I’ve followed John Yoo and his writings with some care for a while now, and I think I finally understand what this is about. Namely, a pending probe by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) is looking at serious ethical issues surrounding the issuance of Yoo’s legal opinions. Full Story »
Posted by Norman Farrell
This addresses a critical issue for the USA and offers a possible explanation for the questionable legal advice prepared, and still defended, by John Yoo. Law of Conflict and Human Rights Lawyer Scott Horton writes regularly about the illegality of state sanctioned torture. He accuses Yoo of defending and repeating arguments that are ludicrous to aid a good-faith defense–that he may be wrong, but his error is held in good faith
I follow Scott Horton's comments on this subject and believe it is vital to investigate and prosecute those who tossed aside the lawful principles that America held as true for all but the past 8 years.
Horton puts Yoo in context, strongly and briefly, in language that does not require a lawyer. Central arguments are focused on and deftly punctured.
Horton hears a Yoo, but in this story the Yoo is trying to provide legal protection for a morally challenged elephant. The drivers of the elephant party should be tried and fried, they should, they should.
Poor showing on proofs and experts....the laws (chapters and verse) broken and not prosecuted. Yoo keeps himself in the public eye due to a guilty conscience .
Yoo keeps himself in the public eye due to a guilty conscience . If he advised the pres and the advice was his best and it turns out to be a crime...answer for it....patriotic acts entail risk...why not have a day in court and treat everyone fairly. This situation and the lack massive and wild protested says much about the public's scorn for law and order.
This is an excellent essay that makes sense of John Yoo's recent WSJ article and predicts the shape of Yoo's defense.
Retrieving Comments
