home
Jeralyn, could the ABA take a stand on this issue (none / 0) (#6)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:51:01 PM EST
This particular link from Balkanization has pdf downloads for the Yoo Torture Memo.

I really appreciate this quote from the other Balkanization link:

"The memo cites numerous other, as-yet-unreleased memos...Those memos should be released immediately. More importantly, I think Congress should strongly consider NOT CONSIDERING ANY ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS UNTIL ALL OF THE MEMOS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AND (APPROPRIATELY) REPUDIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE."

Question: Could the American bar Association take a stand to support this foregoing idea about Congress? Would it be 'appropriate'? If so, would it have any more effect than the ACLU?

[ Parent ]

FYI Foxhole (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:08:34 AM EST
The ABA did take a stand against it, and adopted a position paper years ago.

Been a while since I read it, but it called on Bush to "restore our traditional liberties."

[ Parent ]

Thanks for that, SMJ (none / 0) (#31)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:20:48 AM EST
I was, more specifically, asking whether it would be feasible/effective for the ABA to support this recommendation made by Marty Lederman at Balkanization:

"I think Congress should strongly consider NOT CONSIDERING ANY ADMINISTRATION LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS UNTIL ALL OF THE MEMOS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AND (APPROPRIATELY) REPUDIATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE."

(emphasis in original)

[ Parent ]

I think the House (1.00 / 0) (#54)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:34:57 AM EST
is already doing this.

See Pelosi's stand on the much needed FISA bill which, btw, has been passed by the Demo controlled Senate.

[ Parent ]

They could (none / 0) (#33)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:26:01 AM EST
but it's really up to Leahy and Waxman.

My point was the ABA has gone on the record already. Logistically, they would have to meet and vote on it, and it would have to be during their national convention.

[ Parent ]

Leahy & Waxman have to be motivated by (none / 0) (#41)
by FoxholeAtheist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:48:57 AM EST
public outrage. However, the general public doesn't do large-scale outrage much anymore.

I imagine it would have some impact if the ABA supported something like Marty Lederman's recommendation (as quoted in my first post).

[ Parent ]

Waxman is my congressman (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:53:21 AM EST
he's motivated. So many scandals. So little time.


[ Parent ]
just a psotscript (none / 0) (#45)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:55:14 AM EST
really don't want to get your hopes up on blocking all legislation.

It's an election year.

It will be up to Waxman and Leahy to plodge it through committee.

[ Parent ]

Does Academic Freedom cover 'Moral Turpitude' (none / 0) (#8)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:59:59 PM EST
This question is for jerry above, or anybody who may know the answer. (I think the answer is no, but can't be sure.)

[ Parent ]
Freedom is freedom (1.00 / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:33:14 AM EST
His actions while employed by the government have not been shown to be improper, illegal and/or immoral. Your disagreement with him is just that. Your disagreement.

[ Parent ]
Yoo's justifications turned the Nuremberg trials (none / 0) (#65)
by kindness on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:11:59 AM EST
on their heads.  Essentially he says bringing harm to a prisoner is OK if the Executive branch says so.

Sorry but torture is immoral, it is illegal and just because some yahoo in the Department of Justice says it isn't doesn't change the law nor the US's treaty obligations.

Yoo, Addington, Darth & dubya should all be tried.

[ Parent ]

Define torture (none / 0) (#83)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM EST
As for him being a "yahoo."

He's there and you are commenting on an Internet blog.

[ Parent ]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113C > § 2340 (none / 0) (#108)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:49:02 PM EST
§ 2340. Definitions
As used in this chapter--
(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from--
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality....

Seems pretty clear to me.

[ Parent ]

Buddy....look in the mirror. (none / 0) (#120)
by kindness on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:41:04 AM EST
Where do you think you are?  I mean, if you want to call me a nobody because I'm here, feel free to.

I don't share your views.  I don't share your attitudes, and I certainly would prefer not to share your company.

But for what ever reason, you keep baying at the moon, right here with the other dirty hippies.

[ Parent ]

Uh... I'm not your buddy (none / 0) (#127)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:45:47 AM EST
and if you don't want to be called out on your actions, quit calling people names.

[ Parent ]
Freedom, i.e., (none / 0) (#66)
by jondee on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:21:54 AM EST
an army of lawyers and equivocating cowards to hide behind.

[ Parent ]
Many people ... don't seem to think so (none / 0) (#9)
by jerry on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:03:29 PM EST
There are links over at Brad's site, but many people I've read seem to think that Moral Turpitude is grounds for revoking tenure and academic appointments.

But what do I know, I barely know how to spell moral turpitude.

[ Parent ]

Yoo is at UC Berkley, of all places (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:20:11 PM EST
What is with the students who allow these thugs to be hired at any institution of higher education? Why do students even allow these unrepentant outlaws to even speak at their campuses?

All of these SOB's salaries, and lecture fees, are being paid for by the students' TUITION FEES and our TAX DOLLARS.

Couldn't that money be better spent on more edifying Professors and guest speakers who aren't refugees from the Bush Administration.

Yoo et al may have a right to make a buck, but not directly at our public expense.

[ Parent ]

I'd rather have him at Berkeley than (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:25:37 PM EST
the DOJ, at Berkeley he can be ignored. At the Justice Dept. he can't. Either way, it's tax dollars he gets paid with. Maybe he can go work at the Hoover Institute, with Condi.

[ Parent ]
Evidently, Yoo can't 'be ignored' at UCB (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:45:52 PM EST
He's currently in national, and international, news.

My point is that he shouldn't be working anyplace where he is being paid with public money (i.e. tuition fees, tax dollars).

If he is still working at UCB, if/when, he gets investigated/prosecuted, he can be granted leave and continue to get paid.

By all means send him back to the GOP private sector from whence he was spawned.

[ Parent ]

My concern (none / 0) (#39)
by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:44:48 AM EST
is that he may be infecting young impressionable minds.

[ Parent ]
Either way, it's tax dollars he gets paid with. (none / 0) (#81)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:28:09 PM EST
So there's no tuition??

[ Parent ]
Tuition at state universities is (none / 0) (#84)
by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:34:36 PM EST
markedly lower than tuition at private schools. The reason for that is that the state funds its universities and so does the federal government. Therefore, most of the costs of a state university are borne by the taxpayers, both in-state and out.

[ Parent ]
Indeed (none / 0) (#118)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:26:13 AM EST
So I suppose you support the right of tax payers firing Left Wing professors such as Ward Churchill??

And I know of no schools that don't get some federal pork.

[ Parent ]

I live in Berkeley (none / 0) (#24)
by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:46:35 PM EST
It's not the old Berkeley or the Berkeley of mythology.  

[ Parent ]
A lot of (none / 0) (#43)
by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:54:10 AM EST
"liberals" have been suckered.  Washtenaw County (U of Michigan) was one of two(of 83)counties where Uncommitted won out over Clinton.

Clinton carried Ingham County (Michigan State).

[ Parent ]

No... (none / 0) (#10)
by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:06:50 PM EST
...but a) it is almost certainly not moral turpitude and b) it is a bad idea because every time someone makes a move like that I get to hear right wingers advocating "ideological diversity" and blasting the "PC Stalinism" of "elitist" universities.

 

[ Parent ]

Alec82, you seem to have a unique grasp of this (none / 0) (#13)
by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:24:35 PM EST
a) Please define "moral turpitude"; b) Explain why Yoo's actions don't meet the definition.

[ Parent ]
I don't know ... (none / 0) (#15)
by Alec82 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:41:48 PM EST
...how that term applies to professors in academia, but at least in the law it generally refers to conduct offensive to morals, community standards, etc.  The typical examples are fraud, larceny, extortion, etc.

[ Parent ]
considering (none / 0) (#16)
by boredmpa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 11:01:55 PM EST
the ACLU failed to protect a police officer who was fired for having a porn site (not in uniform fyi)  in san francisco of all places, i think this fairly well fits within current interpretation of the law.

and it's far more extreme than the above example...wherein a judge said SF had a right to be concerned about its image.

[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0) (#51)
by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:21:54 AM EST
Alex82 gets it exactly right. The only times I've seen it come up, it's usually related criminal acts or extreme dishonesty.

[ Parent ]
No, (none / 0) (#50)
by Claw on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:16:31 AM EST
I don't think so.  You can hold some pretty crazy views without having to worry about "moral turpitude."  I'm assuming you're asking this with an eye to his ability to teach/retain his license.  
It's still amazingly sad to me that we've had to have a real national debate on how much we can torture, or that memos like Yoo's were ever seriously written.  


[ Parent ]
New article in Vanity Fair nails DOJ.. (none / 0) (#72)
by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:03:33 PM EST
it says that it was NOT the military that went overboard and then others went along with it. The impetus to use torture came from the DOJ itself. This is from the intro on the front page of Vanity Fair's web site.

As the first anniversary of 9/11 approached, and a prized Guantánamo detainee wouldn't talk, the Bush administration's highest-ranking lawyers argued for extreme interrogation techniques, circumventing international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the army's own Field Manual. The attorneys would even fly to Guantánamo to ratchet up the pressure--then blame abuses on the military. Philippe Sands follows the torture trail, and holds out the possibility of war-crimes charges.

This is from the actual article..

The Bush administration has always taken refuge behind a "trickle up" explanation: that is, the decision was generated by military commanders and interrogators on the ground. This explanation is false. The origins lie in actions taken at the very highest levels of the administration--by some of the most senior personal advisers to the president, the vice president, and the secretary of defense. At the heart of the matter stand several political appointees--lawyers--who, it can be argued, broke their ethical codes of conduct and took themselves into a zone of international criminality, where formal investigation is now a very real option.

Yoo's memo wasn't written until a year after the torture policy was implemented at Guantanamo. Here is the part that made me sick to my stomach..

November 2002 "action memo" written by William J. (Jim) Haynes II, the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense, to his boss, Donald Rumsfeld; the document is sometimes referred to as the Haynes Memo. Haynes recommended that Rumsfeld give "blanket approval" to 15 out of 18 proposed techniques of aggressive interrogation. Rumsfeld duly did so, on December 2, 2002, signing his name firmly next to the word "Approved." Under his signature he also scrawled a few words that refer to the length of time a detainee can be forced to stand during interrogation: "I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours?"

While the Bush Administration was blaming the troops for "going overboard", they knew the torture was started, implemented and approved by people in their administration long before Abu Graib. In fact, it can be deduced that Abu Graib was simply a local implementation of interrogation instructions that went out to all the places holding captured Iraqis, and Al Quedas.

The rest of the article is interesting, a doctor who specializes in rehabilitation of torture victims discusses what is done and what effect it has. There is also more discussion on torture and why we do it. It's not the troops, it's the Justice Department and the Defense Department, with authorization from the highest level.

Why haven't those people been indicted??


[ Parent ]

Just FY: It was the JAG lawyers (none / 0) (#74)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
who started putting the brakes on BushCo.

Rarely have I felt I honestly owed so much to the armed forces.

[ Parent ]

Yes, which is why I said that it was (none / 0) (#82)
by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:30:24 PM EST
the DOJ lawyers who pushed for the torture and the Defense Dept. aka Rumsfeld, who pushed it through the chain of command. The JAG is not in the chain of command, so they would have been involved peripherally, not immediately. It was Gonzales and Rumsfeld enabling Bush and Cheney in their desire to torture people.

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0) (#101)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:12:03 PM EST
just wanted to share. I literally got a warm and fuzzy feeling when I first heard the BBC report on the military lawyers fighting for defendants rights.

Some people seem to know what its about.

[ Parent ]

The military swears to uphold and defend (none / 0) (#105)
by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:23:18 PM EST
the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So being a lawyer in the military makes it doubly meaningful, I am sure. The JAG officers are fulfilling their oath, the President, who takes a very similar one at his inauguration, is not. The JAGs seem to realize that. Too bad they aren't in Congress.

[ Parent ]
And they DID!!!! (none / 0) (#107)
by SantaMonicaJoe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 08:27:44 PM EST
Rarely have I felt I owed so much.....

[ Parent ]
Speaking of the Constitution (none / 0) (#110)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:16:02 AM EST
And JAG officer can run for Congress.

Or do you want to appoint them??

[ Parent ]

Yes, they can run, but (none / 0) (#121)
by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
if they are in the military, they obviously aren't in Congress at the moment, now are they??

[ Parent ]
And your point is what? (none / 0) (#128)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:47:24 AM EST
That they are supposed to enforce laws??

That's not their jobs.

[ Parent ]

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft