John Yoo Knows He Aided and Abetted a Crime
The infamous Bush administration high level torture team aided by their partisan legal flunkies, like John Yoo, writing torture memos are all subject to allegations of committing war crimes. A few days ago, John Yoo, declined to testify before Congress about his memos on the legality of "enhanced interrogation techniques."
As ABC News reports,
"Former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who wrote the controversial legal memos authorizing harsh interrogation programs, will not testify voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee -- paving the way for a possible subpoena and showdown over Executive Privilege. Yoo's lawyer has just informed House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers that he would not appear.
"In a letter, Yoo's lawyer told Conyers he was "not authorized" by DOJ to discuss internal deliberations.
"We have been expressly advised by the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice that Professor Yoo is not authorized to discuss before your Committee any specific deliberative communications, including the substance of comments on opinions or policy questions, or the confidential predecisional advice, recommendations or other positions taken by individuals or entities of the Executive Branch," Yoo's lawyer, John C. Millian, wrote in a letter to Conyers.
The Bush politicized Justice Department and Bushite loyalist Attorney General Mukasey insist the law is whatever the department says it is. Kind of has the "tortured" ring of Nazi legal advisers justifying torture and concentration camps. Or former AG John Ashcroft parsing forced waterboarding and poured waterboarding!!!
However, while Yoo refuses to testify before Congress under oath, he found time to give interviews about his role to national publications.
From TPMMuckraker , a passage from Rep. John Conyers letter inviting Yoo to testify:
"I understand that, in discussions with my staff, you have expressed reluctance to testify voluntarily on such matters. I am hopeful that you have reconsidered that stance, however, given your extensive public comments on these very issues. For example, on April 3, 2008, Esquire magazine published an interview in which you made frank and on-the-record comments regarding the origination, drafting, and scope of OLC interrogation memoranda. Similarly, you provided on-the-record comments on the recently released March 2003 interrogation memorandum to the Washington Post just last week, describing that document as “near boilerplate” and asserting that, in pulling back from the analysis in that memorandum, the
Department had “ignored [its] long tradition in defending the President’s authority in wartime.” Overall, you have made such extensive public comments on these and related matters, that it is extremely difficult to understand why you would continue to decline to present your views to the Committee."
"In an interview with former deputy assistant attorney general John C. Yoo on the April 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume about a federal court challenge to the Bush administration's handling of so-called "enemy combatants," Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume presented Yoo as an impartial legal expert. In fact, Yoo was a primary architect of the exact policy under review in the case that Hume invited him to discuss on the program. But Hume did not even identify Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, as a conservative, introducing him merely as "law professor John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley" and "a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, where he served from 2001 to 2003."
"Hume's interview with Yoo focused on a recent appeal of a November 8, 2004, decision
by U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who admits to being Osama bin Laden's personal driver but claims he was not involved in terrorism. Robertson ruled that the military tribunal under which the Pentagon planned to try Hamdan -- along with hundreds of other suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan and currently held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba -- violated Hamdan's rights under the Geneva Conventions. Rejecting thePentagon's argument that Hamdan is an "enemy combatant" entitled to no protection under the conventions, Robertson ruled..."
As the ABC report continues, "
"Yoo isn't the only administration official the Judiciary Committee is asking to testify. After ABC News reported that top administration officials approved specific details of harsh interrogations by the CIA, Conyers sent another round of letters.
"New and troubling allegations suggest that the decisions on torture came from the highest levels of government," Conyers said after the ABC report. "These reports, if true, represent a stain on our democracy. The American people deserve to hear directly from those involved."
"Those invited include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, CIA Director George Tenet, former Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin and former undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, as well as Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington."
If John Yoo, Bush and his torture team insist "enhanced interrogation techniques" are legal, why should Mr.Yoo refuse to testify?
As Congressman Conyers' letter stated, "To the extent you have raised concerns with my staff that some questions on these matters might call for responses that you believe would be covered by executive privilege or that would implicate executive confidentiality interests, I am confident such concerns can be effectively managed in a setting where you are voluntarily appearing before the Committee. Indeed, just two months ago, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Bradbury testified before the Committee on many legal issues raised by Administration policy on the interrogation of detainees. If the current head of OLC was able to testify on these matters, and especially given that OLC’s current interrogation memoranda remain classified unlike at least some of the opinions that you authored, I can see no principled basis on which you might decline to appear."
As ABC News reports,
"Former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo, who wrote the controversial legal memos authorizing harsh interrogation programs, will not testify voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee -- paving the way for a possible subpoena and showdown over Executive Privilege. Yoo's lawyer has just informed House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers that he would not appear.
"In a letter, Yoo's lawyer told Conyers he was "not authorized" by DOJ to discuss internal deliberations.
"We have been expressly advised by the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice that Professor Yoo is not authorized to discuss before your Committee any specific deliberative communications, including the substance of comments on opinions or policy questions, or the confidential predecisional advice, recommendations or other positions taken by individuals or entities of the Executive Branch," Yoo's lawyer, John C. Millian, wrote in a letter to Conyers.
The Bush politicized Justice Department and Bushite loyalist Attorney General Mukasey insist the law is whatever the department says it is. Kind of has the "tortured" ring of Nazi legal advisers justifying torture and concentration camps. Or former AG John Ashcroft parsing forced waterboarding and poured waterboarding!!!
However, while Yoo refuses to testify before Congress under oath, he found time to give interviews about his role to national publications.
From TPMMuckraker , a passage from Rep. John Conyers letter inviting Yoo to testify:
"I understand that, in discussions with my staff, you have expressed reluctance to testify voluntarily on such matters. I am hopeful that you have reconsidered that stance, however, given your extensive public comments on these very issues. For example, on April 3, 2008, Esquire magazine published an interview in which you made frank and on-the-record comments regarding the origination, drafting, and scope of OLC interrogation memoranda. Similarly, you provided on-the-record comments on the recently released March 2003 interrogation memorandum to the Washington Post just last week, describing that document as “near boilerplate” and asserting that, in pulling back from the analysis in that memorandum, the
Department had “ignored [its] long tradition in defending the President’s authority in wartime.” Overall, you have made such extensive public comments on these and related matters, that it is extremely difficult to understand why you would continue to decline to present your views to the Committee."
"In an interview with former deputy assistant attorney general John C. Yoo on the April 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume about a federal court challenge to the Bush administration's handling of so-called "enemy combatants," Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume presented Yoo as an impartial legal expert. In fact, Yoo was a primary architect of the exact policy under review in the case that Hume invited him to discuss on the program. But Hume did not even identify Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, as a conservative, introducing him merely as "law professor John Yoo of the University of California at Berkeley" and "a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, where he served from 2001 to 2003."
"Hume's interview with Yoo focused on a recent appeal of a November 8, 2004, decision
by U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, who admits to being Osama bin Laden's personal driver but claims he was not involved in terrorism. Robertson ruled that the military tribunal under which the Pentagon planned to try Hamdan -- along with hundreds of other suspected terrorists captured in Afghanistan and currently held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba -- violated Hamdan's rights under the Geneva Conventions. Rejecting thePentagon's argument that Hamdan is an "enemy combatant" entitled to no protection under the conventions, Robertson ruled..."As the ABC report continues, "
"Yoo isn't the only administration official the Judiciary Committee is asking to testify. After ABC News reported that top administration officials approved specific details of harsh interrogations by the CIA, Conyers sent another round of letters.
"New and troubling allegations suggest that the decisions on torture came from the highest levels of government," Conyers said after the ABC report. "These reports, if true, represent a stain on our democracy. The American people deserve to hear directly from those involved."
"Those invited include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, CIA Director George Tenet, former Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin and former undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, as well as Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington."
If John Yoo, Bush and his torture team insist "enhanced interrogation techniques" are legal, why should Mr.Yoo refuse to testify?
As Congressman Conyers' letter stated, "To the extent you have raised concerns with my staff that some questions on these matters might call for responses that you believe would be covered by executive privilege or that would implicate executive confidentiality interests, I am confident such concerns can be effectively managed in a setting where you are voluntarily appearing before the Committee. Indeed, just two months ago, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Bradbury testified before the Committee on many legal issues raised by Administration policy on the interrogation of detainees. If the current head of OLC was able to testify on these matters, and especially given that OLC’s current interrogation memoranda remain classified unlike at least some of the opinions that you authored, I can see no principled basis on which you might decline to appear."
Comments