Washington Post Opines John Yoo Should Have Immunity

Yesterday, in criticizing the Washington Post, I jokingly asked whether, like the Weekly Standard, it too would merge with the Washington Times, owned by billionaire conservative Phil Anschutz.

Today, WaPo has an editorial criticizing the court's decision to allow the Jose Padilla civil case against John Yoo to proceed.

Mr. Yoo provided legal opinions on what he believed the law allowed the executive to do, but he did not make the final policy decisions. Allowing Mr. Padilla's case to proceed could have a chilling effect on the ability of government lawyers to give candid, good-faith advice for fear of being held personally liable.

On Monday, the paper called for passage of a law that would allow D.C. to create "public "safety zones" deemed off-limits to individuals identified as members of gangs." Violators would face up to 120 days in jail. The editorial found no civil liberties problems with the bill.

There's no editorial this week on the Supreme Court decision rejecting an inmate's right to DNA testing to prove innocence (unlike the NY Times which ran a great one.)

Sad, just sad. It really used to be a good paper.

< Dems Introduce 852 Page Health Care Bill | How Bad Has The Obama DOJ Been? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    bear in mind, contrary to popular (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    The greatest virtue of "law" is to protect the rulers from the insolence of the unruly.

    belief, justice is a bought and sold commodity, just like health care. yeah, yeah, i know, the constitution provides for equal treatment, etc., etc., etc. this was for white, landowning males, not the peasantry, do NOT confuse the two.

    if roberts and alito (and judge bork) had their way, this would still be the case; thomas would be serving them coffee in the morning, and ginsberg would be sweeping the chambers.

    A "good" paper? When? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Andreas on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 01:28:57 AM EST
    back in the 80's. (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:23:19 AM EST
    no, not the 1880's, the 1980's. in fact, i specifically remember an editorial blasting ronald reagan's platform, "lower taxes, increase defense spending (600 ship navy anyone?) and balance the budget", as being just fiscally impossible, not to mention politically unlikely. they were right of course.

    sadly, it's been a long, long time since last the wp was right.

    btw, (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:26:02 AM EST
    there's a huge difference, between providing opinion in good faith, based on the facts and law known at the time, and providing opinion specifically wanted by your boss, the facts and law notwithstanding.

    Yoo's a scapegoat (1.00 / 0) (#10)
    by diogenes on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 04:14:30 PM EST
    If a law was broken, then by all means convene a grand jury, bring forth indictments, and try those who allegedly performed and ordered torture.  Once the fact of the alleged lawbreaking is established at trial, then maybe consider whether their legal advisers should be prosecuted.

    Scapegoat? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Spamlet on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 08:29:09 PM EST
    Yoo's a scapegoat

    A scapegoat, by definition, is "one that bears the blame for others" and/or "is the object of irrational hostility."

    Yoo bears blame on his own account. The fact that others bear blame as well does nothing to mitigate the blame borne by Yoo. And, given these circumstances, the hostility toward Yoo is not irrational.


    \lest we forget,, Woodward, Bernstein, (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 03:38:22 AM EST
    and Brantley were employed by Graham's Washington Post.  

    "Good-faith advice" (none / 0) (#5)
    by tworivers on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 06:54:14 AM EST
    That's a laugh.  There's nothing remotely "good-faith" about the advice Yoo gave President Bush with regards to torture/"enhanced interrogation".

    So (none / 0) (#6)
    by Lacy on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 07:19:04 AM EST
    the WP claims that to protect legitimate legal opinion, we must support the rendering of sham "opinions", based not upon what the laws state, but to satisfy the demands of deviates who conspired to evade the law.

    Kind of reminds me of Roberts' recent dissent in the WV case in which he in effect supported a litigant's "right" to buy his own judge in an election.

    The US seems to have expanded to become a nation of laws coexisting with conservative deviance.

    Hey! It's a GREAT paper... (none / 0) (#7)
    by steviez314 on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 07:44:45 AM EST
    if you believe in torture, war and bipartisanship.

    Nation of laws (none / 0) (#9)
    by tokin librul on Sat Jun 20, 2009 at 09:25:43 AM EST
    The US seems to have expanded to become a nation of laws coexisting with conservative deviance.

    The greatest virtue of "law" is to protect the rulers from the insolence of the unruly.