(Updated below)

(crossposted at Vagabond Scholar)

John Yoo has a new book to shill, and thus is making the circuit again, demonstrating the same keen legal analysis that blithely excuses torture and the elimination of the Great Writ of habeas corpus. Let’s be frank - Yoo’s law degree and professorship not withstanding, his knowledge of the United States Constitution and the Federalist papers is inferior to that of a smart high school student. (Does that seem harsh? See the end of this post.)

The reason Yoo is still a player at all is because of his culpability in drafting the torture guidelines for the Bush administration. As with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (or President Bush, for that matter), Yoo’s views are treated seriously only because of his position of power (or past position), not due to merit, insight, or basic knowledge. Yoo has been an useful idiot, all too willing (along with David Addington, Gonzales, William Haynes and others) to try to cobble together a legal justification for the Bush administration’s desire for absolute, unchecked power in virtually every field. It is not as if Yoo or his compatriots had a starting point of “let’s see what the law says here.” Theirs are the actions of defense attorneys trying to protect their clients from prosecution for wrongdoing past, present and future. Reason, consideration of consequences, and examination of precedent do not often intrude, because even a casual flirtation with such dangerously sensible approaches would demolish their fanciful effort like the house of cards it is.

Yoo was on NPR this morning, offering some new nuggets as he commented on the new detainee laws (The Military Commissions Act of 2006). At least Yoo acknowledged that innocent people could be imprisoned. But one of his most laughable excuses for destroying due process is that that due process is - “too expensive.”

Here’s the audio clip, as well as an excerpt from his book.

As was the case with Robert Bork, we would all be far worse off if the world were run by John Yoo. Of course, what can anyone expect from a man who so dispassionately asserts that the President of the United States has the legal right to have a child’s testicles crushed?

_______________________________________

Here’s a Yoo round-up, featuring analysis of some disingenuous and illogical gems from the man himself, for those who would defend his legal acumen, let alone his moral reasoning:

A Washington Post portrait.

Glenn Greenwald’s Yoo posts, plus a post on Federalist #69.

TalkLeft’s Yoo posts, including a piece on the WaPo portrait here.

Firedoglake’s Yoo posts, most specifically a piece on the WaPo portrait here.

Josh Marshall’s Yoo posts, including a piece on the WaPo portrait here.

Marty Lederman’s writings dealing with Yoo,

Law professor Michael Froomkin (at Discourse.net) on Yoo, in particular this post.

Anonymous Liberal’s Yoo posts.

Oh, and why not throw in the Lawyers, Guns and Money Yoo posts as well.

Finally, I have an older, tangential post on Alberto Mora which links one of Jane Meyer’s superb, in-depth New Yorker articles on torture and the battle over it inside the Bush administration.

Update: NPR now has reader comments posted on the Yoo page linked above. They played a few this morning (audio here). My favorite comes from a federal judge:

‘Can This Be America?’

Listening to John Yoo talk about this new legislation was chilling. I’m a federal judge, and have taught constitutional law for 16 years. The very idea of holding anyone without trial, without the right to see the evidence that was used to justify naming them an “enemy combatant,” and depriving them of the ability to challenge why they are even there is so repugnant to a constitutional democracy that I am shocked that this man actually claims to be defending American values. These are the tactics of the old Soviet Union, not of a country that stands for freedom and the rule of law.

I also quibble with his contention that U.S. citizens still have the right to habeas review. I’ve read the law. The president can form his own tribunal, which can determine who is an “enemy combatant” (not just an alien enemy combatant), and the decision of that tribunal would not be subject to habeas review. Moreover, persons targeted by this tribunal would not even have access to the military tribunal trial created under this law.

How easy it would be for a president to use such a law to make his political enemies simply disappear. Can this be America?
– Leif Clark, San Antonio, Texas

(crossposted at Vagabond Scholar)

One of the most frustrating experiences for a passionate, political news junkie is to see two talking heads go at it over some important issue and have your boy (or girl) let some major falsehood go unchallenged or fail to make a key, pertinent point.

The flip side is it’s very refreshing when someone really nails it.

On PBS- NewsHour on Monday, 10/2/06, their last segment was “Defense Analysts Debate Whether Secretary Rumsfeld Should Go” (the link provides audio, streaming video, and sadly, a very incomplete transcript).

Lawerence Korb squares off with General Ronald Fogleman, and Korb politely challenges everything Fogleman says in praise of Donald Rumsfeld with detailed facts. When Fogleman asserts that Rumsfeld may be unpopular with the generals, but well-liked by the rank and file (yeah, right! Thanks for the body and vehicle armor!) Korb challenges him on it, and brings up Rumsfeld’s use of an autopen to sign condolence letters. Every time Fogleman makes an assertion, Korb is right on top of it, and never lets the conversation just move on (as Fogleman clearly wishes it to). Korb lets no falsehoods stand. It’s fantastic.

While I of course no do not possess firsthand knowledge of Rumsfeld and his ways, it is Korb’s portrait that matches common sense, soldier accounts, the statements of all those retired generals, countless news reports, and books such as The Assassin’s Gate, Fiasco, and State of Denial. Rumsfeld has surpassed even Robert McNamara in infamy as a Secretary of Defense, and like Cheney and Bush, he will stubbornly keep leading as disastrously as he has for the past four years. It does the war effort no good to lie about how horrible the situation is in Iraq; lying about Rumsfeld’s catastrophic record doesn-t help the cause any, either.

(crossposted at Vagabond Scholar)

It’s hard to refrain from puking when one hears the GOP talking points circulating on Mark Foley, in characteristic violent conflict with all logic and facts of the case. “Dems- sex scandals are far worse.” (They-re not, they-ve all been consensual - but who cares? Does that make Foley innocent? And why not condemn all wrongdoing?) “Dems knew about this abuse but deliberately sprung it now to affect the election.” (They didn-t, the GOP supervisor of the pages did not share the information with his Democratic counterpart and ABC’s Brian Ross has reluctantly revealed that his source was a Republican.) The most hilarious line is probably “The GOP House leadership was afraid they-d be labeled gay-bashers.” (!!!) The list goes on and on - not to mention the implied assertions such as “consensual sex between two adult men is the same as pedophilia” and “all gay men are predatory pedophiles.” Somehow, for the hardcore conservative zealots, the GOP leadership’s deliberate covering up of this affair to hold onto a congressional seat, and Hastert’s lying, are not sins in comparison, if they-re even acknowledged at all. What about the welfare of the kids involved? What about the horrendous abuse of power?

Thankfully, some conservatives have dropped partisanship to condemn the real scoundrels. But when even the PBS NewsHour guest for the GOP is spouting off about the 23-year old scandal of Democrat Gary Studds (while ignoring the contemporaneous sex scandal of Republican Dan Crane), it’s pretty sad, pathetic and infuriating.

If I were to list every single example of this crap, this post would be pretty long. Over at Firedoglake, Trex offers a mini round-up and vents for many liberals:
Read more »