Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama lawyers argue to drop Yoo torture suit

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kpete Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:29 PM
Original message
Obama lawyers argue to drop Yoo torture suit
Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Obama lawyers argue to drop Yoo torture suit
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, March 6, 2009


(03-06) 18:08 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- President Obama's Justice Department defended former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo in a San Francisco federal court Friday, arguing that a prisoner formerly held as an enemy combatant had no right to sue Yoo for writing legal memos that allegedly led to his detention and torture.


"We're not saying we condone torture," department attorney Mary Mason said at a hearing on the government's request to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Jose Padilla. But any recourse against a government lawyer "is for the executive to decide, in the first instance, and for Congress to decide," not the courts, she said.

"You're not saying that if high public officials commit clearly illegal acts, a citizen subject to those acts has no remedy in this court?" asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White.

Not unless Congress has expressly authorized a lawsuit, Mason replied. She cited the argument the Justice Department made in Yoo's case last year, with President George W. Bush still in office, that courts should not interfere in executive decision-making, especially in wartime.

White did not indicate how or when he would rule.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/0...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. O.K., What The FUCK Is Going On Here?
Obama did say "No one is above the law," didn't he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emmadoggy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. " O.K., What The FUCK Is Going On Here?"
My sentiments exactly.

W. T. F.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
72. well obama must be doing it for VALID REASONS..RIGHT??..pick your choice
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 09:14 AM by flyarm
please feel free to add to the list..because the count down is on for the excuser's to come by any minute.
calling the cat woman..she'll be manning this thread any minute!!

a. he will undo it later ..
b.this is just a trick to stump the GOP
c.he is doing it to protect a prosecution ten years down the road
d.April fools..opps it is only March
e. the devil made him do it
f.it's so Obama can get the bigger guys..(Pardon me while I choke...I kill me with laughter)
g. Obama is too busy with the CONGA LINE Dance on Wednesday party nights at the WH
h. the devil made him do it..ahh did i say that already????how about his minders made him do it?
i. the easter bunny is coming
j.we have to be patient, there must be a bigger fish to fry
k. Obama has only been in office 60 days..what's wrong with you people..he is working over time to make sure no one is ever held accountable that broke our laws and treaties...come on folks..this is hard work.
l.we need a commission,we need a commission, we need a commission.. not prosecutions..cover up and white wash..can't come fast enough for "the chosen one"
m.Obama needs to tap all our phones and read all our emails..after all if you are innocent , you have nothing to hide..right?????? screw the constitution..the Obama way.

FEEL FREE TO ADD TO THE LIST..

did I mention ..CHESS ???????

snark.
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #72
139. Obama is looking to be re-elected. Simple as that.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #139
144. Yup, And Boy Am I Holding My Tongue Here!
Not . . sure . . . how . . . long . . . it . . . . will . . . last . . . . . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #144
157. I hear ya!
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #72
186. m. keeping his 'powder dry' n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
88. I read somewhere that the lawyers arguing these cases are BushCo holdovers
and honestly I think they're doomed to failure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. how have they failed so far??????
and who decided to keep 51 of them?????

Oh I know, the easter bunny!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #90
169. Oh, I forgot, this is DU so it's okay to act like an asshole.
C- on Punctuation and Capitalization.

D on Civics. You can't just fire people who are in civil service.

Big fat F-U on Discourse. Now go outside to play.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #169
170. Hmm , i type with one hand
Edited on Sun Mar-08-09 10:10 AM by flyarm
as i was hit in a head on car crash and have less than 2% use of one of my hands..so using the shift on the keyboard while typing is impossible for me..i type totally with one hand.

I do the best that i can, and typing with one hand is not one of my strong achievements after spending 4 years in physical therapy..since having my hand disabled.
Like i said i do the best that i can.

But thanks for your concern!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bottomtheweaver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #170
171. flyarm when was that accident?
Because .. well .. not all accidents are accidental any more. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #171
175. it was a college kid driving ..speeding ..and out of control.
he was speeding down a mountain road and i was going up the mountain road...he came around a corner in my lane and hit me head on.

I have spent years trying to get more use of my hand to no avail..i do not use it as a crutch..but i get tired of people attacking my typing skills and blame it on ignorance ..i am not ignorant, i just can't type well..and ordinarily i ignore the board police..but sometimes it can't be ignored.
I can do most things well with one hand..but typing is not one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bottomtheweaver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #175
176. Oh that's really a shame, thanks for explaining.
And your typing has never bothered me. I thought it was a literary thing until now, LOL.

p.s. strange but there have been so many fluky car accidents that take out enemies of the reich, union organizers, authors and the like.. but I guess you know about that..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crikkett Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #170
173. You type quite well with just one hand, freeper-style attacks and punctuation all.
Edited on Sun Mar-08-09 11:46 AM by crikkett
And that's what I complained about. You could have used fewer keystrokes to pose your question politely, but you chose to be an ass.

I'm sorry for your problems. We all have problems. I don't feel entitled to abuse people because of mine.

May you find peace.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #173
174. gee i don't know you here..and you obviously don't know me..
i am anything ..but a freeper type..lmao!

but i do say it like it is!

sorry if that offends your sensibilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #169
197. Um, D of J attorneys are political appointees, not protected by civil service. Reagan
fired all of them when he took office. Bush I did not have to--they were already all Republican, thanks to Reagan. Clinton fired all of them when he took office. So did Bush II, except that he did it more gradually than Reagan or Clinton had. People who tried to defend Bush for firing his OWN D of J hires missed that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
23. I'm sure someone will come up with a convincing sounding excuse. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheEuclideanOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
41. Give me a "P".... Give me a "U"....... Give me an "S"...... Give me another "S".....
Well, you know the rest. Goooo Democrats!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressIn2008 Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
71. Isn't it pretty damn clear what's going on here? Apologists for torture will spin it
-- if it's Their Guy -- but it's clear.

The rich and powerful are above the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
85. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
lsewpershad Donating Member (964 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
92. Yes he did
and so did the AG. So, what the hell is going on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
127. Politics as usual?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #1
199. Yes. And apperently the Administration's position is that Yoo did not violate the law
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
204. What's going on?
Change you can believe in! Why do you ask?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Goddamn
The criminals are getting away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Yep. But only bc they're getting a lot of help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. "We're not saying we condone torture," Well yeah, actually,
you are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalsince1968 Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
43. Yep. In supporting Yoo, they are supporting torture. No way around it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
70. actually, it would be one thing to say it doesn't belong in the courts....
....if you're actually doing something about it. the "executive" is claiming to have the authority, so what is obama doing about the yoo torture memos?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
101. Exactly, Lynn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
4. Is this Obama's justice dept. or leftover Bush dept.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Holder was confirmed a 34 days ago.....
I'm not sure if he's had a chance to appoint the attorneys to replace to ones in ongoing cases.

He ordered a full review of ongoing cases a day later.
But whether he got new people in, it is hard to say.

here's excerpts from a blogging session with WAPO Justice Department Reporter shortly after Obama won, which provide some information on how things kinda of work:


KarenLS: It will be hard to fix the Department of Justice in one or even two presidential cycles. You can't get around the civil service laws in order to get rid of everyone who was hired because they had a limited and skewed view of justice. They are probably so deeply embedded in the department that it would take a wholesale dismantling and a restart from scratch to put it to rights.

Carrie Johnson: Karen, Senate Democrats and the inspector general say they have noticed some improvement since retired federal judge Michael Mukasey took over as attorney general this past winter. Earlier this year Mukasey announced he would reach out to candidates who had been ignored for the elite honors program and other posts, to let them know they were welcome to apply for current jobs at the department. And some Democrats say they believe that many political appointees (including those involved in the botched U.S. attorney firings and unlawful hiring practices) departed long ago. So the challenge for the new team at the DOJ will be finding those who remain, evaluating them and perhaps moving them into different jobs while avoiding allegations that they are just as political as the people who came before them.

New York: The Bush administration placed many unqualified and political lawyers who barely passed the bar into the Justice Department; will the Obama administration be able to remove them, or are we as a nation stuck with hacks who are less then legally bright and without bias?

Carrie Johnson: Hi New York. Former DOJ officials from Democratic administrations say they think many of the worst offenders have left Justice. For instance Monica Goodling, the White House liaison and former counselor to the attorney general, resigned last year along with more than a dozen other political appointees.

Prominent Democratic lawyers with ties to previous administrations also say it will be imperative to institute rigorous evaluation programs for those who remain. They want to be careful not to demoralize (further) the civil service ranks at Justice, while guarding against the prospect that some under- or unqualified people have been hired as immigration judges, staff attorneys and the like.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
24. Good points, but DOJ is still being run by Holder
Were they not prepared for holdover shenanigans from day one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #24
35. It may not be as easy as we think!
Sure, some even thinks the economy should be fixed by now; ditto this.

I'm not into knee Jerk, and since I'm not familiar enough with the case to make a judgment, I try not to come to any conclusion until I research....especially dealing with a situation from the previous administration, that this new administration has to now deal with. Look me up in about a year, and I'll have a better feel about how the "was done" has been "undone". As of today, it is still too early into this presidency and all that it entails for me to work up into hysterics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #35
124. Are there only two choices, praise for the President or hysterics?
Overall I agree with your idea that not knowing all the details and an early Presidency count for much, so I grudgingly cut slack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PurityOfEssence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #35
180. "Not into knee jerk"
Proclaiming that Obama is correct in all cases qualifies as knee jerking. Anyone who questions Obama is a bitter hater. All those who question Obama must be vigorously and emphatically hounded from the field, hectored by any accusation necessary to fan the flames of dittoey supporters, and humiliated into silence.

We need an avatar here that's a small medical mallet with a triangular rose-colored rubber head and a stainless-steel handle. Anybody for a kick?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #13
95. "There is a saying that victory has a hundred fathers..
and defeat is an orphan" JFK told the press ," I am the responsible officer of the Government"

less than 12 weeks into his presidency when he inherited the Bay Of Pigs covert operation from Eisenhower.

Enough of the excuses..anyone who paid attention and didn't drink the kool aide knew this was fully Obama's intention to never hold anyone accountable in the Bush admin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #95
203. the "dark actors" of the BFEE R very powerful ...
well, maybe the word "very" is not descriptive enuf, so maybe "criminally" powerful describes them better...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #13
200. You do not need to get new people in. You get reports on what cases are pending and what is due
next on each one, and when. And then, you direct your employees, regardless of who hired them, as to what to do, be it ask for a postponement or take a particular position. And, if anyone refuses, you assign the case to someone who will obey and you put the insubordinate one on research or whatever.

As far as replacing people, Reagan and Clinton fired all the D of J attorneys and replaced them. Bush II did the firings more gradually. It is not that hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jawja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
56. Yes, this is my question, too.
When did this case come to trial? Didn't it become "Obama's Justice Dept" in January? :shrug:

(I'm sorry, I guess I'm offering one those lame excuses......)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Mary Mason is a Bushie.
This is a continuation of a case from last year when Bush was in office. So what exactly is going on here?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Yes, but Mary Mason answers to Eric Holder. It's a department., not 50 lawyers doing whatever
pops into their respective heads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
68. so maybe her head rolls
after today. one can hope
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #68
198. Doubt it. Point of being part of a department is that you DO report to
Edited on Tue Mar-10-09 09:50 AM by No Elephants
the head of the Department, who is Eric Holder. And Holder reports to Obama. If Holder did not know roughly what she was going say when she got into court, he is not doing his job. My guess is that he very much did know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
8. So, the people who tortured cannot be held liable if they had a lawyer's opinion saying
it was ok for them to torture, but the lawyer who gave the opinion cannot be held liable either, unless the President or Congress says so. This is bs.

The one saving grace we had in the Bush years was good judges, folks. Stand against this, PLEASE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. The one saving grace we had in the Bush years was good judges, folks.
What???

bush I and II packed the courts with right-wing fucks. We're screwed in the Federal Judiciary until these wack-jobs from the Federalist Institute start dying off -- and if there isn't another repuke pres.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
195. No one said that the good judges were Bush appointees.
Edited on Tue Mar-10-09 09:34 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AyanEva Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. .
This is the one thing that I don't understand. WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. The law is delicate and complex. Yoo analyzed the law
for his bosses; that was his job. What actions his bosses decided to take relying on his analyses and other considerations had direct consequences for others, and its his bosses and their actions that might be arged to be liable for harm by Padilla and other 'victims.'

DOJ lawyer said 'Yoo had no authority over Padilla and merely "gave very general advice about very general problems" for Bush to decide. Any court scrutiny of Yoo's actions "requires inquiry into the highest levels of the United States government," she said.'

Its not a simple system, but it tries hard to be logical, and to isolate responsibility cautiously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vattel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #16
48. But the DOJ is not merely claiming that Yoo's actions
are not the proximate cause of Padilla's harm, or something like that. They are arguing that the citizen cannot sue the federal govt in war time for violations of the citizens rights unless the govt consents to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #48
73. i think that's the jist of it.
besides, the law is not a plaything for intellectual exercise or excuse-making, and every lawyer should be held directly accountable for his/her work. yoo could have said there is no argument for torutre. he did not do that. he put his signature, as an employee of the government, on work that condones illegal activity. it is actually politically-biased law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #73
165. Intellectually honest lawyers, especially associates, have to be ready to pay the price
for their honesty. Usually, partners in law firms want the associates to prepare memos that echo the partners' opinions. It is unusual to find a partner humble enough to listen to or consider an associate's opinion if the associate's opinion is different from the partner's.

Yoo wanted to keep his job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
196. Yoo gave the legal opinions his bosses wanted. I'm not sure that was his job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jambalaya Donating Member (359 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
63. CYA
WHY? WHY?
Because to do otherwise sets a precedent by which Obama's administration can be sued down the line for SIMILAR and/or related actions they may or may not be guilty of themselves .

Wiggle room,imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AyanEva Donating Member (428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #63
130. Mmmm
Yeah, I think someone on KO said something similar. It still doesn't sit well with me. I'll wait to see how it all plays out, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #63
201. And that sucks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OwnedByFerrets Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
11. Fuck that shit!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Aren't you happy about this? I would be surprised if you weren't....
as you are normally happy about things that makes the Obama administration look bad, no matter what it happens to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #11
208. Still back Obama but a disturbing disappointment in his move...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. What on EARTH???? WHY?? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. Want an answer to this? Let's all of us, ASK at whitehouse.gov....
If we don't make our voices heard, our voices will not be heard. This Yoo needs to be behind bars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. His BOSSES should be behind bars, imo.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. YES! From your mouth to God's ears - maybe they'll end up there
I wish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #14
202. Excellent suggestion. D of J has a website with a "contact us" page, too. It is
Edited on Tue Mar-10-09 10:10 AM by No Elephants
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
15. This does not make me happy.
This makes me unhappy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
20. The fairest thing would be...
to put John Yoo IN a torture suit...

And turn up the juice -- way high!!!

Just make sure he doesn't suffer "organ failure"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:21 AM
Response to Original message
22. Change isn't keeping 51 Bush AG's . . . !!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. You can't say that enough
I am unconvinced that the Obama administration wasn't prepared for these shenanigans from day one. Whether this is an indication of something sinister, irresponsible, pragmatic, legal formality, or something else, who knows, right?

I am trying to train myself not to jump to conclusions but there is no excuse for keeping AG's that Democrats will never trust.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #26
83. AMEN!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-09-09 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #26
191. Whoa, Nail Hits Head
No excuse indeed. This is disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
25. Doesn't it appear that Obama wants no part of opening any can of worms against Bushco regardless
how serious the offense or laws were broken? - don't think some of what Obama campaigned on will come to fruition.. sad to say because Barack is starting to appear like any other administration (not quite yet though) I still have the Hope..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #25
55. Seems very simple to me. Obama is now the head of a fundamentally flawed power structure in this
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 08:07 AM by IsItJustMe
country, and rather than trying to change the structure, for what ever reason, Obama has decided to protect and even promote the error.

With the reasoning being used here by the Obama justice department, the government can not be held responsible for crimes that are promoted from within the government. With this logic, we as American citizens have no recourse when the government runs afoul of our constitutional rights.

To me, this will only lead to the continuation of the destruction of our civil liberties by the state. If Obama was truly about change and continued American civil liberties, this is where change would be occurring. It's real simple, American Civil Liberties 101, and not only is Obama dropping the ball on this one, but he is actually helping to defend a policy which is destroying the fabric of civil liberties in this country.

This, to me, is a realist view of what is going on here. For the Obama supporters who believe that this is occurring because of left over Bush appointees in the justice department, I say wake up. This pattern of defending the Bush legacy is coming directly from Obama, make no mistake about it.

For the sake of future American Civil Liberties, I wish it were otherwise, but it is not. I still have hope that Obama can make some positive changes in other areas, as he is, but I am not very optimistic with regards to this issue.

ON EDIT: Obama once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I hope that he would take his own advice here with this issue and grab the bull by the horns. If not, on this issue, he will just go down as another status quo politician that talked a good game when it came to change, but when the rubber hit the pavement, he folded just like a many of othe weak politician.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #25
57. I Agree With You About Obama "Not Wanting To Open Any Can Of Worms" AND I For One
find this disturbing! Sure, there are many, many issues on his plate but tell me what is MORE IMPORTANT than upholding the laws of the land and OUR Constitution?

I'm in Johnathan Turley's corner when it comes to all the crap that went down during BFEE and it's one of my MAIN issues! I'm perplexed as to why the Obama Administration is so reluctant to "do the right thing" and restore credibility of our justice system.

This simply sticks in my craw and gives me a great deal of apprehension. I consider myself a Molly Ivins, Amy Goodman type and I doubt that these actions would make either of them very happy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jambalaya Donating Member (359 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #25
98. Rahmbo
Hmm...why do I get the feeling that much of this reticence ties back to Israel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bette Noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:29 AM
Response to Original message
27. Yoo has to go down.
If he doesn't do several years in prison, the US is no longer a nation of laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
28. Argh! K and R
I don't want to have to write Obama nasty letters! I have a hard time believing that as a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR that OBAMA would not be all over this shit! YOO is EVIL!

John Yoo should not be teaching JUSTICE and LAW to the students in California.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
29. If this a matter for the Executive to decide, I want to see him decide it immediately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SkyDaddy7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I am new so please dont kill me for saying this...
If Obama's lawyers argue this side then the Republicans can't use it against him. Just because the Obama admin is arguing this in court does not in anyway protect Yoo from prosecution...There are many ways to skin a RAT! Just a thought?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Welcome to DU, SkyDaddy7
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 01:56 AM by EFerrari
:)

Yes, there is more than one way. However, having them make these arguments gives the appearance of agreement even if we know that it's the DoJ's job to protect the interests of the Federal Government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:46 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. Please see my post at #16
for some 'light' on the subject, maybe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
32. Why is Yoo still employed by Boalt?
Why does he still even have a license to practice law?

The students there sound really passive also. What happened to a hotbed of activism? Pathetic. The least they could do is simply refuse to attend his lectures. Stage protests. Do something!

As for why the torturers are being defended by the Obama admin, who know what the hell is going on. Too many holdovers. Start cleaning house!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. Actually, I think he's somewhere else right now.
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 02:09 AM by EFerrari
Last I heard (and that was some time ago) there were protests and demands for him to be fired but it didn't happen. I'll have to read the Daily Cal to see if there's something more recent but, he'e not on campus right now. He's got another gig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fujiyama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:54 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. Good to hear
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 04:54 AM by fujiyama
Hope they hold up with it and he's no longer associated with them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #33
51. Yoo is on 'leave' from Boalt Hall.
He is a visiting law professor at Chapman Law school, part of Calif Claremont College, located in Orange County, Nixonland. Among his other resume items is that he was clerk to Clarence Thomas and adviser to Sandra Day O'Connor when she was one of the infamous 5 who 'selected' Bush to be president over Gore. Not only did he write the Bush memo on torture but he alone was responsible for 8 years of Hell in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #51
103. My husband graduated from Chapman Law School.
I wasn't aware it was part of Calif. Claremont College.

I'll ask him.

In any case, it's one of the few law schools with conservative professors in these parts.

Yoo'll be welcome at Chapman.

I can't see him being welcome at Boalt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #51
123. I think it's a bit of overkill to claim that...
"he alone was responsible for 8 years of Hell in this country." Yes, he had a lot to do with it, but a lot of others also had dirty hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #123
143. Yoo was behind Sandra Day O'Connor's decision.
I remember watching him on PBS Jim Lehrer when we were in a crisis mode over Gore/Bush Supreme Court decision. John Yoo was interviewed by Lehrer and Yoo, I think being her adviser, was all gung-ho that S.D. O'Connor should vote against Gore. I read that O' Connor has lived to regret her decision. Thanks a lot Sandra for nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #143
160. I doubt if she regretted it. She is a puke just like the rest of them. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #33
126. I posted about it the other day. He's still technically at Berkeley, but he's got some
Other gig at a smaller school with a real right-wing chancellor. I forget the name of it. Check my journal. Scott Horton wrote about it, too. He was supposed to have a honorary professorship at the new place but then he didn't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushmeister0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #32
132. The article says he's on leave to teach at Chapman University.
Here's Dr. John C. Eastman's (the dean of the law school) email address if anyone cares to write him and tell him how impressed you are with the university's faculty.

jeastman@chapman.edu
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatSeg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
34. Damn
Actions have consequences and Yoo needs to be held accountable. The so called "enemy combatants" paid for the decisions made by Yoo and others. This cannot be swept under the rug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. Once one Bushite is held accountable, it should start a flood of
prosecutions and convictions. Then maybe it will lead up to Bush and even Cheney getting convicted of war crimes for the "Cheney water torture."

They are trying to split hairs on Yoo. This case is not that clear. Yoo didn't specifically authorize or do anything to Padilla, probably never mentioned him by name. He advised the people who made the go no-go decisions on torture. When they are convicted they may be able to sue Yoo for legal malpractice, giving them such bad advice. The problem for them is Yoo was not the only attorney who gave opinions on torture. Several others said essentially, "Of course it's torture. Of course it's illegal. We convicted Japanese torturers for using these exact same methods in WWII."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #39
60. The Problem I See Here Is... Will There BE Any Bushite Held Accountable
or is it just "more of the same?" Obama has already backed away from prosecution of BFEE, leaving it to Leahy & Conyers per se, and this just seems WRONG to me!

As stated above, doing the same thing over and over with the same results IS NOT progress to me!!! Nor is it legal IMHO!

:wtf: :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #60
75. not if obama can help it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatSeg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #60
150. I think Obama knows Leahy, Conyers, and
other members of congress will pursue it and that it is better if he doesn't initiate the investigation for many reasons, including putting his public focus on the economy. A sitting president going after a former president's administration could be perceived as spiteful and arrogant. It seems preferable to have a different branch of government do the dirty work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatSeg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #39
149. That is what I visualize,
a "flood of prosecutions and convictions" and I honestly believe we will see it. I remember Watergate and I'm hopeful that those who betrayed the American people's trust will be held accountable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #149
159. I Remember Watergate Too, That's Why I Feel Strongly That Accountability Is Essential!
I also understand that there's far too much to fix and focus on the economy is urgent, but I wonder if Leahy & Conyers will be enough!

Watergate was into Nixon's 2nd term and probably easier to prosecute. A first term President may seem "vindictive" I know and I see the point, but I just want these people to "pay the piper!"

Guess we'll just have to give it more time, but what a mess we have now!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatSeg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #159
164. Well, Leahy and Conyers
have had years to prepare for this, so I don't think they'll be winging it.

Watergate was a more innocent time. Members of congress were more outraged than this generation of politicians, save for a few old timers. Bush flaunted his criminality, as if daring congress to do something about it. At least Nixon had enough sense to be secretive and fearful.

Accountability is definitely essential, lest a new generation of right wing extremists decides to pull similar crap in the future. History tells us it will happen and a forgetful people could let it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #164
178. I Know This Is A Late Reply... BUT I Had To Do It! I DO Agree That Leahy & Conyers
have been "on the trail" for a long time, and that's ALL good, but as you said Watergate was more innocent even with all the upheaval going on regarding Viet Nam too. But back then it was BIG NEWS, it was Viet Nam, Black Panthers, SLA etc. It was actually rather violent. But I do see your point. However, Congress seemed much more in "tune" with the rest of the country and "we the people" seemed to have a voice.

Now, I wonder so often if they even KNOW they got elected "by the people" and that's my uneasiness. Then again, you live in a place that's MUCH, MUCH more open minded from where I live, and my repression may be showing! Living here for so long it's extremely difficult to stay optimistic for any length of time. The BIGGEST thing that has happened for Democrats where I live was that Obama ACTUALLY came here and held a Rally!!

Democratic Presidential candidates don't come here, he was the first one I can remember... EVER! Anyway, my daughter tells me not to get too uptight and give it time, so I'll hold off for a little while.

But my sheer "hatred" for BFEE knows no bounds, and I rarely say the word "hate!" It's not a word I like, but when it comes to them I just can't help myself!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatSeg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #178
181. I was thinking about that a lot lately,
the uncommon use of the word "hate" in my life the last eight years. My perspective on people has changed dramatically. There really are people who don't care about the things I care about and will do and say anything to gain power.

I lived in Florida once many years ago. It is really a strange place - not southern or northern. It wasn't until the last few years that I realized how right wing it is.

And yes, I've wondered often if our politicians know if they work for us. They seem to totally ignore what people clearly want. Maybe it is because there are so few protests like in the 60's and 70's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #181
189. Sorry... Late Again! My Daughter Wanted To Know How To Tweet!!!
Been on twitter for quite some time, can't say I'm very taken with it, but it's OK. My daughter actually contact Gavin Newsom and he emailed her back... she's on cloud nine!!!! She was asking about Prop 8.

Anyway, Florida is a strange place because even the "blue" parts are a mish-mosh of purple-ish! But where I live, is RED! And they can be TOTALLY "Rush Limpballs" MEAN!!

Just wanted to say that I was offered a trip out to San Francisco (air fare) and I'm excited about coming to "the other side" where there are more like-minded people! I'm apprehensive though because... 1) I probably won't want to come back here, 2) I'll be depressed when I get back, knowing I HAVE to stay here and 3) I'm going because I'd kick myself if I pass this chance up!

Obviously you're a BOOMER like me and we have our "certain" memories that kind of get in the way sometimes. I'm okay with passing the torch, and my two kids have really been exposed to politics from the get-go and are very active. This I'm glad about, and it's one of the reasons we're coming to San Francisco. My daughter went last year and said I HAD to go there with her... just because of all the "action" that went on back then and the things I talked about. I told her it's NOT THE SAME, she knows but loves the place.

But you understand what I'm saying about "we the people" and it irritates me to no end that when I see so much apathy. And perhaps it's not really apathy, it's just we give up because we aren't being heard! It's hard to get a "movement" going!

Still, you can't go back and I say we just "fight on!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatSeg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #189
190. There are so many of us (boomers)
that I see us still as a powerful force in the world. It was our vast numbers that gave us so much power to change things back then.

My first reaction to your pending trip to San Francisco was the same as yours - how on earth do you go back to Florida after visiting sanity? San Francisco is an amazing place to visit, though not a particularly great place to live. My daughter lived there for a few years and it is very expensive. Makes for a wonderful vacation. I didn't move to California until she moved to Sacramento, which is more affordable. I'm originally from the Chicago area.

Today's "movement" took place on the Internet, so it was less visible, but I believe it was effective. I think some of the apathy was a reluctance of a younger generation to take the torch we tried to pass. "Come on you guys, it is your turn!" I worked with a lot of young people who didn't have a clue what was going in the world. Eventually they caught up and I was their go-to person for all things political. I pushed a lot of them to vote in 04, but sadly I had to tell them who was running!

Many of these "kids" were only prepared to succeed in life professionally, but had no sense of history or politics. We studied current events in grade school and civics and political science were required courses. Do you remember the weekly Current Events magazine schools used in classes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #190
206. Yeah, I DO Remember The Current Events Mag... Hadn't Thought About It In A Long
long time. I have been irritated that they have "government" in schools today, but around here NO Civics. That was a REQUIRED course when I went to school.

I've said many, many times in the past that the younger generation would never start paying REAL attention until it started affecting them! Now it has, and whether you might want to say GOOD, you'd then have to say "at what cost?" Would have been much better to have paid attention earlier. But to use that OLD cliche... things happen for a reason, I guess!

One more week and I'll be on the other coast... it's going to be WEIRD. Just heard that the Dali Llama will be speaking at Berkley on 4/25! These types of things are so so "out of my world" anyway! Doesn't happen here!

And yes, I too have worked my "A" off trying to keep politics front and center because Government ALWAYS affects our lives!! I've had people come to me recently and actually FINALLY said, I see what you've been talking about for so long! Well, FINALLY, Duh!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PatSeg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #206
207. As for the younger generation,
another change that happened, was it was cool to be political. They have far greater access to information than we ever did and now they do more than just socialize. I also have to give credit to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for their incredible influence on these "kids". And Bill Maher! They'll listen to these guys.

I look back at my youth and realize that most young people were followers then just as they are today. They just need someone to motivate them. Of course back then, a lot of kids followed movements because that's where the drugs were. In my advanced years I can see that not all were idealistic, just young and impressionable. Of course, there was the threat of the draft which was a BIG motivator.

I look forward to hearing about your to the radical West Coast. There is so much to do and see. I'm going to Tahoe in May. Finally after almost eight years!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcindian Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
38. Yoo's consistency of advice for torture
Is what makes what Yoo did illegal. The government is more interested in protection of itself here then the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coloboyz Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
40. Don't overreact.......
On a personal note, I don't understand why Yoo still has his license to practice law, let alone have a job teaching it. I think he's done more to destroy America's reputation than almost (almost!) anyone in Bush's cabinet and we should dump some chlorine in the gene pool and see how he like extraordinary rendition.

But that being said, in these legal proceedings, he has a legal right to defense. And as he is being sued about what he did at the DOJ, it falls to the DOJ to defend him. According to legal ethics and our legal system, he has every right to the best defense possible, as distasteful as that may be. That doesn't mean that the DOJ agrees with what he did, or that they condone torture, that means that they are obligated to defend him. And that's part of the American legal system that was sorely missing during the Bush debacle - the right to a fair trial. So I'm not sure it's fair to paint Obama and his DOJ with the brush that they defend what he did. I believe they are doing what is legally and ethically required - defending their client. Even Ted Bundy had a defense lawyer - it doesn't mean they agree, or even believe he's innocent. We all wanted the rule of law back and this is part of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalsince1968 Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. Can you cite any FACTS stating that Obama's DOJ is obligated to defend a Bush appointee who
promoted torture? Because I do not buy it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
coloboyz Donating Member (2 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #42
49. From the DOJ
From the DOJ website http://www.usdoj.gov/whatwedo/whatwedo-litigate.html :

The Department of Justice litigates for all U.S. citizens by enforcing the law and defending the interests of the United States according to the law; ensuring public safety against threats foreign and domestic; providing federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; seeking just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; defending federal agencies and officials; and ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

They do have an obligation to defend federal agencies and officials (Yoo was one and is being sued in his capacity as an official). However, it seems like a catch-22 since they are also supposed to defend the interest of the United States - and we can all agree that torture is not in the interest of the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Thanks for posting. When I first read this I thought maybe the DOJ
was on the hook to defend whether they agreed or not. (Cases like this are why I could never be a lawyer.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
byeya Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #49
61. it's The DOJs job to defend agencies and agency workers but
they have great latitude so that when the worker's interest do not coincide with that of the agency needing defence, the DOJ sides with the agency. The DOJ does not have to agressively side with Yoo as they are doing.
Isn't it in the interest of the DOJ to have an upstanding reputation? Do Yoo's memos and advocacies add or subtract to that?
Obama is siding with Yoo; I can't read this any other way. Shame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #49
78. you're correct, and it does seem like a conflict of interest, but...
...they don't get to make shit up, like, you can't sue yoo unless the the exec. or leg. branches condone it. in fact it could be argued that the executive branch has an ethical obligation to recuse itself from the proceedings for conflict of interest. but that's the catch-22 problem all over again. otoh, doesn't the executive branch have an affirmative obligation to police itself? if citizens can't go after the govt., and govt. won't go after the govt., what's left?

i think the main point is: what IS obama doing about the crimes of bush, inc. besides defending them in court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalsince1968 Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #49
121. Thanks. The DOJ goes after CROOKS. Yoo is a war criminal. Therefore for Obama's DOJ to be
defending him is simply not justifiable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #121
155. Except It Was BUSH'S DOJ That Made The Decision To Defend Him
And now that the case is ongoing, Obama (and Holder for that matter) CANNOT INSERT HIMSELF WITHOUT BEING GUILTY OF OBSTRUCTING AN ONGOING CASE and politicizing DOJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcindian Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #40
47. The DOJ should be the one charging him.
Yoo should defend himself or get his own lawyer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
byeya Donating Member (209 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #47
67. I agree. The DOJ should be prosecuting him because the DOJ
is under no abligation to defend a worker who commits acts out of his/her scope of employment. Yoo had to have known of the Geneva Conventions, and other laws, and thus was working outside his scope.
In an old legal term Yoo was "on a frolic of his own" and the DOJ need not defend him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #67
79. exactly. nt
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 09:28 AM by tomp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #67
153. Except Is Wasn't Obama's DOJ That Made The Decision
The decision was made in 2005 and now that the case is ongoing, Obama (and Holder for that matter) CANNOT GET INVOLVED or he will be GUILTY of politicizing DOJ and obstructing an ongoing case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #47
152. Except This Case Has Been ONGOING SINCE 2005
And Obama can't fire attorney's involved in ONGOING cases w/out being GUILTY of politicizing DOJ.

Obama HAS to let this case run it's course or he would be guilty of politicizing DOJ by inserting himself into the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcindian Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #152
179. How does that stop the DOJ from charging him?
The DOJ does not have to let the case run. If we are more worried about some politicizing then the law then we are lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #179
182. Yes They Do Have To
Edited on Sun Mar-08-09 03:20 PM by Beetwasher
Otherwise they would be obstructing. Yoo's possible prosecution is another matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcindian Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #182
184. Legal Barbarism
Edited on Sun Mar-08-09 05:37 PM by dcindian
It can be done. It morally has to be done if not then we are no better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #184
187. Wrong, Obama is not Bush and Holder is not Gonzo
And they are not politicizing DOJ by inserting themselves and obstructing ongoing cases. It needs towork its way through the system. It sucks but at this point its the ethical thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dcindian Donating Member (881 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-09-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #187
193. What Yoo has done is no different then
what the German lawyers did during Hitler's final solution. He set out with a goal to offer legal opinions legalizing torture for the government. The DOJ has a responsibility to charge him and the longer they wait the more or justice system slips away. The DOJ is not under any circumstance compelled to offer legal services to such individuals when they have abused the law.

What we have here is the Bush administration's legal barbarism through Yoo. The ethical thing to do is to ask to put the case on hold so Yoo can change to his shadow council and charge him with a crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #193
194. Charging/Prosecuting Yoo Is A Separate Issue
Edited on Tue Mar-10-09 09:06 AM by Beetwasher
This case is a lawsuit, not a criminal trial and there's nothing preventing the possible eventual prosecution of Yoo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
44. Seeing the names Obama and Yoo in the same headline, on the same side, is not good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero T Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
45. Courts should not interfere in executive decision-making?????
Has someone done away with checks and balances while nobody was looking? Is Obama the new decider?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
46. Change.
Or, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
52. My.My.My.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimshoes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
53. WTF
Ahem, Mr. President, I'm not liking what I'm hearing here. Mr. Yoo is a criminal, a war criminal and needs to be prosecuted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
54. really bad news..
:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harry Monroe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
58. Change we can believe in!!
:sarcasm: Sierra squared, Delta squared (Same Shit, Different Day). What the f**k is going on in this Administration? I did not vote for Obama for more of the same!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ed76638 Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
59. The CURRENT administration has done worse.
This story alone is no big deal. I'm much more concerned about the detention of prisoners at Bagram Airbase, and threating to withold intelligence from Britian . That shit is much more serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #59
80. NOTHING is more serious than the process by which we hold govt accountable nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jambalaya Donating Member (359 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #80
97. Tyranny Schmeranny
"When the government fears its people you have democracy. When the people fear their government,you have tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

Now what is it called when government leaders fear it's own self and members of a previous aministration?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #97
154. obama fears bush/cheney?
or obama supports bush/cheney?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #59
89. oh my ED76638..you are going to make heads explode here!!
OR THE PEOPLE WHO "MAN THE BOARDS" HERE ARE GOING TO GET YOU!!

I FOR ONE WELCOME YOU TO DU!! Some reality based people are needed here!
The Bagram Airbase stuff goes over most heads here!! Or the Board "man'ers will try to shut that info down!
Hang onto your toenails..someone will surely try to rip them out for you..free of charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jambalaya Donating Member (359 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
62. Appeasement,apparently
Perhaps this was a "condition of the "appeasement agreement" with Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to get them to the deposition table.

There were preliminary "conditions" attached,correct?

Sounds like the Obama adminsitration is practicing appeasement skilss,don't cha think?

BTW,is it called appeasement when an enemy of the state IS the state?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
disndat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
64. Keep the faith!
I think, Obama is trying to navigate tricky water. I am more inclined to believe that he is playing devil's advocate, than caving in to Bush's appointees in the DoJ. It may be that Obama wants to make a clear case for prosecuting Yoo and other Bush criminals by taking their side. So the prosecutors and opponents will be able make the case. There must be some legal term for such a maneuver.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. Not Convincing Enough
Please don't waste my time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #64
76. YEAH YEAH YEAH..THAT CONSTITUTION AND OUR LAWS ARE TRICKY WATERS..
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 09:23 AM by flyarm
tell that to the people in prisons all over this country for minor drug charges!!..They were just fools..they didn't do crimes "BIG ENOUGH"..TO IGNORE SUBPOENA'S..AND do rendition flights , and torture..and piss all over the constitution by destroying our Department of Justice and start a war based on lies and deceptions.

Such tricky waters..that constitution of ours , ya know!!

:sarcasm:

Off the table , off the table..off the table..can we sell that table in a garage sale now..since it will never be needed!

Maybe we need to sell delusion towels..to those still drinking the kool aide. Could make a good chunk of change..ya know!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #76
84. there's more:Panetta: No one to be punished for interrogations
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 09:40 AM by flyarm
kpete posted this yesterday, thank you kpete..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph ...

Panetta: No one to be punished for interrogations
Source: Associated Press

Panetta: No one to be punished for interrogations

WASHINGTON (AP) CIA Director Leon Panetta says agency employees who took part in harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects are not in danger of being punished.

Panetta delivered that message to CIA employees in an e-mail Thursday, reiterating what he told Congress last month. He said then that he would oppose prosecutions of any CIA employee who adhered to their legal guidance on interrogations.

He sent the message after the Senate Intelligence Committee announced its review of the CIA's interrogation and detention program under President George W. Bush.

The committee will look at how the CIA decided whom to interrogate, whether it told Congress the truth about the program and whether it was legal. It will also try to determine whether the harsher methods the CIA used elicited valuable intelligence.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5guiSG ...


Now who around here is getting warm fuzzies yet??????????? those are some tricky waters huh????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #84
99. If Obama went after the architects and not the men following orders
I would not object. I want the guys at the top who gave the green light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #99
106. look many in the CIA quit ..because they would not break the law..
and they would not follow orders demanding that they break the law..many were whistle blowers who paid a dear price for standing up for our constitution..they paid a very dear price..and were vilified mercilessly, by the Bush administrators and the media. Many gave up their livelyhood to not break US Laws and treaties that stand under our constitution!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #106
108. I'm well aware of that, but what Panetta is stating to the CIA seems to
be the message of, you were taking orders and exceptions are being made. I did not state I was happy about what Panetta decided and I share your outrage. IF those responsible who sought torture as a tool and their lawyers who scripted the means to suggest its legality are not held accountable, how is prosecuting the lower level individuals justifiable?

What concerns me the most here in this story is that Obama's administration may not be pursuing justice on any level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #108
116. Low level drug users are held accountable for breaking laws..
OUR PRISONS ARE FULL OF THEM.The big dealers are in our banks and in our government.
Read: Barry and the Boys , by Daniel Hopsicker.

The supreme court ruled Torture was illegal and unconstitutional and ordered them to stop immediately and close all gulags.

Bush admin was ordered to stop torture. When he did not comply, Congress had the responsibility to impeach. Impeachment isn't exclusively for blow jobs, there are higher crimes that must be addressed by impeachment from congress. Congress failed to do their job, and therefore became complicit in the crimes committed in our name.

The congress should be held accountable.

And that is the reason we are seeing what we are seeing..many of our Dems are complicit,by not holding the Bush Junta accountable..and they still are not and that is why they are trying to shove down our throats a commission, or as i call it ..another "WHITE WASH"..so justice is never served.
But these legal cases get in their way.

But to go further,..each and every person who broke the law should and must be held accountable.By not doing so is an indictment against those who refused to break the law and our treaties.

Who will ever stand up for our laws if anyone is allowed to get away with torture and breaking of our most fundamental laws? Part of our prosecutorial law is to give immunity when it is nessesary to get the higher ups..not blanket immunity, but immunity to get to the higher ups in law breaking..

But to give a free pass to law breaking because it is ugly or maybe some in congress will be implicated for these crimes is utter bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #116
120. As I said, I'm not happy with what Panetta stated, right now, I am focused
on how this judge will rule. If Yoo can't be sued unless Congress and Obama say he can, what does that mean exactly? Hypothetically, if the Congress votes yes, will Obama agree or veto, does the executive branch ultimately hold all these cards to this lawsuit? The individuals at the top who orchestrated this crime need to be held accountable, without that there will be little to no justice by prosecuting those taking orders from them imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #120
125. I agree with much of what you say ..but ..that is a big but..
what about those who followed the laws of our land..they who were professionals who refused to do as ordered and quit or took early retirement because they refused to break the law..that is making them the fallout of those who broke the laws...from top to bottom. That precedence is unacceptable.That tells future law enforcement , CIA and FBI that if they stand up for the laws of our land and the constitution of which they take an oath to defend.. they will have to quit and give up their careers, and that integrity and lawfullness is not the lay of this land. That that oath is nothing but bullshit. That the bad apples win..and the people with integrity and who do mean it when they take that oath ..are nothing but expendable...and are thrown out like waste water.

No one is above the law.
Our constitution was predicated on the rule of law..not for some, but for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #125
129. please do read Glen Greenwald today..

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/07/al_ma...

Glenn Greenwald
Saturday March 7, 2009 08:08 EST
Preventing a judicial ruling on the power to imprison without charges

But there were numerous steps the Obama administration could have and should have taken to prevent a repeat of the Padilla travesty, including: (a) explicitly renouncing the Bush administration's view that the President possesses this radical power (the super-transparent Obama DOJ refuses to comment on its view in that regard even though Candidate Obama explicitly rejected a similar theory -- see Questions 5 and 10); and (b) urging the Supreme Court to resolve the question notwithstanding Al-Marri's indictment, as Al-Marri's lawyers requested, on the ground that it meets one of the judicially established exceptions to the "mootness" doctrine. The Obama administration did neither: instead, it explicitly refused to renounce this power while simultaneously ensuring that the Supreme Court would -- once again -- refrain from ruling on its constitutionality:

While the government did not defend its power to detain Mr. Marri at present, it left open the possibility that he or others might be subject to military detention as enemy combatants in the future. Any future detention were that hypothetical possibility ever to occur would require new consideration under then-existing circumstances and procedure, the Justice Department told the court in a brief filed Wednesday.
This action means not only that Obama could imprison legal residents or even American citizens as "enemy combatants," but could even re-declare Al-Marri himself to be an "enemy combatant" if he's acquitted in his trial.

It's disturbing that this question remains unresolved particularly given that key Obama appointees -- including Solicitor General Elena Kagan and White House Counsel Gregory Craig -- have openly suggested that, at least with regard to foreign nationals, the "War on Terror" paradigm empowers the President to view the world as a "battlefield" and thus imprison people without charges as "enemy combatants." This action by the Obama administration should also (at least in a rational world) put to rest the painfully sycophantic claim that the only reason the Obama DOJ is embracing radical Bush-era legal positions is because they secretly hope to lose in court and thereby create good judicial precedent. If that were really their secret, noble goal, then they would have urged the U.S. Supreme Court here to rule on Al-Marri's claims (which many legal observers expected would end in Al-Marri's favor) -- not urged the Court to refrain from ruling, thus shielding this asserted power from ultimate judicial scrutiny.

There's no reason to assume that the Obama administration intends to exercise the power to imprison legal residents or U.S. citizens without charges, as the Bush administration did. Unless and until they do that, they haven't done it. And with Al-Marri's indictment, there are now no U.S. citizens or legal residents being held as "enemy combatants," so that's an important step.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #125
131. I don't disagree at all, I carry the same frustrations as you on this matter.
I don't know what Panetta will do with respect to those who engaged in torture, will they be able to maintain their positions or be let go, who knows at this point. And you're right, if they are not released from their positions, those who refused to participate will have dirt flung in their faces once again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. I would not want to be raising a kid today..with this kind of precedence
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 04:34 PM by flyarm
I remember clearly raising my son as a teenager..repeating over and over again..that if he broke the law there would be consequences..That i would not bail him out , if he drove after drinking , if he did anything illegal
( DOING DRUGS for incidence ) I taught him the laws are for everyone and everyones safety and well being ...Well how I feel the hypocrite today!

I feel so sad that this is what my country has become, nothing but more and more cover ups to cover the asses of those few who think the laws are meant for others and not them.

I cry everyday for what has been done to others by those we employ to protect our laws and our constitution.

I cry for people who in our name have been tortured and renditioned and who we have murdered in our name for a war based on lies.

The people who took down Kennedy were never held accountable..we were fed a bag of horse-shit and these people were allowed to resurface and do it again and again..many in the CIA.

The same with Nixon, and Iran Contra..

The powers that killed or helped in the killing of my co-workers on 9/11 were allowed to go unpunished..and the bag of horse shit was brought out again and force fed to the American people..no one was held accountable.

And it is like wash, rinse and recycle.

Same shit just another day.

And if we, for one moment don't realize these people will be recycled..then only look to the past month and see who Obama sent to Russia to represent his administration and we the people..Henry Kissinger.

Wash, rinse and recycle.

I am beyond frustrated, anyone who wanted to know the truth before this past election only had to read what Obama said about Bush..to know..the new boss was going to be like the old boss...only the new boss could read a teleprompter.

oh and Jefferson23
I do appreciate your frustrations as well with all sincerity..and I apprectiate your opinions as well!!
fly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #135
138. flyarm, my condolences on the loss of your co-workers.
For all I have said here, Obama has been president less than 2 months, so there is still time for justice. No question about it, we must all be vigilant and voice our concerns etc. As the saying goes, time will tell. I enjoyed our exchange here and appreciate your opinions too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. i just posted this on another web site..must read!!
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 06:31 PM by flyarm
Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban
Obama Ponders Outreach to Elements of the Taliban

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/us/politics/08obama.h...

President Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.

The NYT had an interview with Obama aboard Air Force One and the article mentions the financial crisis, health care and Afghanistan. Apparently that was not enough, so after that interview, BO called reporters back.


After the interview, which took place as the president was flying home from Ohio, he called reporters from the Oval Office to assert that his actions have been entirely consistent with free-market principles and to point out that large-scale government intervention in the markets and expansion of social welfare programs began under President George W. Bush.

The president spoke at length about the struggle with terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere, staking out positions that at times seemed more comparable to those of his predecessor than many of Mr. Obamas more liberal supporters would like. He did not rule out the option of snatching terrorism suspects out of hostile countries.

Asked if the United States was winning in Afghanistan, a war he effectively adopted as his own last month by ordering an additional 17,000 troops sent there, Mr. Obama replied flatly, No.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mr. Obama signaled that those on the left seeking a wholesale reversal of Mr. Bushs detainee policy might be disappointed. Mr. Obama said that by the time he got into office, the Bush administration had taken steps to correct certain policies and procedures after those first couple of years after the Sept. 11 attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #108
185. "Just following orders" wasn't a viable excuse at Nuremberg.
It's no excuse now!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tink-r Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
66. Everyone deserves a defense
Unfortunately, everyone deserves their day in court. Even those who we feel are the most guilty parties get a trial by their peers. It is a cornerstone of our Constitution. In our system, the Justice Dept has to defend current and former employees. Whether you like them or not. The Obama Admin is probably holding its nose at the stink of the case, but it is doing its duty under our Constitution and Laws. Or do you, like the Bush Admin think that this Admin should only follow the laws and perform the duties they like and agree with? If it is the later, maybe we really are a corrupt third world country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #66
102. Everyone deserves a defense, that is not in question, but Obama is saying that a court
should not decide. Their position is that the executive branch and Congress get to decide if Yoo can be sued, which imo is wrong. This is one ruling I will be anxious to to read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
69. Fuck that!
:mad: :grr: :argh:

So much for being a nation of laws. :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedSock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
74. why is anyone surprised by this???? (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. NOT ME,..not one bit..not one iota..eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
81. stated that Obama admin wants this decided by Congress, not the executive
Also, it could be Mary Mason is going rogue in favor of the bushits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #81
113. Yeah but it should be decided by the courts. Not the congress or the executive branch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
82. This had better not stand...!!!
Do we have lawyers or consiglieres in the DOJ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
86. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
87. CHENEY still rules in WASHINGTON!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
91. WTF?
I'm starting to wish that I had voted for Hillary in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #91
114. So do I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSlayer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #91
167. Why? Do you think she would have done differently?
Not a chance. No way. Like Bill covered Poppy's ass, she would have covered Chimpy's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
omega minimo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
93. oh bloody hell
damn strategerists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
94. When I read that, it felt like someone had just punched me in the gut.
This is about the expansion of executive privilege under Bush and holding on to it imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jambalaya Donating Member (359 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. Gut punch
Yoo,too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
100. Ummm ... this law school graduate may be confused, but ...
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 11:01 AM by Maat
isn't it THE JOB OF THE COURTS to decide if someone's fundamental rights are violated? I'll answer my own question; yes, IT IS.

I don't want the executive or legislative branches deciding if my fundamental rights have been violated. I want the protection of the courts. Sorry, but piss on these asshats (the defendant's lawyers and this legal position)!

While it is true that the U.S. Government must be give permission to be sued in most instances, the government arguing this position does amount to endorsing the excesses of Dubya (Dubya claiming executive powers that don't exist).

It troubles me greatly that the Obama Administration would take this position FOR ANY REASON.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #100
109. exactly! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
104. oh but this is only one part of the coverups going on..
do go and read the entire posting by Emptywheel, and do read the comments..

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/obamas-res... /
Obamas Response to the al-Haramain Smack-Down? Cheneyesque Reasoning
By: emptywheel Friday February 27, 2009 9:10 pm

snip:
Why are these guys still talking about an Executive Order?!?!?!

Not only do they ignore al-Haramain's argument--culled from the "wisdom" of David Addington--that entities that are not "agencies" do not have to comply with Executive Orders. But why the fuck would an Executive Order--which is not a law but, as the term implies, an Executive Order--bind a non-Executive entity regarding information it created? This whole passage, read in the context of the wholesale rollback on Executive claims to have exclusive control over classified information just reeks of desperation. Not to mention an acceptance of Cheney's contention that we have fewer than one--or even two--branches of government.

To be fair, this is the argument that rightly ought to take place, just as Walker rules and things (presumably) will move forward on the al-Haramain suit. Still, it's a desperate attempt to make Navy v. Egan say something it doesn't say--one more worthy of Bush's Dead-Enders than Obama's lawyers.

Walker's Imminent Ruling

So what does this mean for Walker's imminent ruling on whether Bush broke the law? Dunno--but I'm sure glad he has absented himself to go rule, rather than be distracted by this stuff. The big question is whether the Obama/Dead-Ender Administration believes that simply announcing that al-Haramain has a case--that they were wiretapped illegally--constitutes classified information.

It shouldn't. And even more, it shouldn't count as classified information controlled by the Executive (it is, after all, all that Judge Walker has said he'll definitely make available to plaintiff's going forward--his orders). But we'll see whether they'll try to prevent Walker's publication of his ruling, come Monday. If this is all the Obama/Dead-Ender Administration tries to do to prevent Walker from announcing that Bush broke the law, we may be ahead of the game.



do read the comment section and comment #10
bmaz February 27th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
10
Alright I have finished reading the thing carefully as opposed to the initial skim. I guess the continued misrepresentation of Walkers previous order that I noted @6 above is tempered just a hair by the government at least arguing in the alternative with one of the alternatives being close to what Walker really said. Kind of an improvement I suppose.

Curious that in the pleadings in the Consolidated Cases we were recently discussing, the government was literally at full whine that statutes had to be interpreted to give them meaning and keep them valid. But, hey, what the hell, that was 48 hours ago; now they are point blankedly saying that there is no interpretation of FISA that permits action and redress by a citizen so harmed if the government says they cant. It is a meaningless statute if this is true. What good is a statute that permits recovery against the government if the government can just say nuh uh?

And for the love of god, I am going to freaking go berserker if somebody tries to say this is all freaking brilliant eleven dimensional chess by the wonderful Constitutional scholar Obama. This is flat out pernicious bad faith pleading that is violative of the very Constitutional core of our ethos. Or what it was supposed to be anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brindis_desala Donating Member (866 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
105. 1) The suit against Yoo is just one amongst several
Rumsfeld et al are being sued in a different venue (I believe in South Carolina).

2) Yoo as a government lawyer is entitled to limited immunity. Imagine the chaos that would ensue should every memo offering a legal opinion was open to discovery in a lawsuit- say by a wingnut who equates abortion with murder.

3) Yoo was set up by Cheney and Addington to be the fall guy... imagine the chilling effect it would have on the DOJ rank and file if Holder simply hung him out there to take the heat.

4) Mason is correct. The real "deciders" are in Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #105
110. dupe
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 11:32 AM by JackRiddler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #105
111. Are you in denial about Obama admin covering for Bush crimes?
Would you be arguing the same if this was happening under Bush?

1) A criminal regime installed by fraud launched war killed a million declared its absolute sovereignty and tortured thousands, but! Fear not! Several lawsuits are pending.

2) I don't care what you imagine to be chaos. Frivolous lawsuits cost money, so you won't see that many. But it's also irrelevant: Democracy exists only with transparency, all else is a joke. Certainly legal opinions on which policy is based should not be kept classified. Frivolous lawsuits are not a reason to allow a suspension of democracy through protection of secret doctrine!

3) Set up? Set up?! How do you know that? That's for a court to decide, not you. Yoo was part of a conspiracy by the Cheney mob to preemptively justify what they did. The lawyer says it's okay so their ass is covered, and they bestow immunity on the lawyer.

You're talking about a committed ideologist of absolutism who is still out there pushing the theory by which he justified these crimes. Was Rosenberg "set up" by the Nazis?

4) There are three branches. The judiciary has a say in matters of legal malpractice - and conspiracy. No more buck-passing anywhere. All three branches have to stand up to crime.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #105
112. And the judge in question would consider that limited immunity and could still
hear the case regardless. I am anxious to hear this judge's decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tangent90 Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #105
117. He SHOULD take the heat, he helped light the fire.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
107. Unacceptable... get rid of these Lawyers... they have been compromised
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 11:23 AM by fascisthunter
although... after reading #40... interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
115. Whoa up, there.
The lawyer is positing a premise which is simply unsupported by the law. The judge has not yet made a ruling. The judge CAN rule AGAINST that stance, thus opening up ALL the Bushco criminals to private suits.

And, this argument is one posited originally by Bushco - it NEEDS to be ruled on. This does not reflect on Obama in any way, shape or form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tangent90 Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #115
118. Naw, no reflection whatsoever...he's only their boss.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #118
119. The argument was made BEFORE he came to office -
he can't just say "never mind". It must be ruled on.

Besides, if (hopefully 'when') the judge rules AGAINST that argument, he can simply point out "well, that's the law" and under-cut any RW claims that he is waging a vendetta against Bush.

Remember, this is a PRIVATE suit against YOO, it is not a government suit, either as prosecutor or defendent. Bushco offered this spurious defense - and once it has been presented it MUST be ruled on. This in NOT a NEW defense of Yoo by the Obama administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
122. If Yoo walks, then I've given up on the US
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #122
128. we are under tyranny
this will be a Sign

to Rise Up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
133. A Constitutional lawyer that became president
is defending the man that wrote the basis of "our" torture policy?

Hope and Change, may you rest in peace.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Danger Mouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
134. Hmm. This looks suspicious. President Obama better have a good explanation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
136. Excuse me; this is Obama policy, not the policy of some leftover Bushite.
This sounds like more executive privilege jargon. The courts are an equal branch, Mary. This is their jurisdiction. The executive branch does a pathetic job of policing itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mckara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:01 PM
Response to Original message
137. The Justice Department is Obligated to Argue the Case...
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 05:02 PM by mckara
Even if they don't agree with what they are defending.

It happens periodically in states, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeep789 Donating Member (935 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #137
148. Then maybe they should have tried an insanity defense nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Torn_Scorned_Ignored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
141. I Guess I'm Screwed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freemarketer6 Donating Member (189 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
142. Are some of you folks starting to see the light? Pick up a pen
and paper and start going from A to Z comparing what was said in the campaign and what is happening right before your eyes. Could there be a heavy thumb on Obama? Sure. But who or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyarm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
145. They Picked a Bad Week to Stop Sniffing Glue
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com /

They Picked a Bad Week to Stop Sniffing Glue
By: emptywheel Saturday March 7, 2009 5:23 am

The Obama Administration got stuck with a bad court date to have to try to convince a Judge the Jose Padilla suit against John Yoo should be dismissed. After all, we knew Yoo's memos were legally indefensible. But with the release of nine new OLC memos--including the memo eviscerating the Fourth Amendment, the two withdrawing that one and others, and, significantly, one of the memos pertaining to Padilla specifically ("authorizing" his military detention), the sheer cravenness of Yoo's legal work is in sharp relief this week.

Nevertheless, they did argue Judge White should dismiss the suit. Though it sounds like he wasn't impressed with their argument.

The judge, Jeffrey S. White of Federal District Court, explored the arguments of Mr. Padillas lawyers thoroughly, but he appeared to be skeptical of elements of the governments argument.

And he referred to the 4th Amendment Evisceration memo specifically.

In fact, Judge White, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, even told the governments lawyers that Mr. Yoos 2001 memorandum stating that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures can be overridden was a pretty scary position.

And there's a further problem with the Administration's position. They're arguing that it is not the place for the Courts to take recourse against a government lawyer gone bad--it's the role of the Executive.

But any recourse against a government lawyer "is for the executive to decide, in the first instance, and for Congress to decide," not the courts, she said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx snip:

The Obama Administration has already signalled that it doesn't plan real legal consequences for its lawyer for torture. And yet based on that, they want the Courts to butt out.

One more point. It appears that the Administration has not yet turned all the memos used to justfy Padilla's treatment over (or at least not made them public).

read the full story at link above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Titonwan Donating Member (233 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
146. This is NOT CHANGE.
Barack had better straighten his shit out of he's going to be liable for the same crimes Bush and company are guilty of.
This is beyond stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mvd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
147. I'm willing..
to see how they handle things in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
151. OBAMA CANNOT INSERT HIMSELF INTO AN ONGOING CASE
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 08:20 PM by Beetwasher
Let me repeat: Obama CANNOT insert himself into this ONGOING (since 2005) case. He would be GUILTY of politicizing the DOJ. He has to let this case run it's course through the legal system. The attorney's involved CANNOT BE FIRED (while the case is ongoing) and he cannot order them to stand down or Obama (and Holder for that matter) will be GUILTY of POLITICIZING DOJ and OBSTRUCTING an ongoing case.

DOJ is supposed to act INDEPENDENTLY from the EOP. Yes, Obama can fire any attorney for any reason he wants EXCEPT for political reasons (because of party affiliation etc.) or to obstruct ongoing cases. He has to let this play out and cannot involve himself. He is not Bush and will not politicize DOJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spamlet2002 Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #151
166. hate to break this to you, but he already DID
obama and the doj working on his behalf have already inserted themselves into these kinds of cases, explicitly arguing--as well as filing briefs--on behalf of extending/preserving bush administration powers and positions.

to be clear, this isn't just a matter of, as you say, "letting this play out." this is clear advocacy, i.e. he wishes to preserve these powers for his own administration. please look at glenn greenwald's excellent work on this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/28/al_ha...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/02/execu...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #166
172. That doesn't address my points
Notice how Greenwald keeps referring to Obamas DOJ? While it may be true its misleading. These are Bush appointed lawyers acting independently who can't be fired or pressured by Obama or he would be politicizing the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spamlet2002 Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
156. can't wait for greenwald's take on this...
this is quite a shame, especially given all of obama's lip-service to rule of law and torture.

but can we be sure that this isn't some 11th-dimensional grandmaster maneuver?

reporters need to start raising these issues in press conferences, and shame the administration into action, if needed. they absolutely know better.

citizens should demand that holder--as well as obama--address this publicly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
158. On the brighter side, it sounds like the judge thinks it is bull-*#@T
Judge Weighs Dismissing Case Involving Torture Memorandums


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/us/07yoo.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #158
162. I mean come on, read this sentence again-
Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 09:55 PM by chill_wind
and just hear the incredulity of the judge at the argument:

"You're not saying that if high public officials commit clearly illegal acts, a citizen subject to those acts has no remedy in this court?" asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White.

The Bush/Yoo notion again that we only have 2 branches of power and authority-- a premier dictator and a politboro.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spamlet2002 Donating Member (75 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #162
163. like i said,
obama's got some 'splain' to do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #162
188. chilling
Edited on Sun Mar-08-09 08:17 PM by Mind_your_head
But *I* won't be afraid.

Well, maybe a *little*.

Geesh! Won't people *stand up a little*......?

Don't people understand that "we, the people" DESIGN our government?

Do you want/need an inpiration about "design".....look here for starters: www.toxel.com .....set your mind free..... at least "begin"

on edit to add: that TRUTH, JUSTICE, TRANSPARENCY is ALWAYS the 'correct way to go'

Peace,
M_Y_H :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-07-09 09:41 PM
Response to Original message
161. You all may not think so, but to me this is the type of thing that wil prevent our economy
from recovering. The lack of trust is reinforced by this sort of thing. It is all connected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #161
183. Interesting, like karma heh?
You're right. We have all become de facto apologists for war and torture. Thus, maybe we all DESERVE as a nation to be homeless and starving. And all these endless posts with the nice language and the dancing around it are just wanking our own egos-so WE can feel better about ourselves. WE should feel like shit.

Government by it's very nature is evil. This ruling proves it. WE HAVE no recourse. WE HAVE To DEPEND on CONGRESS-what a fucking joke or the PRESIDENT to stop us from being tortured. AND THEY ALREADY PROVED they look the other way when your testicles are being sliced. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-09-09 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #183
192. That's what I believe, Generator. It feeds into the notion that the most heinous
acts of man can and will go without a true reckoning. I don't believe the human psyche can segregate that and send it off into its' own corner of the mind. Helplessness - At the other end of that extreme is the powerlessness that confronts us on a daily basis - dealing with the cable company, having insurance prove worthless, paying $5 for gas one month and $1.80 three months later merely at the whim of a political strategy.

To create that mixture and expect the seeds of Hope to take root I think is too much to ask.

(I also think there are powerful forces with their thumb on Obama. He may be doing all he can to keep us from totally going under)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Echo In Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
168. Makes sense given they all work for the same shadow interests
And hence will defend against any light being cast on specific areas they prefer remain in the dark and away from the public's eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prisoner_Number_Six Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-08-09 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
177. We're not, and we have never BEEN "in wartime".
Congress never declared war on either Iraq or Afghanistan. These actions are police actions at best, and illegal invasions on our part at worst.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-10-09 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
205. equity only if authorized by fiat -- these are REAL lawyers arguing this!?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 23rd 2014, 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC