YOO GOTTA BE KIDDING
Read Here first
John Yoo is quite famous in legal circles. One of those "smartest kids in the room" who gravitate to neocolonialists like Cheney, Perle Wolfy. Really, really smart. So smart, he decided he could write a legal brief definitively provingto 43 (not a real tough audience) it was OK to torture guys, as long as we suspected they were bad enough.
Yoo is the kind of guy who gives lawyers a bad name but that is kind of not the point.
Somebody sued him for his memo on the theory that it made torture more likely. This is a very big step. It is like the guy whose pension is cut off through bankruptcy suing the lawyer who told the corporation/pension sponsor to file bankruptcy. Lawyers advise clients, we don't compel them.
So, as much as dislike everything Yoo stands for, I think the Judge got this one wrong. I think there's an advisor barrier and there's a Tort Immunity issue when he's serving the Government.
I hope this one is dumped later.
On the other hand, I did hear the Khalid Sheik Mohamed was singing "Yoo Send Me" during his waterboarding.
posted by UMRBlog @ 13:26
2 comments
2 Comments:
"Lawyers advise clients, we don't compel them."
I'm outside the legal circle, but that is ideally a good line of demarcation, as long as it is marked with a ton of caveats.
In theory, (and reality for some) that barrier holds and all ethical standards are upheld. In many cases, the lawyer schemes with clients on tricks and abuses that the lawyers know will be difficult or too expensive to prosecute. But intent to subvert justice is hard to prove, maybe.
The harsh interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects (not "torture") are a political football. It seems Yoo offered a genuine legal opinion, and there should be the barrier.
The judge however, seems to disagree with your Tort immunity issue. "“Like any other government official, government lawyers are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their conduct,” he wrote."
I don't recall that responsibility ever being enforced before, unless there was bribery or fraud, etc. But that "consequence" was viewed to be legal, and has not been shown to be otherwise?
Obama gets some political points by coming out against torture. He basked in that for a bit before finally stating he would not prosecute the attorneys.
But there is more than one way to skin a cat, and those that want full US constitutional rights for terrorists (yes there has been the reading of Miranda rights to "suspected" terrorists ), must attack those that offer a differing opinion. (the Judge is a Bush appointee, though did come through Bezerkly)
Yoo is on the right side of the barrier, and this smells to me like more politics from a judge, nothing new, eg. Sotomayor.
BUT I have seen many instances of lawyers actually helping the perps get away with what they know is criminal, even getting involved through document fraud, lies and collusion.
Those must pay, then be harshly interrogated till they rat out their cronies. THEY are the real terrorists that are destroying U.S., and they are many.
Viva la revolucion.
A truly thoughtful reply. I don't whether to laugh or cry!
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home