Obama Seeks Dismissal of Case Against John Yoo, Author of ‘Torture Memo’

“This is the second such instance where President Obama, despite his opposition to Bush detention policies, took a legal position on the side of his predecessor.”
His “opposition”? Hmm. Kind of like His opposition to domestic spying?
This is what comes of taking a mealy-mouthed mobster, then putting him in a position of absolute power.
As the old song says, “Now you’ve got it rolling/How you gonna get it stopped?”

This move makes sense but Yoo should be brought to justice nevertheless in whatever way is proper. Anyone who was involved in torture should be in prison, period. That includes Bush and Cheney.

This country & administration has major issue to handle at this time…Obama has just shown his desire to move forward and not to waste the taxpayers money/time/energy for another probe..
Bush adm. is history…let it go

“It’s so funny watching The Messiah validate Bush’s positions on the things liberals were the biggest crybabies about.”
Funny-peculiar … revolutionarily so.
Who’s where in the military would be nice to know, but I guess we’ll try to figure that out when they start shooting amongst themselves, or when whole regional blocks of “states” secede. Or, of course, when the food riots begin.
If I were a shady Executive wishing to AVOID a civil war, the FIRST thing I’d do is abolish HUD and FEMA … followed by BEGGING Howard Dean to join the administration.

>>>This is the second such instance where President Obama, despite his opposition to Bush detention policies, took a legal position on the side of his predecessor.<<< Yes, and there will be more instances in the future where Obama sides with Bush because Bush was correct more times than the media and left-wing critics will ever acknowledge. Such as the fact that the commander-in-chief has broad power in times of war to intercept enemy communications, and a president is free to replace members of the Executive Branch staff for any reason at any timefor any reason or no reason at all. The truth will all come out in future presidential history books regarding the Bush era. Many who are open-minded and interested in the truth will change their opinions about Bush as a result (but the closed-minded Bush bashers never will). And Obama's legacy some day will face the same objective scrutiny by historians. There is always much, much more going on in any presidential administration than meets the eye – or can be shared with the public at the time.

Reflecting pools ; It is dog eat dog out there, stop drinking kool aid and face the reality . There are two sides on this equation “them” or “us” take your pick.If I have to pull the nails out of a sure to be mass murderer to save my life and my family I will do it until I know we will be safe. I’m not a lamb , I’m a wolf !!!

Another simple fact comes to mind that isn’t being discussed. Mr. Yoo is an attorney, whose client was the US government, who was asked by his client to provide a legal opinion on a difficult subject. All Mr. Yoo did was perform his duty as an attorney to provide a legal opinion. Mr. Yoo himself took no action. No court in the US – not even the looney 9th Circuit in California – is going to allow an attorney to be convicted for expressing an opinion or otherwise acting squarely within his/her role AS AN ATTORNEY. Can you imagine the ensuing chaos in the legal system if attorneys suddenly became liable for the content of their legal OPINIONS? (Or judges, for that matter?). It an’t gonna happen, my friends.

I think that the Obama administration did the right thing by seeking dismissal of case against John Yoo. I think that this should not be a yardstick to judge an administration. Issues of national security should be beyond politics; and ofcourse when Obama expressed his opposition to Bush’s policies, some of those were real opposition, and some were just “rhetorical” talk in the heat of the campaign :)
Peace…

At face value this is outrageous, but Obama is doing enough good that I won’t condemn him for it.
Perhaps the traitor, Mr. Yoo, has other, more valuable information concerning the Bush Regime.

This man endangered a lot of people and he deserves to be where he is. If he gets out he will do other things that are worse than what he already did and that is a fact.
None of these people should have the rights that US Americans do none of them if they are let out and the anger they have they will do even worse than they did before they were put into jail and that is a fact.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA…. BO’s big stupid campaign promises & lies ….. Now that he is sitting in the “Buck Stops Here” seat… any of these cases that he allows to happen WILL end up coming back to HAUNT him… because BO will, one day be an ex-President with people who don’t like him, or agree with what he did, or his policies… who will be pursuing laws suits against him and his former employees….what goes around comes around…. Mr. BO supporters – - IMPEACH BO now for lying to the American public to get elected….. !

“Rarely is the question asked, is the children learning?”

This is outrageous. Notice too that Obama is not keen on giving up any of the powers arrogated to the executive by his predecessor. Obama’s stance on civil liberties is as egregious as the Bush Administration and it is a profound betrayal of Constitutional checks and balances. If we paper over criminal conduct of a previous administration in the interest of “looking forward,” nothing will be learned and there will be no consequences for an administration openly corrupting the most basic principles upon which this nation was founded. It begins to look as if there are NO champions of Justice at Justice. I think back to those dark days when the likes of Yoo, Ashcroft, then Gonzales smugly enabled a lawless regime that was the very definition of tyranny and it galls me to think that the Obama administration will shield them from all consequence. Where is the outrage?

Basically, you are implying that Yoo is not accountable because he was just doing his job.
This is a problem with the legal profession – amorality is condoned.

Mr. Yoo is not accountable,because he did nothing. All he did was state his opinion. He had no power to authorize anything. If you want to go after Gonzalez, Ashcroft, even Bush, that is one thing, but to go after someone who could not even authorize it is incredible.
It sets a very dangerous precedent for the entire legal community. When a court hands down an ” opinion” it should not have to worry about possible jail time if someone disagrees with the decision it makes.

The Obama Administration is NOT siding with the preceding administration, it is protecting the OFFICE, not the previous trespasser to that good office. It’s important to use English precisely so that you don’t imply more than the facts indicate and support. Leave that to FOX.

Jeremy:”When a court hands down an ” opinion” it should not have to worry about possible jail time if someone disagrees with the decision it makes. ”
When a court hands down an opinion that is a clear demonstration of incompetence, they are certainly legally liable. I’m a licensed engineer and if my opinion turns out to be utterly wrong, then I certainly am liable to pulled into court to face penalties, even up to manslaughter.

Legal ramifications for an opinion? If he was the one making the decision then yes, but he did not. When the joint chiefs gives an opinion o the President, should they worry about what the court will say, or should they give the best possible opinion with he facts they have?
If a doctor recommends surgery to their patient and the patient does not recover even with surgery, should the doctor be held responsible because his opinion was wrong? Of course not. People give their opinion as best they can, it is up to the one making the decision to deal with the ramifications of the decision. Burden of command. If you can’t deal with the responsibility, don’t take the job.

“This is the second such instance where President Obama, despite his opposition to Bush detention policies, took a legal position on the side of his predecessor.”
—————————————-
I fully support the President’s continuation of Bush/Cheney policy.
Congtratulations Mr. Yoo.

If the patient suffers because of something the doctor dd, yes, but not simply because the doctor made a recommendation to the patient and gave them them all the facts surrounding the risks. It is still up to the patient to decide if the risks are worth it.

Jeremy — You are right that as individuals we are all entitled to our opinions, but our “professional advice” in our professional capacity is something else altogether. Yoo was asked for his opinion because BushCo already KNEW from his law review articles that he would write something that would provide them with the plausible deniability — cover — that BushCo sought in order to do what they had already decided to do. Bush wasn’t a dummy relying on an idiot’s advice. This was a conspiracy to subvert Constitutional limitations on the power these powerdrunkards sought to wield illegally, and did.

Jeremy:”but not simply because the doctor made a recommendation to the patient and gave them them all the facts surrounding the risks.”
If the doctor fails to disclose all the risks out of incompetence, they are liable. That is the case against Mr Yoo – that through his incompetence (or deliberate malpractice) he failed to correctly provide all the facts that his professional duties would require. If he was unable to render a confident opinion, then his professional duty would be to provide no opinion.

It seems that everything connected to the ‘war on terror’ is being kept out of the public eye as much as possible…almost hushed.
It’s as if the Muslim terrorists no longer exist?

What we should do is send any lawyer sick enough to represent Padilla to Guantanamo for a little vacation (say life). We can’t eliminate our enemies overseas until we exterminate the ones here.

But if you are a lawyer, you are held to a much higher standard and have to watch what you say even in casual conversation.
~~~~~~~
Really? So I take it, you are not a lawyer?

If we close our ayes and wish it away it won”t be there. haha
Well, I have been there. I have lost friends to those monsters and I will never understand how so many people in this country can side with them.
How many of you were this outspoken when a soldier or marine goes on trial for so called murdering someone while conducting combat operation overseas. I we should be arrested, myself included for taking part in a so called illegal war based on bad legal opinions. Well, then I am guilty and would do it all over again if I could.

Mad,
I agree with you. It is to Obama’s credit that he is willing to change his mind when faced with the actual facts and responsibilities.

Rose,
I’m not sure what the bait is, but please educate me on where this “well established fact” that lawyers are held liable for their opinions, is established. You seem quite sure about it, so you must know the basis of your own opinion.

I am aware of those rules, Rose and defy you to find one that says a lawyer has to have the ‘right’ opinion. If so, why doesn’t the lawyer who represents the loser in every case end up sanctioned or in jail? From what I understand most legal disputes involve a difference of opinion. In this case, Padilla’s opinion differs with Yoo. Should Yoo’s side prevail what should be the consequences to Padilla’s lawyer?. How much jail time would you prescribe?
I’ve never heard of a case being brought against a lawyer for a “bad opinion”. Malpractice yes, but that has nothing to do with a bad opinion. That has to do with an act. Having an opinion is not an act. Perhaps you could cite a case for me where a person was sued for their opinion and lost.
Sad that most people don’t realize that constitution protects free speech, even for lawyers. Otherwise David Bois would still be in jail.

BTW Rose, the CA rules of Professional responsibility says nothing about liability for a bad opinion. Are you sure that was what you intended to link?

Disappointing. Obama now has several slips back to the Bush positions. Besides his obvious charisma, overturning Bush’s executive powers and was the primary reason I voted for him. Next he’ll be mumbling “America does not torture . . .except…unless…”
Well, I guess I can have some HOPE. What happened to HOPE? On these issues, Obama should act a little overboard to the other side. Set everything RIGHT and then do a little extra, like make amends. Now there’s a concept.

Who needs McCain when we’ve got Obama, backing up Bush policies! Ahh, “Change” TRULY a slogan you CAN decieve with!!!

I love it when Obama vindicates Bush and his policies.
Obama must be just a bit bipolar with all of the promises/broken promises.
Or maybe he is just totally overwhelmed and doesn’t have a clue.

I admire people who do not cooperate with the law of justice.

Anyone who thought that Obama would be any different on these issues than Bush was an idiot from the beginning. While he may disagree with certain policy choices of the Bush administration, he isn’t about to give up any executive power, no matter how unconstitutional it is. Even if he truly disagrees with the torture policies Yoo endorsed, he isn’t about to agree that private citizens have the right to sue the government for its harmful actions (though, clearly, we do have that right).
And that’s the basic argument that they’re making – that while what happened might have been wrong, we shouldn’t be allowed to seek redress in the courts. Of course, that’s the primary reason for the existence of the courts in the first place, but now that he’s got the power, he’s not about to admit it, any more than Bush, Cheney, or anyone else in Washington would.

Plumber:”BTW Rose, the CA rules of Professional responsibility says nothing about liability for a bad opinion.”
Wow, really? Awesome, I can save THOUSANDS by canceling my liability insurance! You do mean opinion in the same way as it is defined in law when dealing with a licensed professor, right?

Wow, really? Awesome, I can save THOUSANDS by canceling my liability insurance!
~~~~
Feel free. Of course if you were a lawyer you would call it “malpractice insurance”. Other than that I’m not quite sure I get your point.

No, I am a professional engineer and have several lawyer friends.
~~~~~~
That and a quarter….
So why didn’t David Bois go to jail or at least get sued?

We are being tortured by Mr. Obama’s lies and false promises.

Jason makes a good point. He was ordered to draft a memo to justify the practice. However, you can’t use “Orders” to defend yourself against the illegal act. We have executed people who have used this excuse in war time. A crime is a crime and we have to stand up against this behavior. If the executive branch broke the law, we need to follow the paper trail all of the way up the line, to the people who initiated the policy and prosecute them. By prosecuting the first you catch, you then get evidence to prosecute those above them. This is how you get to the real criminal.

good move Obama. This is the right thing to do. Stop listening to those “liberals” who falsely claim we torture. you want to see what real torture is, go hang around hamas or some muslim extremists.

Why would he? There is a difference between losing a case and presenting one deemed so poor as to be below the standard of care.
~~~~~
Because he was dead wrong, and cost the tax payers tons of money. What better reason under your criteria?
~~~~~~
The usual penalty is a fine, and that is applied very often. Recently, Coleman’s team in the Minnesota case was fined just because the judge found their opinion on a point of law so poor as to be deemed contempt of court.
~~~~
Really? Got a link?

they see a man, who has the public support, common sense, is not weak and passive, intelligent, and has confonded their plane.
~~~~~
I see a man helplessly over his head, scared, unprepared, losing support by the minute, beholden to people with questionable values, and who after 6 weeks in office seems on the verge of a breakdown.
Oh and very lazy. If lawyers actually were getting fined for incompetence he’d be taking out a second mortgage about now.
But hey, enjoy it while it lasts.

We don’t even know what was in this memo, yet plenty of people are willing to convict Mr. Yoo, sight unseeen. It would have been useful if ABC News provided a link to a copy of the actual memo.

Plumber:”Oh and very lazy. If lawyers actually were getting fined for incompetence he’d be taking out a second mortgage about now.”
Does reality every penetrate your angry little bubble? Lawyers are fined all the time.

ken:”So Obama now backs the “Torture Memo.”
No, and it is honestly puzzling how any reading of the issue could get that conclusion.
“This administration has made no secret of the fact that it disagrees with the previous administration’s approach to many legal issues in the national security arena. Nevertheless, the Department of Justice generally defends employees…”

Colemans lawyers were fined for their secret emails to witnesses.

Mr. Block:”Colemans lawyers were fined for their secret emails to witnesses.”
Ultimately, it was the handling of one witness where they believed if they delayed her filing of an affidavit they were not required to disclose the evidence to the opposition camp. However, they had been pushing the limits on a number of other issues, so this was a last straw shenanigan.

Ken:”now says he opposes Bush’s torture policy (but like Bush defends his right to torture if he deems it necessary). When you finally notice the pattern, let us know.”
I’ve noticed the pattern. Republicans flat out can’t read. Please cite ANYTHING ANYWHERE that indicates Obama defends his right to torture, bearing in mind that one of his first executive orders banned any interrogation method beyond the approved Army manual.
Obama is defending an employee of the Executive branch, as is customary for a number of reasons. It’s not like he’s pulling out a pardon to just trump the court and get it tossed entirely, he’s just providing the guy the best possible legal defense.

The fact is, Yoo was not doing his job. He was actually doing exactly the opposite and as such does not deserve the support of the Obama Administration or taxpayer dollars.
His lawyer says if the government did not continue to support him, other government officials might be afraid to do their job. That could not be more wrong –Yoo did not do his job. That’s why he can be sued.
Yoo was supposed to uphold the constitution, not spit on it. Yoo was supposed to offer legal opinions based on the law, not on what his masters at the white house wanted him to say. Yoo was supposed to be the last line of defense against exactly what the Bush/Cheney crowd was doing. Instead, he was a shock troop on their side.
Yoo is a traitor at the very lest, and possibly a war criminal.
Padillo shoudl be able to sue him –but more importantly, he should be in federal custody, not teaching at some university.
The true irony here is that Yoo adovcated denying exactly the kind of due process he now claims he deserves at taxpayer expense.

Plumber:”That was a sanction for failing to turn over evidence (which was later allowed in) not a penalty for having a bad argument. ”
Of course, it’s not like they presented an argument for why they weren’t legally required to turn over that evidence that was rejected and found unacceptable. They were just blatantly corrupt and flat out breaking the law according to your interpretation and given a fine as a result. As I expected, reality has no impact on your opinion.
You questioned my profession (after I had already posted it once I might add), so are you a lawyer? Or a licensed professional of any sort?

Progressive liberals who voted for Obama should be very embarrassed. But I am sure they will just lay-low and act like this is not happening. Glad I voted Nader/Gonzalez.

JHW539,
Stop reading the headlines and look a little deeper.
Obama’s torture ban prohibits Americans from personally torturing detainees. This has always been a small percentage of the total. It permits foreign operatives under our direction and control to torture on our behalf, which was always the majority of the torture and abuse that went on going back years(Clinton started the rendition policy in the 90′s).
After Obama’s ban, the only difference is instead of an American operative inflicting the torture, we’ll bring in a non-American and tell him or her what to do while we stand there. I doubt the detainee cares about the difference.
While we may differ over the definition of what constitutes torture (cutting off a finger-yes. Extreme heat and cold that doesn’t cause permanent injury-no), that’s another arguement.
A piece of advice; don’t listen to what Obama says, watch what he does.

Theoretically we have agreed to international treaties that do not allow us to torture detainees nor turn over detainees to another nation that tortures detainees. We could not ethically turn over a detainee to another nation that tortures detainees. Based upon those agreements, even if the nation agreed not to torture the detainee being turned over we have an national and international responsibility to safeguard the detainee. For example, Egypt is a nation being criticized for harsh interrogation technique considered torture by most nations. We theoretically could not turn over a detainee to Egypt. Many have tried to articulate the bending of these agreements as legal. The agreements also known as treaties speak for themselves and carry the framers intent as well as those nation’s intent at the time of signing. To articulate a violation of said agreements, is to diminish our status and standing within the free world. All we have is our word…credibility is everything. Bottom line, either stick to the agreements and treaties or pull out and change course. This ensures that we are a nation of our word and remain solvent within the international community as well as ourselves, thus minimizing any possibility of global meltdown through loss of status and standing as well as credibility.
So Ken as a Citizen of the United States of America, I would say none of what you perceive is possible nor legal within this nations legal confines. This has a lot less to do with the Obama presidency as it does the Senate and the House engaged in identifying ethical confusion and allegations of ethical lapses that has been in the process of clarification for approximately 3 years now. What is done in darkness shall be seen in daylight…the light is coming. History has shown once a governmental problem is identified, we correct with minimal disciplinary action and then future infractions are usually penalized greater…Lets hope penalized greater never comes. We move forward and upwards…to the United States of America…

Larry,
Countries have and will turn detainees over to one another for harsh interrogation/torture. When you say it is not possible you are naive. It has happened for years and will continue to happen. I’m not OK with it. I’d prefer they stay under our control and not be turned over to someone else to be released, tortured or killed. But by closing Gitmo and banning torture/enhanced interrogation/whatever, Obama has guaranteed some detainees that fate.

I doubt anyone posting here would be happy to differentiate between “stress positions” and torture let alone water boarding etc.
I do believe in the attage an eye for an eye. But if we do not stand on principal, those who would attack us have already won.

Yoo is responsible for so many Bush-era sins. Obama’s stance on Yoo is NOT change we can believe…its politics as usual.

Of course, it’s not like they presented an argument for why they weren’t legally required to turn over that evidence that was rejected and found unacceptable. They were just blatantly corrupt and flat out breaking the law according to your interpretation and given a fine as a result. As I expected, reality has no impact on your opinion.
~~~~
jhw539
Huh? Uh as I recall you lectured me for half a day on how common it is for Judges to fine people when they find their arguments unacceptable and cited this case as a prime example. That certainly didn’t happen as you suggested.
You also referred me to the CA professional responsibility rules to find out how lawyers were often held liable for their opinions, which of course they don’t, and suggested I consult a lawyer to confirm your wrong opinion that lawyers are often sued for giving the “wrong” opinion. When asked for examples you provided none.
And the answer to your question about my profession is “yes”. SO I guess that makes me a “licensed professional” of some sort.

I do not care about the terrorist being tortured. Thats the language they understand but its not worth the risk of how many innocents are tortured too. We should show by example that we are above and better than third world tatics.

I am not naive, I am realistic. I was using veiled terms and being facieses and related an analysis of historical governmental procedure. One thing is obvious from this point on as well as mid term in the Bush presidency. Certain things are not acceptable in handling of detainees. The Bush administration changed its operating procedures somewhere in the middle of his presidency. Some employees even became paranoid about it and destroyed tapes. It is known that things were done improperly by individuals employed by this nation and other nations. Our actions must match our agreements or failure will ensue, such as global terrorism and “global meltdown”. What was done isn’t what is going to be done. The Bush administration gets a pass as is traditional when gray area within government is discovered. Future infractions will receive greater scrutiny and may require sealed proceedings if indictments arise. National security courts may be asked to look and act on cases against the government instead of against a detainee. Of course a Justice Department by the people will always be working for the government even in cases against itself. Those other governments are not us and the quicker that is learned the faster we become who we are supposed to be, aka, success in what some unintelligently call the “game”. The global meltdown continues because some with inappropriate status and standing, also known as overpaid and under qualified, think they can outsmart others as wells as themselves(willful ignorance), by articulating and untruth into a truth, legally known as fraud. The Ponzi world is here, it is time we steer clear, especially in diplomacy and intelligence . This requires all of us being a government as codified and adjudicated nationally as well as internationally. Onwards and upwards…to the United States of America…a journey worth embarking upon…We the people shall not perish nor go away, we own everything here in this nation, including the government, also known as our employees…Hmmmm the employee has been deficient…

Obama once again proves Bush was right.
That must be a bitter pill to swallow for his supporters.

Thanks, tyler for the infinite wisdom that two wrongs make a right. How profound.

You would think that the “war on terror” was supposed to reduce terrorism, but you would be wrong. Over the last five years, there has been an increasing number of deaths due to terrorism. Judged by its results, the “war on terror” is a resounding failure. You would think that people might look at the tactics used by the Bush people and wonder what they were doing that caused terrorism to increase and stop doing those things, but you would be wrong. No such self-reflection is possible. We’re left with the conclusion that the “war on terror” was not designed to reduce terrorism in the first place, but is being used as a means of obtaining some other result that we haven’t been told about.

apparently there is a segment of people who only read headlines, and I admit if I had stopped at the headlines on this subject I would have been outraged..All the DOJ is saying is…the courts do not have 1st position to prosecute this-government oversite through congress is..just like an impeachment of a president is the perogative of congress, and not subject to the exact rules of law..The DOJ is not defending Yoo or what advice he gave-just that it is not the proper legal venue..

the government has the responsibility of prosecuting Yoo and the other war criminals.
~~~~~
Then why haven’t they?

Progressive liberals who voted for Obama must be feeling like the far religious right, you will never get what you want.

“Judged by its results, the “war on terror” is a resounding failure. ”
You must be living in a parallel universe . . . or something.

The Obama stance here disappoints me. While I understand their desire to set a precedent here concerning lawsuits against former administration officials, I think it is misguided. A better legal precedent would be to allow this and other lawsuits go forward. This precedent would be to send a message to future administrations that the corrupt, immoral and illegal actions of presidential administrations will not be tolerated or ignored, and that there WILL be a day of reckoning and accountability to be had.