Countdown: Yoo Torture Memo Is More Evidence Of Impeachable Crimes
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Apr 02, 2008 9:02pm
Download | play 
Download | play
The now-infamous John Yoo torture memo, which states that torture isn't really torture unless it kills the suspect, and that President Bush's wartime authority trumps torture law, is creating quite a firestorm. Constitutional professor Jonathan Turley joined Keith Olbermann on Thursday's Countdown where he once again repeats his claim that President Bush broke the law and that the Democrats were afraid to pursue charges because they know it would trigger impeachment hearings and that scares them to death.
Turley:"...It's really amazing, Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes. But, evidence keeps on coming out. The only thing we don't have is a group picture with a detainee attached to electrical wires."
Login or Register to post comments.
Pelosi: "Nope. Not yet..."
Even after all this time and all of these revelations....these people just...it just knocks the wind out of me. Oi....
Turley:”…It’s really amazing, Congress, including the Democrats, have avoided any type of investigation into torture because they do not want to deal with the fact that the president ordered war crimes.
I will never understand. Not as long as I live, will I understand why they won't investigate and bring charges of war crimes. Torture is really only one aspect of it. Many war crimes have been commited. What is their fear? Looking at it from my point of view, I would think they would come out as heroes in the eyes of at least 70% of Americans and change the views other countries now have of us. What am I missing?
Isn't attacking another country for their natural resources a war crime?
Would someone kindly explain to me why everyone seems to think Nancy Pelosi has the power to decide if/when impeachment proceedings should begin against Bush/Cheney?
Remember when the whole Watergate fiasco went down? It was a full SENATE vote that decided to name a Special Committee for Hearings...NOT THE HOUSE!!!
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?s...
It was the Senate Committee that ordered the House Judiciary Committee to draw up the articles of impeachment after the public hearings had taken place and everyone started singing (Dean etc.)
Just seems to me we are looking at the whole impeachment scenario bass ackwards.
Please advise. I do believe lots of folks on this thread would appreciate having a better understanding of the process.
They believe (that is the Democratic Congress believes) that if they attempt to impeach then Bush will declare martial law and himself ruler under any number of unitary executive assertions Bush has made.
There have been rumors to this effect and this is the only logical reason I can fathom for their behavior.
Has anybody mentioned yet that the theory Yoo proposes, ie that abuse of a prisoner is an extension of the idea of justification by self-defense - and that self defense is also a viable defense in a murder case?
I've mentioned before the terrible logic that would overcome a torturer when he found a victim to be totally innocent. The entire presumption that theoretically supports his action has just collapsed. Now he (the torturer) must kill his victim in order to protect himself from prosecution for war crimes, and to protect the government for having sanctioned it. It would be very surprising indeed if this tragic and deadly scenario has not played itself out in Afghanistan, Cuba and Iraq dozens if not hundreds of times. In that sense the US has finally become a member of the network of banana republics of South America where they have been training, equipping and financing torturers and murderers for decades.
I really couldn't be more disgusted.
You know, if the Dems won't impeach (and we know the Repugs certainly won't) I think we all have a case against Taxation without Representation.
i think the dems are afraid of the media. they assume and correctly that if they go for impeachment the media will trash them for going after their hero w. it's not the repubs they have stand up to, it's the media.
The Dems have been afraid of backlash and poor media coverage (the media that ignores these crimes in the first place), and that taking action will hurt us this election cycle.
I think that doing the right thing, that is enforcing the Constitution, would rally the nation and world behind the cause. Except for KO, the MSM has little to say about the torture memo. Probably afraid it will take telecom immunity down with it.
I bet Wexler really wants hearings, now!
Screw the politicians. Check your mirrors.
The average american doesn't really give a shit about whats being done in their names, if they did this admin would be in leg irons by now.
It's more evidence of even more then just impeachable crimes.
numfar @ 4:
Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights passed in the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. The United States is a member of the U.N. and our Constitution clearly says that all treaties we are signatories to become "the highest law of the land":
http://www.gpln.com/udhr.html#readudhr
According to this, I'd say our pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq (based on lies, trickery, fraud and deceit) would constitute a war crime. Particularly when hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings have been murdered/maimed and we have used depleted uranium munitions which will render the entire nation of Iraq to be probably the biggest cluster area of cancers and malformed infants on Earth....forever.
Sure sounds like a war crime to me. The reason I feel there are no impeachment hearings is that the entire Congress knows they are just as guilty as the Bush Administration since they have all been "going along to get along" passing the necessary legislation and funding all of it. The American People are just as guilty for not DEMANDING the truth and a total cessation of hostilities and our soldiers are guilty for not following the orders of the UCMJ which demands they follow only LAWFUL orders.
The minute any soldier knew what he/she was doing was illegal, they had not only the right, but the duty to stand down and be courts martialed if necessary. Had enough soldiers stood down and done the right thing we would have been out of there long before "Mission Accomplished".
And that's the f*@king truth.
GEE WHILLIKERS, PORGIE!! Maybe he can get impeached 20 years after he leaves office and collects his $1million a year pension...
Impeachment is off the table.
Dirty @ 2:
I'm with you there, the elemental shamelessness is breathtaking.
When the pictures first came out of Abu Ghraib who didn't doubt for an instant that the top executives were behind it? I never went for the "few bad apples" argument, I was always convinced there are only a few good apples spoiling it for all the bad ones.
I heard someplace recently that New Hampshire may initiate impeachment. Jeez, I can't remember where I heard that. Does anybody know? It has something that Thomas Jefferson (who would have thunk) put into the the constitution about states being able to get the process rolling.
Bush and those in the congress who aided and abetted him all need to go. Pelosi, Reid, and all the other dems who chose to look the other way for political expediency. Bush is bad but they are his enablers. This is shameful.
...and that group photo will be leaked in two weeks.
And still nothing will ever be done about it.
Captain Kangaroo @ 18:
I think Vermont, Mass., New Mexico, and Calif. have passed resolutions in one form other for impeachment. NH voted on it last month, but I don't know what the results were.
Here's the Diary of a Scared Congress
It still amazes me that Bill Clinton was impeached for Monica and this President has broken the law six ways from Sunday and nothing. It's off the table.
Slightly off topic, but I think maybe Rachael Maddow might step in for Olbermann tomorrow night. They hinted but were not explicit about it tonight.
Yeah, Rachel Maddow is scheduled to host for Olbermann. She mentioned it on her radio show tonight.
Jonathon Turley:
Heh, I've sat in the office on the video clip where Yoo is shown at his desk. (At least, I think that's the office.) Just sat there chatting with him about the Constitution and civil liberties. He's a nice guy in person -- always willing to listen to me when I disagreed with him. It was all very creepy sitting there and talking to him knowing what he's done for this administration.
When I was in law school, even we students were talking about the actions we should take vis-a-vis Prof. Yoo. After all, we couldn't quite participate in the protests some groups staged during our classes. (Or, I suppose we could have, but it did not behoove us, since our grades and degrees depended in part on the person we would protest right there in our own class.) It was all quite troubling.
By the way, I recently saw Taxi to the Dark Side. Very good, very sad, very infuriating documentary. I highly recommend it. Especially if you'd like to continue to be upset with John Yoo.
And the Dems will do what? Hand wave and then quickly fold... That should be Harry Reid's motto.
Jesse Ventura recently did an earth-shaking interview with Alex Jones...
he says that something the government says isn't true.
The pussies in congress are saying it's okay to commit impeachable offenses by doing absolutely nothing to Georgie boy. This country is setting a terrible precedent for a real dictator in the future by letting Bush Jr. get away with mass murder and many other high crimes.
Truth B Told @ 27:
Well....what did he say for God's sake?
JImbo @ 6:
ok, he declares martial law to get around impeachment that would be another nail in his coffin and who would obey such an order when the reasons why he did it?
Congress has spoken. The administration has not broken the law. All of this is perfectly legal and appropriate.
Abbybwood @ 5:
She doesn't have unilateral power simply to decide. However, as the Speaker of the House, she has a great deal of control over what bills actually make it to the committees and to the House floor. Although many in Congress do want to impeach members of the administration, many of those do not want to go against the Speaker on the issue. Ultimately, a majority of the House has to vote to impeach. And that's very unlikely.
We're not looking at it backwards at all. Either chamber of Congress may hold hearings and conduct investigations. If the Senate uncovers evidence which it then shows to the House, the House can decide whether the evidence demands impeachment proceedings. Though the House Judiciary Committee would likely conduct its own hearings on the evidence once it looked at the evidence.
However, the Senate has no authority to order the House to do anything. They are co-equal chambers of Congress, and neither can tell the other what to do.
As for impeachment, the Constitution grants the sole power to impeach to the House of Representatives. It's the only body in the government that can impeach any officer. And impeachment is simply an indictment. It's officially bringing charges against a government officer, who then gets a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate. The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, and 67 Senators must vote guilty in order to convict.
And I'm happy to answer any other questions on this process, or other Constitutional matters to the best of my ability. :)
According to Turley, "The president ordered war crimes." My kid almost fell off the couch when he heard that part.
"What are you guys going to do about it?" My son looked @ me & I wanted to shout that we'll impeach the son-of-a-bitch, but then I remembered that impeachment is off the goddamned table...
By not dealing with this issue, congress is complicit in the use of torture.
The message to the rest of the world is "We are with Bush on this."
I seem to have heard something recently about "America's chickens coming home to roost" - not a bad analogy for the likely repercussions of taking the moral low road on this issue.
JImbo @ 6:
Heh, there are all sorts of rumors about Bush's willingness to declare martial law. I don't put much stock in the details of them, but I do think he's capable of it.
As for Pelosi, the composition of the Senate is a large part of her calculation. She knows that conviction is basically impossible, as the Republicans are fundamentally corrupt, and will vote to acquit. Personally, I still think the House should impeach the lot of these bastards anyway, but I do know almost for certain that they will not be convicted in the Senate.
Is anyone surprised by this? At this point, the only ting that would surprise me is that Congress or the American people would demand justice. Unfettered capitalism...., and shock. Naomi Klein..., thank you. You have laid out the blueprint, and at least given me the thought, that this terrorism, what is true terrorism will be taken out of the shadows and the real fight will begin.
Here's another. The lies are so bad it's embarrassing:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Top_Democrat_asks_Attorney_General_to_0403...
...
president bush and vp cheney are now exposed for their
war crimes.......just how much longer will we have to wait
for Congress to stop their fucking wankering and do what
they are required to do.......Protect the Constitution and
uphold the Laws of our land.
bush and cheney are war criminals and should be IMPEACHED
here and then turned over to the Hague for prosecution.
if this is not done, then the American people have the right
by the rights in the Constitution to overthrow any tyranny
against this country.......and bush/cheney are those tyrannists.
numfar @ 4:
Depends whether or not you win....
Karen says:
"As for impeachment, the Constitution grants the sole power to impeach to the House of Representatives. It’s the only body in the government that can impeach any officer. And impeachment is simply an indictment. It’s officially bringing charges against a government officer, who then gets a trial. The trial takes place in the Senate. The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try impeachments, and 67 Senators must vote guilty in order to convict."
Thanks very much for the clarifications. But I would like you to explain to me why the Senate created a Special Committee to look into Nixon and the Watergate break-in. It was either during these televised hearings or just after that the House Judiciary took up impeachment, which I understood would have ended up in a trial on the Senate side.
Here's the question: Why can't the Senate create a Special Committee to have public hearings regarding the Justice Department and the issue of torture with Bush/Cheney (just as they did with Watergate)?
JImbo @ 6:
there are no excuses for Congress to fulfill their duty. if this is their excuse, then they
are just a bunch of fucking cohorts in on the crimes and justifiably deserve to
be charged likewise and tried for their part in these crimes. as always stated, there is
no excuse for ignorance of the law, especially when you are the lawmakers.
Abbybwood @ 13:
I follow the first part of what you're saying, but have some trouble with the rest. You make the point that soldiers should have stood down and been courtmartialed. With respect, you are not in their position. If you truly feel this way, join the armed forces and then take your own advice. Otherwise, this looks like the left wing version of conservative chickenhawkery.
So tired... I have been witness to the destruction of a republic.
I feel so powerless.
Empathicly devoid children of privilege rule the roost.
Bob Roberts @ 41:
Yup, Turley really missed this point--one of the war crimes prosecuted at Nuremburg was the "waging of aggressive war." Now, how do we get Cheney and Bush to visit the Netherlands? World Court is at the Hague.
Abbybwood @ 39:
Back then, the Senate did what it did because it felt that it should. The Senate hearings in the 70s led the House to begin impeachment proceedings against President Nixon, but Nixon resigned before the House floor voted. He knew impeachment was inevitable after the Senate hearings, and he knew that the Republicans in the Senate were likely to convict him right along with the Democrats. Back then, the Republicans were not hopelessly corrupt as a party.
There's no legal reason today's Senate can't do the same to Bush -- to demonstrate to the House the necessity of impeachment or to pressure administration officials into resigning. There's no Constitutional impediment to the Senate conducting its own investigation if it feels like it. But that's the problem. It doesn't feel like it.
Today's Republican Party is hopelessly corrupt, and it controls virtually half the Senate. We're much more likely to get the House members to vote to impeach, but even if we do, the Senate will never convict. The House would be going to trial with a rigged jury.
Karen @ 35:
Attempting to impeach and failing would very likely boost GOP fortunes in the upcoming election. Rather than post comments about the Democrats being spineless or "pussies" as some have, instead, work to raise public awareness of the GOP crimes. If enough Democrats had been elected, Bush would have been impeached. Of course, if enough Democrats had been elected, Bush would not have been....
"The only thing we don’t have is a group picture with a detainee attached to electrical wires."
Really? I thought we already had pictures of hooded detainees standing on boxes with outstretched arms, wires attached to hands and genitals.
They could I suppose change the oath of office for congresscritters, so it says, "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America when it's convenient, politically expedient, and it doesn't interfere with my manicure appointment or affect my golf swing."
At least that would be more transparent to the American public.
YourMom @ 34:
I'm afraid that what the world will receive is a message that a fair portion of the American public ARE with Bush on this, at least to the extent that they believe in American exceptionalism. "we are a superpower and you can't touch us, or interfere with our murderous policies of corporate imperialism."
There are at least just enough Americans that feel this way to allow Congress to ignore the rest, who believe their country should act within the same boundaries as the rest of the world.
As a Canadian who watches a LOT of the American political drama I can assure you that it is very rare indeed to see a US political candidate question the idea that America has a right to act unilaterally in any part of the world they choose. To express such feelings they would invite attack as being unpatriotic. Christ, Limbaugh would feast on any Dem who even hinted at such a thing.
Sad. But true.
Bob Roberts @ 45:
At this stage in the game, you're probably correct. In early 2007, I don't think that would have been the case. I think pressure could have been placed on the many Republicans who would have clearly voted to acquit for political reasons and out of corruption. Several would have lost the jobs once the House presented its evidence, and they still voted to acquit. At least, I see that as a once-possible scenario. But we can't really know.
I feel compelled again to play my broken record. We really need comprehensive electoral reform in this country. The Senate is a flawed body of democracy that dramatically over-represents rural, conservative areas. And our single-member districts and winner-takes-all voting system is killing us. Our electoral system fosters and perpetuates the kind of government we have.
So, absolutely, we need to be out there educating people about the Bush Administration's crimes. We also need to be fighting to reform the way in which we elect people to office in this country.
Does anybody else remember when we at least tried to be the good guys?
SadButTrue @ 47:
Ron Paul was one who said the US had no business being policeman of the world. He was 100% right about that and no one called him unpatriotic. I of course hated his racist newsletters but that's another issue.
FRONTLINE did a great show on Yoo nearly 3 long years ago.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/yoo.html
burpster @ 11:
There are many Republicans and their enablers in the corporate media that are deserving of a blindfold and a cigarette. They are traitors and deserving of a traitors fate.
Next time we hear Bush talk about supporting the troops - can the media remind people that he let the troops hang for conducting torture that he approved, no, insisted on...
Bob Roberts @ 41:
I am too old to join the armed forces. When I was of an age to join the Vietnam War was raging and I was opposed to it and never would have joined.
Thanks for the link. After a quick read, these comments really hit me. We are a lost nation.
Was this something John Yoo, sitting in a room, said to yourself, "I've got to think this through now"? Or were there meetings where Defense Department guys came and said they were concerned we're going to apply Geneva, and we're going to use the Uniform Code of Military Justice. How does it go?
No, I don't think it's the military comes to us and says, "This is what we're going to do." I think the military comes in and says: "What are the rules? Is this different? Are there different rules that apply?"
In the beginning, there were a lot of people who just wanted to think through whether a different legal system applied or whether a different set of rules applied than would normally apply between nation-states fighting each other. And this is the question the United States had faced before. The last big go-around had been in the late '80s, when the United States decided not to ratify an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, what's called the Protocol Additional [to the] Geneva Convention, which extended prisoner-of-war treatment to non-state organizations. And President Reagan decided not to ratify that treaty. And when they did that, the Reagan administration said it's specifically because this treaty would give protection to terrorists.
But I think it had never been something the military had had to face in any sort of large numbers the way it was going to in Afghanistan. This was a war, but a different kind of war, and we had to think through how the sets of rules that had been developed for big mechanized warfare between nation-states had to be adapted and changed to fit fighting a much different kind of enemy, a non-state actor that doesn't wear uniforms, blends into civilian populations and conducts surprise attacks against civilians.
There was, as you suggest, going back to the Reagan administration, a kind of philosophy, ... a new way that America was beginning to think in the world.
Sort of an American exceptionalism.
Is that would you'd call it?
Yeah, that's sort of what sociologists call it, American exceptionalism, Americans thinking they're different, that the United States is a force for good in the world… There's this idea that go[es] all the way back to the founding of the country.
I say I think certainly when the administration came in, it was more reluctant to get entangled in certain international commitments and international institutions to the same extent the Clinton administration had. So the United States de-signs the International Criminal Court Treaty and statute of limitations. It turns [away from] the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty, doesn't go forward with Kyoto [Protocol].
I guess I'd say there's more confidence in the United States being able to, on an ad hoc basis, cooperate with individual nations but not wanting to make it permanent.
BennyP @ 52:
Hi Nancy! Say, is that whole impeachment thing still "off the table?"
How about your House career? Oh, that's off the table, too?
Well, you could hardly expect people to forget, what with all that newfangled internet stuff...
Teddy Phuf @ 56:
I would suggest that it goes back to even before the founding of the country.
The quote most often associated with the idea of American exceptionalism is from a 17th century Puritan Governor of Massachussetts: "For wee must Consider that wee shall be as a Citty upon a Hill, the eies of all people ar uppon us. (John Winthrop, 1630)
Phrases like City upon a Hill, Beacon of Freedom or Birthplace of Democracy (the latter ignoring classical Greece and the Parliamentary Democracy of Great Britain) all lead to the proposition that America is too innately good to allow herself to be limited by 'lesser' states in her international actions. It's like saying that good boys should never get spanked, even when they set the cat on fire. As we can see with frog-torturer George W. Bush, the lack of discipline is far from being a character-building experience for either individuals or nations.
The Bastards in Congress don't want to deal with it because they are making too much money off of the war!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_go_co/congress_defense_investm...
General Butler was right... war is a racket!
This proves that Lydie England needs to be released from prison. She was just following orders...from the top!
War Crimes
Trials in international courts
I don't think it will happen.
curtis @ 60:
Ummm, may be not.
JImbo @ 6:
I have heard this as well
SadButTrue @ 58:
The truth is America is not too innately good as adminstrations as far back as Theodore Roosevelt have proven. Millions of innocents have died for the United States imperial ambitions. Bush is the first one to shamelessly pursue the selfish aims of the corporate rich, former presidents hid behind the UN, yellow journalism, etc., that didn't make them less guilty of the Plan.
RickinSF Says: Dirty @ 2:
Even after all this time and all of these revelations….these people just…it just knocks the wind out of me. Oi….
I’m with you there, the elemental shamelessness is breathtaking.
-------------------------
Thanks RickinSF, I have to admit, I thought I'd catch flak for the fact that I feel sick with the new details. After all, I know I shouldn't be surprised, but you hit the nail on the head, "shamlessness"... Lets keep up the fight. What else is there.
Janet @ 3:
Nothing!
Considering an impeachment hearing would actually FORCE the MSM to report all the anti-American shit these creeps have been getting away with for years, I think that would completely sink the repuke propaganda B.S. echo-chamber, and shine the light of truth on these GOP scumbags. A light that would keep them in a tiny minority party status for at least two generations.
Eventually this stuff will all come out, and when it does, Nancy is not going to be treated kindly by historians. There is absolutely NO excuse for letting criminal's skate free, just because of political calculations.
Sacred duty to stand with the law MY ASS.
Turley is a good guy as a human being but not as a lawyer.
longnow @ 67:
What does that mean? Could you elaborate?
Bob Roberts @ 46:
You are wrong! Nothing would bring more public awareness to Bush's criminality than an impeachment hearing. This is not about democrats and republicans, this is about a criminally-corrupt executive branch that think's it's above the law. That is something that should never be tolerated in this country.
Karen @ 32: