DOJ seeks immunity for John Yoo

[mcablue]

Harper's Magazine (December 3, 2009): "The Holder Justice Department has filed a sweeping amicus brief in the Padilla v. Yoo case before the Ninth Circuit, seeking to make absolute the immunity granted Justice Department lawyers who counsel torture, disappearings, and other crimes against humanity. The case was brought by Jose Padilla, who claims that he was tortured as the direct result of memoranda written by Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley."

Also being reported by the Washington Independent, in a story entitled, "DOJ Doubles Down in Its Defense of John Yoo":

In an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief filed to the appeals court yesterday (the lower court had refused to dismiss the case), the Justice Department argues that the court should not allow a lawsuit against a government lawyer providing advice to the executive branch where the case implicates national security and war powers.

http://washingtonindependent.com/69695/doj-doubles-down-in-its-defense-of-john-yoo

[Blue_In_AK]

1. I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all to me.

John Yoo and all the others responsible for the torture program should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

[nykym]

4. And thats exactly what is

happening, the DOJ is upholding the law as it is written. Congress needs to make the changes that would allow prosecution.

[harkadog]

9. It would be an ex post facto law and Unconstitutional.

[bdamomma]

11. no sense at all, those criminals from the bush administration

are still walking around free and making money.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. it's a cover up - it just shows how corrupt the sytem is

[no_hypocrisy]

2. The same DOJ that wants to see Don Siegelman return to prison?

THAT DOJ?

I can't believe it!

:sarcasm:

[LittleBlue]

3. This administration is too easy to confuse with Bush's.

Immunity for war criminals. This is the "change we believed in."

[napi21]

5. HELL NO! I can understand advice being given in good faith

but proven to be wrong after additional info is exposed, or situations change and hindsight proves it to have beern wrong, but that's no the case here! The info he used was all known to him at the time he wrote the otinion, and I believe he wrote exactly what he was told to write by Dick, Shrub, Rummy individually or all together!

[Turbineguy]

6. Now he can testify

against Bush/Cheney

[harkadog]

8. Some more of that four dimensional chess going on, right?

[babydollhead]

7. FUCK YOO

[QC]

10. Sheer genius!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

12. Or

[QC]

13. More like this, I think:

[LiberalFighter]

14. Give him immunity only after he endures waterboarding and a firing squad.

[LooseWilly]

16. Well, as long as the firing squad doesn't cause organ failure...

Give him a flak jacket with those ceramic plates... and then just shoot his arms and legs off... just so long as his lawyer is present... it should be legal :)

If he's acquitted, so be it... just so long as the plaintiff is given his opportunity to "question" Yoo...

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LooseWilly]

17. Can't the plaintiff ask for a postponement...

... while the administration acts upon the urging that Yoo be disbarred for his absolute malfeasance and malpractice in drafting those torture memos/legal findings?... Then, once he's disbarred for that... it could be used as evidence, and justification by the administration for allowing lawsuits against Yoo, under the pretext of allowing lawsuits against government lawyers only in the case of activities that lead to disbarment...

It would maintain the safeguards for government lawyers giving advice, but also allow for some accountability.

... Ohh, right. The administration would prefer not to do shit... lest shit be done unto them for the shit that they might feel like doing in the future.

:)

And I suppose they're not gonna crown my checker either... fuckers.

[treestar]

19. Immunity from what?

I don't see how he could be prosecuted for a legal opinion. Even if it's wrong. The "client" (the Bush Administration) did not have to act on it, and in fact knew it was wrong and probably orchestrated it. The courts would not uphold it if the government asserted it.

Yoo's "opinions" were for show only. The Bush Administration was going to do what it wanted. But it would be a bad slippery slope to allow prosecutions of lawyers who rendered legal opinions.

[mcablue]

21. What if Yoo had ordered the killing of children?

Would you let him off the hook because Bush was supposed to not listen to him? Is an authorization to commit a crime not a crime itself?

[treestar]

22. Lawyers cannot order anything

What kind of an immature response is that? Because you invoked the "killing of children" you have to be right?

If a lawyer told Bush that the "killing of children" was legal, he'd be incompetent or insane. The law does not allow that. Even Bush would get a second opinion or know he couldn't use said lawyer's arguments in any court of law and be taken seriously.

[mcablue]

23. So why didn't you save time and tell us that the law allows torture?

If the reason why the lawyer needs to be let off the hook is that the law doesn't allow a certain act, then why did you argue at first that, even if the lawyer was wrong, Bush deserved to be brought to justice?

[Canuckistanian]

20. Usually, immunity is granted in exchange for something

What is Yoo offering? Testimony on pressure from Cheney? Offers for financial "favors"?

And how did Yoo get that plum Berkeley position, anyways? Yes, I know he's had it since '93, but how did such a radical get a major teaching position without anyone knowing his views on federal powers? It almost seems like he's been a "sleeper agent" for the "Unitary President" theory.

It seems like the "establishment" is pulling out all the stops to defend this slimy slug. Why?

[KoKo]

24. There's something very wrong about Eric Holder. Quiet as a Mouse, he is...

while the CRIMINALITY SWIRLING AROUND HIM CRIES OUT FOR JUDICIAL HEARING! The DEATHS of those under Bush/CHENEY...the BONES AND DUST CRY OUT ......GIVE US A HEARING! FIND THOSE WHO KILLED THE INNOCENTS! FIND THOSE WHO TOOK AWAY PENSIONS AND LIFE SAVINGS AND PROSECUTE THEM!

OUR COUNTRY CRIES OUT FOR JUSTICE....WHERE ARE YOU ERIC HOLDER?

The EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GATHERED....WHY WILL YOU NOT GATHER IT TOGETHER AND EVEN TRY TO HELP THOSE WHO WORKED SO HARD TO GET THEIR DAY IN COURT TO BE HEARD....TO BE HEARD!

:shrug: I don't understand it....