The Impeachment Hearing Room

John Yoo, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Impeach: The Yoo hearing can be the beginning of the end of this administration and achievement of long overdue justice.

John Yoo Has become the KEY TO IMPEACHMENT!

One of the problems all along with Impeachment efforts, outside of Pesoli’s horribly flawed and self-disgracing judgment, has been the truth only recently spoken in the halls of Congress, that a vast majority are complicit in the crimes of this administration and fearful of what would jump from Pandora’s Box should the lid be lifted. Evidently thay are not bright enough light bulbs to have figured out that Impeachment proceedings would be limited to the manageable group of architects at the top.

However, the John Yoo situation has given the House Judiciary Committee a real and clean backdoor to Impeachment that Nancy Pelosi cannot touch, cannot shut! Those who would now try to save Yoo, defend Yoo and his fellow collaborators best beware as this level of consideration could well position their continued defiance of our laws and Constitution on a platter where any citizen could initiate Civil actions against them.

The time for politics is over. The time for this hearing and the subsequent actions which will by necessity emanate from it be allowed to play out in the name of Democracy and Constitutional enforcement. Forgiveness for past error and sins is possible; continuation from this point on will not be possible.

This Is The Moment To Act Decisively!

To: "It's The Judiciary Committee Stupid" (Tool Kit) ->

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/11/its-judiciary-committee-stupid-program.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/11/its-judiciary-committee-stupid.html

http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

Important Video News Updates Of The Day: http://therealnews.com/web/index.php

AND NOW....

Conyers Invites Yoo To Answer Questions About "torture Memo"

By Patrick O'Connor Politico.com via CBS

The Politico) The House Judiciary Committee has threatened to force a former administration attorney to testify publicly about his controversial legal brief that justifies the use of harsh interrogation methods under the president's war powers as commander in chief.

Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) invited John Yoo, a former senior attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, to appear at a May 6 hearing to investigate a recently released memo from 2003 that lays out the legal justification for military or intelligence officials to maim or assault prisoners under those presidential war powers.

The Justice Department released the well-publicized memo last week after it was declassified. In it, Yoo, who authored the once-binding 81-page legal document, justifies a wide range of harsh interrogation methods under his broad interpretation of presidential war powers. These include numerous harsh techniques included under the definition of maiming, such as poking an eye out, cutting ears and burning a prisoner with scalding water or corrosive acid.

"Given your personal knowledge of key historical facts, as well as your academic expertise, your testimony would be invaluable to the committee on these subjects," Conyers wrote Yoo.

In interviews, Yoo has argued that the president has sole authority to interpret international treaties, such as the Geneva Convention, which forbids torture. He has argued that his role in the Office of Legal Counsel was to rehabilitate presidential protections that previous administrations allowed to languish in deference to Congress and the courts.

Yoo, a former general counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, has "expressed reluctance" to answer any questions before the Judiciary panel on previous occasions, according to the chairman's letter, so Conyers threatens to compel his testimony - presumably through subpoena - if he does not appear voluntarily.

"I can see no principled basis on which you might decline to appear," Conyers said in the letter, adding that his staff would consider rescheduling if the May 6 hearing doesn't work for Yoo, who now teaches law at the University of California at Berkley.

Former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo asked to testify before Congress Guardian Unlimited - Apr 08

FRONTLINE: the torture question: interviews: john yoo | PBS

Yoo was a deputy assistant attorney general at the Justice Department's Office ... 1992 graduate of Yale Law School, Yoo joined the Federalist Society, a national ... www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/yoo.html

John Yoo commentary on the 'torture memos'

... by Boalt Law School Professor John Yoo, who is also a visiting scholar at ... Yoo was deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the ...

www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/01/05_johnyoo.shtml

Matthew Yglesias (April 02, 2008) - The Yoo Coverup (Foreign Policy)

... to do any serious original analysis of John Yoo's now-declassified torture memos. ... But Yoo aside, you need to really be staggered by the mental ...matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/the_yoo_coverup.php

CNN.com - Did a government lawyer 'aid and abet' possible war crimes

... protesting Boalt law professor John Yoo's co-authorship of a memorandum written in 2002... In the memorandum, Yoo expressed the view that neither those ...www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/08/hilden.torture

A War of Words: 'Declare' vs. 'Make' and Its Allies

For generations, civics students have learned that the Constitution gives ... But it is not Yoo's. ... It was vintage Yoo. ...

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/.../22/AR2006022202306.html

Interview with John Yoo, author of The Powers of War and Peace: The

An interview with John Yoo, author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11. Also available on web site: online catalogs, ...

www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/960315in.html

Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings On Torture, Domestic Eavesdropping

John Yoo knows the epithets of the libertarians, the liberals and the lefties. ... a critique of administration views espoused by Yoo, "a state of war is not a ...

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/.../AR2005122500570_pf.html

MUCH MORE

CBS News - Apr 08 4:15 PM

The House Judiciary Committee has threatened to force a former administration attorney to testify publicly about his controversial legal brief that justifies the use of harsh interrogation methods under the president's war powers as commander in chief. Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) invited John Yoo, a former senior attorney in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, ...

Former Bush administration lawyer John Yoo asked to testify before Congress

Guardian Unlimited - Apr 08 2:44 PM

John Yoo, who provided a legal basis for brutal interrogation tactics, was called to account today by congressional Democrats

Yoo's Memo Hints at Bush's Secrets

Middle East Online - Apr 08 8:33 AM

In the March 14, 2003, memo – which was released this past week – US administration lawyer John Yoo cited the principle of national ‘self-defense’ in combating terrorism as grounds for justifying harsh treatment of detainees up to and including death, says Jason Leopold .

Follow the Leader: In Defense of John Yoo

Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel - Apr 08 7:58 AM

John Yoo has been getting a bit a guff in the liberal media recently for some legal memoranda he wrote a while back defending the president's right -- and duty -- to protect the American people from terrorism. (Really off the mark; send them “Letters To The Editor”… real smack down stuff.)

Yoo's Memo Hints at Bush's Secrets

Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel - Apr 07 6:58 AM

April 6, 2008— T he Pentagon’s declassification of a five-year-old memo authorizing military interrogators to use brutal methods to extract information from prisoners at Guantanamo Bay sheds new light into the dark corners of the Bush administration’s legal theories that put the President and his subordinates beyond domestic and international law.

Memo Proves Detention Is Illegal, Attorneys Say

Washington Post - Apr 08 10:08 PM

An accused "enemy combatant" told an appellate court yesterday that a controversial Justice Department memorandum exploring the legal boundaries of military interrogations proves that his detention was illegal.

Special Reports

Online Journal - Apr 06 9:22 PM

Last week, the Pentagon declassified an 81-page memorandum John Yoo, a former deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, drafted in March 2003 that authorized military interrogators to use brutal techniques to obtain information about terrorist plans from prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Various Items

Salon.com - 27 minutes ago

Book events. Persecuting military heroes. Self-justifications disguised as "self-criticism" from war advocates.

Washington Post - Apr 05 8:00 PM

Thirty pages into a memorandum discussing the legal boundaries of military interrogations in 2003, senior Justice Department lawyer John C. Yoo tackled a question not often asked by American policymakers: Could the president, if he desired, have a prisoner's eyes poked out?

Top Scoops

Scoop.co.nz - Apr 08 4:04 PM

''John Adams,'' that entertaining and instructive TV mini-series based on David McCullough's biography, is a reminder that, in some respects, nations are created as much from rancor and ego as they are from hope and goodwill.

ON THE MATTER OF TORTURE

Richard Reeves via Yahoo! News - Apr 08 9:40 AM

LOS ANGELES -- The order from the commander in chief regarding torture of prisoners was clear: "It has been recognized at all times that this manner of interrogating human beings, of putting them under torture, produces nothing good. The unfortunates say whatever comes into their heads, and everything they think we want to know."

Top Scoops

Scoop.co.nz - Apr 06 5:49 PM

Earlier this week, the Pentagon declassified an 81-page memorandum John Yoo, a former deputy in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, drafted in March 2003 that authorized military interrogators to use brutal techniques to obtain information about terrorist plans from prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Attorney: Enemy combatant tag flawed

The Washington Times - Apr 08 11:26 AM

A recently declassified government memo that was rescinded nine months after it was written shows that President Bush...

The Torture Memo, and the Outrage

Memo on harsh interrogations declassified

We would like to take this moment to officially apologize for not insulting Boalt Law professor John Yoo until this late in the week. Normally, we wake up with the sunrise, linger over a cup of chamomile tea, listen to the robins sing among the pear trees, and think, "Jesus, John Yoo's a schmuck." Honestly, we don't know what came over us.

In any case, we were caught napping while the rest of the country has been horrified by the release of Yoo's latest secret torture memo earlier this week. Between bouts of nurturing respect for the law in the hearts of young Cal students, Yoo served in the Bush administration's Justice Department, where he worked overtime to articulate the legal framework for torturing people the government doesn't like. And the latest memo to come to light has Yoo's charms all over it. Here, according to Talking Points Memo, is one of the document's footnotes:

"Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations."

Got that? Let's read it again, just in case. When it's soldiers who are tearing through your house, searching your possessions, and violating your most intimate privacy, the Fourth Amendment is just fine with it. Who exactly does the Fourth Amendment keep from breaking into your house? Meter readers? Girl Scouts?

John Yoo: Schmuck. There, we finally said it.

In other John Yoo-related news, read elsewhere in this week's issue about how the Supreme Court recently did Yoo a big favor. — Chris Thompson

John Yoo's war crimes

(Political Animal) THE TORTURE MEMO....The infamous John Yoo torture memo has finally been released, and it's pretty remarkable. (Part 1; Part 2.) Basically, it says that criminal law doesn't prohibit torture because it doesn't apply to the military. Treaties don't prohibit torture because they only apply to uniformed enemy soldiers. Ditto for the War Crimes Act. And federal statutes prohibiting torture don't prohibit torture because they don't apply to conduct on military bases.

We already pretty much knew that this was what the memo said. But Yoo doesn't stop there. Not only do none of these things apply, but there's no way to make them apply even if we wanted to:

Any effort by Congress to regulate the interrogation of enemy combatants would violate the Constitution's sole vesting of the Commander-in-Chief authority in the President....Congress can no more interfere with the President's conduct of the interrogation of enemy combatants than it can dictate strategic or tactical decisions on the battlefield.

And the Convention Against Torture? If the president orders someone to be tortured, that automatically suspends CAT:

Any presidential decision to order interrogations methods that are inconsistent with CAT would amount to a suspension or termination of those treaty provisions.

And this:

If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network.

In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.

So that's that. Basically, the president can authorize any action at all as commander-in-chief in wartime. Congress can't bind him, treaties can't bind him, and the courts can't bind him. The scope of power the memos suggest is, almost literally, absolute. And since this is a war without end, the grant of power is also without end.

As we all know, this memo was eventually rescinded. So in a sense it's moot. But Marty Lederman asks a good question: now that we know what was in the memo, what justification was there for classifying it in the first place? It wouldn't have been moot in 2003, and there was nothing in it that compromised national security either then or now. The only thing it compromised was the president's desire not to have to defend his own policies — policies that led directly to the abuses at Abu Ghraib, among others.

All Power to the President

Besides undergirding the abuses at Guatanamo and Abu Ghraib, the Bush-Yoo theories have laid the groundwork for ending a noble experiment in human liberty that the Founders began more than 230 years ago – with their defiant declaration that no leader is above the law and that everyone possesses ‘unalienable rights’ under the law, says Robert Parry.

Though little discussed on the campaign trail, a crucial issue to be decided in November is whether the United States will return to its traditions as a constitutional Republic respecting “unalienable” human rights or whether it will finish a transformation into a frightened nation governed by an all-powerful President who can do whatever he wants during the open-ended “war on terror.”

That reality was underscored on April 1 with the release of a five-year-old legal opinion from former Justice Department official John Yoo asserting that President George W. Bush possessed nearly unlimited authority as Commander in Chief, including the power to have military interrogators abuse terror suspects.

While most news coverage of Yoo’s March 14, 2003, memo has focused on the legal gymnastics justifying harsh treatment of detainees – including possible use of mind-altering drugs – the centerpiece of Yoo’s argument is that at a time of war the President’s powers are essentially unfettered.

Yoo’s memo fits with views expressed by Bush (“The Decider”) and many of his top legal advisers. Yoo’s opinion also appears to be shared by four conservative Republicans on the US Supreme Court – John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito – just one vote shy of a majority.

Yoo’s military interrogation memo – and a similar one he penned for the CIA on torture – were withdrawn by Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith after he succeeded Yoo as the top official at the Justice Department’s powerful Office of Legal Counsel later in 2003. Goldsmith considered Yoo’s legal reasoning flawed.

But Goldsmith subsequently was pushed out of the job, and Bush is seeking to fill the vacancy with Steven Bradbury, who signed off on Yoo’s “torture memos” while holding a lower position in the Office of Legal Counsel.

In other words, Bush has not given up on his vision of grandiose presidential powers that let him act more like an English monarch before the Magna Carta, who could pick out anyone under his domain and throw the person into prison with no due process and no protection against torture or other abuse.

Under the Bush-Yoo theories, all Bush has to do is pronounce a detainee “an unlawful enemy combatant” – whether a US citizen or not, whether there is any credible evidence or not – and the person loses all human rights.

As radical – and as shocking – as these theories may seem to many Americans, Bush is within one vote on the US Supreme Court of having his vision enshrined as “constitutional.”

One More Vote

If one more vacancy occurs among the five “non-imperial” justices – and the replacement is in line with Roberts-Scalia-Thomas-and-Alito – the US Constitution could be effectively altered to eliminate key individual liberties – from habeas corpus and other fair-trial rights to bans on “cruel and unusual” punishment to protections against self-incrimination and “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Though civics books tell us that the Constitution can only be amended by two-thirds votes of the House and Senate and approval by three-quarters of the states, the reality is that five ideologues on the US Supreme Court can alter the nation’s founding document by simply voting as a bloc.

And since the “war on terror” is unlike other wars – in that the enemy is vaguely defined, the duration could be forever and the war's location can be anywhere – the Bush-Yoo logic suggests that the de facto suspension of the American constitutional Republic is not just a short-term emergency measure.

Instead, the shift from a Republic, with legal protections of individual rights, to an Empire, led by an Executive who can operate without any constraints, would be permanent. As long as the President says some danger lurks out there, he or she could assert “plenary” – or total – powers as commander in chief.

In his memo, Yoo argued that the 9/11 attacks “triggered” America’s “right to self-defense.” Therefore, he wrote: “If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

“In that case, we believe that he could argue that the Executive Branch’s constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions.”

Yoo further argued that even abuses that would “shock the conscience” – one of Bush’s standards for what might be considered torture – could be mitigated by a subjective evaluation of the circumstances.

In other words, if the President or a subordinate judged the detainee to represent some imminent threat or to be particularly odious, they would have an even freer hand to act as they saw fit. Those judgments about shocking the conscience would be left, again, to the Executive to decide unilaterally.

Yoo’s two memos were the underpinnings of the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and the CIA’s secret detention facilities.

The memos gave legal protection to US interrogators and guards who stripped detainees naked, hooded them, put ladies underpants on their heads, paraded them in the nude, beat them, subjected them to extremes of hot and cold, put them into painful stress positions, deprived them of sleep, threatened them with death and – in three acknowledged cases – flooded their covered faces with water in a simulated drowning known as waterboarding.

[For more details, see Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]

Shielding Abuses

Yoo’s memos shielded interrogators from US military intelligence and the CIA, but did not spare the night guards at Abu Ghraib, who got stiff prison terms after they made the cardinal mistake of photographing the humiliation they inflicted on Iraqi detainees and letting the pictures reach the public.

In a comment to the Washington Post, Thomas J. Romig, who was the Army’s judge advocate general in 2003, said Yoo’s military interrogation memo appears to argue that there are no rules in a time of war, a concept that Romig said he found “downright offensive.” [Washington Post, April 2, 2008]

But the greater legacy from Yoo – who is now a professor of law at the University of California in Berkeley – and his imperial legal theories is that they have been embraced by many Bush supporters and four right-wing Supreme Court justices.

Though Bush may not get another chance to further shape the Supreme Court with the appointment of another Roberts or Alito, his successor likely will. For some Americans angered by Bush’s assault on the Constitution, John McCain’s past support for Bush’s judicial appointments may represent one of the strongest reasons to vote against him.

The future of the American Republic may be at stake.

Besides undergirding the abuses at Guatanamo and Abu Ghraib, the Bush-Yoo theories have laid the groundwork for ending a noble experiment in human liberty that the Founders began more than 230 years ago – with their defiant declaration that no leader is above the law and that everyone possesses “unalienable rights” under the law.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there. Or go to Amazon.com.

ConsortiumNews

Forward.com

Forward - Apr 03 1:04 PM

The Bush administration recently declassified a secret Justice Department memo from 2003 that shows just how serious a threat our democracy faces in the current war on terrorism. Unfortunately, the threat revealed in the memo is not from Al Qaeda, but from us.

Pentagon memo approved use of harsh interrogation against terror suspects

Guardian Unlimited - Apr 02 7:14 AM

81-page legal analysis largely centers on whether interrogators can be held responsible for torture if torture is not the intent of the questioning

Administration Asserted a Terror Exception on Search and Seizure

Washington Post - Apr 03 7:54 PM

The Justice Department concluded in October 2001 that military operations combating terrorism inside the United States are not limited by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, in one of several secret memos containing new and controversial assertions of...

Top Scoops

Scoop.co.nz - Apr 04 3:49 PM

On Jan. 17, 2003, Mary Walker, the Air Force general counsel, received an urgent memo from the Pentagon's top attorney. Attached to the classified document was a set of directives drafted two days earlier by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Building a Legal Framework for Torture

Middle East Online - Apr 04 8:48 AM

The UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states that individuals who resort to torture cannot defend their actions by saying they were acting on orders from superiors, notes Jason Leopold .

Pentagon releases declassified memo justifying harsh interrogation tactics

Durant Daily Democrat - Apr 04 9:26 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon on Tuesday made public a now-defunct legal memo that approved the use of harsh interrogation techniques against terror suspects, saying that President Bush’s wartime authority trumps any international ban on torture.

Declassified memo authorized US to torture "enemy combatants"

Addict 3D - Apr 02 1:12 AM

Here's a declassified copy of one of the 2003 "Yoo Memos" issued by William J.

All Power to the President

consortiumnews.com - Apr 02 11:23 AM

Though little discussed on the campaign trail, a crucial issue to be decided in November is whether the United States will return to its traditions as a constitutional Republic respecting “unalienable” human rights or whether it will finish a transformation into a frightened nation governed by an all-powerful President who can do whatever he wants during the open-ended “war on terror.”

And Still More