Hearing on Torture with Addington & Yoo: Nadler's Questions

Run time: 09:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAVp5O6DsrM   Posted on YouTube: June 26, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 26, 2008 By DU Member: L. Coyote Views on DU: 2121

 
The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties holds a hearing, "From the Department of Justice to Guantanamo Bay: Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules, Part III." Witnesses will include David Addington, Chief of Staff to the Vice President; John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who wrote a now-repudiated memo allowing the harsh interrogations; and Christopher Schroeder, Charles S. Murphy Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies at Duke University. Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler questions the witnesses.

The lying is thick with these two..

and will probably get by in shifting the whole blame for everything on Yoo. If Yoo wants to martyr himself, he is a fool. Yoo will be ruined by this.

arrogant, bastid piece of scum.

they're fashioning a new layer of hell for all of these sycophants. lowest pieces of scum in existence :grr:

This is a lesson for young lawyers who get carried away by the enormous power of their own ability to argue - and who forget to balance clever argument on a human scale, who forget to bring into the cost/benefit analysis, the values of morality and compassion.

Generally, we are not taught in law school just how important it is to temper our passion for a cause with compassion and humility. Compassion does not mean groveling or acquiescing to an opposing party. It means remembering that the other side is also human. Humility includes being honest. To really help a client, even when your client is your country, you must gain the client's trust and respect as well as that of the court and of opposing counsel.

When, like Addington and Yoo, a lawyer has to revert to clever rhetorical tricks to avoid giving a straight answer to a straightforward question, when, like Addington, a lawyer tries to intimidate a questioner with a haughty, arrogant tone, you can be very sure that the lawyer is afraid to tell the truth. The truth Addington is avoiding telling must be really ugly.

Addington is a coward. He has taken the first step toward personal disaster. Anger comes next. Then he will lose it. Then he will hurt someone, either someone he cares about or someone bigger than he is. The rest is history. It happens over and over. It happens when a person does not have the integrity and courage to admit to being wrong.

Lawyers who really succeed, not just in their profession but also in their lives, measure their zeal for winning and for being right with knowledge of their own vulnerability and personal imperfections. It is easy to win a motion or a case and in the process lose your balance, your self-respect, your soul and your reputation. Addington has lost all of these, as has Yoo. They did wrong and they can't admit it to themselves.

The care nothing for our democracy!

Answer the questions you asshole!

Makes no fucking sense whatsoever.....that part where they say "where did this come from," WTF was he on about there?

...from right out of his ass! That language being torture is evident when pain is of sufficient magnitude as to result in death and/or organ failure. So it isn't torture unless you die or have organ function stopped permanently.

a question is to render a legal opinion? What a joke. Give me a trial lawyer like John Edwards over this bunch of "legal scholars". At least Edwards, who I wanted for president earlier this year, does a service. Those others like Addington and Yoo just play mind games with the English language like a cat plays with the mouse it intends to kill and eat.
We wonder why people are so confused and then we see the process played out with the arrogance and rudeness of the slyly clever lackeys who have always dwelt among us. What a shameful waste of the intellect!:-(

Have never seen anyone in that condition. He apparently thought his bluster would intimidate Jerrold Nadler sufficiently. As it seems, his self-confidence was formed by assuming the deference he gets from his flunkies was to be expected everywhere he goes.

It was very interesting seeing his flying high-handedness, his desperate attempts to intimidate Nadler.

Have appreciated reading the comments made on your thread, as well. Very insightful. Thank you.

I can see how a serial killer might be pretty much born that way, missing something - starting out small, torturing small animals, setting house and school fires, etc., then getting on a bit in age and imagining being a serial killer, a bit like every youth imagines what they'll be when they grow up, a doctor, a movie star, whatever. Then going on and doing it. But what about these guys Yoo and Addington? They're not lone workers like serial-killers. They require massive institutional support. As they grew up did they imagine becoming a celebrity like e.g. Adolf Eichmann? Then worked hard to get the job?

I mean, how did they get picked for the job? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, must've had their eyes out for Eichmann-like bureaucrats from when they all met up during the Nixon admin. Likewise, look how smooth the transition from Gonzalez to Mukasey - these guys are virtual clones of each other, and there's no way the type can be termed "normal". So, how come they're right at hand, already on top of the food chain and ripe to be used by a team like Bush-Cheney? Are they both born and made, like, *groomed* to fit an Eichmann-like pattern thru' their early careers?

Might this kind of schooling have begun, really got a foothold, during the HUAC years?

Idle speculation, I know. But to see how these guys operate in real-time is chilling.