Author of the famous "torture memo," John Yoo talks in an
Esquire Magazine interview about the good work he did to effect actions that he thought were wrong
[via TPM Muckraker].
For instance, he says he thought it was wrong to impeach President Clinton, but it was his job to help fellow Republicans succeed in the attack:
I wanted to try to make sure the Republicans in the Senate were trying to press for investigations of Whitewater and the associated scandals and not act in a way that was inconsistent with Republican views of presidential power from the Reagan years. One example is executive privilege. I think the courts have recognized and agree that the executive branch can withhold some kinds of information from Congress that have to do with national security, military secrets, and foreign affairs. There’s a general right to keep confidential discussions over policy, but that can be overridden if there’s a criminal investigation. So when I was working on the demands by the Senate on the Clinton Administration, I wanted to be very careful that this had to do with the things Clinton had done before he was president. This wasn’t about what his decisions as a president were. “We want to know why you bombed that factory in Sudan”: To me that was covered by presidential privilege. But to cover up sexual things that happened 20 years ago, that’s not presidential action. To me, there were plenty of Republicans who didn’t care: “We want to get Clinton and we’ll use the maximum powers of Congress.” To a lot of people that distinction doesn’t matter, but to me it was important.
Likewise, about work on laws to ban flag-burning and abortions:
When I worked for Hatch, I worked on the flag-burning amendment. Personally, I think flag-burning is acceptable political speech and Congress ought not to prohibit it, but I was his lawyer and his agent, so I did my best to drive that through. I thought that was my job.. . .Another thing I worked on was partial-birth abortion. I was the general counsel of the committee when the PBA bill first tried to get through Congress. I think it failed and only went through years later. My view is, I’m pro abortion rights. But I worked on the hearings and the committee reports and the constitutional analysis on the part of the judiciary committee on why Congress could ban partial birth abortions. I thought constitutionally it could. I didn’t think it should.
He gives a pretty good picture of his commitment as a loyal Reaganite conservative to assist wrong-headed people in doing wrong things, only because they're Republicans.
Thus, his dutiful work to serve compassionate conservative President George W. Bush, laying out a rationale whereby torture is not torture. (It resonates very well with Bush's frat-boy rationalization for branding his bros with a hot coat hanger -- "It's only a cigarette burn.")
Now that a bit of his memo on FISA law has been declassified, we find the same thing, loyally and dutifully providing Bush with a rationale for negating the law. In this one, he needed to show that the word "exclusive" does not mean exclusive [Washington Post]:
The passage states that "[u]nless Congress made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area -- which it has not -- then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading."In short, in this context exclusive does not mean exclusive because Congress did not specifically rule out the alternative approach sought by the administration.
To quote
Kagro X at
Daily Kos,
"FISA Fight: Are you f@#&ing stupid or something?Once again, just as the Nervous Nellies among Congressional Dems begin scurrying around, hoping somehow to escape with a "compromise" (read: surrender) on FISA, yet another completely insane shoe (from something obviously related to some kind of millipede) drops that temporarily wakens them up to the reality that the Bush "administration" is so outrageously unworthy and incapable of efforts at compromise that it would be just plain nuts to even bother trying.
Is it stupidity or something else, like fearfulness? Maybe Bush's buddies threatened to brand Democrats with red-hot coat hangers. In real life, when you know someone has lied to you, you know what you need to know in dealing with that person. In Congress, the Republicans' proposed "compromise" on the FISA bill is to authorize a
liar to certify that the telecoms' domestic wiretapping was legal. And apparently there are Democrats who are considering it.
Warrantless wiretap compromise pitched:
The companies allegedly allowed the government to eavesdrop in the United States on phone and computer lines for nearly six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks without the permission of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court created 30 years ago precisely for that purpose. Those lawsuits are pending before a single federal court.. . .The new Republican proposal – which Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri said is backed by the White House and intelligence agencies – would allow the FISA court to decide.
It would require the attorney general to certify that the companies acted lawfully and at the request of the president.
As usual, the news report specifies
"after Sept. 11" even though the law-breaking started before that date. At any rate, there has to be some reason why Congress would even entertain such obvious baloney.
ACLU:
"Senator Bond’s proposal sounds like an unconstitutional wolf in sheep’s clothing," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The administration has been running roughshod over the Constitution since it took office and any so-called compromise that has its stamp of approval simply cannot be trusted. The proposed immunity fix would be no better than a kangaroo court given the attorney general’s ability to dismiss cases simply because the administration had issued a sham certification. It’s ludicrous that the telecoms would be able to dismiss legitimate cases brought by their customers because they have a note from the president. Court review should look at whether the telecoms broke the law – and not clear them just because the president asked for the illegal actions. This proposal is not about compromise – it’s about giving the White House the green light to conduct domestic spying."
A key in the effectiveness of John Yoo's work was secrecy. Like the torture memo, so with the FISA memo. Once it's out in the open, you have to be willfully stupid, or something, to buy it.
