The thing that's just wonderful about this is that it was an internal investigation launched while Bush was still infesting the White House. It will be awfully tough to dismiss this as a partisan witch hunt --- though people will try.

I am less interested in who did the torturing, than I am in finding out who authorized it. It is increasingly clear that those who wrote these opinions were unprofessionally incompetent as lawyer. They should be disbarred and prohibited from practicing law or teaching it.

There is not enough popcorn.

It sharply criticized the legal work of two former top officials -- Jay Bybee and John Yoo

One interesting tidbit: Shortly before writing the "Bybee Memo", Jay Bybee was nominated for a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He was later confirmed and is still there. This is the court overseeing the Jeppeson case that Hilzoy wrote about a few days ago, in which the State Secrets Defense was used to deny classified info to plaintiffs suing Boeing.

I note the glaring omission of Cheney's lawyer, David Addington, on that list.

I want to see that son-of-a-bitch in the stockades.

"OPR is not competent to judge [the opinions by Justice attorneys]. They're not constitutional scholars," said the former Bush lawyer."

Hey, but you know who is a constitutional scholar? President Obama.

The only way we're going to see any justice is if a whistleblower or journalist comes forward with a huge amount of incriminating material and shames the Obama administration into taking action.

"OPR investigators focused on whether the memo's authors deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted,....

Popcorn my posterior; this could be worth breaking out the champagne! If these clowns are found to have intentionally slanted a legal interpretation at the behest of the Bush WH, then disbarment is the least of their worries. Accessory to, aiding and abetting, and willful concealment of the commission of crimes against humanity buys everyone a one-way ticket to the ICC. When their noise-machine starts squealing about how partisan it is, just remind them:

The Government of the United States does not negotiate with terrorists---even if they just happen to be the preceding presidential administration....

With respect to Bybee's position on the Ninth Circuit, it would be interesting to see what would happen if this report led to him being disbarred. AFAIK, there is no requirement for a federal judge to be a lawyer and disbarment would not obviously disqualify him. However, it would be rather obvious grounds for impeachment by Congress. The question then becomes whether the Republicans would be tone-deaf enough to oppose impeachment.

I must say I am impressed by the courage of the "former Bush lawyer" who needed anonymity to say that the OPR is not expert on constitutional law.

By the way, notice that said "former Bush lawyer" might be named Bradbury, Bybee or Yoo. However, I'd guess it was Addington.

Popcorn my foot! Get the tar and feathers.

When you start off with a conclusion that a POTUS can do pretty much whatever during wartime, what else can be said. It is the ORIGINAL SIN from these jackasses, and doesn't take a Constitutional Scholar to point out the inherent absurdity in such a conclusion, relative to the Founders Express purpose of separation of powers for our method of governance.

I wait for the day to see Yoo et al in the unemployment line, if not in the Hooskow.

When you start off with a conclusion that a POTUS can do pretty much whatever during wartime. . .

. . . And then declare that we are at war with a concept--"terrorism"--that has been around for centuries and will likely still be around for centuries to come, you've excused yourself to do anything you want whenever you want, and the constitution is irrelevant!

Childish, like a kid rationalizing why he should steal cookies or a teen-ager justifying her hanging out with the cool coke-head crowd, or a jock telling himself its okay to molest the passed out cheerleader because she wants it . . .

We let these people take over our country? When we should have sent them to the school counselor?

Whoopie! A post that warms the soul.

But...but "...I am less interested in who did the torturing, than I am in finding out who authorized it. It is increasingly clear that those who wrote these opinions were unprofessionally incompetent as lawyer. They should be disbarred and prohibited from practicing law or teaching it.
Posted by: Russell Aboard M/V Sunshine on February 15, 2009 at 2:25 PM ..."

But we already know all this...they've admitted to it.

Exactly, Joey, but they didn't do it under oath.

Yoo should be standing next to Alberto Gonzales unemployed and unemployable, not teaching at Stanford.

I'm not a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar, but I am an educated citizen of this republic. It seems to me that when a small bunch of lawyers can generate legal opinions that, on their face, seem to be in opposition to every precedent, it is reasonable to speculate. What enabled them to find things in the law that no one else, in time of civil war and peril, had found in the last 200 years?

I suppose they could be geniuses of historic proporations, able to fathom more than the greatest minds of several generations. But I don't think you have to be a constitutional scholar to understand the far more likely possibility: they were servile weasels, enabling the abuse of power.

Fwiw, my guess is that the reason Addington isn't on that list is that this was an internal DoJ investigation, and Addington was not in the DoJ.

Yoo should be standing next to Alberto Gonzales unemployed and unemployable, not teaching at Stanford.

He's at UC Berkeley, not Stanford, iirc.

I'm not a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar, but I am an educated citizen of this republic. It seems to me that when a small bunch of lawyers can generate legal opinions that, on their face, seem to be in opposition to every precedent . . .

Well, I am a lawyer, although I make no pretense of being any great constitutional scholar.

It is possible to have a good faith, reasonable difference of opinion on a legal issue. It is even possible to look at precedent, conclude that it does not support your position, and then make a good faith, reasonable argument that the precedent is distinguishable, or wrong.

However, I read Yoo's torture memo:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013450.php

Yoo never discusses or even mentions Youngstown Steel v Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952), which of course is the leading precedent for the scope of presidential power, and which, to put it mildy, poses serious problem's for Yoo's analysis.

Now, of course, Prof. Yoo knows about Youngstown Steel--he's not an idiot. We can therefore infer that Prof. Yoo is not making a reasonable good faith argument--he's wilfully ignoring controlling authority, in order to provide cover for the commission of crimes.

I know you care less about national security than about punishing Bush administration people but be careful what you wish for. This is Jamie Gorelick's wall that blocked intelligence about terrorism and potential attacks. Obama has erected it again. If there is another attack, this will be a big milestone on the road to hell.

Torture is both a crime and a mistake Mike. Decent people realize this, although Republicans apparently don't.

Now, of course, Prof. Yoo knows about Youngstown Steel--he's not an idiot. We can therefore infer that Prof. Yoo is not making a reasonable good faith argument--he's wilfully ignoring controlling authority, in order to provide cover for the commission of crimes.

Posted by: rea on February 15, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Hear, hear. You don't need to be a "Constitutional Scholar" to know that a legal opinion that fails to cite controlling authority is malpractice.

I know you care less about national security than about punishing Bush administration people

No, we've always cared more about national security than the Republican officials whose carelessness allowed 9/11 and whose greed started a war in the middle east and authorized torture that became a huge recruitment tool for new terrorists -- which made us less secure.

This is Jamie Gorelick's wall that blocked intelligence about terrorism and potential attacks

No, it was an administration that ignored serious warnings about potential attacks from many intelligence agencies and whose main concern in early 2001 was pornography and a missile shield.

Obama has erected it again

No, he hasn't.

If nothing else, it's interesting to observe you walk the line between self-parody and feverish amateur propagandist.

This is Jamie Gorelick's wall that blocked intelligence about terrorism and potential attacks

Hogwash. Your talking points are showing. The so called "Wall" existed long before Gorelick was on the scene, and continued into the Ashcroft era, whereup he threw up a few extra bricks of his own. Why do wingnut Urban Legends never die?

A clearer picture of what those memos allowed to happen is emerging. This is long, but chilling:

http://humanrights.ucdavis.edu/projects/the-guantanamo-testimonials-project/testimonies/testimonies-of-military-guards/testimony-of-brandon-neely

When I entered the U.S. Air Force years ago (serving four years), I swore an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution against both foreign and domestic enemies.

I was not a constitutional scholar, but based on my upbringing and education I had a rudimentary knowledge of what was constitutional or unconstitutional, legal or illegal.

After the past eight years, I've got an even better grasp of what is constitutional versus unconstitutional, legal versus illegal, patriotic versus treasonous, because about the only positive thing that can be said about the Bush/Cheney years is that we've all been given an "education," except of course for those who listen to Faux News or Rush "Count Porkulus" Limbaugh, who obviously are in some lalaland of their own.

Anyway, when did someone have to be a "constitutional scholar" to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution?

It seems to me that any U.S. citizen, whether in public service or in the private sector, has a duty to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution because of the paramount importance our U.S. Constitution is to all of us, whether we swear to uphold it or not...because in honoring to uphold and honoring the U.S. Constitution for ourselves, we are also upholding and honoring it for everyone else, and especially for our children and grand-children...which makes what Bush, Cheney and the nutty neo-con Republicans did over the past eight years that much more of an abomination.

Oracle...you are so right on.

Good night, hope to read more from you.