Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday, December 8, 2009:

The Obama administration has asked an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing former Bush administration attorney John Yoo of authorizing the torture of a terrorism suspect, saying federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues.

I really do not think our founding fathers or those who penned that federal law intended sociopathic, brutal, insanity which is not only unconstitutional, but against international law to constitute "national security issues." If Bill Clinton can go up on impeachment charges for getting a blow job, John Yoo can be at least be sued for writing the framework behind the torture and death of who knows really how many people. Is there not a reason for three branches of government and why is the executive branch doing everything it can to influence the judicial branch? It is usually done in secret, the fact that they have been public about it is at least more honest than in past administrations, but I am still appalled. Does the United States even have checks and balances anymore? If we look at what is going on in Alaska with the multiple complaints against Sarah Palin for ethics violations and the lack of action even in light of her obvious guilt I would say no. We have a do as they damn well please government still in operation.

Such lawsuits ask courts to second-guess presidential decisions and pose "the risk of deterring full and frank advice regarding the military's detention and treatment of those determined to be enemies during an armed conflict," Justice Department lawyers said Thursday in arguments to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
Other sanctions are available for government lawyers who commit misconduct, the department said. It noted that its Office of Professional Responsibility has been investigating Yoo's advice to former President George W. Bush since 2004 and has the power to recommend professional discipline or even criminal prosecution.

The justice department seems to think the legal engineering of torture which in some cases resulted in death is just a bit of judicial misconduct and for heavens sake they have been investigating him since 2004. When will they take action other than recommending that the judicial system take none? Some of the decisions we have had in the past need to be questioned. We have been lied to by multiple presidents. People have died and been harmed by their decisions which they rationalized with lies and manipulation, then executive privilege was invoked. One of the safeguards our founding fathers put in place was the ability of the Supreme Court to declare executive acts unconstitutional. The radicalized supreme court the radical right has put in place will never do this, but this should be one of our checks and balances. The white house should not be trying to affect the decisions in the judicial system. It really makes me wonder what they are trying to cover up. There is a reason it is called separation of powers. In my opinion illegal acts should not come under executive privilege, if they do we’ll get the same thing we got under the George W. Bush administration, alteration of the laws to fit a political and economic agenda.

The office has not made its conclusions public. However, The Chronicle and other media reported in May that the office will recommend that Yoo be referred to the bar association for possible discipline, but that he not be prosecuted.

Why have they not made their conclusions public, because they are not planning on prosecuting him and they know there would be public outcry. It did not bother them when they prosecuted the low ranking young soldiers who did not know their back sides from a hole in the ground and were following orders in the torture prisons. Since Nuremberg soldiers are bound under the Uniform Code of Military Justice to refuse to obey orders to commit war crimes. If this applies to soldiers and they can be convicted why can’t a man who knows the laws of this land as well as all the international laws that applied? Yoo conspired with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Pentagon, the department of justice, and others to rewrite the laws of this country in a way that disregarded the constitution.
At Nuremburg the United States prosecuted sixteen German attorneys and judges for war crimes. They had a convoluted argument that the Geneva Convention did not apply to their enemies also. They each got ten years. Yoo’s legal advice which causes criminal acts to be done by a large number of soldiers and government agents makes him an accomplice in each act. Yoo gave opinions that specifically advised others to commit illegal acts.

Yoo, a UC Berkeley law professor, worked for the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003. He was the author of a 2002 memo that said rough treatment of captives amounts to torture only if it causes the same level of pain as "organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death." The memo also said the president may have the power to authorize torture of enemy combatants.
In the current lawsuit, Jose Padilla, now serving a 17-year sentence for conspiring to aid Islamic extremist groups, accuses Yoo of devising legal theories that justified what he claims was his illegal detention and abusive interrogation.
The Justice Department represented Yoo until June, when a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the suit could proceed. The department then bowed out, citing unspecified conflicts, and was replaced by a government-paid private lawyer.
Yoo's new attorney, Miguel Estrada, argued for dismissal in a filing last month, saying the case interfered with presidential war-making authority and threatened to "open the floodgates to politically motivated lawsuits" against government officials. The Justice Department's filing Thursday endorsed the request for dismissal but offered narrower arguments, noting its continuing investigation of Yoo.

How many more years do they need to figure out his legal interpretations were against our constitution and international law?

Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and accused of plotting with al Qaeda to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb." He was held for three years and eight months in a Navy brig, where, according to his suit, he was subjected to sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and stress positions, kept for lengthy periods in darkness and blinding light, and threatened with death to himself and his family.
He was then removed from the brig, charged with and convicted of taking part in an unrelated conspiracy to provide money and supplies to extremist groups.
Padilla's suit says Yoo approved his detention in the brig and provided the legal cover for his allegedly abusive treatment. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White refused to dismiss the case in June.

Legal cover is exactly what John Yoo provided. I have to wonder what goes on behind the scenes at the Department of Law in Alaska that allows the horrible treatment of prisoners, illegal arrest of innocents without evidence, and at the same time facilitates the illegal behavior of a governor with an insane political and religious agenda. These people are all cut from the same political cloth.

The Justice Department's filing Thursday said Padilla is asking the courts to determine the legality of Yoo's advice, Bush's decision to detain Padilla, the conditions of his confinement and the methods of his interrogation - all "matters of war and national security" that are beyond judicial authority.
Read more at San Francisco Gate.

Yet, the justice department is putting two alleged terrorists on trial in civil courts which would also be “matters of war and national security”. They like a good show trial, I guess. It is not beyond judicial authority which will probably be referred to the jurisdiction of the supreme court to determine if the president violated the constitution. If we have a special prosecutor it will help negate executive privilege and that is why no investigation is being done.

The impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art. III. In designing the structure of our Government and dividing and allocating the sovereign power among three co-equal branches, the Framers of the Constitution sought to provide a comprehensive system, but the separate powers were not intended to operate with absolute independence.

 UNITED STATES v. NIXON, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) 

Part one of Anne Weills and Dennis Cunningham, Civil Rights Attorneys regarding John Yoo's role in forming the legal basis for the Bush administration to torture "enemy combatants" even though many of them weren't even combative. BTW, United States citizens are tortured in our own prison system and it is condoned in many state, including Alaska.

Part two:

No comments: