“Very Harsh Conclusions” about Yoo and Bradbury

Remember that Office of Public Responsibility investigation that Congress requested, Bush squelched (by refusing the investigators clearance to do the investigation), but that, under Mukasey got reinstated?

Brad DeLong has word of what has happened to it:

[T]he OPR… came to "very harsh conclusions" about the professional competence of a number of the [Yoo and Bradbury] memos, making "recommendations for further action" with respect to both John Yoo and Stephen Bradbury. Attorney Genera Mukasey and Deputy AG Filip were reported to be apoplectic about the report and to have attempted to squelch it. Their concern is… for the defense of reliance on advice of counsel that Mukasey put forward in a series of speeches, and that the OPR reports will make, I understand, something of an absurdity…

There’s a lot to be said about this. But I’ll just start with the suggestion that–given that these "straws in the wind" have come to Berkeley Professor Brad DeLong–I can’t help but wonder whether Berkeley Professor John Yoo’s acceptance of a visiting position at Liberty University West Chapman University reflected some concern that Berkeley might see such "very harsh conclusions" to be the excuse they were looking for to get rid of the torture apologist.

Let’s hope this leak of Mukasey and Filip’s attempt to squelch this indicates that they have failed in doing so.

80 replies
  1. JimWhite says:

    Just in case the OPR report didn’t specify the “recommendations for further actions”, I’m sure we could come up with a few recommendations here if we really put some effort into it…

  2. perris says:

    Let’s hope this leak of Mukasey and Filip’s attempt to squelch this indicates that they have failed in doing so.

    this sounds like a job for KO and Rachael

    this needs to be made public and it needs to embarrass the crap out of yoo

    • emptywheel says:

      Yup, that’s why I’m saying the Chapman move might be related. Bc if DeLong has heard about it and not, say, Scott Horton, then it suggests the winds are blowing around Berkeley strongly enough for DeLong–and therefore presumably Yoo–to notice.

      • acquarius74 says:

        Do you suppose the Berkley Deans could put Yoo in a room with a table and chair, gave him to classes, no assignments (a mop and bucket?), no equipment?? That’s one way of getting rid of him.

        If no students signed up for his classes, what then?

        If the records justify it, Mukasey should be charged with at least dereliction of duty in the yoo writing of legislation memos.

        Yoo was born in Seoul, S. Korea and came to this country as a child with his immigrant parents. IMHO, his acts of destruction to our country’s constitution and laws are traitorous, and perhaps more damaging in the long run as the 9/11 attacks.

        I’m all for that lawyers’ conference with you, Jim White, Mary, bmaz, loosehead, and those I can’t remember. I’ll sign a petition, write letters, and contribute as much as $500.00 for the group to demand a meeting with Obama and Holder. I’d like to see Jonathan Turley, Glenn Greenwald and Bruce Fein, Phillipe Sandes, in the group, too.

        If this comes into being, may I request that my contribution be applied toward Mary’s expenses?

        This may sound very ‘tin hat’ to some, but I mean every word of it. I’m getting pretty old and would like to see our country fully under the rule of Law again before I check out. (no immediate plans to do that).

  3. Arbusto says:

    Yoo wouldn’t lose his position as a tenured (how’d that happen?) professor as Christopher Edley, Dean of Boalt has stated several times. I recall him stating only conviction or debarment could end his tenure.

      • Arbusto says:

        Where is the report filed or did it get quashed? I looked for for it & couldn’t find it. As to whether such a report is grounds for disbarment, INL so legal type needs to address that, but I doubt it’s automatic.

      • mamazboy says:

        If the OPR does disbar this bastard (pray), he can no longer teach law because he won’t be a lawyer, yes?

        Also, I’m sick of hearing how “brilliant” he is. The torture memos were not the product of a brilliant mind but a second-rate, and frankly sick, one. Yoo should be checked for sociopathy.

        • emptywheel says:

          You can be a Law Prof and not be a prof. But I think disbarment might give Berkeley the look of objective judgment on competence that might give them the cover they need to overcome tenure.

          • BlueStateRedHead says:


            You can be a Law Prof and not be a prof.

            or do you mean you can be a professor at a law school w/o being a lawyer? say, a legal sociologist, historian, etc.

            Sure can.

    • Peterr says:

      As I noted last April, academic dishonesty and professional incompetence are also grounds for loss of tenure.

      To borrow the language of my academic discipline, the mortal sins in academia — at any school, in any discipline, for any faculty member of any rank — are these:

      * plagiarism– passing off the work of others as your own
      * misrepresentation in citations – citing other works, but misstating their actual contents
      * selectiveness of citations – omitting any discussion of works that conflict with one’s own views
      * failure to disclose conflicts of interest
      * fabrication – inventing data, fictitious books and articles, elements of one’s CV, etc.
      * improper use of human subjects in research – failure to follow institutional protocols, lack of informed consent, etc.
      * misconduct in professional relationships – using the power of one’s position to improperly force subordinates to do things against their will

      These are the kinds of things that get people booted every year from tenured teaching positions, and they have nothing to do with controversial views.

      Sounds to me as if this OPR report could very well include evidence of both dishonesty and incompetence.

      • Arbusto says:

        Thanks. If the report is released or someone in DoJ emailed an unreleased report, what standing is needed to submit a request of review of Yoo’s tenure at Boalt?

        • Peterr says:

          The UCB Faculty manual that I link to in that April 2008 post says that each division of the university should develop its own procedures for filing, investigating, and adjudicating complaints. I haven’t looked at Boalt Hall’s website to see whether they have their procedure posted, but based on general academic practices, I would guess that there are two avenues: (1) a complaint filed by a certain number of Boalt Hall faculty members against another faculty member must be investigated, and (2) the Dean, on his/her own, can call for an investigation.

          Generally speaking, #2 might be invoked if (for example) a student made a charge of sexual misconduct by a faculty member to the dean, or there is a grand public outcry over something that a given faculty member has done. If alumni are the ones complaining to the dean, that would likely be given greater weight than complaints coming from the general public.

          • cinnamonape says:

            I note that there are restrictions on violations on subject consent for experiments. I would assume that the University has standards on this…and that any University Personnel would be expected to hold to them. That would also apply to non-consensual subjects…especially prisoners.

            If Yoo was encouraging the use of nonconsensual methods to obtain information or even to see if certain methods worked (i.e. experimentally) then he likely could be called on the table for violating the University guidelines.

            Since these were not established techniques, and there is no body of evidence that they work, produce reliable intelligence, nor that they do not produce psychological damage it seems clear to me that his recommendations would not be consistent with the University guidelines on experimental consent.

            I wonder if he could present evidence to counter this charge…in fact, given the psychological state of most of those interrogated, and the fact that it’s been acknowledged that the evidence cannot be used in court because it was coerced, that he would lose.

  4. jonL says:

    To all you lawyers out there: Can someone file a bar complaint against yoo and bardbury re: this report? What about mukasey or filip?

    • SebastianDangerfield says:

      You can file a bar complaint aginst Yoo with or without the report — but hoo, boy would it help. I was recommending this course of action around the time of Dean Edley’s lame-ass response for calls that Yoo’s tenure be reviewed. At a minimum, on the most innocent reading (i.e., that Yoo really believed what he was writing and was genuinely expressing his professional judgment), the Yoo memos constituted gross malpractice.

  5. emptywheel says:

    I gotta say, while I’m not surprised about Muaksey’s attempt (successful or not) to spike this, I am a bit surprised by Filip’s cooperation on that front. And I do hope details about this attempt come out, because Mukasey and Filip ought to lose their law/judge licenses for this shit, too.

    Mukasey basically put his own embarrassment about his complicit speeches ahead of the fucking Constitution and the OLC process. If that doesn’t merit disbarment, I don’t know what does.

  6. Mary says:

    I’ll believe it when I see it on anything coming out the the bushleague Justice Dept having teeth, credibility or revelation. Horton did indicate the end of last month that an op ed piece by Yoo waiving the torture flag again was probably an effort to pre-respond to some criticisms he thought might be coming out from the OPR piece.

    All of which sure begs that question again on why the DOJ is defending Yoo in the cases filed against him. As has been discussed here by EW and as is dealt with here by Jordan Paust, of the University of Houston Law Center,

    …it would be professionally unethical for lawyers who are responsible for prosecution of war crimes on behalf of the United States — and who, like President Obama and Attorney General Holder, are constitutionally required to faithfully execute the laws — to defend former members of the government who are so reasonably accused of having authorized, abetted, or otherwise committed war crimes under customary and treaty-based international laws that are part of the laws of the United States.

    Hopefully the OPR will, at minimum, raise the ethical issues of using the DOJ to defend Yoo and Bradbury. Although apparently both Holder and Kagan are disciples of Graham and think Berkely is the battlefield, so normal rules of law and ethics don’t apply.

  7. Hugh says:

    It just goes to show what an inspired choice Mukasey was for the Bush White House. Here was a guy who would go to any lengths to cover up the criminality and misdeeds of the Administration. He was someone who was put in precisely to run out the clock and he did.

  8. bobschacht says:

    Sorry, I posted @10 before finishing my thought–

    Disbarment for Yoo would also have the salutatory effect of discouraging future political paladins (have gun, will travel) from issuing such crappy legal opinions in the future.

    Bob in HI

    • MarkH says:

      Disbarment for Yoo would also have the salutatory effect of discouraging future political paladins (have gun, will travel) from issuing such crappy legal opinions in the future.

      Precisely. If there’s no punishment for willful(!) malpractice, then they’ll turn the OLC into a clown college.

      It should be remembered, I suppose, that a Dem president relies on those legal memos/positions and needs to feel he can truly rely on the OLC. They have to be accountable to somebody or the whole purpose of OLC disappears.

  9. Mary says:

    The list of those who should be disbarred is so long, but remember that they have people like the about to be Solicitor General and the current AG in their corner, so it’s not as if the Obama administration is going to do anything worthwhile that it isn’t forced to do, and it is as if the Obama administration will link arms and sing kumbayah with the Bush torture crew to cover up and insure speaking fees, pricey law firm slots, lobbyist gigs and long term financial security and societal deferrence for the criminal spawn of the Dept of Justice.

    I am wondering, though, if we will at least get a reversal on the decision to block publication of OPR annual reports and get the annual reports from 06 forward put up anytime soon?

  10. Prairie Sunshine says:

    Maybe an investigation of Mukasey’s professional competence and ethics is called for. He certainly seems to have shelved justice in favor of doing whatever BushCo wanted him to do.

  11. scribe says:

    IIRC, the discussion went something like this:

    “No lawyer would consider this stuff – Yoo’s memos – to be worthwhile for anything other than trash. And certainly would not rely on it.”
    Addington; “I’m a lawyer and I’m relying on it.”
    “OK. No good lawyer.”

    Meanwhile, another sternly-worded letter.

    Umm. Chairman Conyers? Yes, you. I have a spare dog collar and leash at home. Give me a note (authorizing me) and some gas money, and I’ll be happy to bring Rover back to the house for you. I meant House.

  12. ghostof911 says:

    If the behavior of the gentlemen is so abhorrent that it merits censure (disbarment) but it is not invoked, it reflects very poorly on the entire legal profession.

  13. selise says:

    this reminds me of when harry reid came to fdl for book salon last spring. when challenged about the senate’s failure to act re bush, he touted the great accomplishment of replacing gonzales with mukasey.

    • Stephen says:

      And lets not forget, because we all promised not to, it was key votes from Feinstein, Schumer and I think one other key Democrat that let Mukasey run roughshod on Justice. Mind you I think AIPAC swayed the Dem votes.

  14. Mary says:

    24 – Obama lawyers set to defende Yoo

    Next week, Justice Department lawyers are set to ask a San Francisco federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Yoo by Jose Padilla, a New York man held without charges on suspicion of being an Al Qaeda operative plotting to set off a “dirty bomb.”

    The suit contends that Yoo’s legal opinions authorized Bush to order Padilla’s detention in a Navy brig in South Carolina and encouraged military officials to subject Padilla to aggressive interrogation techniques, including death threats and long-term sensory deprivation.

    That’s not all. On Thursday, Justice Department lawyers are slated to be in Charleston, S.C., to ask a federal magistrate there to dismiss another lawsuit charging about a dozen current and former government officials with violating Padilla’s rights in connection with his unusual detention on U.S. soil, without charges or a trial.

    The defendants in that case are like a who’s who of Bush administration boogeymen to Obama’s liberal followers — former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

    The two cases raise the question of how aggressively the Obama administration intends to defend alleged legal excesses of the Bush administration in the war on terror

    • dosido says:

      thanks for the link. the article in its entirety gives perspective to the position that a new administration is in in regards to the old one. This motion pertains to civil suits.

    • bobschacht says:

      Thanks for this, Mary. I hope this will mirror the “state secrets” cases, where Obama’s DOJ continued the status quo ante but then Holder ordered a review of all the state secrets cases and may yet change the DOJ’s stance.

      I guess we’ll have to wait and see how that State Secrets thing comes out, eh? We should be getting the answer pretty soon.

      Bob in HI

  15. jackie says:

    This is related, indirectly..

    Defend Yoo or End Impunity?

    JURIST Contributing Editor Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center says the Obama administration should not call upon US Justice Department lawyers to defend John Yoo and other former members of the Bush Administration in civil suits addressing alleged criminal violations of international law, including the authorization, abetting or commission of war crimes….

    • DWBartoo says:

      It is often said that, in life, the only certain thing is change.

      At the rate certain ‘things’ are ‘changing’, we must prepare ourselves to be swiftly overtaken by hoards of slugs and snails …

      Which reminds me of the story about the motorcycle cop who got off his machine to see if it had quit running when a Volkswagen (supplied with a tuned Porsche engine) roared past him at an unbelievable rate.

      We must be careful of self-induced whip-lash if we turn to watch the slimy-trailed hot rods zipping past.

      This makes me wonder, a wee bit, if Holder’s DOJ will have any interest when Rove doesn’t turn up to honor Conyer’s invitation to chat …

    • jdmckay says:

      Well, at least Obama has won over the WSJ

      That article concludes:

      These are all laudable signs of Mr. Obama’s antiterror progress. Perhaps some day he’ll acknowledge his debt to his predecessor.

      Reads like a voice from the darkside to me.

  16. macaquerman says:

    Shit! and thanks.

    I’d try to hope that defendig the lawsuits won’t preclude later, and more satisfying, action from DOJ, but hanging onto that grows wearisome absent even a slight sign.

    • scribe says:

      I think in this case, the Mukasey DoJ deliberately tanked the prosecution of Stevens. No one fucks up a case as thoroughly as these guys did, when the defendant is a Senator, unless they were told to. The result would be that Stevens, lion of the Republicans, could literally get away with his crimes. He is not truly a convicted felon until his appeals are exhausted.

      I have little doubt the prosecutors in this case are (or were) all loyal Republicans.

      If McSame had won, the case would have quietly gone away.

      Since Obama won, the smart thing for the Obama administration (still thin on the ground) to do (particularly if you want to clean out partisan influence in the Public Corruption section) is to let these clowns have their head, and let them thereby hang themselves with their own misconduct. Thus, these prosecutors continued down the garden path, and will be sanctioned for it.

      Q.: The result of that (once they get out of contempt jail)?

      A.: Four fewer Republican attorney employees in the DoJ.

      • Arbusto says:

        The lead AAG had a good reputation from my prior readings, but it is strange what a total cluster fuck the investigation and trial of Stevens was. Hopefully now that Judges have found their balls after Bushco, we’d see some repercussions for these sharp practices at DoJ.

      • BlueStateRedHead says:

        Any one know what the chain of command is in this division. or any one.

        Anyone got a list of Obama DOJ nominations and confirmations? USAs? Martin of Alabama and whatsherface of Eastern Penn still tempertantruming.

        If Holder is by himself, how important does a case have to be to go to his desk.

        I am betting that there’s a lot of cruise control going on. But then again, they did FBI raid the Peanut company finally.

  17. Leen says:

    They keep repeating “no one is above the law” Prove it. We are watching, and pushing. Will they prove once again that this is not true

  18. maryo2 says:

    Yoo is listed at Chapman as “2008-9 Fletcher Jones Distinguished Visiting Professor.”

    Fletcher Jones Foundation trustees and officers are below. Do any stick out as Bush enablers?
    _ Peter K. Barker, President – Partner, Goldman Sachs & Company (retired)
    _ Samuel P. Bell, Vice President – President, Managing Partner, Ernst & Young (retired)
    _ Robert F. Erburu, Vice President – Chairman of the Board, The Times Mirror Company (retired)
    _Patrick C. Hayden, Vice President – General Partner, Riordan, Lewis & Haden
    _Parker S. Kennedy, Vice President – Chairman and CEO, First American Corporation
    _Robert W. Kummer, Jr., Vice President – Chairman, Mellon First Business Bank (retired)
    _Daniel E. Lungren, Vice President – Member of Congress, 3rd District of California
    _Donald E. Nickelson, Vice President – President, Paine Webber Group (retired)
    _John P. Pollock, Vice President – Of Counsel Rodi, Pollock, Pettker, Christian & Pramov
    _Dickinson C. Ross, Vice President – Chairman Emeritus, Johnson & Higgins of California (retired)
    _The Hon. Rockwell Schnabel, Vice President – Chairman, The Sage Group LLC
    _Stewart R. Smith, Vice President – President, Kinsmith Finanacial Corporation

  19. Mary says:

    37 – I had wondered that back when – if Holder had given any indication that the DC USA would be required to enforce the subpoenas.

    40 – YEAH? I’m pretty sure a yeah.

    42 – You’ve been so serious, that one took me by surprise. *G*

    • macaquerman says:

      I’VE been serious, little Mary DeFarge????

      If I’ve appeared to be, it’s because I enjoy your commentary, but it’s been so long since I’ve read any legal philosophy that I’m gasping behind you.

  20. Mary says:

    57 – It’s not bc you are nal, it’s bc I rambled.

    Lindsey Graham has asked both Holder and Kagan (Harvard dean up for solictor gen) whether or not we are at war (they both said yes) and then whether or not someone SUSPECTED of financing terrorist activities in the Phillipines is on “the battlefield” (they both said yup) and whether or not we can swoop in, grab that person and detain them forever to keep them from returning to “the battlefield” and they both went along with that crap.

    We have US Sup Ct precedent that defines “the battlefield” for purposes of application of US law vs military justice, and if the courts are open and operating, then that is not “the battlefield” but Holder and Kagan both just went along with the right wing talking points and Goldsmith’s creed, that we can create as many Maher Arar’s and Khalid el-Masri’s as we want, cuz its “LEGAL”

    To hell with Limbaugh’s dittoheads, if these are the Obama policies I’ll be the one wanting him to fail and fail badly.

    In any event, that was the background for my ramble that, since they buy into the G of the GWOT and the “battlefield” is everywhere, Kagan & Co would have to deem Berkely a part of the battlefield too, and they are ok with the “on a battlefield, lawyers can suborn kidnapping & torture and call it a secret” approach to law.

  21. BlueStateRedHead says:

    Selise, are you there? Can we envisage a hugh like list of Bush lawyers tracking their current positions, disbarment proceedings, civil suits vs. them (for ex. by Goodling’s denied office seekers).

    Just a Hans von S. deathwatch alone would be so nice.

  22. Mary says:

    47-55 I don’t know if it was on purpose or not, but IMO it tends to work a little like this. If you decide to torture as state policy, it is NEVER ever “limited” to “just” the bad guys – you make yourself into torturers and then you spend a part of your time being true to your nature.

    When DOJ makes itself into incompetent, gutless, no integrity, no scruples, liars cheats and weasels for the “bad guy” cases, it becomes a part of what the institution and its proxies are – central to what they are, so it comes out not just in the KSM cases, but in others as well. It’s why I’ve never bought into the argument that you could call lawyers who stayed on with DOJ years into the revelations of torture advocacy and attempts to permanently disapppear the mistakes “good people” who thought that they could influence things for the better. You don’t wake up every day and knowingly go to work for torturers and end up with a spot of your soul left that you can call “good”

    I think the encouragement of bad lawyering is the same. After you’ve bought into working for an entity that routinely abuses process, lies to the courts and other lawyers, abuses the press and press conferences, etc. – you really can’t do the right thing when you get the opportunity. So maybe it was tanked “deliberately” or maybe it was tanked just by virtues of the fact that those who were working on it were 5 or so years into complacent and acquiescence in working for filth.

  23. Mary says:

    61 – Lederman “regretfully” thinks that of course the OLC opinions have to protect everyone for everything and while you can tsk tsk over how bad Yoos opinions were, you can’t actually call him criminal for them. He has never believed or espoused any criminal responsiblity for Yoo, but he has wanted a righteous tsk tsk, so if it is what it says it is, it will probably make him happy and rugs can be lifted for the sweepings and guests invited back over.

  24. Mary says:

    64 – A little hyperbole from me, bc I am angry, but nothing to indicate any time certain for releases, just holding to prevent a “return to the battlefield” (the world) until the war (i.e. “terror”) is over.


    Graham, a former Air Force lawyer, stressed the stark difference between criminal law and the law of war. He and Kagan agreed that under criminal law, no person can be held indefinitely without a trial.

    “Do you believe we are at war?” Graham asked.

    “I do, Senator,” Kagan replied.

    Graham cited the example of someone who is not carrying a gun or fighting on a battlefield. “If our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing Al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield?” he asked. He added that he had asked the same question of Holder, who replied that he agreed that person was on the battlefield.

    “Do you agree with that?” the senator said.

    “I do,” Kagan replied.

    Graham said that under the law of war, the government can say, “If you’re part of the enemy force, there is no requirement to let them go back to the war and kill our troops. Do you agree that makes sense?”

    Kagan replied, “I think it makes sense, and I think you’re correct that that is the law.”

    “So America needs to get ready for this proposition that some people are going to be detained as enemy combatants, not criminals,” Graham concluded.

    • macaquerman says:

      I guess it was a little bit over, but nevermind. I’m so smitten with your -63-

      I suspected that when the dance was over that you’d be leaving lex and going home with ius.

  25. bmaz says:

    I’m with Mary. I don’t really think they tanked this. There were ways to do that without hanging their pitiful butts out on the line like they have, and you would never gamble that there would be such a flimsy ass judge that he wouldn’t hang them by their toes. I rather think the word was to have at Stevens and they were using this to draw attention off of the politicized DOJ. Problem was, as Mary relates, you have a degraded unethical set of prosecutors, used to just doing whatever they want, and they were overaggressive and corrupt. Plus you have some corrupt case agents up in Alaska in the mix. The end result is the cesspool of dung you see; but they didn’t tank.

  26. cinnamonape says:

    Do you suppose the Berkley Deans could put Yoo in a room with a table and chair, gave him to classes, no assignments (a mop and bucket?), no equipment?? That’s one way of getting rid of him.

    If no students signed up for his classes, what then?

    I suspect that they’ve tried to marginalize him. He was, for a timne, given the position of Director of Governmental Studies. IU don’t know if that was a something that was a bit of a “buy-out” by Conservative grants to allow him to avoid classroom time. Sadly, one of the dark secrets of academia is, once a faculty member has tenure, they can “buy out” classroom time with grants. That allows them to do research or undertake writing, sabbaticals, etc. Yoo has really only “taught” at Boalt for about 5-6 of the last 15 years. What’s stunning is that he only really taught there 2-3 years before being granted tenure! This is quite odd, and violates all requisites for tenure at the UC, ASFAIK.

    He was at Boalt one year, as an associate prof, then went off to clerk for several years for Silberman, and then SCUSA Justice Thomas. Then he was granted tenure! Within two years he took another leave of absence to serve as Chief Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, THEN was appointed to the DOJ (where he wrote his opinions on Gitmo, torture, etc.). When he left the service of the Bush Administration he decided to take visiting professorships at such places as the Free University of Amsterdam, and Italian University, and the University of Chicago.

    [Wish someone had charged him with War Crimes while he was giving lectures in Holland…with the Hague just down the road].

    Now, after a short time back at Boalt he’s taking yet another leave of absence.

    Clearly Boalt is getting conservative money to pay for the balance of this jokers time out of classroom. I just hope they realize that there are millions they are not receiving from disenchanted alumni (like myself) who will not donate while he is still there.

    • acquarius74 says:

      Thanks, cinnamonape, for tracking Yoo’s rise to notoriety.

      Clerk for Justice Thomas (Scalia’s echo)(Scalia = Cheney’s hunting buddy just prior to the SC judgment to stop the Florida recount 2000 election= GWB becomes president).

      What is this meteoric rise up the ladder telling us, cinnamonape? Does it go back to Poppy Bush and some link in S. Korea? How can we learn more about Yoo and his parents? Seems to me to be too much reward for very little output from Yoo.

  27. bluebutterfly says:

    Yoo liked to use 100 year old, or more, laws as the basis for his legal opinions. Why not make him pay for his defense under this one?

    ” The assumption is that Yoo is being sued for things he did as a Justice Department employee, so his defense is to be furnished at taxpayer’s expense. But this assumption is wrong, because the misconduct by Yoo that has provoked the lawsuits isn’t run-of-the-mill incompetence. As Professor Jordan Paust explains, Congress passed a resolution in 1781 providing that government servants who cause injuries under the laws of nations must bear those liabilities themselves, and twelve years later a justice of the Supreme Court affirmed the principle. War criminals have no right to call on the Justice Department to defend them. They have every reason to expect to be prosecuted. “


Comments are closed.