QUESTION: Is there anything you would have done differently?
YOO: These memos I wrote were not for public consumption. They lack a certain polish, I think – would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice. I certainly would have done that differently, but I don’t think I would have made the basic decisions differently.
I say that the only problem is that Yoo still has a license to practice law.
QUESTION: Is there anything you would have done differently?
YOO: These memos I wrote were not for public consumption. They lack a certain polish, I think – would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice. I certainly would have done that differently, but I don’t think I would have made the basic decisions differently.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The only way you could construe releasing the memos as treason is if it were to count as giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. And to believe that you would need a truly retarded legal understanding.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The only way you could construe releasing the memos as treason is if it were to count as giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. And to believe that you would need a truly retarded legal understanding.
I'm sick of people talking about treason.
By that definition not releasing them is treason, no?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The only way you could construe releasing the memos as treason is if it were to count as giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. And to believe that you would need a truly retarded legal understanding.
I'm sick of people talking about treason.
By that definition not releasing them is treason, no?
If by levying war against them you took to mean concealing evidence of violating the basic tenets the senate, congress, and the president are sworn to uphold, and if you took to mean "giving aid and comfort" to mean hiding evidence of their wrongdoing and working to ensure they were never brought to trial for their crimes, then in fact not releasing them would count as treason.
The Department of Justice released nine legal opinions from the Bush administration (written by John Yoo and Jay Bybee) that were used as the legal framework for extraordinary rendition, torture, and warrantless wiretapping without consulting the FISA court. I haven't dug through them myself, but I understand some really convoluted and wrong reasoning was used to justify a lot of plainly illegal shit. I'd like to discuss that aspect, along with speculation on which, if any, the Obama administration might adopt, how Holder is going to go about cleaning up the mess caused by them, and also the reaction of both sides of the aisle to the release of these documents.
It should be noted that the Freeper crowd apparently considers releasing the memos to be treason. Violating the Constitution and laws in order to torture brown people is okay, but shining a light on this illegal activity is treason, apparently.
There is a lot to be said, and a lot already said, and a lot being written right now for law reviews all over the place. So as not to beat a dead horse, all I can say is that it shocks the senses that these lawyers swore an oath to obey and protect the Constitution when they were admitted into the bar, and yet tortured (pun intended) the letter and intent of the law on which they were advising when they should have known better. People coming out of L.A. diploma factories (Cal law schools only need to be accredited by the state, not the ABA) would know better. But they were so intent on saying what they wanted to and warping and intentionally misstating the law to fit their needs that it is disgusting and should be cause to have them disbarred forever.
If I knew the law review articles and other information I was copying and working to send them when I was for this (though it wasn't exactly a secret to guess what the DOJ wanted with research on cases like Ex parte Quirin in October 2001) I'd have shoved shit in the envelopes (yeah, so it's really only a minor inconvenience and on the couriers no less, but still) and then quit.
Crimsondude on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The only way you could construe releasing the memos as treason is if it were to count as giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. And to believe that you would need a truly retarded legal understanding.
I'm sick of people talking about treason.
By that definition not releasing them is treason, no?
If by levying war against them you took to mean concealing evidence of violating the basic tenets the senate, congress, and the president are sworn to uphold, and if you took to mean "giving aid and comfort" to mean hiding evidence of their wrongdoing and working to ensure they were never brought to trial for their crimes, then in fact not releasing them would count as treason.
I'm more for eliminating the "treason" aspect of this entire thing for the sole purpose that it's brought up by crazy people, and even in showing how crazy it is through logical discourse you're like a guy at the zoo yelling at the monkey to stop throwing his poo.
I have to say, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the public release of this information. Muslim fundamentalists are not going to see this as "the Bush administration was evil", they're going to see it as "Americans are evil". I wouldn't be surprised if this adds fuel to the fire there and costs lives.
That said, obligatory the Bush administration sucked and was terrible and so forth.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I have to say, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the public release of this information. Muslim fundamentalists are not going to see this as "the Bush administration was evil", they're going to see it as "Americans are evil". I wouldn't be surprised if this adds fuel to the fire there and costs lives.
That said, obligatory the Bush administration sucked and was terrible and so forth.
I'm not sure I share this philosophy.
There are people who are going to hate America (or whatever country is in Americas place, as we surely won't be top-dog forever) no matter what we do.
And yes, I think people know us better than you think, and the association of "Bush = America", while I'm sure exists, exists much less than most doomsayers would think.
Some absolutely will latch onto this and use it to recruit insurgents to their cause. Don't give too much credit to the willingness of religious extremists to make distinctions between political parties in the U.S.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Some absolutely will latch onto this and use it to recruit insurgents to their cause. Don't give too much credit to the willingness of religious extremists to make distinctions between political parties in the U.S.
Everybody already knows we torture, so the only effect this'll have is when we prosecute.
Some absolutely will latch onto this and use it to recruit insurgents to their cause. Don't give too much credit to the willingness of religious extremists to make distinctions between political parties in the U.S.
The people who think like this hate us either way. The people who are sophisticated enough to make the distinction will see us in a better light. There is no reason not to do this.
It's not about whether they hate us, it's about giving them ammunition with which to incite other people to hate us, and about making them hate us enough to blow themselves and civilians up in the process of trying to kill us.
This really isn't that simple, sorry.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Everybody already knew we did this. Anybody who would be influenced into bombings because of knowledge of the USA torturing people doesn't need this kind of proof.
Couscous on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It's not about whether they hate us, it's about giving them ammunition with which to incite other people to hate us, and about making them hate us enough to blow themselves and civilians up in the process of trying to kill us.
This really isn't that simple, sorry.
The value of truth, transparency, and the rule of law far outweighs whatever negative effects will result from the airing of our dirty laundry.
Everybody already knew we did this. Anybody who would be influenced into bombings because of knowledge of the USA torturing people doesn't need this kind of proof.
What makes you think that pretext doesn't matter? Because I believe it does.
It's not about whether they hate us, it's about giving them ammunition with which to incite other people to hate us, and about making them hate us enough to blow themselves and civilians up in the process of trying to kill us.
This really isn't that simple, sorry.
The value of truth, transparency, and the rule of law far outweighs whatever negative effects will result from the airing of our dirty laundry.
This is the only argument that makes sense to me, but I don't think it's inarguable, or something you can prove one way or another.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
What makes you think that pretext doesn't matter? Because I believe it does.
# something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason
# guise: an artful or simulated semblance; "under the guise of friendship he betrayed them"
Doesn't really matter in actually convincing people to bomb shit.
Everybody already knew we did this. Anybody who would be influenced into bombings because of knowledge of the USA torturing people doesn't need this kind of proof.
What makes you think that pretext doesn't matter? Because I believe it does.
It's not about whether they hate us, it's about giving them ammunition with which to incite other people to hate us, and about making them hate us enough to blow themselves and civilians up in the process of trying to kill us.
This really isn't that simple, sorry.
The value of truth, transparency, and the rule of law far outweighs whatever negative effects will result from the airing of our dirty laundry.
This is the only argument that makes sense to me, but I don't think it's inarguable, or something you can prove one way or another.
As opposed to the fact that they already knew we did this, so these documents wouldn't actually strengthen any arguments?
What makes you think that pretext doesn't matter? Because I believe it does.
# something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason
# guise: an artful or simulated semblance; "under the guise of friendship he betrayed them"
Doesn't really matter in actually convincing people to bomb shit.
So what are you saying? That nobody needs a reason to go blow people up? That extremists conjure suicide bombers up out of thin air? What exactly is your argument here?
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
This is the only argument that makes sense to me, but I don't think it's inarguable, or something you can prove one way or another.
It's not completely inarguable, however it seems pretty clear to me that vesting the executive with secret extra-judicial authority is a terrible idea. And the only way to avoid allowing that to happen is to reproach the president and his apparatus when they attempt to take on that authority.
Furthermore, while the torture memos may have negative effects on the USA's image abroad, publishing them will have a vitalizing effect on our internal political process and awareness, as citizens are made aware of the actions undertaken by their government. How can voters act responsibly if they are deliberately kept uninformed?
Basically, the value of an uncorrupted political process is so high that there would have to be a substantial and immediate threat before I would consider compromising it for some short term gain. Even then, it should be one of the last things we're willing to give up.
So what are you saying? That nobody needs a reason to go blow people up? That extremists conjure suicide bombers up out of thin air? What exactly is your argument here?
Pretext for blowing shit up is just a pretext with the real reason being something else.
Right, the real reason is that the extremists want power; their pretext is that Americans are evil and deserve to be destroyed. I don't see how having ironclad proof that American leadership approved torture is not going to help their case. You could argue as Scalfin seems to be that the effect is marginal because they already knew, but I would suggest that there is a difference between believing something and having proof that it happened. A major difference in degree of justification.
It's not completely inarguable, however it seems pretty clear to me that vesting the executive with secret extra-judicial authority is a terrible idea. And the only way to avoid allowing that to happen is to reproach the president and his apparatus when they attempt to take on that authority.
Furthermore, while the torture memos may have negative effects on the USA's image abroad, publishing them will have a vitalizing effect on our internal political process and awareness, as citizens are made aware of the actions undertaken by their government. How can voters act responsibly if they are deliberately kept uninformed?
Basically, the value of an uncorrupted political process is so high that there would have to be a substantial and immediate threat before I would consider compromising it for some short term gain. Even then, it should be one of the last things we're willing to give up.
It's a fair argument, but I'm far from certain that this will result in an uncorrupted political process so much as yet more political ammunition to use against your opponents next time you're in power. We have a long history of sweeping stuff like this under the rug not just to avoid short term ills but also for the sake of long term political expediency. I admire Obama's balls to air this dirty laundry, but I don't know if the executive branch having extra-judicial power is even avoidable, or if trying to avoid it is worth the short term ill effects or the long-term political problems it will cause.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
You could argue as Scalfin seems to be that the effect is marginal because they already knew, but I would suggest that there is a difference between believing something and having proof that it happened. A major difference in degree of justification.
Their belief is proof enough for them. Nothing else is needed.
Or you know, you could make a really simple argument that because we're fighting an enemy that cannot conventionally defeat us but can make us alter our way of life so that we destroy our own reputation in the world that maybe we shouldn't do that.
Not to mention the whole behaving according to our own fucking Constitution thing.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I never said we should torture people. We shouldn't--it's wrong and unproductive. I'm just not convinced that airing this dirty laundry is a wise decision right now.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Your black-and-white view is charming, Couscous, but I think you want to believe things are much simpler than they actually are.
My view isn't black and white. Any justification is just a justification. That does not mean that is the actual reason for it. Outside of heavily Muslim middle eastern countries, acts of terrorism like the sort these terrorist groups use will never be accepted and the reaction will overwhelmingly be negative. In heavily Muslim middle eastern countries, everybody already knows that Americans torture people, and this is the equivalent of having proof that water is wet. It won't set anybody down the road to extremism because their reasons for blowing shit up isn't America's use of torture.
Then you're in favor of letting felons get away with it because they were powerful?
We've done it plenty of times in the past, because it's the practical and expedient course of action, and it allows us to look forward instead of backward. I don't know if I'd definitively say we should let them get away with it, but my opinion doesn't really matter, does it? I'm playing devil's advocate and airing the other side of the argument, since I know Obama's side is already going to be well-represented here.
By the way, I was wondering when you were going to get here
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Then you're in favor of letting felons get away with it because they were powerful?
We've done it plenty of times in the past, because it's the practical and expedient course of action, and it allows us to look forward instead of backward. I don't know if I'd say we should let them get away with it, but my opinion doesn't really matter, does it? I'm playing devil's advocate and airing the other side of the argument, since I know Obama's side is already going to be well-represented here.
By the way, I was wondering when you were going to get here
How's that worked out for us in the past?
The only way we lose the "war on terrorism" (which is bullshit to begin with) is if we change ourselves. That's what Bush did, it destroyed our credibility. To restore that credibility we have to 1) acknowledge wrong doing 2) change the behavior and 3) prosecute.
For the historical case, let's examine Israel. How has not admitting wrong doing gone for them?
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I think you (and Europe) are holding America to an ideal that we always paid lip service to but never truly adhered to, and you didn't really address my argument. (How's it worked out in the past? For good or for ill? That's pretty general, and I don't know if I can answer that.)
As for Israel--well, let's not go there. We have an Israel thread for that.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
So the Bill of Rights are just pretty pieces of paper that we have historically and can safely ignore? Note that I'm holding us to the standard of our founding document.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
No, what I'm saying is that we have always selectively applied it, especially in regard to people who are not American citizens--we haven't really changed from that behavior at all, much less at the behest of terrorists.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
OK, when exactly did the President assert that he had the authority to suspend the first, fourth, and fifth amendments whenever he wanted? When did we previously torture people in ways we executed people for after the second World War? The executive branch once before asserted that anything they did was legal because the President did it, that President was going to be the only one to be removed from office before he removed himself from office.
The Bush Administration's practices were substantially different and substantially more lawless than previous practices.
The best argument you've got here is probably the Japanese Internment camps in WW2 and you'll note that we publicly apologized and paid reparations (granted, 40 years afterwards) for them. Or slavery I suppose, which we're still working through the consequences of 150 years after it was ended via a bloody civil war. Generally speaking, violating the precepts of your Constitution, especially to give more power to the executive authority with less oversight is an awful idea. And exposing that such things happened is vital to restoring both our reputation around the world and the reputation of the rule of law in this country.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The Japanese internment camps are one of the things I'm talking about, yes. I could present more examples, but let's just run with that.
Forty years after is one thing--the wounds are no longer fresh, it's no longer politically divisive to admit the wrongdoing, the ill short term effects have passed. Seeking justice right after you enter office is another thing.
Anyway, my point is not that suspending any part of the Bill of Rights is a good thing or that we should condone it--merely that enforcing it now, like this, may not be the wise course of action. You're trying to wrap it up in a narrative of "the U.S. did wrong and now we must confess our sins and repent" but I just don't buy that doing so will actually help our image anywhere except perhaps Europe, who are our allies anyway. The best way to put this behind us in the now may well be to simply put it behind us--stop torture, give the prisoners due process as quietly as possible, and then bury it, and pretend it didn't happen until it becomes expedient to not pretend it didn't happen. Even if it takes forty years.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Posts
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
Complaining gets you tortured.
I say that the only problem is that Yoo still has a license to practice law.
What.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
In fact, the opposite is specified.
The only way you could construe releasing the memos as treason is if it were to count as giving aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. And to believe that you would need a truly retarded legal understanding.
I'm sick of people talking about treason.
Yoo know a certain someone might be up to the task.
NintendoID: Nailbunny 3DS: 3909-8796-4685
By that definition not releasing them is treason, no?
If by levying war against them you took to mean concealing evidence of violating the basic tenets the senate, congress, and the president are sworn to uphold, and if you took to mean "giving aid and comfort" to mean hiding evidence of their wrongdoing and working to ensure they were never brought to trial for their crimes, then in fact not releasing them would count as treason.
There is a lot to be said, and a lot already said, and a lot being written right now for law reviews all over the place. So as not to beat a dead horse, all I can say is that it shocks the senses that these lawyers swore an oath to obey and protect the Constitution when they were admitted into the bar, and yet tortured (pun intended) the letter and intent of the law on which they were advising when they should have known better. People coming out of L.A. diploma factories (Cal law schools only need to be accredited by the state, not the ABA) would know better. But they were so intent on saying what they wanted to and warping and intentionally misstating the law to fit their needs that it is disgusting and should be cause to have them disbarred forever.
If I knew the law review articles and other information I was copying and working to send them when I was for this (though it wasn't exactly a secret to guess what the DOJ wanted with research on cases like Ex parte Quirin in October 2001) I'd have shoved shit in the envelopes (yeah, so it's really only a minor inconvenience and on the couriers no less, but still) and then quit.
Sigged.
I'm more for eliminating the "treason" aspect of this entire thing for the sole purpose that it's brought up by crazy people, and even in showing how crazy it is through logical discourse you're like a guy at the zoo yelling at the monkey to stop throwing his poo.
That guy looks crazy as well.
That said, obligatory the Bush administration sucked and was terrible and so forth.
I'm not sure I share this philosophy.
There are people who are going to hate America (or whatever country is in Americas place, as we surely won't be top-dog forever) no matter what we do.
And yes, I think people know us better than you think, and the association of "Bush = America", while I'm sure exists, exists much less than most doomsayers would think.
Everybody already knows we torture, so the only effect this'll have is when we prosecute.
This really isn't that simple, sorry.
The value of truth, transparency, and the rule of law far outweighs whatever negative effects will result from the airing of our dirty laundry.
What makes you think that pretext doesn't matter? Because I believe it does.
This is the only argument that makes sense to me, but I don't think it's inarguable, or something you can prove one way or another.
As opposed to the fact that they already knew we did this, so these documents wouldn't actually strengthen any arguments?
So what are you saying? That nobody needs a reason to go blow people up? That extremists conjure suicide bombers up out of thin air? What exactly is your argument here?
It's not completely inarguable, however it seems pretty clear to me that vesting the executive with secret extra-judicial authority is a terrible idea. And the only way to avoid allowing that to happen is to reproach the president and his apparatus when they attempt to take on that authority.
Furthermore, while the torture memos may have negative effects on the USA's image abroad, publishing them will have a vitalizing effect on our internal political process and awareness, as citizens are made aware of the actions undertaken by their government. How can voters act responsibly if they are deliberately kept uninformed?
Basically, the value of an uncorrupted political process is so high that there would have to be a substantial and immediate threat before I would consider compromising it for some short term gain. Even then, it should be one of the last things we're willing to give up.
It's a fair argument, but I'm far from certain that this will result in an uncorrupted political process so much as yet more political ammunition to use against your opponents next time you're in power. We have a long history of sweeping stuff like this under the rug not just to avoid short term ills but also for the sake of long term political expediency. I admire Obama's balls to air this dirty laundry, but I don't know if the executive branch having extra-judicial power is even avoidable, or if trying to avoid it is worth the short term ill effects or the long-term political problems it will cause.
Not to mention the whole behaving according to our own fucking Constitution thing.
My view isn't black and white. Any justification is just a justification. That does not mean that is the actual reason for it. Outside of heavily Muslim middle eastern countries, acts of terrorism like the sort these terrorist groups use will never be accepted and the reaction will overwhelmingly be negative. In heavily Muslim middle eastern countries, everybody already knows that Americans torture people, and this is the equivalent of having proof that water is wet. It won't set anybody down the road to extremism because their reasons for blowing shit up isn't America's use of torture.
We've done it plenty of times in the past, because it's the practical and expedient course of action, and it allows us to look forward instead of backward. I don't know if I'd definitively say we should let them get away with it, but my opinion doesn't really matter, does it? I'm playing devil's advocate and airing the other side of the argument, since I know Obama's side is already going to be well-represented here.
By the way, I was wondering when you were going to get here
How's that worked out for us in the past?
The only way we lose the "war on terrorism" (which is bullshit to begin with) is if we change ourselves. That's what Bush did, it destroyed our credibility. To restore that credibility we have to 1) acknowledge wrong doing 2) change the behavior and 3) prosecute.
For the historical case, let's examine Israel. How has not admitting wrong doing gone for them?
As for Israel--well, let's not go there. We have an Israel thread for that.
The Bush Administration's practices were substantially different and substantially more lawless than previous practices.
The best argument you've got here is probably the Japanese Internment camps in WW2 and you'll note that we publicly apologized and paid reparations (granted, 40 years afterwards) for them. Or slavery I suppose, which we're still working through the consequences of 150 years after it was ended via a bloody civil war. Generally speaking, violating the precepts of your Constitution, especially to give more power to the executive authority with less oversight is an awful idea. And exposing that such things happened is vital to restoring both our reputation around the world and the reputation of the rule of law in this country.
Forty years after is one thing--the wounds are no longer fresh, it's no longer politically divisive to admit the wrongdoing, the ill short term effects have passed. Seeking justice right after you enter office is another thing.
Anyway, my point is not that suspending any part of the Bill of Rights is a good thing or that we should condone it--merely that enforcing it now, like this, may not be the wise course of action. You're trying to wrap it up in a narrative of "the U.S. did wrong and now we must confess our sins and repent" but I just don't buy that doing so will actually help our image anywhere except perhaps Europe, who are our allies anyway. The best way to put this behind us in the now may well be to simply put it behind us--stop torture, give the prisoners due process as quietly as possible, and then bury it, and pretend it didn't happen until it becomes expedient to not pretend it didn't happen. Even if it takes forty years.