that it won't tell us enough and won't result in any changes. And Attorney General Michael Mukasey has already made it clear that no matter how deeply flawed an Office of Legal Counsel memo might have been (or be), anyone who relied on it "could not be the subject of a prosecution."
<-- end analytics tag -->
Comments (27)
Hopefully this will lead to Bybee having to give up his seat on the bench. He should never of passed the nomination process, let alone be given a lifetime appointment. That is one Impeachment I will love watching on Cspan, and the late night reruns too. chuckle
April 18, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO, there is no right way to legalize torture. Not unless you want to complete lose the Geneva Conventions, every law forbidding it, and all the holy writings about how to treat people.
(At that point, we'll be living in the 'mirror universe' of Star Trek.)
April 18, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
so all they are investigating is whether, you know, he was bribed or improperly influenced?
Sounds like CYA to me.
Yoo is every bit the war criminal as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. He is less known, like Wilhelm Frick compared to Hermann Goering. Nevertheless, he is a war criminal. This nation has laws against torture and has signed international treaties prohibiting the use of torture. If the Bush Administration wishes to use torture, then they should nullify the treaties and change the law.
Incidentally, here's an interesting quote from Frick:
"Hitler didn't want to do things my way. I wanted things done legally. After all, I am a lawyer." (4/24/46).... "The mass murders were certainly not thought of as a consequence of the Nuremberg Laws, [though] it may have turned out that way."
Frick was executed on 10/16/46.
April 18, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or did he have a conflict of interest? Like maybe he was secretly waterboarding someone?
What scumbags Bush and his entire administration are.
April 20, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yoo will be exonerated of any 'improper influence' and the Bush regime will trumpet this as proof that there was nothing wrong with Yoo's torture memo, completely brushing aside the issue of the illegality and immorality of the use of torture.
Jan 20 cannot come soon enough.
April 18, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh and while I am busy inviting invocations of Godwin's law, if Yoo is to Wilhelm Frick as Cheney is to Goebbels or Himmler, then Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity are comparable to Hans Fritzsche, who was head of the Radio Division of Goebbels' Propaganda Ministry. Fritzsche himself was a radio broadcaster and very popular, helping spread Nazi propaganda.
Fritzsche showed genuine remorse and regret at his trial and was acquitted. He was later convicted by a German court, freed in 1950.
April 18, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fun reading rynato!
But why would they exonerate Yoo of any 'improper influence'? It seems like they'd want to blame everything on him. Then higher-ups will say they acted on Yoo's legal counsel, publicly shame him so public blame doesn't go up the chain anymore, then Bush will pardon Yoo on January 19th, 2009?
April 18, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
and who's Julius Streicher ?
April 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mukasey's statement is evidence of his decision not to fully enforce Geneva, not a defensible legal position. This contradicts:
That's DoJ AG's legal position, but he's not a court. It's up to the court how it adjudicates; and if DOJ blocks prosecutions, Congress has the power to impeach; and the State AGs have the power to bypass DOJ AG and directly prosecute: Yoo is subject to CA state law, the Geneva Conventions. CA State AG has a legal duty to enforce Geneva against lawyers practicing in his state. Federal government has no power to block enforcement of state law or Geneva against state citizens; the President has no pardon power relative to international war crimes.
April 18, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great to know "testing!"
April 18, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If convicted of an international war crime or crime, the Constitution does not grant the President any pardon power. The pardon only exists for crimes against the United States:
Where the Constitution does not delegate any power to the President, the President has no power. The Constitution cannot delegate international power to anyone, only power to exercise under the Constitution; the President, despite his confusion, is not the President of the world or international order.
It will depend whether (if) Yoo is charged under US law, where he could be pardoned; or, without a DOJ AG/State prosecution, whether foreign powers under their law. Yoo could be pardoned if DOJ AG decides to enforce Geneva through US law. Given DOJ AG says he's inclined not to enforce Geneva, Yoo, if prosecuted, would most likely be prosecuted under another power; or, if under another President, under US law.
It would be best, if Congress wants to make a point, to impeach him, strip the option for a pardon. Normally, Congress only impeaches people who are in government; but this is not binding. The Senate threw out one impeachment and refused to conduct a trial. But the Senate action does not bind the House, and the House could "subject" Yoo to an impeachment proceeding.
April 18, 2008 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Attorney General Michael Mukasey has already made it clear that no matter how deeply flawed an Office of Legal Counsel memo might have been (or be), anyone who relied on it "could not be the subject of a prosecution."
That's ok, Mike, we'll get 'em later, on the backside of your nothingball stint as AG. During your brief tenure @ DoJ you can't bury the multitude of BushCo wrongdoing deep enough to really, really stay buried.
April 18, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush/Cheney to John Yoo;
'John, we need legal authority to start up concentration camps.'
John Yoo:
'Coming right up Chief.'
April 18, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure DOJ will find that Yoo acted responsibly and professionally, just as the dean of Berkeley's law school determined that Yoo's work was covered by academic freedom, and that in any case he wasn't as guilty as Cheney and Rumsfeld would be for any inhumane treatment received by POW's, oops, of course I meant unlawful combatants.
April 18, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yoo himself has made the crucial claim, namely that he didn't know his memo would actually be used to sanction torture. If no one can prove him a liar in that, he wins the steel cage match with Feith and several awards for legal incompetence, but OPR will clear him. If he knew or had reason to know at the time that the "Principals" were already authorizing torture, then he's up the creek both legally and as a matter of professional ethics.
April 18, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, )PaulW, I think that the bar is much higher than that for Yoo. As a lawyer isn't he is required, when discussing possibly illegal actions, to provide a thorough discussion of the matter and present at a minimum the established interpretation of the laws? I believe that all of his writing merely strained to justify the course of action he knew that the leaders of our country were already determined to take. I am sure that he is required as a matter of professional ethics to clearly counsel his clients (which Cheney etal were in every sense of the word) that the course of action they were considering is illegal.
April 18, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What mystifies me is that nobody seems to notice that waterboarding is torture even under Yoo's perverted definition:
Surely being forced to inhale water induces physical pain equivalent to the pain accompanying organ failure (lungs) and impairment of bodily function (breathing).
--Kibitzer
April 18, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more we learn about every single aspect of DOJ under Bush/Cheney, the slimier it all seems to get. The "best" news (if there is such a thing) is the fact that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a former U.S. Attorney with a first-rate legal mind and a doggedly determined attitude, will not, I am certain, let any of the alleged perpetrators out of his cross-hairs until every available avenue for legal redress has been explored. He is the LAST man I would want looking into my affairs with a fine tooth comb.
April 19, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Activist,not lawyer questions:
If you are a betting man, what do you think the chances/odds are of seeing the CA AG actually upholding the oath ? I mean, obviously, crimes have been committed both under GENEVA and under federal statutes and someone/Yoo aided and abetted the crime(s). I see this without benefit of much of a legal education and surely other CA citizens can "clock" that line of reasoning. What do they expect of their AG?
Does anyone have any idea of how hard the momentum to get Yoo thrown out of teaching hit the Dean? The U of CA obviously knew Yoo's "record" before they took him on. Doubts had already been raised but nobody thought to think down the road about CONSEQUENCES surely ? Yet this got serious ink in the WaPo as an idea rather.
Are there plans underway to "hit" either the law school or the CA AG's office en masse by lawyers who are enraged by having their profession dragged into the mud underway ? Or are all waiting for the rapturing of the messiah to occur? Does this man Yoo produce a narcoleptic effect rather than making people want to scratch his eyes out?
Who is going to sue on behalf of We the People for media complicity for the ungoing crime of coverup?
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/05/media/view/index5.html?show=all
I've seen this question raised outside Greenwald's site now - Why doesn't this whole issue get more media coverage? Has TORTURE no become the "t" word in the press? to make love with the "i" in the dark night of America's soul?
Show of hands: how many still have an ACLU membership when they don't call for impeachment?
I've called them and owe them a lengthy letter just to ensure it ends up on an appropriate desk.
Not a DIME until they put out an impeachment brochure. How can they presume to represent clients in Guantanamo when they don't call for imoeachment - why the legal remedy evasion? Write to media@aclu.org if this so moves you. I wish I could get back the dimes I've wasted calling Nancy PeLOUSEy and any money I find have goes straight to Shirley Golub or Nadar. Sorry about the length but I seriously want to know ..
April 19, 2008 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Folks,
Perhaps it's time that we communicate with Mr. Yoo directly on this, and let him know what we think.
From the Boalt hall site, here is his email:
jyoo@law.berkeley.edu
April 19, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor John Yoo. After he gave his all to his adopted country to "legalize" torture, he will ultimately be scapegoated so that the higher-ups responsible for his relatively minor role in the disgrace can waltz into history as "patriots" and defenders against terrorism.
When they picked Yoo to write the torture memo they knew exactly what they were doing: not a native citizen and therefore eager to prove his patriotism to his adopted country, ambitious, and most of all, low enough in the chain of command to provide deniability to the big shots.
Yoo knows what is happening, so it is no wonder that lately he has been trying to distance himself from his own role in the process. While the official machinery of "justice" will work its way down to Yoo, he is already pointing the finger upward: "I was just following orders."
Berkeley has to decide quickly whether or not to let him go. If they wait too long they might end up having a faculty member who is indicted under a war crimes charge, not a good thing for the school's reputation.
If Yoo has any integrity left, he would resign, but don't hold your breath.
April 19, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Testing ,
The National Lawyers Guild has recently called for Yoo's disbarment and then to be charged with complicity in war crimes . Would the NLG be a good vehicle to get California State Attorney General involved in the drafting the necessary articles of impeachment for Mukasey -since fREDO'S replacement also seems neck deep in protecting war criminals too ...
April 19, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point.
April 19, 2008 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
April 20, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
What some call a Golden Shield may be called other things by a Grand Jury in 2009. Such as,
Count 1: Torture (18 U.S.C. § 113C)
Count 2: Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242)
Count 3: War Crimes (18 U.S.C. § 2441)
Count 4: False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001)
Count 5: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503)
April 20, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget the role that "The Honorable" Harry Reid played in getting Bybee's nomination through the Senate. Yoo may be warping 1Ls but Bybee gets to park his evil carcass on a federal bench until he expires.
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/people/030708jay.html
April 20, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My belief is that we either get some real accountability out of the new and widely anticipated dEMOCRATIC Majority coming after the general election - That is a wide & thorough investigation into all of the corrupt activity that gwb43 represents-with comcomittant punishment for the wrongdoers -or are we need to find ourselves a new party to protect our interest in Washington.
iN MY MIND UNTIL PROVEN CLEARLY OTHERWISE MADAM SPEAKER AND OTHERS INCLUDING HARMON ARE IF NOT COMPLICIT IN THE WAR CRIMES AND OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES THEY ARE AT LEAST ENABLERS TO BUSHCO..
and yes goldspinner -Reid enabled Bybee to be seated as a judge - it is very very disturbing ...
(Paging Rahem Emmaunel ! )
April 21, 2008 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink