Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Bush administration lawyer who provided a legal basis for the brutal interrogation tactics used by the US military and CIA was called to account today by congressional Democrats.
John Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, was asked to appear before the judiciary committee in the House of Representatives on May 6 to discuss the legal grounds for the harsh treatment of al-Qaida suspects.
"The judiciary committee will look at the legal basis for actions taken before and during the war and whether we need to write stronger laws to prevent a future imperial presidency from steamrolling Congress and the American people," the Democratic congressman who chairs the panel, John Conyers, said.
Yoo previously told Conyers' aides he was reluctant to testify publicly about the legal briefs he wrote for the Bush administration, the congressman said in a letter to his prospective witness.
But Conyers reminded Yoo that he has already given an extensive on-record interview to Esquire magazine for a profile to be published next month.
"Overall you have made such extensive public comments on these and related matters, it is difficult to understand why you would continue to decline to present your views to the committee," Conyers wrote to Yoo.
Yoo left the office of legal counsel, where he gave legal advice to the Bush administration, in 2003. Earlier that year, he drafted an 81-page memo giving the Pentagon extensive leeway to harm detainees during interrogations without fear of legal consequences.
That memo, which the administration later revoked, was made public for the first time last week and caused a stir among liberals in Congress.
In one section, for example, Yoo said US interrogators could maim detainees without fear of prosecution, depending on the body part that was injured and whether intent to harm existed.
"Just because the statute says -- that doesn't mean you have to do it," Yoo told Esquire last week. "You're right, there's still the moral question -- after you've answered the legal question -- whether you should do it at all."
© 2008 The Guardian
67 Comments so far
Show AllYoo can claim to be innocent ....but lawyers are NOT allowed to advice clients to break the law....
I believe Yoo is guilty encouraging a crime to be committed....and even writing up the paperwork to help someone try to skirt the laws of this country...
Perhaps a little water boarding and torture would clear his own mind...
I too grow weary with these preambles to investigations that never happen, impeachments that are off the table and money poured down a rat-hole of a war. Yoo is a war criminal, but he's more of the "little Eichmann" type. Big criminals occupy the White House still. Do your hear, oh Democrats?
There is no law in the country, except for the little people. The phones are tapped. The Internet is data-mined.
Criminal corporations like Bear Stearns are bailed out with public money. There's no relief for the victims of loan fraud scams supported by Alan Greenspan. Forget the poor.
I think what pains me most is so many mainstream Democrats will pull the handle for Obama or Hillary thinking that "real change" will occur, even though their Democratic representatives have supported the wars, supported the PATRIOT Act and the illegal wiretapping all along.
When will the country wake up? We do our stupid jobs everyday. Meanwhile, our tax dollars go to support a fascist state. I'm sick of the inaction and indifference. I feel that something will happen, but it will be an even more bitter time when it does. Peaceful political solutions do not seem possible, I am sad to say.
Also the Bush administration has its supporters in the court system.
Imo this has been an attempt to take over the US government and its back firing but not over yet.
This is a petition from the People for the American Way to stop bad judges:
http://www.kintera.org/site/apps/ka/ct/contactcustom.asp?c=feIJKQMEF&b=3...
Dear Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
President Bush has already placed nearly 300 judges on the federal courts, many of them controversial, including two Supreme Court justices. You have the ability to invoke a longstanding Senate practice of ending the consideration of controversial nominees in the months before a presidential election, and it's time to do it.
Please do not take chances with my rights and the rights of all Americans by risking more lifetime appointments of judges who could undermine those rights for decades to come.
In one section, for example, Yoo said US interrogators could maim detainees without fear of prosecution, depending on the body part that was injured ...
and Yoo says he is reluctant to testify in public? Gee, who could imagine why?
Actually, there is no need for Yoo to testify in public, just like there is no need for his punishment and those of his superiors to be private.
You can not trust what any of the leaders are saying now...The Bush administration and its gang have left quite a mark on the US.
Any political group like the one formed in the Bush administration should be viewed as extremely dangerous.
They have perverted the American political system and disregarded laws and they have numerous supporters within the Republican Party, the CIA and in the Pentagon, as well as in international corporations.
In that kind of dangerous political climate it is not surprising that political leaders that oppose them are trying to do it behind the scenes...
AlexLawyer, I see your point and agree with it. I was only looking at one side of the issue. What he did propose is illegal and against the constitution as well as numerous treaties the USA is signatory to.
My hopes were that he'd be disbarred and not allowed to practice law any more.
I quess these days too many of my thoughts are in a faith I have that the right thing will be done. I've read about so many people trying to do the right thing and they continue to do so against a president who has all the power to destroy the lives of these people. However, these same hopes don't come to fruition when we're talking about those in a position where they can take imediate and effective action, in this case the Bar Association.
Thank you for turning the cube a little so I could be reminded of another side of the issue.
Yoo? Who is he? Is he a foreign mole here in the U.S.? What he did was treasonous to the country we live in and love. Why isn't anyone examining his background? And I don't mean his resume!
It is hard to disagree with the condemnations of the Democratic leadership; given that, it's also hard to believe why anyone would expect that one of the Democratic Senators running for President would deliver change, or even advocate for it. Obama has carefully danced around important questions and Clinton simply lies, which is well documented by her history of folding on everything Bush asked for the last seven years. It's too bad so few people are willing to back Ralph Nader but I expect that is because free will has faded with the failure of our nation.
"Former Bush Administration Lawyer Asked to Testify Before Congress"
Wonder if they said pretty please with f**king sugar on top.
Maybe I missed the report, but how many students and professors are boycotting that bastion of liberal education UoC Berkley at the moment? Is the campus teeming with angry, outraged protesters because a true enemy of our Constitution has been hired to TEACH, as opposed to being arrested for TREASON?
Oh, sorry, I forgot - said students and professors are way too busy protesting the really, really important issue of the day - Tibet and the holy Olympics no one gives a flying f**k about. As they say in China: so?
UC Berkely's student body is pathetic. Most come from slightly priveleged families and care more about advancing their little economic futures than CONFRONTING A WAR CRIMINAL IN THEIR MIDST.
A horrible proponent of torture and the student body Does Not Care-that is the botom line.
Eff Berkeley and it's cowardly student body.
-And b4 I'm attacked, I do demonstrate, in a small but real way, against the war (w/ guitar, in song)......
Berkeley, Where the Hell Are You?
Signed, A lowly SFSU graduate (the wrong side of the tracks)
Yoo's so-called torture papers aren't even legal.
I think Yoo and others like him really believed there would be a permanent republican majority when he gave the White House the go-ahead on torture.
Yoo most likely believed these would never be any consequences. Surprise-Yoo! Consequences!
I cannot believe any university would employ this turd. Shame on them. Here's hoping that no students attend his "classes". We don't need more lawyers schooled in fascism. To hell with the bourgeois concept of "freedom of speech". Basic human rights - like not being tortured - should outweigh any "right" to build legal arguments allowing such deeds. Jail is too good for the bastard.
Dear Mr Honorable Congressman John Conyers:
With all due respect for your brave courageous leadership in steadfastly keeping "IMPEACHMENT OFF THE TABLE"
#^%$*@!6(|}] you
Yours respectfully,
Mr. Eff Yoo
Law Professor & War Criminal
Yoo certifiably is to be ... "contained".
Ooops, did I say 'contained'?
It's what I meant; therefore, only double-checking. I did say 'contained' the first time right? Good. It's minimal recommendation.
There was considerably more to this post, but the above is all that was posted, and I don't know what'll become of this statement; if it's not posted, then ... I will know.
curmudgeon99,
That some dark shit, man!
I pulled this off of the DailyKos this evening.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush's most senior advisers approved "enhanced interrogation techniques" of top al Qaeda suspects by the Central Intelligence Agency, ABC News reported on Wednesday, citing sources it did not name.
ABC reported that the so-called "principals" discussed interrogation details in dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House.
"Why are we talking about this in the White House? History will not judge this kindly." This last quote is from none other than John Ashcroft. Full story at: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/9/212830/1496/266/492989
IF he declines to appear, will he be punished like Harriet Myers and "Turdblossom" were?
John Yoo should be interogated. Maybe just maim him a little bit. On a limb that would not cause death....
potter- They look in the mirror and are proud that they had the strength and resolve to cheat and amass their fortunes, while muttering to themselves that they got theirs the hard way and have borne the risk and now, if we want a piece of the pie, we can damn well go through what they have had to endure. These aren't regular folks with an ordinary conscience and basic human values, they are evil. Try to grasp that. Quit judging them by your values, they ain't there.
Why isn't Yoo out there protesting the Olympics torch in support of human right abuses in Tibet?
Hysbridoma, I disagree with you (and Yoo). A lawyer who gives advice urging a client to commit felonies is unethical. This was not a matter of nuances of understanding, and the opinion went against every legal precedent. He was not so much counsel as co-conspirator and should be dismissed from the university (I'm sure he could land a job as counsel for the American Psychological Association) and disbarred. The just-following-orders defense went out with Nuremburg, and he should be held responsible. Would you also defend Goebbels and those at Radio Mille Collines in Rwanda on the grounds of free speech?
What ever happened to the sixties?
metal dog
Rather than trying to hurt them..think about how disgusting they are as human beings. Yoo has been given a first class education and used it to committ a crime agaisnt humanity and also attacked the US political system.. These people (Yoo, Addington Cheney and Bush) should be removed from power and Yoo should be disbarred. Thats what would happen if the US followed its own laws and were a moral nation. But the US is not doing that. Average Americans are unaware of the names of the people who were tortured and how several of those tortured were completely innocent. People like Maher Arar have been found innocent when their cases were presented in western courts of law and Arar was awarded millions of dollars for the injustice and torture he endured
But Americans are so imbued with pride they can not deal with this crime against humanity that goes against what the US should stand for. Most Americans can not handle it that the US under the Bush administration has committed a grievous crime and has covered it up.
Maybe the conservative, Andrew Sullivan is correct and other nations will bring these criminals to justice.
Conyers is a coward, the Congress is a farce, the Democrats are complicit. DO I need to say more?
Not only did Yoo advise his client to break the law but he teaches other lawyers in a prestigious university in a nation that has advertised itself as a moral leader to the world.
MeAlsoToo
You are engaging in the worst kind of sophistry. Yoo wasn't merely tendering an opinion. He was telling his "client" that it was okay to commit a felony. Any real lawyer who advised a client that committing a crime was okay would be at the very least disbarred.
Who is more guilty? Good question! Personally I think they're both equally guilty. Where were his morals then? why didn't he resign? Because to follow your logic either:
A.) He's a greedy bastard, or
B.) He has no morals whatsoever, or
c.) He had his arms twisted and is a victim himself.
As for him not being a torturer, answer me this:
If Steve pays me to tell Bill it's okay to beat Joe nearly to death and he does it, what am I guilty of? Can I use the fact that Steve paid me to tell Bill it was okay to batter Joe as a sucessful defense in court? Talk about a circular argument.
my lawyer wrote a brief saying the income tax is unconstitutional.................
and that neocons are terrorists.........
until the supreme court tells me otherwise
If we only had
An opposition party
And
An independent media.
"Stop trying to excuse a torturer MeAlsoToo."
I'm not 'excusing him' -- I'm just making a relative-Judgment. [And my Opinion is 'correct', because ALL Opinions are -- by definition]
Yoo was paid to be a Lawyer by a client wanting 'certain things' -- and he delivered (as the Law obliges him to).
Conyer's, on the other-hand, is a Lawmaker.
[Yoo, by the way, is Repentant -- Bush is Not!]
Who was 'more guilty' at Nuremberg?
They who 'followed orders' (without choosing self-destruction -- owing to 'better-character' and Values)?
Or, those who 'gave the Orders' (without any compunctions, whatsoever)?
Both may be guilty -- but, who 'the more so'?
Yoo was, at worst, an 'Accessory after the Fact' (in his-Parlance).
Yoo, also, never tortured ANYONE. He correctly interpreted the Law (a Law he never 'wrote'). He (like all-Attorney's) was dealing with the Hypothetical -- a Fiction.
In Corinthians, Paul said: "The letter of the Law killeth". Some Roman said: "The Law is an Ass". Both were 'correct'.
Yoo was 'correct'.
Lawyers are not SUPPOSED to be 'ethical above all else'...they are supposed to 'win, by torturing what the meaning of "is" is' [like Clinton quipped-about)..
Isn't there a Yoo Tube we can send John down? Jokes aside, the constitutional situation has found its most dangerous threat in this sort of mentality than I have ever concieved of in my nearly eighty years. In this regard,It's time to give up the BS about not using torture, etc. and tell ourselves and the world the truth about what Mr. Cheney has lovingly called our "Dark Side" practices.
MetalDog April 9th, 2008 4:47 pm
"Any therapists out there reading this? I need your help! I'm so violently sickened by Yoo's bullshit rationalizations for torture that I want to see him tarred and feathered. The conflict hurts my head! What do I do?!"
I'm far from being a therapist, but have you ever tried visualization techiniques? Get on the couch, close your eyes and visualize Yoo tied-up naked with his his arms and legs spread apart. Then visualize yourself as the guy with the trowel spreading the tar on his naked body. After you're done spreading the tar, visualize yourself sticking the feathers on him in batches or one-by-one.......whatever makes you feel better!
metal dog
Yes torture is always wrong..but.I can understand under the threat of combat in a war someone breaking down and using it, but it is always wrong.
And it is wrong for the government to legally support this use of torture. This is a very clear bright line of morality that has been crossed.
The reports I have read said there was a group of CIA agents who were traveling to different nations and teaching different forms of torture.
I remember before the Iraq war people posting on some sites were writing about the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein and they seemed to think that once Saddam was removed Iraq would be changed. But there was a network of people in Iraq who were committing those atrocities. A leader of a nation is only one person and can not continue without the support of some percentage of the population.
Bush still has wide support among Republicans and the US is in danger of electing McCain.
While many progressives or liberals complain about the leaders, imo it is the American people themselves who are at fault. The leaders reflect the people.
I am disgusted by this use of torture.
MeAlsoToo: "Conyers wants to 'shoot the messenger', huh?
Don't blame the Practitioners for the so-called 'Law' — blame the Lawmakers."
Guess what? The 'We were following orders' excuse was tried once before at Nuremburg. It was a lame cop out then and it's a lame cop out now. He believed in every word he wrote. If he didn't then he should have resigned. Stop trying to excuse a torturer MeAlsoToo.
HYBRIDOMA: Good post.
No doubt the White House promised Yoo--extending the ever immutable law of legal commerce, the quid pro quo: "Cover our ass on torture, and we'll GET you a cushy university job that in turn will add clout to your resume." He complied. I doubt if Berkeley really wanted him. It's like the way big pharma offers universities huge grants (cause who has the big bucks these days, after all with so many sick from faux food, toxic chemical exposures, depression with very REAL causes) to "conduct research" under their purview. It's ALL about the $, and ethics are now on the "Endangered Species" list.
colleen -- you're right, but I hasten to add it doesn't matter whether the torturee is innocent or not. It's wrong and illegal either way.
The US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Geneva Conventions is a treaty. Article VI of the US Constitution states that any treaty entered into by the US is the law of the land on equal footing with the Constitution itself. Ergo -- and mind you, I'm no Constitutional "scholar" like Yoo -- the guy should be disbarred, at a minimum. Were there justice, he'd be tried for treason along with his former bosses.
That Yoo is a professor proves to me, that the US is a corrupt and immoral society.
This is not about freedom of speech. This is about
the use of torture on sometimes innocent people
in opposition to the civilized laws the western world has taken thousands of years to produce.
Yoo should be put on trial for instigating and encouraging crimes against humanity.
And forget about the dems or the repubs... large segments of the American people support torture. There is the source of the problem...the American people...not their leaders.
Any therapists out there reading this? I need your help! I'm so violently sickened by Yoo's bullshit rationalizations for torture that I want to see him tarred and feathered. The conflict hurts my head! What do I do?!
What a waste. Horrible stuff happens. They start pointing the finger of blame. And while they're all lost in the latest scandal, another one get cooked up.
It's hopeless. The US is kaput.
The Republicans in the Senate have blocked all attempts by the Democrats to do anything meaningful. This is all by the rules and called a fillibuster. Actually they don't even have to fillibuster anymore (it's been a long time since Mr. Smith went to Washington), merely threaten.
What I would like to know is - When did loyalty to Party and President take precedence over loyalty to country? Upholding the Constitution? Maintaining the integrity of checks and balances?
How can these people (and the alien life-form Lieberman) look themselves in the mirror with anything less than shame and disgust?
wild_watcher, right on target. Yup.
Well Wild,
Maybe after the elections things well change.
Call me crazy but I live on Hope.
im glad for all Conyers has done, if it wasn't for his voice there would be very little resistance in our congress to the neocons. and the resistance that Conyers has produced has been squashed at every turn, dont you people remember the impeachment attempt in the basement? there was very little support. and please dont think just because that representatives & senators have 'demo' next to their name that they will vote properly or for the majority. And may God curse every SOB that is a 'bluedog' or votes like a bluedog.
What's done, is done.
No one will care while struggling to feed and house his/her family in the coming months and years and decades.
The light of knowledge and civilization is a little dimmer than yesterday.
I can't blame it all on Republicans.
If the Dems lost upholding the constitution at least they would lose on something that would matter.
Now they lose on everything and blame the Republicans anyway.
If they showed courage, they could rally clean up and deserve it.
I agree with superdumb.
Ya don't have to be supersmart to see that Conyers and Pelosi are non leaders for upholding the constitution.
They give Bush all the blood he can suck out of us.
COMarc wrote: "Sorry, the Dems have responsibility here as they have the majority in Congress. Can't dish this one off on the Republicans that are now the minority party."
A little attention given to the facts reveals that the Dems do not, in fact, hold a majority in the Congress. They hold a majority only in th House of Representatives. Thanks to uber-hypocrite and Bush supporter Joe Lieberman, the Dems do not have a voting majority in the Senate.
The issue discussed in the article and all the sins of this administration are the responsibility of the Republicans.
jj
Uncle Sam Wants Yoo?
Yeah, sure and we need to secede or another Flood.
But the Cheney/Bush War on the World is making progress:
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said that the world economy will grow much more slowly in the next two years as a result of the credit crunch.
I have lost my faith in our government. It's all just corporate B.S in which everything is either "buy in" or "sell out!" If anything, my faith runs strong with people -- and I don't give-in to how the mass media portrays us. Heroes and heroines are very much alive among the masses. But -- you'll never hear or see them among the game show hosts, politicians, plastic newscasters or celebrities. My focus is the everyday person which this current governmnet couldn't give a rat's butt to serve or even honor!
Nothing will happen after the election. The only actions that will happen will occur before the election, and they'll only focus on getting headlines to aid the Dems in that election.
After the election, even if the Dems control both the White House and Congress, all we'll hear about is 'bi-partisanship', and 'looking to the future and not the past' and being 'uniters' instead of being 'divisive'.
Sorry, I've seen this movie before when the Clinton's took power from Bush Sr in 92 and didn't do anything to hold Reagan\Bush official accoutable. And Obama's rhetoric about 'unity' and not 'division' is clearly signalling that he'll repeat this again (much to the joy of the Wall St money that's backing him.)
Because the Dems are the majority in Congress. That means Rep John Conyers, the committee chair is a democrat. Committee chairmen with a majority of votes in their party have a great deal of control over the actions of their committee, just like the Speaker of the House, also a Democrat, has a great deal of control over the actions of the House as a hole.
The Dems can't have it both ways. They can't run a 2006 campaign about how important it is to elect a Democrat majority to start reigning in the Republicans, then not take the responsibility for what they do, or more often don't do, once they have that majority.
Sorry, the Dems have responsibility here as they have the majority in Congress. Can't dish this one off on the Republicans that are now the minority party.
The Dems have control of the budgets of these agencies.
The Dems have control of powers of Congress, include supeonas and contempt of Congress charges.
The Dems have the authority to start impeachment procedings.
Our system of checks and balances is built upon the idea that the Congress (now under Democrat control) exercises these powers. The responsibility for the abandonment of these powers and their willingness to constantly protect the Republicans in the administration from facing legal consequences for their illegal behavior falls directly on the Democrats. They can not avoid this.
"...whether we need to write stronger laws to prevent a future imperial presidency from steamrolling Congress and the American people" said Conyers
Impeachment? I thought the law already existed. just put it on the table.
interesting that Conyers is only concerned with "future" imerial presidents tacitly admiting to the existence of at least one previous(or current) imperial presidency.
Why, one might ask, don't the students at UC Berkeley boycott and/or picket the scumbag Yoo's courses until he is driven off this reputedly progressive campus, with his tail between his legs, like the despicable cur he is.
melmac78
How about this-all the commenters beating up on the dems-not the nut-cake repubs and prez.
_______________________________
How about it, indeed?
Those who are desperate or deluded enough to have faith in the Democratic Party being "part of the solution" (to resuscitate a phrase from the awful, awful '60s) often raise this point. Usually they're not shy about scolding the commenters on how stupid or foolish it is to waste ammunition on the good guys instead of the pure evil emanating from the Executive Branch and Republic Party leadership.
It's really not so remarkable. The nut-cake repubs and prez are a foregone conclusion, a given-- because there's no opposition party to speak of. The Democratic leadership has seen to it that the nut-cakes aren't going anywhere until their term(s) run out.
So of course thoughtful people are inclined to direct their justifiable bitter disappointment and anger at the party that talks out of both sides of its mouth while enabling the nut-cakes.
Sadly, nothing will happen until after the election, if it goes well, and then there'll be a flurry of activity, because after all, everyone wants re-election first and principle after that.
On the other hand, can we practice enhanced interrogation techniques on John Yoo so we can see how fabulously effective they are?
Somehow, we the people have to start holding our own hearings since we can't rely on Congress to do it. Any ideas?
Professor Yoo would be a perfect lawyer for the Mafia. I guess there's more money to be had these days with our elected gangsters than the old fashioned, quaint, Mafia.
I have read several posts asking why the UC of Berkely would have such an odious person teaching law and other posts asking what are the sudents doing about it. Well, from my recollection, over two years ago there were large calls for ridding the school of such a person as Yoo.
From what I recall, the school itself brought up the issue of freedom of speech. So, even though the vast majority of students would refuse to take a course given by this professor, they should still not stifle freedom of thought and speech. So I applaud the school for standing on principles.
It is too bad that the same doesn't apply to so many other schools and universities around the nation for scholars who go against the dogma of the neocon school of thought.
From TV, newspapers, magazines - most all forms of communication, the cards are stacked in favor of those who will uphold the failed, immoral, illegal, unamerican actions and beliefs of the powerful elite.
Although we appear to be losing in the short term, those who stand by time-proven and honoured thought and action will one day be vindicated.
Perhaps these thoughts of mine are "quaint" but the truth is that human nature hasn't changed much in the last 10,000 years or so. Human control and knowledge has changed, but the seven deadly sins are as much alive as they were when civilization began. And from most sources, it is agreed that our definition of civilization first began where today so many people are commiting atrocities and the very real possibility exists of ending civilization as we know it.
Sadly for our children, the very real fact that civilization (again, as we have defined it) could end in the same place it began, precious little time remains for a miracle. Yes, a miracle, because I can see nothing else that can stop the madness.
I love the saying,"think globally, act locally." Sadly, even that belief in helping heal this planet is looking more and more like a fantasy. The laws are in place to render the idea of acting locally to improve the whole is going to be illegal and dangerous.
At this moment, all I can cling to is hope - the last thing to come out of Pandora's box. Hope in a miracle.
"The judiciary committee will look at the legal basis for actions taken before and during the war and whether we need to write stronger laws to prevent a future imperial presidency from steamrolling Congress and the American people," the Democratic congressman who chairs the panel, John Conyers, said.
Why have they not done this before???????????
Is this delay aiding and abetting the crimes Mr. Yoo has committed against his fellow man?
How about this-all the commenters beating up on the dems-not the nut-cake repubs and prez.
The goal of the Democrats is not to change this. The Democrats have known about this all along. The Democrats have always been team players and fully on board with the expansion of US police state powers. The only thing the Democrats complain about is that they aren't in power so they aren't the ones wielding them.
What the Democrats want is a few cheap headlines to help their campaigns to win elections and seize this power for themselves. That's why they do some bs hearings that generate those headlines, but then never take any real action.
If you want something different, stop voting Democrat.
They better jump when he says jump, or else Conyers might respond with a 'strong letter'. 30 lashes with a limp noodle will follow if he still doesn't get a response. And if that doesn't do the trick, he might just pull out the dreaded comfy chair.
Conyers wants to 'shoot the messenger', huh?
Shame on You, John. Yoo was being paid as an attorney -- and it sounds like he did 'a great job of-it'.
Don't blame the Practitioners for the so-called 'Law' -- blame the Lawmakers.
Blame generations of bad-Judges for crappy-Precedents and misinterpretion of the Constitution.
Blame 'You', not Yoo...(after all, John -- you're the damn-Chair of the Judiciary Committee -- not Yoo!). [sheesh!]
More of a waste of tax money. They put on this dog & pony show and then will do nothing. Their investments in government contractors and arms manufacturers keep making money for them so why disturb the status quo? Yoo should be elevated to a custodial position at Berkeley so that he can scrub the floors more effectively with cleanser rather than with our Constitution. Why waste their and our time with this sham?
militantliberal & willo,
Unfortunately, I can not disagree with you guys.
Yoo should just blow them off. What are they going to do? The answer is nothing. Cry maybe. The whole lot of them are a bunch of do-nothing bobble-heads wasting taxpayer money.
Our congress is a farce. If they have any power, they refuse to use it. They seem to be at the bottom of the political totem pole, and that's where they like it. Their main job is sucking up to lobbyist, so they can get more money to be re-elected. They have rendered themselves null and void.
Hey, at least they get good wages and benefit's with a good retirement program. And then when they leave govermnent, they get to be lobbyist's for the same people they served while they were in office.
Conyers is a coward. He and the other Democrats have already wasted many opportunities to confront the current imperial presidency. There's no point in writing "stronger laws" if you don't make law breakers pay for violating the current ones.