Conyers to Yoo: If You’ll Talk to Esquire, Come Talk to Me
Conyers isn’t quite as reliable as Henry Waxman in calling a hearing approximately 5 work hours after a big scandal. But is reliable in actually calling the hearing (which means Rove should get his invite in about a day and a half):
I write to invite you to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary at our May 6 hearing scheduled to explore issues regarding the nature and scope of Presidential power in time of war and the current Administration’s approach to these questions under U.S. and international law. Among the subjects likely to be explored at the hearing are United States policies regarding interrogation of persons in the custody of the nation’s intelligence services and armed forces, matters addressed in some detail in opinions that you authored during your service as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. Given your personal knowledge of key historical facts, as well as your academic expertise, your testimony would be invaluable to the Committee on these subjects.
I understand that, in discussions with my staff, you have expressed reluctance to testify voluntarily on such matters. I am hopeful that you have reconsidered that stance, however, given your extensive public comments on these very issues. For example, on April 3, 2008, Esquire magazine published an interview in which you made frank and on-the-record comments regarding the origination, drafting, and scope of OLC interrogation memoranda. Similarly, you provided on-the-record comments on the recently released March 2003 interrogation memorandum to the Washington Post just last week, describing that document as “near boilerplate” and asserting that, in pulling back from the analysis in that memorandum, the Department had “ignored [its] long tradition in defending the President’s authority in wartime.” Overall, you have made such extensive public comments on these and related matters, that it is extremely difficult to understand why you would continue to decline to present your views to the Committee.
To the extent you have raised concerns with my staff that some questions on these matters might call for responses that you believe would be covered by executive privilege or that would implicate executive confidentiality interests, I am confident such concerns can be effectively managed in a setting where you are voluntarily appearing before the Committee. Indeed, just two months ago, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Bradbury testified before the Committee on many legal issues raised byadministration policy on the interrogation of detainees. If the current head of OLC was able to testify on these matters, and especially given that OLC’s current interrogation memoranda remain classified unlike at least some of the opinions that you authored, I can see no principled basis on which you might decline to appear. [my emphasis]
It’s about time Congress started calling on these people’s willingness to say in public, not under oath, what they should be saying to Congress.
This is a nice touch, too:
And I am sure that, from your prior service as General Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, you would agree that it is the unique responsibility of Congress, the representative branch, to explore such issues and to bring relevant information to light. As you once wrote,”Congress’ power to conduct such inquiries inheres in its power to study and pass legislation, and it has used this power from the very beginning of the Republic to investigate maladministration in the Executive Branch, to determine whether social conditions require new legislation, and to review the success of existing laws.” [my emphasis]
Someone in HJC is having a lot more fun on the job of late.
Is that a Conyers’ Yoo-Hoo to Yoo?
It’s about time Congress started calling on these people’s willingness to say in public, not under oath, what they should be saying to Congress.
Truer words were never spoken.
Dear Congresscritter Conyers –
I’d be delighted to testify, as long as we don’t waste everyone’s time with that whole swearing-to-tell-the-truth stuff.
– Professor Yoo
Dear Chairman Conyers:
Just promise you won’t ask me about that whole eliminating the Fourth Amendment thing.
Love You, Yoo
It is so bizarre to me how these war criminals (Yoo, Feith) get appointments at prestigious universities. I’d understand if it was Regent U, but Berkeley and G’town?? Can you imagine sitting in a class with one of these Eichmanns as your prof?
Yoo was at Berkeley before he was OLC. I had a very funny (well, in a sad kind of way) with the Provost of a major research University of how, in all his hiring decisions now, the fear of hiring the next Yoo is always present.
Reminds me, last October I asked Tom Ricks a question about Feith in one of Ricks’ WaPo chats:
As long as his response isn’t something like “Oh, they invented those quotes”.
Grilled Yoo sounds interesting. What kind of sauce would go with it?
You have the wrong Yoo, I spell mine…. I don’t believe in congressional authority….. I have been instructed not….Kiss my ring.
And in case Conyers need more instances of when and where John-boy Yoo has publicly blathered his “torturous opinions”, he might also refer to these:
Someone in HJC is having a lot more fun on the job of late.
My, my yes, what a friend Yoo has in Conyers.
Sprezzatura!
And in case Conyers needs more instances of John “Fook” Yoo’s public blatherings of his “torturous opinions”, he might look to these:
Dear Chairman Conyers:
While I will seek to give your request honest consideration, at this point in time you have not proferred they type of invitation that is likely to garner my favor.
Keep in mind that, in accord with my recommendations, Esquire did strip me first, and engage in anal assaults up on my person while asking me questions. We interspered periods of hypothermia with forced feedings through nasal tubes, beatings on the bottoms of my feet, testicular electrical stimulation, involuntary administration of psychtropic drugs, and my family was kidnapped and tortured with digitized images sent to our undisclosed location. In short, it was all my dreams come true and more.
Can you offer me a similar experience?
Ta,
John
Given Yoo’s delight in quoting his own writings, he must have been really touched by the end of Conyers’ letter.
How did Looseheadprop describe Yoo the other day, after reading Yoo’s never-should-have-been-classified-in-the-first-place-and-now-recently-declassified memo on torture? Oh yeah . . . “Smug self-referencing little bastard.”
Someone at the HJC obviously agrees, and is trying to wipe that smug smile off his face.
I am thrilled that Chairman Conyers is doing this. I only hope that the Democratic staff gets their members preped and coordinated much better than they have in previous hearings.
They need to nail this pompous asshole.
Yep. Didn’t want to put that in the post, but I was thinking it. Please, HJC, be prepared to nail this fucker.
The folks around here could probably give the HJC staff a good head start on some questions. Might be worth a post or ten . . .
Like THAT idea…
Still looking for an answer on this one —
What is John Choon Yoo’s religion?
Is he a Moonie? Does he believe that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the messiah?
I ask because the Bush clan have a good deal of history and links with the Moonies.
Plus, what better way to bring around the Rapture and a round of religious war by having the Christians attacking Muslims with torture…
I’ve done a good deal of searching and cannot find him identified with a religion. And that’s beyond me assuming all South Koreans are Moonies…
Plus… his initials…. John Choon…. JC…. Jesus Christ….
???
The google is your friend. It is not a friend of your theory, though.
The only site I found claiming there were links between Yoo and Moon had lots articles about the reptiles camouflaged as humans that are secretly running the world.
So why ask about a theory you know to be wrong, except as to slander? There is enough legit scandal here re. Yoo, without adding new angles to it.
February 8, 2005*: …”Political science Professor xyz** described Yoo’s ‘worldview as retrograde, myopic and simplistic’ during the debate, which also featured other opponents of Yoo’s views and turned into a condemnation of U.S. policies in Iraq, particularly regarding treatment of prisoners.
“Yoo’s visit was especially controversial because UCI Chancellor Ralph Cicerone invited him as a “Chancellor’s Distinguished Fellow. Hundreds of people signed a petition saying Yoo didn’t deserve that title…”
____
*from OCRegister, page taken off website, and not available on wayback machine crawler.
**my redaction
Student perspective UC Irvine, same speech by prof. Yoo.
This may have been posted elsewhere but I didn’t see it. On Monday, April 7, attorneys for Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri enclosed the memo signed by former Justice Department legal counselor John Yoo.
Yoo Memo Goes to Court