home

John Yoo Defends Himself

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 11:24:07 AM EST
Tags: NSA warrantless surveillance, John Yoo (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

John Yoo defends himself against malpractice allegations in the Inspector General report on warrantless electronic surveillance in an op-ed today's Wall St. Journal, Why We Endorsed Warrantless Wiretaps. He says the IG report " ignores history and plays politics with the law."

Anonymous Liberal breaks it down and says Yoo is not being truthful. (h/t to Peter Daou's tweet.)

< New Report on Faulty Eyewitness Evidence And Wrongful Convictions | Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog, Day 4, Blog 2 >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    John Yoo Defends Himself | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    Via emptywheel. Yoo has lawyered up, and is no longer being defended by DOJ.

    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 11:58:07 AM EST
    When I found out Yoo had lawyered up, it gave me warm fuzzies.

    You'd think a lawyer would know...

    I suppose it depends on what kind of lawyer you are:

    A lawyerjoke transcribed by Frank Hayes into a filksong (or perhaps it was the other way around)

        Ask a housewife how much two and two is
        Without hesitation she'll tell you it's four
        Ask an accountant; he'll say "I'm fairly certain,
        But let me run through those figures once more."
        Ask a doctor; he'll think about malpractice,
        And say "At the very least, I'm pretty sure it's three."
        But ask a lawyer; he'll close the door and pull the curtains
        And say "How much do you want it to be?"



    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:04:01 PM EST
    good one!

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:22:35 PM EST
    I expect the criminal lawyers and the tree-huggers on the site to say that doesn't mean anything because he is presumed innocent.

    Parent
    presumed innocent, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:28:43 PM EST
    I expect the criminal lawyers and the tree-huggers on the site to say that doesn't mean anything because he is presumed innocent.

    and presumed not disengenuous are not, by definition, mutually inclusive.

    Parent

    Nutty Comment IMO (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    Obviously you have not been paying attention, and seem out of touch, or in a parallel universe.

    BTW- Tree huggers? Criminal Lawyers? WTF?  Do child rapists fit in as well? ...

    Parent

    Presumed innocent (none / 0) (#6)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    and in danger of being indicted.

    Or is it all just a witch hunt?  Let's ask Ken Starr.

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    I didn't say I think he's innocent.  I just think it's funny that some around here are always jumping on the bandwagon that police and prosecutors are corrupt and can't be trusted and iit's an outrage that just becaues someone gets a lawyer to defend them from the big, bad government, doesn't mean their guilty.

    Now, apparently, the mantra is, if it's someone we don't like, they MUST be guilty because they hired a lawyer.

    The 180 just amuses me while it gives me whiplash.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    The fact is that Yoo was initially defended by Obama's DOJ, and he lost. He is appealing to the 9th circuit and the DOJ is no longer defending him. That is why he has lawyered up.

    As to whether he is immune to civil suits or not, so far the courts have decided that Padilla, et al, can sue him.

    Parent

    Guilty of malpractice? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    I did not need an IG report to know that.

    I declare it so after reading his memoranda.

    What's your view?

    Parent

    I just realized this is about the Padilla suit (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    Why is anyone talking about "presumed innocent?"

    This is a civil case.

    Parent

    For me (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:11:55 PM EST
    my comments were more directed towards inconsistency by commenters than Yoo's liability.

    Parent
    On The Other Hand (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:17:15 PM EST
    You are utterly consistent.   Not necessarily a positive trait..

    lol

    Parent

    What's that got to do with the environment? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    "Tree-huggers?"

    The conservative epithet used to be "commie, pinko, bleeding-heart librul."  Then, we got "tree-huggers" for those who supported protecting the environment.  And, "surrender monkeys" during Bush.

    Conservatives are quite peculiar in their satisfaction in coining and hurling junior-high school epithets.  It as if they have actually made a rational point and won an argument....Bumper sticker insults--that is really all that is left of modern conservatism.

    Parent

    Bad choice (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    I guess what I meant was those who consider themselves "very progressive".

    My bad.  However, my point is still valid - those around here who constantly think all cops and the government are out to get them when he has to with drugs, do a complete turnaround of opinion and get rabid when it's someone they don't like.

    Parent

    Consider the nature of the offenses (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:33:51 PM EST
    Drug use versus advocating and making possible torture.

    Parent
    And, Jeralyn criticized the Madoff sentence (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    As did I....

    I consistently oppose prison or jail for all but the violent.

    Parent

    Corrupt cops (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:20:09 PM EST
    From personal experience, I've learned:

      1.  A lot of cops lie.  Especially the beat cops.  

       2.  The higher ups tend to be better.

       3.  The FBI is the most professional.

    On big cases like Fitzgerald and SEC prosecutions, you get higher quality law enforcement.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    A lot of cops lie

    So do criminals.

    Parent

    Makes sense... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    they're in the same business.

    Parent
    Interesting that you would equate (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    the two.

    That fits the theory that cops are just the flip side of criminals--same mindset, really.  They are playing the game of cops and robbers and have just chosen sides for this iteration of the game.

    Interesting theory--not sure I completely buy it....But the real beat cops are not the nice, bright cops you see on t.v.  Rather basic, love exercising authority and too eager to knock skulls.

    Parent

    I'm in the minority around here (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    I actually believe to have a functioning, civil society you need some rules and laws that everyone needs to abide by.  Having a society with no one to enforce those rules is not logical, nor do I think that kind of society can last long.

    Are some cops bad?  Yes.  But that doesn't mean you get rid of the baby with the bathwater. Some around here automatically assume that all those accused of crimes are being railroaded by the government (unless, of course, they don't like those accused).  I disagree.  In fact, even though I shouldn't in all cases, my initial thoughts about hearing someone being arrested is "guiilty."

    Parent

    The "presumption of innocence" (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    which is supposed to counter the knee-jerk reaction of "guilty" when someone is arrested, is something I doubt really exists....The Judges favor the prosecution....The Defense gets short shrift and the result is often left to the whim of whom the police decide to arrest.

    We need much more of a balance to the defense side...

    Parent

    You might get a different response (2.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:55:29 PM EST
    from victims and families when a defendant gets off on a "technicality".  

    Some technicalities are good - it keeps the government honest.  Others are BS.

    And neither a guilty or not guilty verdict returns the victims or their families back to normal.

    Parent

    "Technicalities"? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    Not all that frequent, I think.  And necessary to enfore the Bill of Rights and to keep the cops from running amok.

    And, you focus on violent crime.  There are so very, very many crimes that are being prosecuted here in California that make no sense and that have been caught up in the mob mentality of being "tough on crime."   I looked over a docket recently here that included trials for prostitution, vagrancy, impeding an officer (cursing him) and other ticky-tacky stuff.  And, of course the legion of drug cases...On and on....

    I didn't see that many big ticket violent crimes being prosecuted.

    Parent

    yeah, (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 08:01:41 PM EST
    Some technicalities are good - it keeps the government honest.  Others are BS.

    that damn constitution! wtf were the author's thinking?

    as far as the presumption of innocence, with respect to mr. yoo, his own work speaks for itself. his overt lack of due diligence in preparing memoranda, which then led to the commission of illegal acts, by others relying on those memoranda, is, at best, legal malpractice.

    at worst, it's a criminal act, because he knew the ultimate result would be the said commission of illegal acts. either way, he's hardly innocent, in my opinion. and that's all it is, my opinion.

    i am not required to assume a presumption of innocence (absent my being selected as a juror), only the state is, which i expect them to do.

    Parent

    I sure hope (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    you are never on a jury.

    Parent
    Conservative Right Wing Position (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    Tough on crime is a right wing talking point. Here, here, and here are sites where you can learn how that the tough on crime position has not worked and actually harms society while politicians and others profit at our expense. Much of tough on crime policy is a racist dogwhistle. That fact becomes obvious when you crunch the numbers of those being arrested.

    Parent
    Make sure (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by eric on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:34:31 PM EST
    you tell the lawyers that you have this reaction should you ever be called to jury duty.

    Parent
    Wow. (none / 0) (#2)
    by phat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 11:41:15 AM EST
    "He says the IG report ' ignores history and plays politics with the law.'"

    Just wow.

    Good thing (none / 0) (#7)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:27:52 PM EST
    that was published in a newspaper and not in a peer reviewed professional journal!

    Parent
    i expect mr. yoo's attorney, (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    assuming (and i do) that he/she is competent, will attempt to remove the shovel from mr. yoo's grasp, so that hole gets no deeper on his own account.

    I liked Sanford better. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 12:41:34 PM EST
    Sanford's spin used simple appeals to emotion, bold and blatant distractions from the issues, plus the ever present sex, sex, SEX!

    Yoo reminds me more of the jailhouse scene in Chicago, only without the flash, glamour, and catchy show tunes.  

    I didn't do it - but if I did, it wasn't what it looked like, and if it was, it was completely justified!      And because he's a lawyer - And it was all perfectly legal!

    Parent

    Independant Investigation (none / 0) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    As much as I'd like to see Yoo brought back down to Earth, GWB signed the order. Just because he found a neo con lawyer to write him an excuse shouldn't change the fact.

    I'm really  disgusted with the underlings of the Bush debacle being the only one's held accountable. (I'll never be convinced that Abu Grah was just a handful of "bad apples").

    Congress needs to finally assert it's responsibility and  bring in someone to investigate an administration that fully believed that they were and still are above the law.

    Congress needs to... assert its responsibility (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by shoephone on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:03:07 PM EST
    Yes, indeed. But that would require guts and integrity -- two qualities in very short supply among our congressional representatives.

    Parent
    John Yoo Defends Himself | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment