Torture Photos Show Rape and Assault: Cheney Tries to Save His Neck !!!

Torture Photos Show Rape and Assault: Cheney Tries to Save His Neck - Inbox - Yahoo! Mail

E-mail this page to a friend

**Please circulate widely to friends and on social-networking sites*

Torture Photos Show Rapes of Detainees, Former Officer Confirms
The real reason Dick Cheney has become so loud: he's afraid

Toles Cheney cartoon WaPo
Cartoon by Tony Toles on Cheney and torture,
Washington Post
IndictBushNow.org has joined with the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and the ANSWER Coalition to demand that the truth be told. We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the CIA, Department of Defense, Department of State and other agencies to reveal information in their possession about al-Libi’s imprisonment, torture, coerced false statements on Iraq and the circumstances of his death. To help support this effort, click here.
Each week brings shocking new revelations. The U.S. mass media is not reporting on the most explosive story of the week.

The world now knows why President Obama reversed his earlier decision to release the 2,000 photos of prisoners barbarically tortured, abused, and humiliated under the direction of the Bush/Cheney gang.

Some of the photos of the prisoners show U.S. personnel torturing, sexual assaulting and raping male and female detainees, including children. The existence of these photos was confirmed by former Major General Antonio Taguba. Taguba had earlier been in charge of the inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

On May 21, Cheney went on national television to defend torture and sickeningly attacked Obama for sacrificing "innocent lives to spare a captured terrorist from unpleasant things." We'd like to hear him explain how rape and sexual assault are just "unpleasant things" that have spared innocent lives. The last few months has proven that the abuses, the sexual assault, and the most barbaric violations of human rights cannot be attributed to a few bad apples. Such tactics were commonplace, officially sanctioned and elevated to the level of government policy.

The torture methods, like the war itself, have never been about saving lives. A recent column in the Nation echoed what IndictBushNow reported last week: "The Bush administration, hellbent on justifying its forthcoming invasion of Iraq, was ransacking the intelligence bureaucracy to find or produce two things that, it turns out, did not exist: weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq and cooperation between Al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein."

The Iraqi people have never waged war on the United States and no Iraqis took part in the attacks of 9/11. Bush & co. wanted to go to war, and were just looking for an excuse.

So why, given the recent revelations, has Dick Cheney responded so publicly in defense of the Bush administration's war crimes? He's afraid! He's not just concerned about preserving the administration's "legacy" -- he's concerned about preserving his own neck.

Don't believe us? Take it from Cheney's daughter, Liz, who recently explained her father's outspokenness on CNN: "He certainly did not plan when he left office to be doing this... Then when [Obama] suggested in the Oval Office itself that he would be open to the prosecution of former Bush administration officials including many who weren’t political appointees potentially, you know really, I think, made my dad realize this was just fundamentally wrong. We had to speak out."

Our argument for prosecution is becoming irresistible. The fact is that every revelation lays bare a whole new level of criminality. The more details come about the Bush administration's heinous acts and deliberate deception of the American people, the more people are starting to talk about justice. Already, many people who once said, "we need to move forward" are beginning to reconsider: no one can move forward until we have come to terms with the country's past. That means accountability: the indictment of the criminals.

Please Donate Today

Please help us continue this work with a generous donation. The truth is coming out and the pressure is building, but we can’t do it without your contribution. Please click this link to donate today.

Donate to support indictment

Universal Health Care System

The Health Care Issue - Inbox - Yahoo! Mail

Health Care

The United States is the only major nation without a universal health care system. Some 47 million Americans have no health insurance, even more are underinsured, and we spend more per capita on health care than any other country on earth. The debate over health care reform will be Topic A in Washington when Congress returns from a Memorial Day recess. Senator Bernie Sanders will set the stage at a town meeting Monday in Burlington featuring T.R. Reid. In the "Frontline" documentary "Sick Around the World," the award-winning correspondent examined why the health care system in the United States lags far behind other major democracies. For details on the town meeting, click here. To watch the PBS program online, click here.

The Sanders Solution

The American Health Security Act would provide every citizen with comprehensive health care coverage through a single-payer program. With the American public, the single-payer idea is extremely popular. An overwhelming 59 percent say the government should provide national health insurance, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. But in Washington , where the insurance industry and medical establishment hold sway, Bernie is the single senator for single payer. To find out how to contact your senator, click here. For a copy of the bill, click here. To take our survey, click here.

-----------------------------------------------
States as Laboratories

Sanders has introduced legislation authorizing grants for states to create universal health care pilot programs. "The quickest route toward a national health care program will be when individual states go forward and demonstrate that universal and non-profit health care works, and that it is the cost-effective and moral thing to do," said Sanders. Under his legislation, five states selected for the pilot program would win grants to carry out five-year demonstration projects.

-----------------------------------------------
Bank Rip Offs, Credit Cards

When Congress this month approved new rules on credit card companies, Bernie warned that a nine-month delay before the law takes effect was "too much of an opportunity for the credit card companies to do mischief." Well, NPR just reported that some lenders didn't even wait for the outcome in Congress and "were hiking interest rates while they still could." Citing the defeat of a Sanders amendment to cap interest rates at 15 percent, USA Today said "Congress may have missed its chance to enact stronger consumer protections." For a transcript of the Morning Edition report, click here.


Single Payer Debate

"With 15,000 physicians supporting the concept of single payer, with single payer being the only system that can provide comprehensive health care to every man, woman and child, single payer should obviously be on the table," Sanders told Ed Schultz on MSNBC. Sanders' speech to a rally of hundreds of nurses who marched to Capitol Hill in support of a single-payer system was featured on Bill Moyers Journal. To watch the segment on The Ed Show, click here. For the PBS transcript and video, click here.

-----------------------------------------------
Community Health Centers

Some 60 million Americans do not have a doctor. Even more lack access to a dentist. Congress just doubled funds for community health centers and tripled resources for the National Health Service Corps to train more doctors, dentists and nurses. A Sanders Senate bill and a companion House measure introduced by Rep. Clyburn would quadruple the number of community health centers. "In the richest country in the world, no American should have to go without basic healthcare," the senator wrote in a column published by The Hill. To read the op-ed, click here.

-----------------------------------------------
Bank Rip Offs, Checking Fees

After gouging consumers with loan-shark interest rates on credit card balances, banks now are scheming up new ways to squeeze customers. Higher checking account fees are draining hundreds of dollars from accounts before consumers even realize what's happening, according to USA Today. "We need serious and major regulatory reform over these institutions or they will continue to rip off people in every way imaginable, with outrageous fees snuck in every single place," Sanders said. To read the article, click here.

Hold KBR/Halliburton War Profiteers Accountable

Hold KBR/Halliburton War Profiteers Accountable

Hold KBR/Halliburton War Profiteers Accountable

Call it Dick Cheney's legacy.

The Department of Defense just gave $80 million in bonuses to KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, for electrical wiring contracts in Iraq. But in a dramatic Senate hearing, the DoD's own documents revealed that U.S. soldiers have died via electrocution as a direct result of KBR's shoddy and substandard work.

The Nation has issued a chilling report based on evidence revealed this week. Eighteen U.S. soldiers have died as a result of KBR's work. One of the electrocuted soldiers was a decorated Green Beret whose death was classified by the U.S. Army Criminal Investigations Division as a "negligent homicide."

KBR/Halliburton is not just distinguished by its close relationship with Dick Cheney, the company's former CEO and the architect of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. It also happens to be the single largest war profiteer from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush's Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, may still lead the Department of Defense under the Obama administration. But that doesn't mean we can't end the blank checks for Bush and Cheney's cronies and hold war profiteers accountable.

Sign this petition today to ask Secretary Gates to rescind the KBR bonuses, pursue criminal charges against the officials responsible for the electrocution deaths of U.S. soldiers, and stop awarding defense contracts to KBR.
Sign the petition

"The former Halliburton subsidiary KBR is responsible for the deaths of 18 U.S. service members as a result of its shoddy and unprofessional electrical work. Instead of rewarding KBR with millions of dollars in bonuses, the Department of Defense must:

* Rescind the 80 million in bonuses already awarded to KBR
* Pursue criminal charges for negligent homicide against KBR/Halliburton officials who were responsible for the electrocution deaths of U.S. soldiers
* Immediately suspend the awarding of defense contracts to KBR and/or any KBR/Halliburton related entities

Secretary Gates, we the undersigned ask that you hold war profiteers accountable and safeguard the lives of our soldiers."
Complete the following to sign the petition. You'll receive periodic updates on offers and activism opportunities.
Email:*
First Name:*
Last Name:*
Street Address:*
City:*
State:*
ZIP:*

Send me text message alerts** on my mobile phone about:
Urgent issues and election info

Just election info
Mobile #:
Mobile Carrier:
Additional message for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

Dick Cheney, the mass murderer is a disgrace to our country

The mass murderer Dick Cheney and his buddies (Bush Co) did not do a single thing for the country.

It was in Dick's watch that 911 happened (with or without outside help!). Dick and his boy George invaded Iraq, a country that did not attack us,  because they have the second largest oil reserve and also boy George wanted to gain political capital. They also invaded Afghanistan (top world heroine producer)  because they need an oil pipeline to be built in that region.

The mass murderer Dick Cheney is also a big liar.

Dick Cheney is the torture mastermind of the Bush Crime Family.

Dick Cheney also made sure that his former company Halliburton got all the no-bid contracts of the Iraq and Afghan invasions.

Dick Cheney and boy George gave away 12 billion in cash in Iraq for whoever contractor was there.

Dick and boy George's legacy (gift to Obama):

- 2 invasions (wars) costing about $20 Billion/month
- killing of 1.5 million civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan
- almost total destruction of the world economy (by total deregulation of the US economy)
- the biggest deficit of the US ever
- the biggest trade deficit ever in the US
- Guantanamo Bay
- The worst and costly health care system in the industrialized world
- the biggest profits ever for the oil companies
- the biggest outsourcing of jobs ever
- the biggest unemployment ever
- the biggest profits for the pharmaceutical industries
- destruction of the American Democracy and beginning of Faxism
- tax cut for the 2% wealthy americans
- tax cut for the corporations
- tax increase for the middle class
- destruction of the middle class
- destruction of the american manufacturing sector
- disrespect for the constitution and civil liberties
- illegal spying on people's email/phone conversations
- firing of attorneys for political gains
- illegal imprisonment of Alabama governor Don Sieguelman by Karl Rove
- US is becoming the "US Soviet Union" a totalitarian country
- lowering of the american wages
- decrease in benefits/pension, etc
- changed the bankaruptcy laws for worse, to help the cradit card companies/banks
- biggest military budget ever
- the list goes on and on...

These war criminals (Dick Cheney, GW Bush, Karl Rove, Condi Rice, and others) deserve to go to jail for life.

Karl Rove Destroyed My Life - The Daily Beast

Karl Rove Destroyed My Life - The Daily Beast

Karl Rove Destroyed My Life

by Paul Alexander
Info
RSS
Paul Alexander

Paul Alexander is the author of Machiavelli’s Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove and Man of the People: The Life of John McCain, among others. A member of The Authors Guild and PEN American Center, Paul has been a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
X Close
Paul Alexander
Emails
|

|
print
Multiple Pages
|
text
-
+


Enter your email address:

Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:

Message:
Your email has been sent.
Thanks for recommending The Daily Beast!

X Close

From forgotten scandals to "The Last Dick," read the entire Daily Beast Farewell to Bush Chronicles.

Don Siegelman Former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman blames Republican dirty tricks for the nine months he spent in prison. He talks to the Daily Beast’s Paul Alexander about clearing his name, anger at Rove—and mopping prison floors. Plus, read Scott Horton’s piece on What the Justice Department is Hiding.

Last week, Al Gore sent an email message urging supporters to give money to Don Siegelman’s legal defense fund. Gore is the latest in a string of high profile supporters to suggest Siegelman, the former Governor of Alabama, was the victim of a Republican plot when he was found guilty of bribery, conspiracy and fraud in 2006, and sentenced to seven years in prison.

Now, in the waning days of the Bush administration, Siegelman is trying to win back his freedom—not to mention his good name—in a courtroom in Atlanta. Earlier this year, an appeals court granted his release after he had served nine months, saying the Governor’s appeal had raised “substantial questions” about the case against him. Siegelman’s cause was helped by a bipartisan group of 54 former state attorneys general from across the country who filed a federal appeals brief supporting his bid to overturn the conviction. Republican insiders have also come forward to say Siegelman was unfairly targeted by Rove and his circle.

Making it in prison depends on one’s level of tolerance. I’m used to mopping in my wife’s kitchen. It was just a bigger floor.

Siegelman’s appeal was heard earlier this month and the verdict will determine whether he returns to prison to finish out his sentence, or goes free.

How did a former governor—and a rising star in the Democratic Party—end up in a situation like this?

On June 29, 2006, Siegelman and Richard Scrushy, the CEO of HealthSouth, a chain of medical rehabilitation services with facilities both in the United States and abroad, were found guilty by a jury in Montgomery, Alabama, of federal bribery charges. A year later, Judge Mark Fuller, who had clear conflicts of interest in the case—a company in which he holds a major stake received a $175 million government contract at one point during the legal proceedings—sentenced Scrushy to almost seven years in prison. Siegelman got 88 months.

There was one central transaction that sent these men to prison for all this time. Not long after Siegelman had been elected governor in 1998, he convinced Scrushy to contribute $500,000 to a political action committee, which was supporting the establishment of a lottery in Alabama to pay for higher education. At the same time, he talked Scrushy into serving on a state hospital regulatory board on which he had already served three times—appointed by both Democrats and Republicans—and from which he had recently resigned. To US attorney Leura Canary, the wife of William “Bill” Canary, the close friend and former business associate of Karl Rove, the act constituted bribery, for which she charged the two men. Among the many other charges, dismissed by the jury, this was the one that stuck.

QUESTION: First, was the act for which you and Richard Scrushy convicted actually a crime?

SIEGELMAN: Fifty-four state attorneys general filed a friend of the court brief stating that it has never been a crime in America for a politician or a public official to appoint a contributor to anything, whether it’s ambassador or cabinet member or a member of a board or an agency. The only thing that is a crime is if you swap a position for money. And there has got to be an express agreement that’s provable. Otherwise, the United States Supreme Court says it’s an infringement on a person’s first amendment right to freely associate and make contributions.

QUESTION: The case with you and Scrushy seems especially weak.

SIEGELMAN: Scrushy had just recently resigned from the board and the person I had defeated, Job James, had appointed one of Scrushy’s vice presidents to the position. When I got elected I called Scrushy and said, “I want you to serve in my administration like you did in three previous administration.” And he said, “Oh, Governor, do I have to? I just resigned from that board. Can’t I get you the name of somebody?” I said, “Nope, it’s either you or nobody.” So he went onto the board reluctantly. And this poor guy is still in prison today.

QUESTION: Many observers believe he is because he would not cooperate with the prosecution to convict you.

SIEGELMAN: In an effort to get me, the prosecution went to Scrushy before they indicted him and said, “Just tell us Siegelman extorted the money; just tell us he twisted your arm.” He said, “I can’t do that because that’s not what happened.” They went to him after he was indicted and said, “Okay, we will give you another chance. Tell us Siegelman twisted your arm and tried to extort money.” He said, “I can’t say that because that’s not what happened.” During the trial, he was sitting at the defense table, and they came and got him again and gave him a third chance to throw me under the bus by lying for the prosecution and he wouldn’t do it. This is not the way the justice system in this country is supposed to work.

QUESTION: Describe what happened to you after you were sentenced.

SIEGELMAN: Scrushy and I were taken from the courtroom less than thirty seconds after the gavel came down in handcuffs, shackles, and chains around our waist and ankles. We were put in the back of a police car and driven to Atlanta where we were taken to a maximum-security prison and put in solitary confinement. Then they moved me around the country from prison to prison until I ended up in the swamps of Louisiana.

QUESTION: What was prison like?

You can just imagine. But making it in prison depends on one’s level of tolerance. I’m used to mopping and sweeping floors in my wife’s kitchen. It was just a bigger floor and I had to mop it every day.

Seriously, all my life I’ve worked to try to correct and perfect our system of government to make it more fair, and here I was in the middle of something that wasn’t fair. If God had a purpose in this, it was for me to see how the system is flawed so I can do something about it. There are some things I’d like to see corrected—flaws in the system that can result in innocent people going to prison. When I get out of this situation for good, I’ll be back before the Judiciary Committee advocating changes.

QUESTION: You have claimed Karl Rove was a driving force behind your prosecution.

SIEGELMAN: We know from documentary evidence and from testimony that Rove was involved in the firing of the US attorneys [at the start of Bush’s second term] and he’s been identified at the scene of the crime in my case. We know that others worked with Rove to carry out his conspiracies to subvert our system of justice and to abuse the power of his office and to misuse the power of the Department of Justice for political purposes.

QUESTION: Some people believe Rove wanted your political career damaged because of your standing in the Democratic Party.

SIEGELMAN: I had endorsed Al Gore in 2000—the first governor to do so—and it wasn’t long after that that they started the investigation. I had made plans after my 2002 re-election—which I ultimately lost because of the bad press generated by these investigations—to hit the primary states. I had been secretary of state for eight years, attorney general for four years, lieutenant governor for four years, and governor for four years—I had all these friends around the country—so I thought I could gin up a campaign not for me but against George W. Bush, against his war, against his economic policies, and against his education policies.

There is no question in my mind that Rove played a key role in what happened to me. From the beginning, the investigation was started by Rove’s client, the state attorney general William "Bill" Pryor; then the prosecution was carried out by the wife of Rove’s best friend and his former business partner. [They had previously worked as political consultants together in Alabama.] We have a live witness who claims that Bill Canary—Rove’s partner—said Rove had taken my case to the Department of Justice. Now it’s up to Congress—and the House and the Senate judiciary committees—to bring Rove before the House Judiciary Committee.

QUESTION: Actually, the House Judiciary Committee has already subpoenaed Rove to testify and he has refused to appear.

SIEGELMAN: That’s why it’s so important for the House and the Senate to hold Rove in contempt of Congress and exercise their inherent authority to enforce that subpoena by sending the Capital police to go get him and bring him in or by pursuing the thing through litigation. But one way or the other, it is critically important that the subpoena be upheld. Otherwise, it sends the message to all his accomplices that they are free to carry out their mischief in the future with impunity because nothing is going to happen to him.

QUESTION: Do you believe your case will be taken up by the Obama administration?

SIEGELMAN: There are lots of good fights, and I know that Obama is looking to end the war in Iraq, to provide health care to all Americans, to fix the economy, and to deal with global warning—there are so many important issues that are out there—but restoring people’s faith and trust in the government, assuring people the Department of Justice will no longer be used as a political weapon in this country, is vital. We are not going to allow the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo, nor are we going to permit the torturing of witnesses until we get the correct testimony to put political enemies in jail in this country.

A lot of Americans are aware of the injustices that have been going on in the Bush administration. They need to know that the Obama administration is not going to tolerate these kinds of injustices. I am hopeful that the Obama administration will work with an interested House Judiciary Committee (and hopefully a Senate Judiciary Committee) in finding the truth.

QUESTION: Do you hold George W. Bush accountable for what happened to you?

SIEGELMAN: All I know if that for a long time Karl Rove held himself up as a co-president with George Bush. He bragged about being his drinking buddy, his kicking-around buddy in the White House. They shared good times together. He was Bush’s “brain.” He was the genius behind Bush. For a long time, I thought they were inseparable. They were as close as close can be. I don’t know what Rove told President Bush. But we need to find out.

I’ve already spent nine months in prison and the guy who gave the money is still in jail for making a contribution so I could persuade the people of Alabama to vote for an education lottery so their children could go to college for free. We need to know how far my case goes up in the Bush administration.

QUESTION: Tell me about the charge of obstruction of justice for which you were convicted.

SIEGELMAN: The obstruction of justice charge is ludicrous. Honda Motor Company offered to give me a motorcycle. Now if I had taken it, they may have had a case—Siegelman took a motorcycle, an unpaid gift—but I said no to Honda and bought the motorcycle. The prosecution in my case ended up convicting me for accepting a campaign contribution to a lottery and paying for a free motorcycle.

QUESTION: What are your feelings about your appeal?

SIEGELMAN: I am not worried one way or the other. I hope and believe that the Eleventh Circuit will see through this and reverse and rescind, which means they’ll acquit me of the charges. If not, it’s another fight the Good Lord has put me into and there’s a reason for it. There are enough people in America made aware of Rove’s shenanigans in this case, we’d have a good fight on our hands.

QUESTION: Will you run for public office again?

SIEGELMAN: I don’t think so. I’m at a point in my life where I’d like to help others. Everyone says, “Never say never,” but at this point I do not see it in the cards.

Paul Alexander is the author of Machiavelli’s Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove and Man of the People: The Life of John McCain, among others. His journalism has appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The New York Times, The Nation, New York, The Village Voice, Salon, George, The New York Observer, The Advocate, Men’s Journal, The Guardian, and Rolling Stone. A member of The Authors Guild and PEN American Center, he has been a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

Note: This article has been corrected to note that the investigation into Siegelman was started by state attorney general William "Bill" Pryor, not Mark Pryor as originally published.

Middle Class Healthcare Reform? Bend Over... ... by Donna Smith

MichaelMoore.com : Middle Class Healthcare Reform? Bend Over... ...by Donna Smith

Monday, May 18th, 2009
Middle Class Healthcare Reform? Bend Over... ...by Donna Smith

Commondreams

It's coming. You and me and every middle class, working person in this nation is about to start handing over more and more of their hard earned cash to the private insurance industry, courtesy of our own elected members of Congress and our very popular President. Fire up those Treasury Department presses. We're going to be printing and providing money for insurance companies like no bail-out we've seen yet this economic crisis cycle.

The healthcare legislation under design and so far under wraps for the American people is slowly being leaked via carefully staged forum and meetings and a few well-timed hearings and grand press announcements. Much of the work is still going on behind closed doors in private meetings attended by those who are deemed appropriate participants and industry friends.

Remember how open these proceedings were to be following all the Clinton plan debacles of the early 90s? Well, today's stagings are far more sophisticated and planned out. So learning did occur by the industry giants and their political friends over these last 17 years, I will give them that.

And what do we know so far about what middle class Americans can expect from the legislation being privately crafted?

First, no matter what percentage of your take home pay it takes, you will be legally required to buy private health insurance. Second, if all you can afford is a policy that leaves you financially exposed to bankruptcy and foreclosure, then you will still be legally required to purchase that private insurance product. Third, should you fail to buy a policy, you will pay a fine.

Like it so far? Feeling free and protected? Like the choices so far? It gets better.

The private, for-profit insurance industry has made concessions we are asked to celebrate. First, they'll issue every one of us a policy provided every one of us is legally forced to buy coverage. Second, they stop discriminating against women because they have uteruses and child-bearing capacity, provided we all have to buy their product. And third, and this was a real coup according to our leaders, the insurance companies, medical equipment folks and providers will slow the rate of increase in charging for their products to charge just a bit less in terms of percentages of overall costs than they had planned to do and as is predicted. Laughable concessions sold as real compromise.

It's as if we've been beaten a few times every month by an abuser whose violence and anger is increasing over time, and we know by calculating the trend that we'll be beaten daily within a very short time. Up steps the abuser to say, "Wait. I will still have to beat you more than I do now, but I think I can hold it to 25 times a month instead of every day." That's the sort of promises we're supposed to see as victories with the healthcare industry involvement in crafting the legislation that will determine our families' financial well-being and matters of life and death.

Let me spell this out for families like mine. You've been getting overcharged for underinsurance for many years and you've seen the costs out of your own pocket rise to the point where it is truly driving whether or not you even try to seek care when ill. You've seen premiums rise and coverage shrink in employer based coverage, and 14,000 of you a day are losing those employer based benefits in this stinking economy.

And most importantly to me and millions of other middle class folks, when you do get sick and need care, you are forced to see only those doctors and providers your insurance company says you can and those providers can only give you the insurance company says they can give you. That's the way our insurance companies want it now and forevermore, and that's what they are going to get.

Feeling free? Your choices broadening? Your costs lowering?

Wait. There's more. In order to make sure every single American buys the private products from insurance companies and knowing some families won't make enough to afford what is offered, we'll all chip in and pay our taxes to subsidize those who cannot afford to buy the pricey plans. So, when each of us calculates our own monthly costs for healthcare, we'll need to factor in not only our own health insurance premium, our co-pays and deductibles, our medications and other out-of-pocket costs, but also the percentage of our payroll taxes dedicated to pay for the subsidies for low-income folks, the agencies to collect the fines paid by health-insurance-mandate-evaders, and the agency envisioned to be our clearing house for selling us the private product we're all forced to buy. If our real costs are added up, there will be a substantial increase for most middle class families.

These folks are really hoping you will not do the math. They think middle class folks are too dumb to figure it out.

Let me repeat. This Congress and this President are about to give us healthcare reform that will make the middle class burden for payment higher and will even more deeply restrict personal choices in medical care. And they are about to do it all with great fanfare claiming just the opposite.

No doubt many of you have feared really looking at a single payer approach as something scary and restrictive of your personal freedoms. I can promise you that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, your freedom to choose would be greatly enhanced under a publicly funded, privately delivered national program. Greatly enhanced freedom. Lowered costs as we each pay the percentage we can afford from our income. Greatly enhanced choice of providers - no more being told who is in-network or out. No more risk of financial ruin if medical care is not approved by a profit-driven entity. And no more being told a service we already received isn't covered after all - the great bait and switch the health insurance industry is allowed to do all the time, leaving so many people with bills they never even knew they were accepting responsibility to pay.

I like being free to choose. And if this healthcare reform plan restricts my freedom, takes my hard-earned money and makes my life more difficult, I won't have any problem at all assigning blame to the folks who forced it on me.

Look, what's the old saying about excrement rolling downhill? This president is very popular. He won't get blamed when middle class folks figure out the ruse. And the Senate is pretty safe, as they get to sit for six years before answering to the people - and they get oodles of cash from the industry to make sure they are comfy, cozy. It's the U.S. House of Representatives - the people's house, they say - that will take the hit when the moms and dads of this nation figure it out that they didn't get healthcare reform at all. The middle class will get a huge burden to bail-out the health insurance and healthcare industry under the plan moving so carefully but swiftly through the process.

The kicker? When it's finally unveiled in all its bi-partisan glory, it'll be sold as a human rights victory. And on that day, 60 more American families will bury a loved one denied care. And on the day after that, 60 more will die. And the day after that, they'll be a big damn party paid for by you and by me for all of those who helped craft the monstrosity. And the insurance industry CEO salaries will be enhanced by your money paid to them. Bail-out bonanza for Karen Ignagni and America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry very fond of its government entitlements.

Costs will be successfully shifted even more heavily onto the backs of America's middle class workers. I mean, middle class chumps. And then, my fellow worker-bees, it will be mid-term election time again.

Donna Smith is a community organizer for the California Nurses Association and National Co-Chair for the Progressive Democrats of America Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.

Cheney said Gitmo detainees revealed Iraq-al Qaida link

MichaelMoore.com : Cheney said Gitmo detainees revealed Iraq-al Qaida link

May 16th, 2009 1:57 pm
Cheney said Gitmo detainees revealed Iraq-al Qaida link

By Jonathan S. Landay / McClatchy

WASHINGTON — Then-Vice President Dick Cheney, defending the invasion of Iraq, asserted in 2004 that detainees interrogated at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp had revealed that Iraq had trained al Qaida operatives in chemical and biological warfare, an assertion that wasn't true.

Cheney's 2004 comments to the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News were largely overlooked at the time. However, they appear to substantiate recent reports that interrogators at Guantanamo and other prison camps were ordered to find evidence of alleged cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein — despite CIA reports that there were only sporadic, insignificant contacts between the militant Islamic group and the secular Iraqi dictatorship.

The head of the Criminal Investigation Task Force at Guantanamo from 2002-2005 confirmed to McClatchy that in late 2002 and early 2003, intelligence officials were tasked to find, among other things, Iraq-al Qaida ties, which were a central pillar of the Bush administration's case for its March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"I'm aware of the fact that in late 2002, early 2003, that (the alleged al Qaida-Iraq link) was an interest on the intelligence side," said retired Army Lt. Col. Brittain Mallow, a former military criminal investigator. "That was something they were tasked to look at."

He said he was unaware of the origins of the directive, but a former senior U.S. intelligence official has told McClatchy that Cheney's and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's offices were demanding that information in 2002 and 2003. The official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, requested anonymity.

During the same period, two alleged senior al Qaida operatives in CIA custody were waterboarded repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times and Khalid Sheik Mohammed at least 183 times.

A 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report said that the two were questioned about the relationship between al Qaida and Iraq, and that both denied knowing of one.

A U.S. Army psychiatrist, Maj. Paul Burney, told the Army Inspector General's office in 2006 that during the same period, interrogators at Guantanamo were under pressure to produce evidence of al Qaida-Iraq ties, but were unable to do so.

"The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish that link . . . there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results," Burney said, according excerpts of an interview published in a declassified Senate Armed Services Committee report released on April 22.

A key proponent of the Iraq invasion and of harsh interrogation methods, Cheney has become the leading defender of such measures, which included forced nudity, prolonged sleep deprivation, stress positions and waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

The Rocky Mountain News asked Cheney in a Jan. 9, 2004, interview if he stood by his claims that Saddam's regime had maintained a "relationship" with al Qaida, raising the danger that Iraq might give the group chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to attack the U.S.

"Absolutely. Absolutely," Cheney replied.

A Cheney spokeswoman said a response to an e-mail requesting clarification of the former vice president's remarks would be forthcoming next week.

"The (al Qaida-Iraq) links go back," he said. "We know for example from interrogating detainees in Guantanamo that al Qaida sent individuals to Baghdad to be trained in C.W. and B.W. technology, chemical and biological weapons technology. These are all matters that are there for anybody who wants to look at it."

No evidence of such training or of any operational links between Iraq and al Qaida has ever been found, according to several official inquiries.

It's not apparent which Guantanamo detainees Cheney was referring to in the interview.

One al Qaida detainee, Ibn al Sheikh al Libi, claimed that terrorist operatives were sent to Iraq for chemical and biological weapons training, but he was in CIA custody, not at Guantanamo.

Moreover, he recanted his assertions, some of them allegedly made under torture while he was being interrogated in Egypt.

"No postwar information has been found that indicates CBW training occurred, and the detainee who provided the key prewar reporting about this training recanted his claims after the war," a September 2006 Senate Intelligence Committee report said.

Although the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned it at the time, former President George W. Bush cited al Libi's claim in an October 2002 address, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell used in his February 2003 speech to the United Nations.

A Libyan newspaper last week reported that al Libi committed suicide in a Libyan jail.

And He Shall Be Judged

MichaelMoore.com : And He Shall Be Judged

May 17th, 2009 7:49 am
And He Shall Be Judged

Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld has always answered his detractors by claiming that history will one day judge him kindly. But as he waits for that day, a new group of critics—his administration peers—are suddenly speaking out for the first time. What they're saying? It isn't pretty

By Robert Draper / GQ

On the morning of Thursday, April 10, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing's cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days' war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: "Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death."

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: "Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: "It is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men."

These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer's staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. Several others in the Pentagon disagreed. At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout—as one Pentagon staffer would later say—"would be as bad as Abu Ghraib."

But the Pentagon's top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush's public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because "my seniors"—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages.

But one government official was disturbed enough by these biblically seasoned sheets to hold on to copies, which I obtained recently while debriefing the past eight years with those who lived them inside the West Wing and the Pentagon. Over the past several months, the battle to define the Bush years has begun taking shape: As President Obama has rolled back his predecessor's foreign and economic policies, Dick Cheney, Ari Fleischer, and former speechwriters Michael Gerson and Marc Thiessen have all taken to the airwaves or op-ed pages to cast the Bush years in a softer light. My conversations with more than a dozen Bush loyalists, including several former cabinet-level officials and senior military commanders, have revealed another element of this legacy-building moment: intense feelings of ill will toward Donald Rumsfeld. Though few of these individuals would speak for the record (knowing that their former boss, George W. Bush, would not approve of it), they believe that Rumsfeld's actions epitomized the very traits—arrogance, stubbornness, obliviousness, ineptitude—that critics say drove the Bush presidency off the rails.

Many of these complaints are long-standing. Over the past three years, several of Bush's former advisers have described their boss's worst mistake as keeping Rumsfeld around as long as he did. "Don did not like to play well with other people," one cabinet official told me—stating a grievance that nearly everyone in the White House seemed to share, except for Bush himself. "There was exasperation," recalls a senior aide. "'How much more are we going to have to endure? Why are we keeping this guy?'" Rumsfeld has also received ongoing criticism that his Bush-mandated efforts to modernize America's Cold War–era military contributed to the early stumbles in Iraq. But in speaking with the former Bush officials, it becomes evident that Rumsfeld impaired administration performance on a host of matters extending well beyond Iraq to impact America's relations with other nations, the safety of our troops, and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

The Scripture-adorned cover sheets illustrate one specific complaint I heard again and again: that Rumsfeld's tactics—such as playing a religious angle with the president—often ran counter to sound decision-making and could, occasionally, compromise the administration's best interests. In the case of the sheets, publicly flaunting his own religious views was not at all the SecDef's style—"Rumsfeld was old-fashioned that way," Shaffer acknowledged when I contacted him about the briefings—but it was decidedly Bush's style, and Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible. No matter that, if leaked, the images would reinforce impressions that the administration was embarking on a religious war and could escalate tensions with the Muslim world. The sheets were not Rumsfeld's direct invention—and he could thus distance himself from them, should that prove necessary.

Still, the sheer cunning of pairing unsentimental intelligence with religious righteousness bore the signature of one man: Donald Rumsfeld. And as historians slog through the smoke and mirrors of his tenure, they may find that Rumsfeld's most enduring legacy will be the damage he did to Bush's.

*****

"what rumsfeld was most effective in doing," says a former senior White House official, "was not so much undermining a decision that had yet to be made as finding every way possible to delay the implementation of a decision that had been made and that he didn't like." At meetings, he'd throw up every obstacle he could. "Rumsfeld would say, 'Golly, we haven't had time to read all of these documents! I mean, this is radical change!' " the official adds. "And then, if you suggested that maybe he should've read all the documents when everyone first got them a week ago, he'd say: 'Well! I've been all over the world since then! What have you been doing?' "

The Department of Justice got a taste of such stalling tactics two months after September 11, when the president issued an order authorizing the establishment of military commissions to try suspected terrorists. Rumsfeld resisted this imposition of authority on his DoD turf. "We tried to get these military commissions up and running," recalls one former DoJ official. "There'd be a lot of 'Well, he's working on it.' In my own view, that's cost the administration a lot. Hearings for detainees would've been viewed one way back in 2002. But by 2006"—the year commissions were at last enacted—"it's not so appealing."

Similarly, Rumsfeld delayed the implementation of a 2004 presidential order granting our Australian and British allies access to the Pentagon's classified Internet system known as SIPRNet. "He always had what sounded like a good reason," says one of Bush's top advisers. "But I had a lot of back channels and found out that it was being held up." It finally took Australian prime minister John Howard forcibly complaining to Bush about the matter in the fall of 2006 for SIPRNet to become accessible.

"In many ways," says one of Bush's national-security advisers, "Rumsfeld was more interested in being perceived to be in charge than actually being in charge." When I repeated this quote to an administration official privy to Rumsfeld's war efforts, this person's eyes lit up. "One of the most fateful, knock-down-drag-outs was over postwar reconstruction," says this official. "It was the question of who'd take charge, State or DoD. Rumsfeld made a presentation about chain of command. 'If State takes over here, are you saying Tommy Franks is going to report to a State official? Mr. President, that's not in the Constitution!' "

"I'm not saying State could have done any better," this official says of the bungled reconstruction efforts. "But he owned it."

That is, until he disowned it. In May 2003, six weeks after the fall of Baghdad, Bush decreed that newly appointed envoy to Iraq Paul Bremer would be reporting directly to the secretary of defense. But within seven months, according to Bremer's book My Year in Iraq, Rumsfeld had completely washed his hands of the faltering reconstruction efforts.

At times, this my-way-or-no-way approach could even come at the expense of his soldiers. Shortly before the Iraq invasion, King Abdullah II of Jordan decreed that warplanes could not overfly his country if they had previously flown over Israel. The king's demand meant that U.S. fighters would need to make a multiple-hour detour before proceeding to their targets. Rumsfeld had himself been a fighter pilot and presumably recognized the absurdity of the detour, and so one NSC aide approached him during a meeting in the Situation Room as the matter was being discussed.

"Excuse me, Mr. Secretary," said the aide. "I want you to know that Dr. Rice is prepared to call the king to get that restriction removed so that our kids don't have to fly the extra two and a half or three hours."

Rumsfeld looked up from his coffee. "When I need your help," he said, "I'll ask."

The secretary did not ask for the help, and so his soldiers went the extra distance, unnecessarily. This seemingly instinctive stubbornness adds to the growing consensus that Rumsfeld's obduracy—on increasing troop levels, on recognizing the insurgency—was a primary cause of mishap in Iraq. But Rumsfeld and his defenders have already begun to counter this story line, most notably with an op-ed by Rumsfeld himself in The New York Times published last November—in which he argued, remarkably, that he had been "incorrectly portrayed as an opponent of the surge in Iraq." ("I was amused by that," says one top White House official, sounding unamused. "The Casey war plan was very much his." A former senior commander qualifies this view by pointing out that General George Casey did in fact increase troop levels in 2004 and 2006—but then adds, "Whenever we asked for increases, there was a certain amount of tension with Rumsfeld: Why couldn't we do with less?")

The assignment of blame for what went wrong in Iraq will continue to be a matter of vigorous debate. But what's been less discussed is Rumsfeld's effect on the relationship between Bush and Vladimir Putin. Bush began his presidency determined to forge a new, post–Cold War relationship with Putin, and a year after their June 2001 "sense of his soul" meeting, the two leaders released a statement pledging dialogue on matters ranging from bilateral investment to missile-defense systems. But Rumsfeld, who had also served as Gerald Ford's secretary of defense during the Cold War, wasn't on board. According to an administration official closely involved in U.S.-Russia policy, "From the get-go, it was clear that the Pentagon had no interest in anything that was in that document. Rumsfeld wanted to do the minimum and move on."

Rumsfeld's office cut against Bush's pledge of cooperation and transparency with Russia on "a whole host of things," says this official: the proposed Russian-American Observation Satellite, the Joint Data Exchange Center, plutonium disposition. By 2005 the Bush-Putin partnership had soured for a variety of reasons, including Russia's growing economic swagger and America's Iraq-induced decline in global prestige. But, the official observes, Rumsfeld "did not help the relationship; that's clear." Russia came to believe that the U.S. wasn't interested in cooperating, and Rumsfeld's actions "devalued what the president had originally said. It made the Russians believe he lacked credibility."

"No one," says another former official, "threw sand in the gears like Rumsfeld."

*****

one of rumsfeld's other favorite tactics was obfuscation. "He was always bringing questions," recalls a senior White House adviser of Rumsfeld. "Never answers." The SecDef most famously revealed this obsession with mystery in a February 2002 news conference while speculating on Iraq's links to terrorist groups. There were, he explained, "known knowns" and then "known unknowns—that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know." But, he added, there were also "unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know." The paradox of Rumsfeld's tenure is that in seeking to know all he could know, he also sought to control all he could control—and control inevitably came at the expense of accurate knowledge.

"Rumsfeld believed that all of the power from the military needed to migrate up to his level," recalls one former senior commander who got along well with the SecDef. "But you can't run an organization like the Department of Defense with everything going through the eye of the needle. It just doesn't work. And it wasn't just his inability to build a team below him. It was also his inability to play as a team player above him."

This unwillingness to cooperate was not a trifling matter. When the Department of Homeland Security was formed in 2002, Rumsfeld smelled a turf war. "He was very uncooperative in a petty way, and he would send some lower-level person to the secretarial meetings," recalls one former top West Wing adviser. At least he sent somebody. When Condoleezza Rice appointed Robert Blackwill to the Iraq Stabilization Group in 2003 to oversee that country's rickety reconstruction efforts, Rumsfeld saw the new group as an encroachment and therefore elected to dispatch no DoD personnel to its meetings. Here was the Rumsfeld paradox in action— his need for control trumping his desire for information—and his own subordinates could see the cost. "The truth is," recalls a former aide, "having people in the National Security Council is how you influence the NSC. So he would weaken himself by not having his eyes and ears there."

Another such trespasser on Rumsfeld's turf was the deputy national-security adviser for combating terrorism—an office that Rumsfeld once decreed does not exist. Its third occupant was a woman, Fran Townsend, and Rumsfeld's contempt for her was well-known throughout the building. "You think I'm going to talk to this broad?" he would complain.

After repeatedly being snubbed, Town-send approached Rumsfeld at a principals' meeting, the NSC gatherings of senior officials. "Mr. Secretary, if I've in some way offended you, I apologize," she said. "I'm just trying to do my job."

Whereupon Rumsfeld laughed loudly, put his arm around her shoulder, and boomed, "Ab-so-lute-ly not! Why, nothing could be further from the truth!"

Two years later, however, Townsend had received a promotion—to assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism—yet was still unable to command Rumsfeld's respect. In the midst of Hurricane Rita, Townsend learned that Texas governor Rick Perry had signaled his willingness to cede control of the National Guard to the federal government. She called Rumsfeld's aide and was told, "The secretary and Mrs. Rumsfeld are at an event."

Townsend knew that. The event was an ambassadors' ball; she was supposed to be there but was instead dealing with the crisis. "Put me in to his detail," she ordered.

A minute later, Townsend was on the phone with Rumsfeld's security agent, who then spoke to the SecDef. "The secretary will talk to you after the event," she was told.

Later in the evening, her phone rang. It was Chief of Staff Andy Card. "Rumsfeld just called," said Card. "What is it you need?"

Livid, Townsend said, "I want to know if the president knows what a fucking asshole Don Rumsfeld is."

Sighing, the chief of staff replied, "It isn't you, Fran. He treats Condi the same way. Me, too. He's always telling me I'm the worst chief of staff ever."

As objects of Rumsfeld's scorn, Card and Townsend took a backseat to Senator Ted Kennedy. During the final months of the Bush presidency, a White House program had been quietly under way to award numerous Presidential Medals of Freedom. Nomination forms were distributed, and several in the White House—apparently including Condi Rice and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten—suggested Kennedy, without whose support Bush's single most important domestic-policy achievement, the No Child Left Behind education initiative, would never have been realized. Administration sources say Bush was warm to the idea of awarding a medal to the cancer-stricken senator. Doing so would have come across as a bighearted, postpartisan gesture in the unpopular president's final days. But ultimately he chose not to, siding with the more conservative members of the White House who had been receiving encouragement from the vice president's longtime friend Donald Rumsfeld. The former SecDef had even made a point of bringing up the subject at a Beltway social gathering late last year.

"They can't give Kennedy a medal!" he'd declared. "Not after he murdered that woman!"—referring to the Mary Jo Kopechne incident on Chappaquiddick Island nearly forty years earlier.

*****

a final story of Rumsfeld's intransigence begins on Wednesday, August 31, 2005. Two days after Hurricane Katrina made landfall in New Orleans—and the same day that Bush viewed the damage on a flyover from his Crawford, Texas, retreat back to Washington—a White House advance team toured the devastation in an Air Force helicopter. Noticing that their chopper was outfitted with a search-and-rescue lift, one of the advance men said to the pilot, "We're not taking you away from grabbing people off of rooftops, are we?"

"No, sir," said the pilot. He explained that he was from Florida's Hurlburt Field Air Force base—roughly 200 miles from New Orleans—which contained an entire fleet of search-and-rescue helicopters. "I'm just here because you're here," the pilot added. "My whole unit's sitting back at Hurlburt, wondering why we're not being used."

The search-and-rescue helicopters were not being used because Donald Rumsfeld had not yet approved their deployment—even though, as Lieutenant General Russ Honoré, the cigar-chomping commander of Joint Task Force Katrina, would later tell me, "that Wednesday, we needed to evacuate people. The few helicopters we had in there were busy, and we were trying to deploy more."

And three years later, when I asked a top White House official how he would characterize Rumsfeld's assistance in the response to Hurricane Katrina, I found out why. "It was commonly known in the West Wing that there was a battle with Rumsfeld regarding this," said the official. "I can't imagine another defense secretary throwing up the kinds of obstacles he did."

Though various military bases had been mobilized into a state of alert well before the advance team's tour, Rumsfeld's aversion to using active-duty troops was evident: "There's no doubt in my mind," says one of Bush's close advisers today, "that Rumsfeld didn't like the concept."

The next day, three days after landfall, word of disorder in New Orleans had reached a fever pitch. According to sources familiar with the conversation, DHS secretary Michael Chertoff called Rumsfeld that morning and said, "You're going to need several thousand troops."

"Well, I disagree," said the SecDef. "And I'm going to tell the president we don't need any more than the National Guard."

The problem was that the Guard deployment (which would eventually reach 15,000 troops) had not arrived—at least not in sufficient numbers, and not where it needed to be. And though much of the chaos was being overstated by the media, the very suggestion of a state of anarchy was enough to dissuade other relief workers from entering the city. Having only recently come to grips with the roiling disaster, Bush convened a meeting in the Situation Room on Friday morning. According to several who were present, the president was agitated. Turning to the man seated at his immediate left, Bush barked, "Rumsfeld, what the hell is going on there? Are you watching what's on television? Is that the United States of America or some Third World nation I'm watching? What the hell are you doing?"

Rumsfeld replied by trotting out the ongoing National Guard deployments and suggesting that sending active-duty troops would create "unity of command" issues. Visibly impatient, Bush turned away from Rumsfeld and began to direct his inquiries at Lieutenant General Honoré on the video screen. "From then on, it was a Bush-Honoré dialogue," remembers another participant. "The president cut Rumsfeld to pieces. I just wish it had happened earlier in the week."

But still the troops hadn't arrived. And by Saturday morning, says Honoré, "we had dispersed all of these people across Louisiana. So we needed more troops to go to distribution centers, feed people, and maintain traffic." That morning Bush convened yet another meeting in the Situation Room. Chertoff was emphatic. "Mr. President," he said, "if we're not going to begin to get these troops, we're not going to be able to get the job done."

Rumsfeld could see the writing on the wall and had come prepared with a deployment plan in hand. Still, he did not volunteer it. Only when Bush ordered, "Don, do it," did he acquiesce and send in the troops—a full five days after landfall.

Today, when I presented this account to Rumsfeld's then homeland-affairs assistant, Paul McHale, he denied that Rumsfeld's actions resulted in any delay: "This was by far the largest, fastest deployment of forces probably for any purposes in the history of the United States." McHale argues that Rumsfeld's caution was due to his conviction that Bush could not send in the military as de facto law-enforcement officers under the Insurrection Act. But as one of the top lawyers involved in such scenarios for Katrina would say, "That in my mind was just a stall tactic so as not to get the active-duty military engaged. All you needed to do was use them for logistics."

Ultimately, Rumsfeld's obfuscations about National Guard rotations, unity-of-command challenges, and the Insurrection Act did not serve his commander in chief, says one senior official intimately involved with the whole saga: "There's a difference between saying to the president of the United States, 'I understand, and let me solve it,' and making the president figure out the right question to ask."

"What it's about," says this official, "is recognizing that in an emergency, the appearance of control has real operational significance. If people are panicked, everything becomes harder. If we had put those troops in on Thursday, the narrative of Katrina would be a very different one."

*****

at any burial, some praise is appropriate. Donald Rumsfeld demanded much of others, but also of himself. Even the commanders who loathed him appreciated how he stood up for them in wartime, especially during the pitfalls at Fallujah and Abu Ghraib. He did not whine. He did not capriciously fire—and, if anything, was too slow to fire those he found wanting. Quietly yet frequently, he visited the hospital beds of those he had sent into battle. And though his former colleagues have been quick to point out his miscues, one man—the man who dubbed himself "the Decider" when describing his refusal to let Rumsfeld go—clearly saw something in him.

What, then, was it that caused Bush to keep Rumsfeld around for so long?

The relationship between the two men was formal, reflecting generational differences. The president never called Rumsfeld "Rummy" to his face, says a close adviser: "He'd always do a dramatic 'Mr. Donald Rumsfeld! Mr. Secretary!' You have to understand, in any cabinet but no doubt in ours, Condi, Powell, and Rumsfeld were larger-than-life personalities who dwarfed any other cabinet member. And Rumsfeld used that to great effect."

Bush also enjoyed Rumsfeld's cussedness, his alpha-dog behavior toward the media. That same behavior toward his colleagues did not seem to bother the president. To Bush, rivalry was healthy, and the full extent of Rumsfeld's conduct was not known to him for the simple reason, say aides, that they did not wish to trouble the leader of the Free World every time Rumsfeld jerked them around.

But when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in the spring of 2004, Bush was upset that the Pentagon had not shared the damning photos with him before 60 Minutes II aired them. He called Rumsfeld on the Oval Office carpet, an incident that the White House leaked to The Washington Post to convey the president's dissatisfaction to the public. Rumsfeld read the story the next morning, May 6, and promptly drafted a letter of resignation. Bush received the letter with bemusement. Ol' Rummy had called his bluff. The president took no further action.

Nonetheless, as conditions in Iraq worsened throughout 2005 and early 2006, removing Rumsfeld was a "rolling -conversation" with Bush and top aides. One adviser recalls bringing up the matter twice. Each time, says this adviser, Bush shrugged and said, "Who've we got to replace him?" The adviser wondered why the president never initiated a search process.

By the spring of 2006, Bush at last seemed receptive to relieving Rumsfeld. But in April, when a half-dozen retired generals voiced their beliefs that the SecDef should be fired, Bush dug in his heels. That same month, Bush invited several of his top advisers to a meeting at the White House, where a show of hands went in favor of removing Rumsfeld before the '06 midterm elections. "There were plenty of substantive reasons given for why he should be fired," recalls a participant, "and not one substantive reason for why he should stay. People said that it would look bad to fire him after the retired generals said he should be fired, but no one offered any defense of Rumsfeld at all."

Rumsfeld kept his job for six more months while midterm-threatened Republicans clamored for his head. Politicizing the issue by replacing Rumsfeld during the electoral cycle was precisely what the president refused to do, say aides. These same aides were deluged with calls from angry Republicans when Bush announced the day after the election that Bob Gates would be replacing Rumsfeld. "A lot of people on the Hill were pissed," admits one such adviser.

"I think most Republicans believe that if Rumsfeld had been dismissed before the election, we would've hung on to the Senate," says South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham. "I think they're probably right."

*****

"i know him enough to know that he was both surprised and hugely disappointed," says one military commander who saw the SecDef shortly after Bush's November 8 announcement of his departure. But at his hour-long farewell ceremony at the Pentagon on December 15, Rumsfeld maintained his unflappable affect. Though the event was freighted with solemnity, replete with salutes and detonating cannons, he joked merrily with both the vice president and Bush—"almost to an inappropriate degree for the setting," says one colleague, who later asked Rumsfeld about his ebullience.

Referring to Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld said, "I wanted them to have fun."

But at the end of the ceremony, the president could be seen climbing into his sedan, wearing an expression that one could interpret any number of ways: guilt, disappointment, self-loathing, a general sadness. Not "fun," however.

From beginning to end, the Rumsfeld experience was never that.

Death From Above, Outrage Down Below - NY Times.com

Op-Ed Contributors - Death From Above, Outrage Down Below - NYTimes.com

Op-Ed Contributors
Death From Above, Outrage Down Below

* Sign in to Recommend
* Sign In to E-Mail
* Print
* Single Page
* ShareClose
o Linkedin
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o MySpace
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink
o

Article Tools Sponsored By
By DAVID KILCULLEN and ANDREW McDONALD EXUM
Published: May 16, 2009

IN recent days, the Pentagon has made two major changes in its strategy to defeat the Taliban, Al Qaeda and their affiliates in Afghanistan and Pakistan. First came the announcement that Lt. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal would take over as the top United States commander in Afghanistan. Next, Pentagon officials said that the United States was giving Pakistan more information on its drone attacks on terrorist targets, while news reports indicated that Pakistani officers would have significant future control over drone routes, targets and decisions to fire weapons (though the military has denied that).
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Gray318

Related
Times Topics: Predator Drones and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

While we agree with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that “fresh eyes were needed” to review our military strategy in the region, we feel that expanding or even just continuing the drone war is a mistake. In fact, it would be in our best interests, and those of the Pakistani people, to declare a moratorium on drone strikes into Pakistan.

After the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007, and following much internal debate, President George W. Bush authorized a broad expansion of drone strikes against a wide array of targets within Pakistan: Qaeda operatives, Pakistan-based members of the Afghan Taliban insurgency and — in some cases — other militants bent on destabilizing Pakistan.

The use of drones in military operations has steadily grown — we know from public documents that from last September to this March alone, C.I.A. operatives launched more than three dozen strikes.

The appeal of drone attacks for policy makers is clear. For one thing, their effects are measurable. Military commanders and intelligence officials point out that drone attacks have disrupted terrorist networks in Pakistan, killing key leaders and hampering operations. Drone attacks create a sense of insecurity among militants and constrain their interactions with suspected informers. And, because they kill remotely, drone strikes avoid American casualties.

But on balance, the costs outweigh these benefits for three reasons.

First, the drone war has created a siege mentality among Pakistani civilians. This is similar to what happened in Somalia in 2005 and 2006, when similar strikes were employed against the forces of the Union of Islamic Courts. While the strikes did kill individual militants who were the targets, public anger over the American show of force solidified the power of extremists. The Islamists’ popularity rose and the group became more extreme, leading eventually to a messy Ethiopian military intervention, the rise of a new regional insurgency and an increase in offshore piracy.

While violent extremists may be unpopular, for a frightened population they seem less ominous than a faceless enemy that wages war from afar and often kills more civilians than militants.

Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders. But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2 percent — hardly “precision.” American officials vehemently dispute these figures, and it is likely that more militants and fewer civilians have been killed than is reported by the press in Pakistan. Nevertheless, every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.

Second, public outrage at the strikes is hardly limited to the region in which they take place — areas of northwestern Pakistan where ethnic Pashtuns predominate. Rather, the strikes are now exciting visceral opposition across a broad spectrum of Pakistani opinion in Punjab and Sindh, the nation’s two most populous provinces. Covered extensively by the news media, drone attacks are popularly believed to have caused even more civilian casualties than is actually the case. The persistence of these attacks on Pakistani territory offends people’s deepest sensibilities, alienates them from their government, and contributes to Pakistan’s instability.

US military probes Blackwater Kabul killing

MichaelMoore.com : U.S. military probes Blackwater Kabul killing

May 18th, 2009 11:22 am
U.S. military probes Blackwater Kabul killing

By Peter Graff / Reuters

KABUL - The U.S. military is investigating a shooting incident in which four contractors from the re-named firm formerly called Blackwater are accused of killing an Afghan man after a traffic accident, a spokesman said on Sunday.

The military said it had asked the firm to keep the four men in Afghanistan until its investigation was complete. The firm said it was cooperating with the investigation and had fired the four men for failing to follow regulations.

A lawyer for the four men said they were being held against their will by the firm in Kabul.

The North Carolina firm, which once had a lucrative contract to defend U.S. diplomats in Iraq, has changed its name to Xe Services and lost its Iraq contract this year.

It gained notoriety in Iraq after its staff killed 17 civilians in Baghdad during a traffic incident in 2007. One Blackwater guard has pleaded guilty to manslaughter and other charges over that incident and five others are awaiting trial.

"At this time, we can confirm an incident involving some of our off-duty contractors for Paravant in Afghanistan," Anne Tyrell, spokeswoman for the firm, said in an e-mail to Reuters. She identified Paravant as a subsidiary of Xe, the renamed firm.

"Paravant terminated the contracts with the four individuals involved in the incident for failure to comply with the terms of their contract, which require, among other things, compliance with all laws, regulations, and company policies," she said.

U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Christian Kubik said the four men were employed to train Afghan troops.

After being involved in a car crash in Kabul on May 5, they fired on an oncoming car that they saw as a threat, wounding three Afghans, one of whom died two days later, Kubik said.

"The contracting company is cooperating with us. We have asked them to keep the individuals in-country until the investigation is complete," Kubik said.

"When you're talking about the death of an Afghan, that's very important to us. We want to get it right."

A U.S. lawyer, Daniel Callahan, who said he was representing the four men -- Chris Drotleff, Steve McClain, Justic Cannon and Armando Hamid -- said they were being held "captive" by the company at a "safe house" in a mosque in Kabul.

Xe spokeswoman Tyrell denied the men were being held, but said the company had told them they could not leave the country without the approval of the U.S. Defense Department, and the firm was trying to clarify whether they had permission to leave.

An Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman said he was looking into reports of the incident.

Pres. Obama is wrong in not showing torture pictures !

MichaelMoore.com : What's Wrong with This Picture? ...by Geoffrey R. Stone

Thursday, May 14th, 2009
What's Wrong with This Picture? ...by Geoffrey R. Stone

Huffington Post

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or perhaps both." -- James Madison

President Barack Obama yesterday changed his mind about releasing to the public hundreds of photographs that apparently document abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by American military personnel between 2001 and 2005. Mr. Obama apparently changed his mind after he was reportedly warned by top Pentagon officials that publication of these images might inflame anti-American sentiment in the region and therefore endanger American soldiers.

The President is right that the dissemination of these photographs might inflame anti-American opinion and possibly put our soldiers at greater risk. But he is wrong to focus on that risk rather than on the importance of these images to public debate in the United States - debate that is at the very core of our self-governing society.

We value free speech not because it is harmless, but because it is essential. The free-wheeling dissemination of ideas, images, and information causes all sorts of harm. The old adage that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me," is dead wrong. Speech can offend, injure reputation, fan prejudice or passion, and ignite violence.

Critical discussion of the war in Iraq turned the American people against the war and therefore made it more difficult for our military leaders to achieve their goals. Certainly, criticism of the war in Iraq - including the criticism voiced so powerfully by then-Senator Obama, encouraged and emboldened the insurgents in Iraq and increased the danger to American soldiers, as many conservatives charged at the time. Did Mr. Obama silence himself? Of course not. Because he understood that public debate about even the most controversial and inflammatory public issues is the very lifeblood of American democracy.

If we were to take seriously President Obama's view that the government should not release information to the American public if doing so might increase the risk to American soldiers, then surely the government would also be right not to disclose to the American people that (a) American military personnel tortured enemy detainees; (b) American soldiers massacred innocent civilians; (c) American soldiers were defeated in a fierce battle and suffered huge losses; and (d) the American military is using outdated equipment that does not adequately protect our soldiers.

Mr. Obama might argue that all that is at issue here are mere pictures. The American people already know (sort of) about the abuses themselves. The value of these images to robust public debate, he might argue, is therefore relatively slight. Of course, the same can be said about the harm from release of the photos.

But the more important point is that visual images matter a lot in public discourse. Think, for example, about the response of the American people to such events as the Holocaust, the Mai Lai massacre, the use of fire hoses and riot police against peaceful civil rights demonstrators in the American South, and the photographs of Abu Ghraib. Without the reinforcing impact of those images, those events would never have had the effect they did on the American public. Here is another misleading adage: "What you don't know can't hurt you."

President Obama is wrong on this issue, and he is wrong in a big way.

Why not Single Payer Health Care System?

MichaelMoore.com : Remarks by the President in Rio Rancho Town Hall

Thursday, May 14th, 2009
Remarks by the President in Rio Rancho Town Hall

WhiteHouse.gov

Q Oh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I work for one of the large corporations here. But I talk to a lot of people about health care. My question is, so many people go bankrupt using their credit cards to pay for health care. Why have they taken single-payer off the plate? (Applause.) And why is Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee discussing health care when he has received so much money from the pharmaceutical companies? Isn't it a conflict of interest? (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as you know, I campaigned vigorously on health care reform, and I think that we have a better chance of getting it done this year than we've had in decades. I am optimistic about us getting health care reform done ...

[T]his touches on your point, and that is, why not do a single-payer system. (Applause.) Got the little single-payer advocates up here. (Applause.) All right. For those of you who don't know, a single-payer system is like -- Medicare is sort of a single-payer system, but it's only for people over 65, and the way it works is, the idea is that you don't have insurance companies as middlemen. The government goes directly -- (applause) -- and pays doctors or nurses.

If I were starting a system from scratch, then I think that the idea of moving towards a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world.

The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based health care. And although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is, is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers and you've got this system that's already in place. We don't want a huge disruption as we go into health care reform where suddenly we're trying to completely reinvent one-sixth of the economy.

So what I've said is, let's set up a system where if you already have health care through your employer and you're happy with it, you don't have to change doctors, you don't have to change plans -- nothing changes. If you don't have health care or you're highly unsatisfied with your health care, then let's give you choices, let's give you options, including a public plan that you could enroll in and sign up for. That's been my proposal. (Applause.)

Now, obviously as President I've got to work with Congress to get this done and -- (laughter.) There are folks in Congress who are doing terrific work, they're working hard. They've been having a series of hearings. I'm confident that both the House and the Senate are going to produce a bill before the August recess. And it may not have everything I want in there or everything you want in there, but it will be a vast improvement over what we currently have.

We'll then have to reconcile the two bills, but I'm confident that we are going to get health care reform this year and start putting us on a path that's sustainable over the long term. (Applause.) That's a commitment I made during the campaign; I intend to keep it.

The Bush Crime Family at work

MichaelMoore.com : Carlyle Groups Settles in "Pay to Play" Scandal Probe

May 14th, 2009 10:12 pm
Carlyle Groups Settles in "Pay to Play" Scandal Probe

Carlyle Groups Settles in "Pay to Play" Scandal Probe

By Richard Esposito and Brian Ross / ABC

The Carlyle Group, a giant Wall Street firm best known for its ties to former President George H.W. Bush and other prominent public officials, made more than $13 million in payments to a indicted political fixer who arranged for the firm to receive business from a New York pension fund, New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo said today.

Cuomo said Carlyle had agreed to $20 million to "resolve its role" in the ongoing corruption investigation and agreed to a new code of conduct that prohibits the use of such middlemen.

Cuomo said the code would "help eliminate the conflicts of interest and corruption inherent in a system that allows people to buy access to those holding the pension fund purse-strings."

Carlyle is the latest high-profile firm to be ensnared in a nationwide probe known as the "pay for play" scandal because Wall Street firms allegedly paid politically-connected fixers to get them business from pension funds controlled by public officials.

According to Cuomo, his corruption investigation found that in 2003, Carlyle hired Hank Morris, the chief political aide to then New York state comptroller Alan Hevesi, as "a placement agent" to help obtain investments from the New York Common Retirement Fund.

"If Boss Tweed were alive today, he would be a placement agent," Cuomo said.

In a statement, Carlyle said it "was unaware of any improper conduct" and "was victimized by Hank Morris' alleged web of deceit." Carlyle said it intended to file suit against Morris and has "cooperated extensively and voluntarily" with Cuomo.

Carlyle paid Morris through shell companies he controlled, according to Cuomo. Morris allegedly shared the payments with a hedge fund manager, Barrett Wissman, who pleaded guilty earlier this year to securities fraud in connection with the investigation.

Until it hired Morris, said Cuomo, Carlyle had "experienced limited success in obtaining investments" from the New York state fund.

Carlyle then received more than $730 million in New York state pension funds for five different projects, according to Cuomo.

Carlyle employees also made about $78,000 in campaign contributions to Comptroller Hevesi's campaign in 2005 and 2006, according to Cuomo, some solicited by Morris.

Morris was indicted in March in the "pay for play" investigation for allegedly arranging "sham placement fees" for himself and other Hevesi "political cronies" and for extracting "millions of dollars in campaign contributions" to ensure "the Comptroller's approval of their proposed investments."

Morris has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Hevesi has not been charged.

Politically-Connected Powerhouse Firm

Carlyle is a politically connected powerhouse whose board of advisors has been graced by the names of numerous political luminaries from both the Democratic and Republican Parties including former President Bush, his Secretary of State James Baker III, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, Britain's former Prime Minister John Major, ex-Time magazine media glitterati Norman Pearlstein and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff, Mack McLarty. The firm is currently headed by the highly regarded ex-IBM CEO Lou Gerstner.

Carlyle is the first firm to sign the Code of Conduct, which Cuomo first proposed in April. The Code eliminates the role of middlemen who are hired, retained or compensated for the specific purpose of obtaining pension dollars. The language is carefully worded to allow for the use of marketing department employees and marketing firms.

According to union records, Carlyle received $878 million in private equity investment from "the New York State Common Retirement Fund." The fund's $122 billion in assets is for the retirement benefits of state and local employees in New York. The state paid total management and incentive fees of $37.5 million between 2005 and 2008 to Carlyle, according to fund records. The fund is the third largest in the nation.

The firm has allowed only two outside partners into its ranks over the years.

The nations largest public retirement fund-- the California Public Employee Retirement Fund--paid $175 million for 5.5 percent of Carlyle: now worth a considerable amount more.

The other is Abu Dhabi, the once high growth sheikhdom that paid about $1.5. billion for 7.5 percent of the firm.

Cuomo's wide ranging probe has already resulting in two guilty pleas in New York State. According to published accounts it is said to be one of 30 such probes across the nation. The Securities and Exchange Commission has filed a related civil suit.

Unregulated Middlemen

In the closely regulated and monitored world of public employee fund investment, the use of unregulated middlemen has been a loophole through which, in return for passing public funds to private firms, at least in some cases, public corruption has resulted, Cuomo's office has charged. The practice is rife with the potential for quid-pro-quo, including pay-for-play political contributions, and revolving door government to private sector job hopping, his office and union officials have said.

At the end of April, Cuomo said that practice of using unregulated middlemen to garner public pension fund dollars results in "the worst of both worlds."

"This is the nexus of private-sector fraudulent operators meeting fraudulent government and political operators," Cuomo said, according to Bloomberg News.

At the center of the storm is one time New York Democratic Party operative Morris who is accused of steering state pension fund business to firms that paid him millions in kickbacks. Morris is the target of a 123 count indictment unsealed by Cuomo's office in March. It accuses Morris of pension fund related activities including "enterprise corruption, securities fraud, grand larceny, bribery and money laundering."

At the time of the indictment Cuomo's office said in a statement, "If proven, the allegations in the indictment reveal a complex criminal scheme involving numerous individuals operating at the highest political and governmental levels of the Office of the State Comptroller. The charges entail a web of corrupt acts for both political and personal gain.

Also under scrutiny is a firm co-founded by Steve Rattner, President Obama's auto industry Czar. That firm, Quadrangle, used Morris firm and is under the spotlight for allegedly failing to disclose the relationship.

Carlyle began receiving New York dollars when Alan Hevesi was state comptroller. Hevesi pled guilty for a single felony unrelated to his fund management. Morris was Hevesi's political consultant.

John Yoo Can't Be Serious

Yoo Can't Be Serious - The Plank

Yoo Can't Be Serious

Michael Schaffer is the author of One Nation Under Dog.

If John Yoo had any writerly creativity, he'd have come up with a better name for his Philadelphia Inquirer column. The possibilities are endless: "Tortured Logic." "Stress Positions." "Hints from the Gulag." But the author of the Bush administration torture memos apparently used up all his creativity in explaining why waterboarding doesn't violate America's legal obligations. So his monthly missive to the good people of greater Philadelphia is just called "Closing Arguments," which sounds like a feature that any superannuated lawyer could write. In Yoo's case, it doesn't even make any sense, since the arguments over his role in our interrogation program are just heating up.

Yoo has been writing columns for the Inky for a few years. But his presence has gotten new attention this week as Will Bunch reports that the Chapter 11-hobbled paper--where I spent four happy years--has now signed him to a contract, citing his local roots and his legal expertise. "None of this is a good enough justification for awarding a column to America's top defender of such a serious human rights violation as torture," Bunch says. He wants readers to pressure the paper to boot the torture cheerleader.

Bunch is right to say it's a disgrace--though, given the troubled state of the paper, an even bigger strike against it might be that Yoo has been a boring columnist, a run-of-the-mill neocon who tosses only the most predictable brickbats against the Obama administration. Treating readers to a monthly tantrum would be vastly more entertaining, and it would dovetail nicely with Yoo's controversial status, if not his Berkeley law professor persona.

But the bigger issue is this one: American society has never been very good at ostracism. Yoo is hardly the only toxic personality getting face-time in the media these days. Eliot Spitzer is a columnist, too. Michael Vick, soon to be sprung from prison, was in talks with PETA about becoming a spokesman. If Elizabeth Edwards is on Oprah's couch, my hunch is that her philandering husband isn't far behind. And Dick Cheney has become a Sunday morning staple, trotted out at least as much for the undignified spectacle of his anti-Obama potshots as for whatever wisdom he may share with the likes of Bob Scheiffer.

This isn't just a facet of the modern freak-show. Last year's Frost/Nixon celebrated the interview that "got" Nixon, but the crooked ex-president still spent the last couple decades of his life as a revered elder statesman. Robert McNamara spent his 1970s running the World Bank, not such a shabby place to land given his track record.

Sure, the bill of particulars against Yoo may be more specific, and more actionable. I certainly hope someone tries to throw the book at him. But in the meantime, to keep disgraced folks like him off the op-ed pages--or our bar associations, or our prestigious law schools--will require a bigger change in our culture, which as it stands is pretty forgiving of all manner of crime and incompetence among our elites.

--Michael Schaffer

UC Berkeley: Fire John Yoo

t r u t h o u t | John Yoo: UC Berkeley Is a "Magnet for Hippies, Protesters and Left-Wing Activists"

ohn Yoo: UC Berkeley Is a "Magnet for Hippies, Protesters and Left-Wing Activists"

Thursday 12 March 2009

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
Protesters and police in Berkeley, California. John Yoo, who served as deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) under Bush and wrote several controversial legal memos on torture and executive power, dismissed his critics at UC Berkeley as "hippies, protesters and left-wing activists." (Photo: Jeff Chiu / AP)

John Yoo doesn't have any regrets about the controversial legal opinions he wrote for the White House - many of which were later withdrawn and repudiated - that gave former President George W. Bush unfettered and unchecked power in the aftermath of 9/11.

In a little known interview with the Orange County Register, published March 3, Yoo said he doesn't "think he would have made the basic decisions differently."

However, he said he would have polished the memos up a bit and spent more time on legal research had he known the memos would be released publicly.

"These memos I wrote were not for public consumption," Yoo told the OC Register. "They lack a certain polish, I think - would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice. I certainly would have done that differently.

"I think the job of a lawyer is to give a straight answer to a client. One thing I sometimes worry about is that lawyers in the future in the government are going to start worrying about, 'What are people going to think of me?' Your client the president, or your client the justice on the Supreme Court, or your client this senator, needs to know what's legal and not legal. And sometimes, what's legal and not legal is not the same thing as what you can do or what you should do."

Perhaps recognizing that his legal work wasn't up to the Department of Justice (DOJ) professional standards, Yoo offered the OC Register an explanation to excuse what one former colleague described as "sloppily reasoned" legal arguments.

"The thing I am really struck with is that when you are in the government, you have very little time to make very important decisions." Yoo told the Register. "You don't have the luxury to research every single thing and that's accelerated in war time. You really have decisions to make, which you could spend years on. Sometimes what we forget as private citizens, or scholars, or students or journalists for sure (he laughs), is that in hindsight, it's easier to say, 'Here's what I would have done.' But when you're in the government, at the time you make the decision, you don't have that kind of luxury."

Yoo is the author of one of the most infamous legal memos to ever come out of the DOJ: an August 2002 legal opinion widely referred to as the "torture memo," which gave the Bush administration the legal justification to subject terrorist detainees to harsh interrogations, such as the drowning technique known as waterboarding, in violation of the Geneva Conventions and international and domestic laws against torture.

But Yoo told the OC Register that the "tradeoff" against using brutal interrogation methods means "we will get less information about the enemy."

"Someone can say, 'I think it's more important that other countries have a more favorable opinion of us than any intelligence we gain from interrogation.' That's a benefit and a cost..." Yoo said.

On March 2, the DOJ released a handful of legal memos Yoo wrote as the deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), a powerful agency that advises the president on the extent of his powers under the Constitution.

Yoo, who is a visiting law professor at Chapman University in Orange, California, asserted that the president had unlimited powers to prosecute the "war on terror" on American soil and could ignore constitutional rights, including First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press and Fourth Amendment requirements for search warrants.

In perhaps the most controversial of the memos, dated October 23, 2001, and entitled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States," Yoo said Bush's war powers allowed him to put restrictions on freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

"First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully," Yoo wrote. "The current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically."

Just three months before Bush exited the White House, Stephen Bradbury, as acting chief of the OLC, renounced the October 23, 2001, legal opinion in a "memorandum for the files" that called Yoo's opinion about suspending First Amendment protections as "unnecessary" and "overbroad and general and not sufficiently grounded in the particular circumstance of a concrete scenario."

In an October 6, 2008, memo, Bradbury wrote that Yoo's legal opinion "states several specific propositions that are either incorrect or highly questionable." But Bradbury attempted to justify or forgive Yoo's controversial opinion by explaining that it was "the product of an extraordinary period in the history of the Nation: the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 9/11."

The October 23, 2001, "memorandum represents a departure, although perhaps for understandable reasons, from the preferred practice of OLC to render formal opinions only with respect to specific and concrete policy proposals and not to undertake a general survey of a broad area of the law or to address general or amorphous hypothetical scenarios that implicate difficult questions of law," Bradbury wrote.

The Register did not question Yoo about those memos, presumably because the interview took place prior to the DOJ's release of the legal opinions.

Yoo's legal work during Bush's first term in office has been roundly criticized by dozens of the nation's leading legal scholars.

Dawn Johnsen, who has been tapped by President Barack Obama to head the OLC, has publicly criticized the work of Yoo and other OLC officials under Bush. In a 2006 Indiana Law Journal article, she said the function of the OLC should be to "provide an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law, even if that advice will constrain the administration's pursuit of desired policies."

Johnsen, who is a staunch supporter of releasing OLC memos publicly, said Yoo conducted his work as an advocate of Bush administration policy.

"The advocacy model of lawyering, in which lawyers craft merely plausible legal arguments to support their clients' desired actions, inadequately promotes the president's constitutional obligation to ensure the legality of executive action," said Johnsen, who served in the OLC under President Bill Clinton.

In fact, a DOJ watchdog appears to share that view.

An investigation by H. Marshall Jarrett, head of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), reached "damning" conclusions about numerous cases of "misconduct" in the advice from John Yoo and other lawyers in the OLC during the Bush administration, according to legal sources familiar with the report's contents.

"I wish they weren't doing it, but I understand why they are," Yoo told the OC Register in response to a question about Jarrett's probe. "It is something one would expect. You have to make these kinds of decisions in an unprecedented kind of war with legal questions we've never had to think about before. We didn't seek out those questions. 9/11 kind of thrust them on us. No matter what you do, there's going to be a lot of people who are upset with your decision. If Bush had done nothing, there would be a lot of people upset with his decision, too. I understood that while we were doing it, there were going to be people who were critical. I can't go farther into it, because it's still going on right now. I'm not trying to escape responsibility for my decisions. I have to wait and see what they say."

The OPR report was completed late last year, but was kept under wraps by Attorney General Michael Mukasey while Bush finished out his days in office, the sources said.

According to people familiar with the OPR report, Yoo was briefed on the report in January. Yoo is said to have informed officials at the University of California at Berkeley, where he is a tenured law professor, according to two senior law school officials. He took a leave of absence in January to teach foreign relations law at Chapman.

While teaching at Berkeley, he was routinely the subject of protests by students and faculty.

Last month, Brad DeLong, a UC Berkeley economics professor, wrote a letter to Robert Birgenau, Berkeley's Chancellor, calling for Yoo to be fired.

"Out of a concern for justice, a concern for humanity, and a concern for our reputation as a university, to dismiss Professor John Yoo from membership in our university," says DeLong's February 16 letter.

Yoo said he's not surprised at the reception he received at Berkeley.

"Berkeley is sort of a magnet for hippies, protesters and left-wing activists," Yoo said. "So I'm not surprised that being one of the few recognizable conservatives on campus that I would generate a lot of heat and friction. It happened well before working in the Bush administration."

»

Jason Leopold is editor in chief of The Public Record, www.pubrecord.org.
Comments

This is a moderated forum. It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.
How much tax payer money
Thu, 03/19/2009 - 15:23 — granny (not verified)
How much tax payer money goes to pay this fool's salary? (Of, if he's at Chapman, what's his salary there?) And what is wrong with UC-Berkeley, or Chapman, allowing him to continue in the classroom? Remember what happened to Ward Churchill when he made remarks about US actions helping to bring on 9/11? HE didn't create the conditions under which the US broke international law, subverted its own values, and tortured prisoners until they gave confessions of questionaable usefulness. But OH, how the right wingers howled about him. John Yoo is not only a disgrace to higher education and the profession of law, he is a danger and a menace to future lawyers, as well as a sniveling Yes-Man who gave Bush and Cheney the advice they told him they wanted.
John Yoo should be required
Thu, 03/19/2009 - 01:00 — Anonymous (not verified)
John Yoo should be required to take a few years of ethics, philosophy, and literature courses.
Yale is a magnet for neo-con
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 22:54 — ZeeBruce (not verified)
Yale is a magnet for neo-con neoliberal terrorists who would subvert the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and engage in illegal wars to promote the economic interests of energy companies. The "skull and bones" society at its heart is aptly named as its graduates are leading proponents of skullduggery, state exported terrorism, and the rape of people and destruction of entire cultures. Yale in terms of people influenced (by lost jobs, lost savings, lost lives) is head and shoulder above the puny progressives at Berkeley.
"Unprecedented kind of
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 17:21 — Floresta (not verified)
"Unprecedented kind of war?", uh huh, yup, the fake kind that once exposed to the light of day proves immeasurably false, trumped up and lead to a dizzying grab for presidential power. Mr Yoo's excuse is profoundly disturbing. Perhaps he has a brilliant mind, but I get no sense of a heart beating at all.
I urge all of
Mon, 03/16/2009 - 18:11 — Anonymous (not verified)
I urge all of us---particularly all California citizens---to contact the University of California Law School and ask them to dismiss John Yoo for war criminal related activities.
Magnet for Hippies,
Mon, 03/16/2009 - 17:34 — radline9 (not verified)
Magnet for Hippies, Protestors, and Left Wing Activists? I wish I had gone to school there.
All of which ignores the
Sun, 03/15/2009 - 16:06 — Anonymous (not verified)
All of which ignores the pragmatic question of how reliable any confession is when extracted by torture.
A professor who enables
Sat, 03/14/2009 - 07:51 — bl8ant (not verified)
A professor who enables government torture has no place teaching in a university of any kind in the united states. Mr. Yoo has made himself a pariah in his own profession--not just among the "hippies" at UCBerkeley. His enabling of the Bush Administration's torture flies in the face not only of US constitutional law and our international agreements (the Geneva Conventions, in particular), but of generations of US oppsition to human rights violations around the world--notably those of the Nazis (we were the chief architects of the Nuremburg Trials), the Soviet Union and communist China. Not only does Yoo not deserve the honor of a university position, he very likely deserves prosecution as a war criminal. In what way are his actions any less reprehensible than those lawyers and judges who enabled Hitler's regime... and were prosecuted and convicted for them at Nuremburg? University professor indeed--shame on UC Berkeley for harboring this man. THIS IS QUOTED FROM ANOTHER POSTER..S SHERIDAN TRUER WORDS NEVER SPOKEN!!!
"The main problem is that
Sat, 03/14/2009 - 04:41 — jahf (not verified)
"The main problem is that Yoo never understood who his client was. As a lawyer in the DOJ, and especially in the OLC, Yoo should have been the peoples' lawyer, not the president's ... Yoo failed his clients miserably." On the contrary, he understood perfectly who his client was, and has been amply rewarded for it. If a majority truly opposed torture, Yoo would have hanged long ago. Torture became policy because it was unopposed by a citizenry wholly uninterested in human rights, one that openly celebrated the lies that let them bay for innocent blood.
3 cheers for Berkeley
Sat, 03/14/2009 - 02:39 — gcammaro (not verified)
3 cheers for Berkeley residents and UC students who made life uncomfortable enough for John Yoo that he would seek relative safety in the conservative confines of Chapman University. And woe to Dean Edley and the UC system that have provided safe haven to a known war criminal and granted him free access to the developing minds of our youth. See www.FireJohnYoo.org for thorough and revealing analyses of Yoo's role in providing the legal framework for the truly shameful and destructive policies that continue to grip our nation.
totally shocked that U. of
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 20:10 — Anonymous (not verified)
totally shocked that U. of C. has allowed this traitor to teach law at one our great universities. He should be in prison.
John Yoo has chosen to
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 18:22 — Skeeter Sanders (not verified)
John Yoo has chosen to totally ignore the supremacy of the Constitution of the United States, which every public officeholder is sworn by their oath of office to "support and defend" -- and in the case of the president, "preserve, protect and defend.' Article VI of the Constitution makes it very clear that it is the "the supreme law of the land." For Yoo to assert that the president has the power to ignore the Constitution in his pursuit of the "war on terror" reveals a not just a shocking ignorance of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, but, I dare say, an utter contempt of our nation's highest law. Yoo is a disgrace to the legal profession.
torture works, as
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 17:00 — baldeagle (not verified)
torture works, as demonstrated by keifer sutherland on the hit show 24. yoo is a super patriot, as demonstrated by his dedication to our former ceo. all you naysayers hate america, as demonstrated by your unwillingness to allow the military's hard sell on your young people. it's so obvious that you hate america! now if you please, i have to get back to watching qvc as there are only 5 minutes left to get that diamond-encrusted toilet seat i have been needing.
Us protesters, hippies, and
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 15:42 — Anonymous (not verified)
Us protesters, hippies, and left-wing radicals recognize that torture is wrong as is the use of the existence of 'terrorism' to eliminate that pesky First Amendment. We may also safely assume that Mr. Yoo himself has never been tortured. Just as people who have actually been in combat make up some of the most zealous anti-war activists, it is easy for the chicken hawks to advocate violence and torture from the safe havens of their living rooms. Strange that a right wing thug such as Yoo would end up at Berkeley. The torture memos and his contempt for American values were not secrets; why did they hire him in the first place?
Yoo sets terrorists free, by
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 14:22 — Sue Jones (not verified)
Yoo sets terrorists free, by his illegal actions. Once a prisoner has been tortured, the authorities have only two choices. Keep them in the Gulag forever and throw away the key (illegally according to US and international law.) Or let them go. The option of trying them in a court of law is effectively gone once illegal data has been obtained by torture. Also the terrorists defense team can claim (truly) that the prosecutors are trying to cover up their own crimes of torture by making false claims about the prisoner. (As they do.) Torture poisons real prosecution. Just as torture poisons real investigation-- tortured prisoners give false information because it gives them the power to have their enemies tortured by implicating them. Yoo should be fired and prosecuted, and in large part because he has prevented the real investigation and prosecution of terrorists. The people who hired Yoo at Berkeley and Chapman also need to have their heads examined. Tenure does not protect war criminals.
a perfect and disgusting
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 08:25 — bl8ant (not verified)
a perfect and disgusting representation of where America has allowed it's politicians to take it....somehow the financial crisis seems like appropriate karma
Perhaps President Obama can
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 06:55 — Anonymous (not verified)
Perhaps President Obama can use his unfettered unitary executive powers to put Yoo under 24/365 surveillance and make him check in like a sex offender every 5 days at a local police station, or perhaps send him to one of Bush's extraordinary vacation spots, then try him in a court after 10 or 11 years. He is after all, an enemy of freedom and democracy, a war criminal, and a principal cause of creating a terrorist mindset in the people who he authorized to be tortured.
Yoo at UC Berkeley: Either
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 06:36 — Anonymous (not verified)
Yoo at UC Berkeley: Either a sad testament to the myth of academic quality of Boalt Hall ... or the luck of John Yoo in securing a respected position before exposing his below-average critical-thinking skills as a legal scholar --let alone any talent as a practicing lawyer. Ideology isn't the issue - there are conservative, even controversial, scholars. Alito, Edwards are examples familiar to most people. Berkeley has to be thrilled to send Yoo off to Chapman, who likely are thrilled to get a "celebrity" visiting faculty member. Now, if the legitimate faculty at Berkeley could just figure out how to get rid of the cancer . . . .
What is it about George Bush
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 05:17 — Anonymous (not verified)
What is it about George Bush that makes smart people do dumb things? Yoo's only chance for redemption is to turn state's witness.
As time passes, Mr. Yoo will
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 04:25 — Michael (not verified)
As time passes, Mr. Yoo will find that those "hippies, protesters and left-wing activists" have the power to make his life truly miserable. I'm really looking forward to it.
Let's say John Yoo was
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 02:30 — MP Peacenik (not verified)
Let's say John Yoo was traveling in a "neutral" foreign country and the immigration officials there found a copy of his torture memo on him. The government police then "detains" Yoo-without ever notifying the U.S. gov't or any of his family members--in order to find further links of Mr. Yoo to a "terrorist organization" such as the USA bushed regime. And in order to get better info, they decide to perform some "enhanced interrogation techniques" on Yoo, but just short of "organ failure"! At that point I wonder if Yoo's family members would still debate whether Yoo had been tortured by the said state police? Maybe they would agree that getting critical info on Yoo's possible "terrorist links" would justify his secret incarceration, and letting Yoo rot in a "black site" prison was worth the risk of "protecting the safety of the American people"!
Woo is a complete perfect
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 02:09 — Anonymous (not verified)
Woo is a complete perfect idiot. He rationalizes his poor judgement and unconstitutional decisons and thinks he is off free. He should be jailed for his violations of the American Constitution. Please President Obama don't worry about reconsiliation with the Bugh thugs
Patrick Leahy has the right
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 01:03 — Anonymous (not verified)
Patrick Leahy has the right idea: Hold all Bush administration players accountable for violations of the Constitution! That most certainly includes John Loo
John Yoo needs some tutoring
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 00:56 — Otto Schiff (not verified)
John Yoo needs some tutoring in the meaning of the constitution. In wartime the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, not of the USA. Also the constitution does not cover (or sanction) illegal invasions of foreign countries. I believe it behooves the University of California to fire or straighten out this misguided professor.
The main problem is that Yoo
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 00:41 — Anonymous (not verified)
The main problem is that Yoo never understood who his client was. As a lawyer in the DOJ, and especially in the OLC, Yoo should have been the peoples' lawyer, not the president's. The office of White House Counsel exists to represent the Office of Presidency and the President's Personal Councel represents the individual holding the office of President. It is the job of the OLC to protect the American people from illegal actions, especially those of other governmental agencies, departments and branches, by clearly defining the state of the law at a given time. It is most definitely NOT the job of the OLC to rationalize the desired policies of those other branches, departments or agencies. Yoo failed his clients miserably.
Every person who knowingly
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 00:37 — Anonymous (not verified)
Every person who knowingly commits a crime "thinks" it should be done in spite of, and regardless of, the spirit or letter of the law. Yoo is little better than any all too common violent criminal. The only difference is that Yoo made other men torture other humans for the benefit of Yoo and "his" President's Putsch. Criminal means leading to legal ends? You do the math. Holder should prosecute to the full extent of the letter of the law. Yoo belongs in a prison for his actions, not providing an evident of rampant lawlessness in a University classroom.
Yoo should be disbarred if
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 00:35 — Anonymous (not verified)
Yoo should be disbarred if not imprisoned with those that followed his memos. Maybe he has been influenced by his Chinese Communist heritage. He certainly seems not to know that in the United States we follow the laws prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. He certainly shouldn't be allowed to teach law either as I'm afraid as to what he putting into those new lawyers heads. Anytime I'm in a room with young people and the subject of the Bush administration comes up, I take a piece of paper and a pen and I write "JOHN YOO" then I say " remember this name, he may be around for a long time and he is a threat to your life, liberty and your pursuit of happiness."
Hippies and left wingers?
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 00:23 — Americonned (not verified)
Hippies and left wingers? What other Americans would Yoo write off? Was he in charge of the voting machines?
It boggles the mind that
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 00:11 — Jen (not verified)
It boggles the mind that this guy- an immigrant to this country- has the cojones to screw up OUR Constitution, after running here from Seoul. But then I suppose "rich man's sycophant" is the new treason.
Have we gone mad culturally?
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 00:06 — Anonymous (not verified)
Have we gone mad culturally? Are we the new Nazi's? PROSECUTION is a must!
"Berkeley is sort of a
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 23:46 — L**2 (not verified)
"Berkeley is sort of a magnet for hippies, protesters and left-wing activists," Yoo said. It also seems to be a magnet for right-wing extremists.
What a bunch of lame excuses
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 23:44 — LizzardAnn (not verified)
What a bunch of lame excuses he has made! If upholding the constitution doesn't warrant a request for more time, if needed....I am not sure what would! 9/11 was beyond horrible, but we are certainly not the only nation on the globe to have been attacked by terrorists....and we haven't seen countries with equal or even fewer freedoms than we have, poised to strip basic rights from citizens. And we are the leaders of the free world! I'm confused as to who they thought the bad guys were. I think Yoo suffered from over reaction, or working as a yes man. Either way, he is a disgrace to the legal profession and I am appalled that a respected institution like UC Berkeley has him on staff.
If Yoo has no regrets, Atty.
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 23:42 — Jackie Giles (not verified)
If Yoo has no regrets, Atty. Gen. Holder needs to give him some!
I am amazed that he is
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 23:04 — michal54 (not verified)
I am amazed that he is teaching (of all things) foreign relations law at Chapman. Go figger. What serious law student would sign up for his class knowing that... " In an October 6, 2008, memo, Bradbury wrote that Yoo's legal opinion "states several specific propositions that are either incorrect or highly questionable." "
I would like to know: 1.
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 23:02 — Anonymous (not verified)
I would like to know: 1. Who do I contact to add my voice to people who are calling for Yoo's ouster? (The National Lawyers' Guild doesn't appear to have a link on their home page, even though when I called Marjorie Cohn's office her secretary referred me to the NLG.) 2. Who are the people in positions of power at Boalt and UC Berkeley who are protecting/defending Yoo? It would be appropriate to call for them to be fired as well. At the v-e-r-y least, they should be persuaded not to allow Yoo to teach Constitutional law. Intellectually, the man is NOT FIT to teach the course if he can justify waterboarding as not being torture. (See below.) 3. Does anybody know if students at Boalt have an organized lobby against Yoo? Is there a group of students that reaches out to classmates, provides them with info, and asks them not to take Yoo's classes? 4. If Yoo had any involvement with the extra-legal -- and totally creepy and scary -- entity called the "Joint Special Operations Command" (JSOC) that Seymour Hersh spoke about at the University of Minnesota recently (http://www.truthout.org/031209J). As stated by Hersh, JSOC is a wholly independent wing of the special operations community that does not report to a-n-y-b-o-d-y; not to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to the Secretary of Defense. During the Bush Administration, however, it reported **directly** to the Executive Branch. Oh, but not George Bush. Richard Cheney. Boy, talk about anti-American!
SHAME ON YOO, MAN. Pity the
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 22:14 — H. CANTANHEDE, JNR. (not verified)
SHAME ON YOO, MAN. Pity the the Yoos have won the battle against flower power and the hippies and in the process have thrashed each and every stone of the humanitarian country the US might have been one day. Instead it became a monster machine to wage war on every corner of the planet, and aid other similar assassination machines - and rings - which is bad for the human race. Let us all hope this person and his gang mates are duly prosecuted, or the cycle will be repeated with dire consequences.
Brainwashing. How would it
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 22:06 — Anonymous (not verified)
Brainwashing. How would it change your thinking if you suppose that the aims of torture "gaining" information were specious and backwards?? What if torture is more about erasing information, aka Brainwashing. After 911, what would be the need for that?
Yoo is being investigated,
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 22:05 — NYCartist (not verified)
Yoo is being investigated, according to Michael Ratner, Pres. of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Marjorie Cohn (Pres. of the National Lawyers Guild) has suggested his decisions should have him disbarred. The Nuremberg Trials already established that lawyers giving illegal advice go to prison. "Hippies" indeed. What a time warp idea. "Polish" is not what's missing from his memos, but legality.
John Yoo is proof of the
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 21:50 — Anonymous (not verified)
John Yoo is proof of the proposition that educational pedigree is no assurance of wisdom or virtue. Stripped of his Ivy-League camouflage, this guy is just another unexceptional hack. This assessment is reasonably applied irrespective of conservative or liberal ideology ... no self-respecting fascist should want to claim Yoo among their intelligentsia, either. His memos "... lack[ed] a certain polish ..." because he gave "... unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice." Really? Please. He presumably had time for intelligent reflection in writing "War by Other Means," which is devoid of any such evidence. His research and writing are third-rate ... at best. (An apology to third-rate academics who are otherwise honest.)
The seed of tyranny is the
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 21:44 — Anonymous (not verified)
The seed of tyranny is the only thing Yoo really conserves. Torture, whatever the rationale is the ultimate corruption of power.
I am ambivalent about John
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 21:40 — Anonymous (not verified)
I am ambivalent about John Yoo. I couldn't disagree with him more, but I think we should have learned our lesson from the Bush admin. We cannot cut out others because they think differently, the opposite even. However, I think that his mindset is clear...don't write something that you believe if someone is going to read it; do a better job of disguising it. I somehow never occurs to him that he should have done a better job and one that aligned itself with the law, not the people for whom he was trying to find a rationalization for torture. And that's all it was. How the heck he got tenure at Berkeley still baffles me. I don't mind conservatives on the faculty, but weak-minded nutcases...well, yes.
Hey, UC Berkeley,can the
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 21:30 — dr wu--I'm just an ordinary guy. (not verified)
Hey, UC Berkeley,can the man. You have enough crazies running around! Let him teach at Chapman or Mengele law school. But UC Berkeley? Just as George Bush cheapened Harvard when they gave hm an MBA, Yoo makes Berkeley look like a horse's ass.
The saddest thing I see here
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 21:26 — Americonned (not verified)
The saddest thing I see here is this. Students are still signing up to this twit. Boo to You Woo, You Don't Have the Guts to Throw a Shoe, Do You Woo? Don't we have a law against trashing the Constitution? Isn't that treason and punishable? Why are these people still protected? Does everybody have a secret desire to be imperialists? I will go to my grave in deep shame for my country if the entire past eight years aren't prosecuted. And I don't need any spin doctor excuses such as "we have to make sure it doesn't happen again". Rest assured, it will. Just like Viet Nam did these days. The Bush administration broke several big laws and should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted just for that. Each and every contributor!
DUDE! Who's the magnet?
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 21:05 — peter white (not verified)
DUDE! Who's the magnet?
One thing we have learned
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 20:39 — Anonymous (not verified)
One thing we have learned from clinical psychology is humans can justify almost any behavior. Yoo has demonstrated once again that this is true.
If Yoo is licensed to
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 20:24 — David Weed (not verified)
If Yoo is licensed to practice law anywhere, he should be disciplined for his behavior. Like the president, employees of the Department of Justice take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the law. Yoo's legal opinions urged and sanctioned the violation of the Constitution and the law by the highest executive power in the US. His advice served as the basis for illegal activity, and he should pay for this like any other incompetent lawyer and co-conspirator. Obviously his "opinions" were intended to support illegal activity, and while he may have been just an adviser he knew what he was helping to advance.
Planning torture is a war
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 20:19 — Anonymous (not verified)
Planning torture is a war crime. It is a crime punishable by the death penalty according to the Convention Against Torture when it has resulted in the death of someone in detention. This is also federal law according to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Yoo is criminal, not only an accessory to murder but the enabler of degeneracy, and the horror of war crimes. Let him be arrogant facing trial behind bars. Let the punishment fit the crimes.
"The thing I am really
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 19:56 — Claire F (not verified)
"The thing I am really struck with is that when you are in the government, you have very little time to make very important decisions." Yoo told the Register. This is a very disingenuous argument made by someone who percieves government as they want the world to be - less government. As an IRS employee for 20 years I took (and was given) the time to research issues correctly, sometimes to the government's favor, sometimes to the taxpayer's. In government, as in business, the ethics and attitude of the employees & the organization are directly related to those of highest level management. We get the government we vote for.
Yoo didn't authorize
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 19:51 — Paul Fako (not verified)
Yoo didn't authorize anything. He merely wrote opinions that were adherent to the people he was trying to kiss it up with, namely, the Administration. For every left winger there should be a right winer balance. He is one of those. Should he be prosecuted. For writing something. I think not. they who took this as gospel because it "appeared to sanction later actions" are the guilty and we should stop passing it off on Yoo and his ilk. I don't like him but I am a liberal at heart and shouldn't, right. I do like that he is staunch in his beliefs and stand behind his word, as I do mine and takes the world head on regardless. And, I demand the right to say any liberal thing I want about anyone, just like Yoo and Limbaugh and the other conservative loudmouths are doing. Go for it Rachel and Keith and Chris.=
John Yoo is lucky he wasn't
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 19:46 — Anonymous (not verified)
John Yoo is lucky he wasn't at Berkeley during the activist period in the 1960s. Tenure or not, he would have been run out of town. Listen, if the entire town got shut down over the issue of an acre or two of empty lot (People's Park), imagine what that student body and community activists would have done to this knucklehead. The students there should realize that in this economic market, that their 4.0 GPAs aren't going to buy them much of anything come graduation and start doing things with their time to rectify the conditions that make their futures so bleak looking. Finally, isn't it a coincidence that John Yoo has now left Berkeley to teach at Chapman in Orange County? At some point he will have to pay the piper.
12next ›last »
Add a comment:
Name
Your name:
Email
E-mail:
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
Comment: *
Input format
Filtered HTML

* Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
* Allowed HTML tags:

1. 
   * Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
   
   Raw HTML
   
   More information about formatting options
   
   CAPTCHA
   The following question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Please enter the two words seen below. If you cannot read them you may use the button with circling arrows to get a new one.
   
   
   
   Type the two words:Type what you hear:Incorrect. Try again.
   Get a new challenge
   Get an audio challengeGet a visual challenge
   Help
   
   
   Homepage:
   Subject:
   Search
   
   Browse by Issue
   Truthout Originals
   
   *
   
   Congress Pushes Iran Sanctions
   
   by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report
   *
   
   When PTSD Comes Marching Home
   
   by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Columnist
   *
   
   CIA Refuses to Turn Over Torture Tape Documents
   
   by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report
   *
   
   California Youth Prison Reform Rising
   
   by: Seth Sandronsky, t r u t h o u t | Report
   *
   
   Actual Bailout May Exceed $10 Trillion
   
   by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
   
   Most Popular
   
   *
   
   Unfit for Combat
   
   by: Dahr Jamail, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
   
   TRUTHOUT ORIGINAL
   *
   
   Some US Soldiers Forced to Steal Water in Iraq
   
   by: Jeremy Rogalski, KHOU-TV
   *
   
   "They Frankly Own the Place"
   
   by: Matt Renner, t r u t h o u t | Report
   
   TRUTHOUT ORIGINAL
   *
   
   Get Ready
   
   by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Columnist
   
   TRUTHOUT ORIGINAL
   *
   
   The Bankrupt Debate Over Bankrupting Our Children
   
   by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
   
   TRUTHOUT ORIGINAL