Thursday, June 26, 2008
Someone Needs a Lesson in Professional Responsibility
Not to detract from the worthwhile discussion of grades/clerkships, but if anyone wants to see John Yoo getting his ass handed to him on a platter by the House Judiciary Subcommittee, check it out here and here. The latter clip is particularly amusing, as Yoo is unable to formulate a coherent response to the question of what privilege he's asserting. They seem to really have it out for him. I almost feel bad for the guy. Almost.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
What are you, a 1L?
I'm as much against what was suggested in that memo as the next guy, but the questioning that Yoo is avoiding here has a lot more to do with what he's being asked then him needing a lesson in anything.
For instance, this 'implement' thing. That's totally outside his personal knowledge, or at least what he can testify to. How does he know if they were "implemented?"
I agree, anonymous. The questions did not seem very well informed. Nonetheless, Yoo comes across as evasive, rather than as making a good faith attempt to answer the question in a way that is both responsive and honest. His answer to the question about the privilege he was asserting was pretty laughable.
GB, no offense, but you are clueless.
The playing field:
Conyers: BA and JD from Wayne State, the privilege of interrupting and controlling the discussion
Yoo: BA from Harvard, JD from Yale, SCOTUS clerk
I can assure you that if you gave Yoo the power to interrupt and control the discussion, he would have made Conyers look like a fool. Any attempt at nuance can be pummeled by a questioner in complete control of the questions. Politics infuriate me because most important government issues require a grasp of nuance, yet politicians are some of the least likely people to recognize it.
Eh, obviously the questions were unfair and it was unfair not to give Yoo a chance to respond. On the other hand, the way the Guantanamo prisoners were questioned probably wasn't any more fair.
I assume that Rep. Artur Davis, who "has never seen witnesses struggle as much to appreciate ordinary use of terms in questions," wasn't watching when Bill Clinton parsed the meaning of "is."
The line of questioning about "implement" was not only outside of Yoo's knowledge but was also quite dangerous if twisted around against him. Assume that crimes were committed in various interrogations at various times and places. If Yoo says in a general sense the memos were "implemented" by others, it will be used to prove up causation against him. That question had nothing to do with neutral fact finding. It was a trap, and central to the trap is the fact that "implementation" means different things to different people. About 2% of the hearing was truly about fact finding.
So why didn't he assert his privilege against self-incrimination, 1:04?
1:04 here.
Because he truly believes that he didn't commit a crime and does not care to open the door wide open to vicious attacks that taking the Fifth proves he did.
The larger point is that politically charged hearings aren't "a search for the truth." They're not an academic debate of "all things considered." They are bloodsport.
From a technical point of view, Yoo did quite well at the hearing. He didn't give the opponents any easy angles. He made his essential points. Well played.
The constituents of those members of Congress should be angry about that fiasco, as should anyone who cares about the truth and assigning blame for what has happened at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. They blew a perfectly good opportunity to advance the investigation just so they could bask in their "righteous" indignation. Not to mention the fact that Prof. Yoo showed up voluntarily. What an incentive system.
5:13, agreed.
Frankly I don't know what to make of the blogosphere commentary (including this post) suggesting Yoo was raked over the coals, or suggesting that he was put in his place, or called to accountability by the questioners.
The only conclusion I drew from watching the clips was that my representatives are a bunch of fucking douche-bags. I'd cringe to admit I voted for them, except that the alternative seemed even worse.
Instead I cringe to be American.
Instead I cringe to be American.
You cringe to be an American not because our government authorized torture, but because our representatives unfairly badgered a government witness?
Strange priorities.
I cringe because both 'sides' are idiots.
It has nothing to do with prioritizing one group of jackasses over the other, jackass. It has to do with being embarrassed by the political machine, in general.
-6:34
sounds like somebody needs a hug
Does anyone else still not have all their grades showing up on Bearfacts?
Post a Comment