Obama lawyers set to defend Yoo

In Democratic legal circles, no attorney has been more pilloried than former Bush Justice Department official John Yoo, chief author of the so-called torture memos that Barack Obama last week sought to nullify.

But now President Obama’s incoming crew of lawyers has a new and somewhat awkward job: defending Yoo in federal court.

Next week, Justice Department lawyers are set to ask a San Francisco federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Yoo by Jose Padilla, a New York man held without charges on suspicion of being an Al Qaeda operative plotting to set off a “dirty bomb.”

...

That’s not all. On Thursday, Justice Department lawyers are slated to be in Charleston, S.C., to ask a federal magistrate there to dismiss another lawsuit charging about a dozen current and former government officials with violating Padilla’s rights in connection with his unusual detention on U.S. soil, without charges or a trial.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18063.html



(bangs head against desk)

right now when so much of the material is buried? Here's a related story on secret memo's from DemocracyNow! this morning with a lady from Pro Publica and Scott Horton:

Bush’s Secret Counterterrorism Law Book—and the Demands to Release It
Memos

We take a look at the Bush administration’s secret Justice Department memos on detention, interrogation, surveillance and prosecution. These opinions were issued by the Office of Legal Counsel and advised the executive branch on the legality of a range of tactics in fighting the so-called “war on terror.” A few of these records have been made public, but many remain secret, including those relating to the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance program. The investigative website ProPublica has compiled the first public database of all that is currently known about these memos.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/28/report_bushs_secret_counterterrorism_law_book

(Transcript not up as of yet but will be later. Video, audio at link.)

to use to do illegal things, you can't sue the party responsible for a legal position giving a green light to illegal activity?

The Judges will decide if they are "cognizable" cases.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pdf/YooComplaint.pdf

Do you think that is fake? Or is it the U.S. district court of Northern California that you think does not exist?

Hey, stories about the Obama admin covering for Bush regime crimes cannot, must not be true!

Your post #8 is what we'd all love to believe and hope is true, actually.

Obama is clearly strongly against torture.

It can only be that this is necessary in order to preserve their ability to fight the larger issue.

And unfortunately, I think this is "the larger issue." If Yoo gets off, they all get off, down the line, since the role of Yoo and Addington and the other counsels was to provide the (bogus) legal opinons that the rest desired as their fig leaf for murder.

(If you'll allow a bit of metaphor strain.)

And there's no natural law that says Obama can't be against torture and still end up allowing it through loopholes. There are many pressures at work here, very large bureaucracy devoted to repression and injustice that no one in power necessarily is going to dare to tackle. (For another example, See: Drug War, Obama's refusal to critique the.)

It is not that I disbelieve the facts of this, it is simply that there are so many possible interpretations of it that I think it is foolish to take away from this that it means that Obama is defending Yoo or torture in general.

?

What other interpretation is possible? The DOJ dispatches lawyers to courtrooms in SC and CA to defend the 'right' of our government to imprison U.S citizens without charge or trial. That would seem to be clear to any fair reader.

What if the Obama administration has some other plans for prosecuting the larger issue and this would foul it up in some way?

I simply do not, cannot believe that the Obama administration is a defender of torture given that on his 2nd day he made an unequivocal pronouncement and executive order banning it.

Perhaps the DOJ lawyers will appear in court and concede. Admittedly I cannot know that they won't.

We'll know tomorrow if that happens in SC (and next week in CA) and then can reevaluate our positions.

I recommend not holding your breath.

Technically: It's defending his right to write servile and wittingly false legal memos for his bosses in the executive branch, even if they are tyrants and murderers, even if the memos facilitate tyranny and murder, because hey -- it was the executive branch and that's "us" now, we can't have executive branch lawyers fearing to write servile and wittingly false legal memos...

There's simply an absurdity and ipso facto conflict here of this year's DoJ lawyers dispatched to defend last year's DoJ lawyers.

That's outrageous - no one asked me! The nerve...

(sorry)

But seriously now:

In what appears otherwise to be a straight factual report, author Gerstein repeatedly adjectivizes the "liberals" who have some weird partisan bug up their ass about rule of law, war crimes and Yoo. No counterpart label for Yoo and co. is used.

Reading justifications on how the executive naturally protects the executive makes me think you need a fourth branch devoted solely to enforcing law on the executive.

Cannot like this first signal on how things are developing, predictable or not. As the article says, a host of these cases are coming up. The glimmer of hope, and it's only a glimmer, is in the giving of the Rumsfeldian perspective: that these Bush beasts had best bring along their own "shadow counsel," as they can't trust the lawyers from Obama's DoJ.

But let's face it, that's bull. There shouldn't be any pretend about it. Obama declared Yoo's opinions null and void, there was a reason for that. The government shouldn't be providing the defense. Yoo can afford his own lawyer, and is getting generous treatment under the rule of law, the exact opposite of what he advocated.

The newly-enterprising New York Sun got its hands on a key State Department memo from 2003 that identifies Valerie (Plame) Wilson as the wife of Joe Wilson. It's an informative new piece of the Plame puzzle -- only the Sun uses it to prove pretty much the exact opposite of what it shows. At least that's what an high-ranking intel source familiar with the memo tells us.

Here are the basic details.

Every graf of the three-page doc was marked "Secret," including the one that mentions Valerie Plame. The Sun comes to the up-is-down conclusion that her identity, therefore, wasn't a secret.

" appears to offer no particular indication that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert," wrote Sun reporter Josh Gerstein. He quotes Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/000392.php

I know that it may have to do with this tread but
in a way it does. I just saw a politico talking head lie
on TV about what economists are saying about the stimulus plan.

That is how it works, whether the person is guilty or not.

Is there any fact you won't cite?

Isn't it grand? :hi:

Nope. Prosecuted the bastards.

regarding the discharge of official duties. So in this case, Justice Department attorneys will defend the federal employee.

That need have no application to this case, as Yoo's memos are exceptional, in fact unprecedented, and already implicitly declared suspect by way of Obama's order to negate all OLC detainee-related opinions.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00002679----000-.html

<snip>

(c) The Attorney General shall defend any civil action or proceeding brought in any court against any employee of the Government or his estate for any such damage or injury. The employee against whom such civil action or proceeding is brought shall deliver within such time after date of service or knowledge of service as determined by the Attorney General, all process served upon him or an attested true copy thereof to his immediate superior or to whomever was designated by the head of his department to receive such papers and such person shall promptly furnish copies of the pleadings and process therein to the United States attorney for the district embracing the place wherein the proceeding is brought, to the Attorney General, and to the head of his employing Federal agency.
(d)
(1) Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a United States district court shall be deemed an action against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.
(2) Upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose, any civil action or proceeding commenced upon such claim in a State court shall be removed without bond at any time before trial by the Attorney General to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place in which the action or proceeding is pending. Such action or proceeding shall be deemed to be an action or proceeding brought against the United States under the provisions of this title and all references thereto, and the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant. This certification of the Attorney General shall conclusively establish scope of office or employment for purposes of removal.

<snip>

Now, the certification that Yoo was acting within the scope of his duties at the time, was done under the Bush administration. It cannot be DEcertified now. Therefore, the case goes on as it was begun.

It is precisely violation of the Constitution that is at the core of the matter: denial of access to counsel, denial of access to courts, unconstitutional conditions of confinement, unconstitutional interrogations, denial of freedom of religion, denial of right to association, unconstitutional military detention, denial of due process - all listed in the complaint.

The DOJ might be obligated to be the lawyer for the government but it does not have to defend Yoo's madness. Rather, DOJ can say Yoo was wrong and what happened to Padilla was wrong and here's your dollar and it won't happen again. That would be fulfilling their sworn oath to defend the Constitution.

Once again it comes down to discretion.

How does this certification of the Bush DoJ, that Yoo was acting within his duties, cover for a violation of the Constitution, as claimed in the suit? Just as Obama ordered nullification of Yoo's opinions, he or the new DoJ can nullify the certification as invalid* or declare it irrelevant to constitutional violations.

* Note: Especially since it was issued in a collusion to preemptively exonerate a group who planned and committed a set of crimes. Yoo issues the opinion authorizing the crimes, the DoJ "certifies" Yoo's actions as within his duties, and voila, thanks to a circular process no one's to blame for anything.

Instead of defending Yoo, it's also within the current government's scope to bring charges for crimes committed in government (even those earlier "certified:), rather than automatically to defend those charged. Certification can't grant immunity for acts that are illegal under other statutes; that's for a court to decide which statute prevails.

These people played a conscious legal buck-passing merry-go-round that was always kabuki, because they always understood the point was to violate the law as it must be understood from its letter.

Their strategy now will be (implicitly: always, necessarily was!) to get Yoo and Addington and Co. cleared first. THEN they can all claim they had cover thanks to the opinions given by Yoo and Addington and Co. under cover of certification.

Oi! (Am just starting to comprehend this myself - ugh.)

proceed according to that certification.

Yes he can!

And he can do the same with the Westfall certification.

The case will proceed as it began.

Guess everything's settled then, let's go home!

See, Yoo can opine that Cheney's got a right to shoot you (not Yoo) in the face, Gonzalez can certify Yoo as acting under duty at OLC, Cheney can face-shoot you, and everyone's in the clear. Except you. When you sue, all future executive branches for all time must represent Yoo (not you) in court. Thanks to his certification. As well as Cheney, when his turn comes. Thanks to Yoo's finding. Is Gonzalez in the clear? I'm sure somebody in the round-robin of preemptive exoneration has him covered, too.

Yay!

Hey, I like that, hope you don't mind my vanity in repeating it:

"ROUND-ROBIN OF PREEMPTIVE EXONERATION"

Thanks.

Plenty of federal employees go through divorce court or drug court without DOJ at their side.

Even to say that any given Justice Department must defend the official acts of all past DOJ employees is stretching it too far if you think about it.

That would require the DoJ to send a lawyer for Yoo!

then he could have avoided the pain and embarrassment of the nation's chief law enforcement officer going to federal prison.


If fact, John Yoo's crime today serving Shrub's demented vision is worse than John Mitchell's crime was serving Nixon's crazy plots.

And, yes, John Yoo should go to prison and yes, the DOJ should put him there, not defend him.

This man was picked up on the streets of Chicago, an American Citizen, and denied all his Constitutional Rights. He was not allowed access to an attorney, he was not given any phone calls, he was not given a Speedy Trial, He was not allowed a Trial by Peers, He was whisked away from America to some foreign hell hole and tortured. IMO this is indefensible yet Obama will defend this action. I certainly can't understand any "Change we can believe in" in this situation.

could that be done? why defend the person who ok'd drawing up a torture bill.

him will do us no good. A fair trial then decades of prison would be a correct course.

Why is it OK to railroad him?

This thread is about the government representing Yoo with a motion to dismiss - it's not dismissed yet, I think next hearing date is Feb. 6.