When Does A Cheney Bad Dream Become A Nightmare?

When Does A Cheney Bad Dream Become A Nightmare?

 

Things Are Not All Fairy Dust And Unicorn “Wind” Up On Capitol Hill.  You Can Still Hear The Whispers Of Blackmail, The Rustle Of Money And The Stench Of Ripe Bullshit Filling The Air.

 

Torture Hearing: What Did We Learn? | TPMMuckraker

 

Whoops! Lindsey Graham Cites Retracted Report As Proof Torture ...

By Greg Sargent 

When people like cheney and lindsey graham defend this country's use of torture, it brings shame and dishonor to the millions of americans who have given their lives to protect this country's history, values and constitution. kelly | May 13th, 2009 at 04:09 pm ... In between when he called for Clinton'simpeachment and about 7 months ago. He's simply an opportunist who is polite. Lindsey, come toward the light of truth away from the darkness of the Party of Torture. ...

The Plum Line - http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/

 

BUSH'S 'SMOKING GUN' WITNESS FOUND DEAD

 

Phil Bronstein: No Tricks Here: Dick Cheney Has Become Nixon 2.0
By Phil Bronstein 
But this Cheney, denying and defending ,his, Bush and Rove's corrupt abuse of power is what we get thanks to Pelosi and the rest of the gutless name brands in the Democratic Party that tookimpeachment off the table for political ...
The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/

 

"If I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I'd choose Rush Limbaugh," Cheney said when asked about whose vision of the GOP he'd side with. "My impression was that Colin was no longer a Republican."

The AP: "Even as Cheney embraced efforts to expand the party by ex-Govs. Jeb Bush of Florida and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and the House's No. 2 Republican, Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the former vice president appeared to write his one-time colleague Powell out of the GOP." 

Video:  Cheney continues to defend interrogation tactics on a recent national TV interview.

The Washington Times: “Former Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday continued his verbal attack against President Obama, saying that the country is more vulnerable to a potential terrorist attack since the Obama administration took power.” 

A DNC  Web ad tries to make fun of all the old GOP faces who appeared on the Sunday shows yesterday -- Cheney, Gingrich, McCain.

"[T]he National Council for a New America is composed of two distinct bodies: an informal Member caucus of House and Senate lawmakers, and an advisory group of current and former Republican governors as well as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)," Roll Call writes. "But marrying the two groups in a way that is compliant with the ethics rules has been a tricky endeavor, with Cantor and his staff organizing both entities."

Cheney Is Outraged Over Torture Photos Release on May 28 ...
By Bob Fertik 
The first Abu Ghraib torture photos were also released because of an ACLU lawsuit, and they were released by the Bush-Cheney administration. World Can't Wait plans nationwide protests when the photos are released. Go to one near you, or organize one with some friends. Clearly Dick Cheney is running for his life - let's chase after him! ... Impeach for Torture. 79.4%. Tell Congress to Impeach Cheney First. Goal: 100000. Now: 79424 ...
Democrats.com blogs - http://www.democrats.com/blog 

Is Dick Cheney Running for President in 2012?

What's that line? How can we miss you if you won't go away?

Just a few days ago, Dick Cheney explained his belief that it's time for some of the older establishment Republican voices to exit the stage. "I think periodically we have to go through one these sessions. It helps clear away some of the underbrush," the former vice president said, adding, "Some of the older folks who've been around a long time -- like yours truly -- need to move on and make room for that young talent that's coming along."

Dick Cheney spoke at some length with radio host Scott Hennen yesterday, and acknowledged that it's time for older Republican leaders, like him, to exit the stage. "I think periodically we have to go through one these sessions. It helps clear away some of the underbrush," the former vice president said, adding, "Some of the older folks who've been around a long time -- like yours truly -- need to move on and make room for that young talent that's coming along."

That would likely bring some relief to current GOP leaders who would love nothing more than to see Dick Cheney "move on," but before he does, the former VP wants to take a few more bites at the apple. In yesterday's interview, Cheney defended torture, went after the president again, and perhaps most importantly, said he doesn't want to see his party moderate. Cheney: "Mistake" For GOP To "Moderate," Glad That Detainees Were Waterboarded.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's use of waterboarding on Thursday, saying that, contrary to arguments made by Barack Obama, the techniques were a necessary last-resort measure to get information from detainees.

"I don't believe that's true," Cheney said, when asked to respond to Obama's statement that interrogators may not have needed to resort to torture. "That assumes that we didn't try other ways, and in fact we did. We resorted, for example, to waterboarding, which is the source of much of the controversy, with only three individuals. In those cases, it was only after we'd gone through all the other steps of the process. The way the whole program was set up was very careful, to use other methods and only to resort to the enhanced techniques in those special circumstances."

The remarks, delivered during an interview with Scott Hennen, a conservative North Dakota radio host, glossed over the 266 instances in which the United States reportedly used waterboarding on two terrorist suspects -- a figure that would suggest the technique was either not effective or not really used as a last-resort option.

Earlier, Cheney argued that the policies which he and other Bush administration officials pursued were, in fact, successful, and that his request to declassify information from the National Archives would prove as much.

"If anybody (who obviously has to have clearances) takes a look at the record, they'll find that we had significant success as a result of these policies," he said. "One way to nail that down is that there are two documents in particular that I personally have read and know about that are still classified in that National Archives. I'd ask that they be declassified. I made that request over a month ago on March 31st. What those documents show is the success, especially of the interrogation program in terms of what it produced by way of intelligence that let us track down members of al-Qaida and disrupt their plans and plots to strike the United States. It's all there in black and white. It is work that was done by the Central Intelligence Agency after several years of experience with these programs. It demonstrates conclusively the worth of those programs. As I say, I've asked the administration to declassify them and so far they have not."

Attributing Obama's decision to end such policies to an attempt "to appeal to the far-left in their party," Cheney was not-surprisingly adamant that investigating these interrogation techniques was a bad idea. He also called on the White House to "do everything they can" to stop foreign governments from prosecuting the Bush hands who carried out these practices.

On the domestic front, the former vice president said he was not surprised by the defection of Senator Arlen Specter. Nor was he worried about the future of the GOP. Calling politics cyclical, he concluded that the party did not need to go through a process of moderation.

"I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate. This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas...what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles," he said. "You know, when you add all those things up the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy. I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most us aren't."

In the process of making another newsworthy interview, Cheney did -- without apparent irony -- allude to the fact that the GOP would benefit from him exiting the stage.

"I think periodically we have to go through one these sessions," he said. "It helps clear away some of the underbrush...some of the older folks who've been around a long time (like yours truly) need to move on, and make room for that young talent that's coming along. But I think it's basically healthy."

Calling politics cyclical, he concluded that the party did not need to go through a process of moderation.

"I think it would be a mistake for us to moderate. This is about fundamental beliefs and values and ideas...what the role of government should be in our society, and our commitment to the Constitution and constitutional principles," he said. "You know, when you add all those things up the idea that we ought to moderate basically means we ought to fundamentally change our philosophy. I for one am not prepared to do that, and I think most us aren't."

Cheney spoke of campaigning for former President Gerald Ford in 1974, when Ford lost to Jimmy Carter and the GOP "got blown away in every part of the country."

 "By 1980 Ronald Reagan was president, we’d had a major resurgence in the party and we’d captured control of the Senate and obviously embarked upon the Reagan Era in American politics," he said. “So I think periodically we have to go through one these sessions.  It helps clear away some of the underbrush, some of the older folks who’ve been around a long time like yours truly need to move on and make room for that young talent that’s coming along.”

In his interview on WZFG's "The Flag," Cheney revisited a number of criticisms he has lobbed at Obama in recent days and weeks over the president's decisions to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and to make public Bush administration memos pertaining to enhanced interrogation techniques.

Cheney said he doesn't "think the vast majority of Americans support what he [Obama] wants to do…I think in fact most Americans are pleased, when they think about it, that we were able to go nearly eight years without another major attack on the United States.”

 “We were not a perfect administration, none ever is, but I think what we did in the counter-terrorist area was extremely effective," Cheney said. "I think Obama needs to be careful because he appears to want to cancel out some of those most important policies.”

Cheney said the classified interrogation memos he has requested be released "show is the success, especially of the interrogation program in terms of what it produced by way of intelligence that let us track down members of Al-Qaeda and disrupt their plans and plots to strike the United States.  It’s all there in black and white.”

Cheney added, "Most Republicans have a pretty good idea of values, and aren't eager to have someone come along and say, 'Well, the only way you can win is if you start to act more like a Democrat.'"

I can only assume Democrats are delighted to hear this. Indeed, if the DNC were writing up the script, party leaders would have Dick Cheney doing public interviews, encouraging his party not to move towards the middle. The former vice president continues to do more to help the majority party than hurt it.

also defended the practice of waterboarding, a practice Obama has called "torture."

“In the waterboarding in particular, which has been the most controversial, was a total of three individuals," Cheney said. "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being the number one, of course he was the guy who planned and carried out the attacks on 9/11 which killed 3,000 Americans.”

On the economy, Cheney appeared to support some of the what the current administration has done to address the global economic crisis, but he said "the thing I worry about is when that rationale is used in other parts of the economy that aren’t central to the functioning of our economy.”

"When we get over…into the industrial side and automobiles, and the debate about the future of General Motors and Chrysler…then I think government’s role there is different, and that you don’t automatically think that somehow the government needs to step in or should step in," Cheney said. "Maybe Chapter 11 Bankruptcy is exactly the right response to restructure the company and make the changes that are needed so it becomes a viable enterprise, but government doesn’t need to be on that stand set to bail them out.”

According to excerpts provided by Hennen, the former vice president also weighed in on the controversy that arose after one of the planes from the presidential fleet buzzed lower Manhattan last month, scaring many New Yorkers.

“I would assume that some senior staffer signed off on that," Cheney said.  "Especially a mission with, with in effect what is the backup for Air Force One, there are two of those planes, big 747’s….You know, they don’t turn a wheel without a lot of people knowing about it and signing off and approving it.  A pilot can’t just go out there and get on board and take it for a spin.”

The Obama White House has largely ignored Cheney as he has set upon the warpath to challenge Obama's decisions on national security.

But in a press conference on the 100th day of his administration, the president made an indirect rebuke of Cheney's criticisms, noting that Obama "will do what whatever is required to keep the American people safe," acknowledging that "ultimately I will be judged as commander in chief by how safe I keep the American people."

"I believe that waterboarding was torture," Obama said. "And I believe that whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake."

This weekend, Cheney is  appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation." It's all part of his plan to "move on and make room for that young talent that's coming along."

This week, he's delivering a speech on national security at a Washington think tank.

Amid claims that the interrogation methods amount to torture and that those who approved them should be prosecuted or censured, it is clear that we know surprisingly little about the scope and efficacy of the Bush administration's national security policy. Many questions linger: What type of information did enhanced interrogation methods yield? Were lives saved as a result? Could that intelligence have been effectively collected by other means? How effective was the terrorist surveillance program in detecting the threat of al Qaeda and its operatives in the post-9/11 period? Will inhibiting these procedures cost more American lives?

On May 21, former vice president Dick Cheney will speak at AEI to address these critical issues and provide a blueprint for keeping America safe in the future.

It's all part of his plan to "move on and make room for that young talent that's coming along."

I'm not trying to start any rumors, but Cheney is certainly acting like a guy who plans to run for something. He's doing lots of media interviews, cultivating his connection with Limbaugh, attacking the president, lying about Democratic ideas, and giving at least one speech at a major conservative think tank about his vision for the future.

Put it this way -- if one of the Republicans with his/her eyes on 2012 maintained this kind of high-profile schedule in Washington, wouldn't the assumption be that he or she was laying the groundwork for a campaign?

I really doubt Cheney has political ambitions at this point; even he has to realize how unpopular he is. But no matter how much Cheney believes what he's saying, it might occur to him one of these days that the Republicans' "young talent that's coming along" might want to deliver a similar message about the same issues. It's not like the former vice president holds a unique level or credibility and/or respect with the nation at this point.

Indeed, I can only assume that the DNC will be working the phones, hoping to get all the networks to cover Cheney's speech next week live and on the air.

______________________________________________________

Graham threatens to pull Pelosi into torture probe

 

GOP wants 60 days to review Obama's court nominee

 

Hoyer's office clarifying remarks on torture memos

My Written Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing
Huffington Post - New York,NY,USA : Matthew Alexander
I also recommend the reading of Ali Soufan's testimony, available on the Senate Judiciary Committeewebsite. Thank you for the opportunity to address the ...

Gateway Pundit: Dem Majority Leader Wants Investigation On Pelosi
By Gateway Pundit 
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer agreed that the Congressional Hearings looking into "torture" of 3 Al-Qaeda terrorists during the Bush years should include an investigation of Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi was recently caught lying about what ...
Gateway Pundit - http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/

Source says Nancy Pelosi was told by intelligence officer of ...
CNN - USA
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy ...
See all stories on this topic

Omission Watch: ABC, CBS and NBC Ignore Pelosi's Torture Hypocrisy ...
By Internet Guru 
For the past three weeks, controversy has swirled around Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has called for a “truth commission” to expose the.
Latest Technology News - Business... - http://www.businessopportunitystartup.com/blog/

Democrats Complain About CIA Leaks
Politics Daily - Washington,DC,USA
The report shows that Democrats in both chambers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), were informed as early as 2002 about the use of methods that ...

Is the CIA committed to replacing Nancy Pelosi with Steny Hoyer as ...
By hillbuzz 
Could this man be the next Speaker of the House, replacing Nancy Pelosi, because the CIA has had absolutely enough of her? Just something to think about as every day more information comes out proving Pelosi has been lying since 2003 ...
HillBuzz - http://hillbuzz.org/

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pentagon_abuse_photos

WASHINGTON – In a reversal, President Barack Obama is fighting the release of dozens of new photos showing U.S. personnel allegedly abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, a White House official said Wednesday.

Obama's decision came after the top military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan told the president they feared the release of the photos could endanger their troops.

Obama decided he did not feel comfortable with the release and last week instructed his legal team to challenge it in court, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the president's decision had not yet been made public.

Obama has instructed administration lawyers to make the case that the national security implications of such a release have not been fully presented to the court, the official said.

The president informed Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, of his decision during a White House meeting on Tuesday.

Gen. David Petraeus, the senior commander for both wars, had also weighed in, as had Gen. David McKiernan, the top general in Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired McKiernan on Monday for unrelated reasons.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said military "commanders are concerned about the impact the release of these photos would have for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq," and that Gates shares their concerns.

In Afghanistan, release of the pictures this month would coincide with the spring thaw that usually heralds the year's toughest fighting. Morrell also noted the release as scheduled would come as thousands of new U.S. troops head into Afghanistan's volatile south.

Federal appeals judges have ruled the photos should be released.

Through an arrangement with the court, the Pentagon was preparing to release, by May 28, two batches of photos, one of 21 images and another 23. The government had also told the judge it was "processing for release a substantial number of other images."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is suing the government for the release, criticized the decision.

"The decision to suppress the photos is profoundly inconsistent with the promise of transparency that President Obama has made time after time," ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer said.

The Obama official said the president believes that the actions depicted in the photos should not be excused and fully supports the investigations, prison sentences, discharges and other punitive measures that have resulted from them. But the president does not believe that so publicizing the actions in such a graphic way would be helpful.

Hours ago, the Obama administration disappointingly reversed its promise to make public photos depicting detainee abuse by U.S. personnel overseas. The Department of Defense recently told a federal judge that it would release a “substantial number” of photos in response to a court ruling in an ACLU Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. 
 
There is no doubt that these photos would be disturbing. The day we are no longer upset by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. But, the outrage related to these photos shouldn’t be about their release. It should be about the horrific crimes that they depict. And, we must demand accountability for the widespread abuse they document. 
 
The very fact that these photos exist only underscores the need for accountability and for a full investigation of crimes committed. As President Obama said on his first full day in office, “A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.” 

Tell President Obama you support transparency and accountability at the highest levels of government.  

The ACLU pressed for the recent release of the long-secret Bush torture memos and is now calling for the release of the abuse photos because -- as painful as it is -- confronting the evidence of what was done is essential if we are to live by the law.

Those who turned a blind eye to abuse and those who put the despicable U.S. torture program in place had no right to ignore the rule of law. 

And, no matter how hard some might try to turn us away from the facts, we also have no right to ignore the rule of law. We have to call to account those who did this and follow the evidence wherever it leads. 

Please take a few moments to tell President Obama that you support transparency and accountability. 

Sooner or later, these photos will come to light. And when they do, you and I will be heartbroken and sick to our stomachs to see so vividly what the U.S. torture program entailed. 

But, the real heartbreak -- the real betrayal of our values and principles -- would come if we denied our moral and legal responsibility to bring to account those who involved our country in torture so horrid that we hesitate to even look it in the eye. 

The President is listening to and weighing carefully the advice of those in his administration on these issues. But he also needs to hear from concerned citizens like you. 

Tell President Obama you support transparency and accountability. 

The debate about the release of these photos will continue in the courts, and the ACLU will be there to argue for transparency and to insist that a democracy thrives on the free flow of information. 
 
I urge you to act on your deepest beliefs about what kind of country we are. Join the ACLU in calling on President Obama to put the full weight of his leadership behind our call for transparency and accountability. 

______________________________________________________

GOP Tries To Blunt Dem Assault On Bush-Era Officials As Senate Panel Debates Use Of 'Torture': House Minority Leader John Boehner On Wednesday Accused Democrats Of Hypocrisy In Calling For Truth Commissions Into Whether The Bush Administration Condoned Torture.

 

House Minority Leader John Boehner on Wednesday accused Democrats of hypocrisy in calling for truth commissions into whether the Bush administration condoned torture, as a Senate panel weighed whether Justice Department lawyers permitted torture against terror detainees.

Boehner slammed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for not being open about her briefings on interrogations of terror suspects. Pelosi was told in February 2003 that waterboarding was used on CIA terror detainee Abu Zubaydah, but did not object because she was not personally briefed on the matter, an unnamed source told CNN on Tuesday. 

Pelosi said she did support a letter drafted by Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who raised concerns over the use of such techniques.

Pelosi said last month that several House committees are examining whether to launch investigations into Bush administration officials who wrote the legal memos allowing the use of waterboarding and other "enhanced" techniques.

"I think at the end of the day, we just ought to know, what did she know, when did she know it and what did she do about it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And it appears that is what the speaker is attempting to do," Boehner said.

Over in the Senate, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., questioned the purpose of the hearing in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.

"I don't know whether this is actually pursuing the nobility of the law or a political stunt. We'll let the American people decide," Graham said.

Boehner said a "truth commission" would ensnare Democrats in their efforts to implicate Bush administration officials.

"They are going to continue to talk about these truth commissions but at the end of the day, they are probably not going to get anywhere because there were dozens of Democratic members on both sides of the Capitol who were briefed on these techniques, said nary a word, and in some cases encouraged our intelligence officials go further," Boehner said 

In the Senate Judiciary subcommittee, Philip Zelikow, an aide to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, said he tried "from the inside" to change administration policy.

Zelikow said that in 2005 President Bush put in motion a series of internal meetings on changing the rules "because he clearly wanted his advisers to reevaluate all these issues."

Zelikow said that he worked throughout 2005 to get the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to adopt standards proposed by the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the intelligence leading up to the terror attacks. The commission proposed a federal war crimes statute that would ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners during interrogation. 

"By December of '05, that battle had been won, both because of internal work, but also because of the McCain amendment" that expanded application of the Army Field Manual for military interrogators and prohibited inhumane treatment. 

"It was clear that CIA and the government were going to have to accept a CID compliance analysis. Thus, by early 2006, there was no way for the administration to avoid the need to reevaluate the CIA program against a CID standard," Zelikow said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who chaired the subcommittee hearing, accused the Bush administration of a legion of lies for allowing torture, but then declaring that it is something other than that.

"The truth of our country's dissent into torture is not precious. It is noxious. It is sordid. But it has also been attended by a bodyguard of lies," Whitehouse said, borrowing from a Winston Churchill quote. 

"We were told that waterboarding was determined to be legal, but we're not told how badly the law was ignored, bastardized and manipulated by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. Nor were we told how furiously government and military lawyers rejected the defective OLC opinions that were ignored. We were told we couldn't second guess the brave CIA officers who did this. And now we hear that the program was led by private contractors with a profit motive and no real interrogation experience," he said.

But Graham  a JAG officer who has long spoken against waterboarding, said the technique was not illegal at the time it was used. 

"Please understand that in 2001, '2, and '3, the Geneva Convention did not apply to the War on Terror, only until 2006. The war crimes statute that existed in 2001 was a joke," he said. 

"We have today, I think, the best war crimes statute on the books of any nation in the world that would outlaw a grave breach of the Geneva Convention. We passed that in a bipartisan fashion. We have policies now -- the Detainee Treatment Act, the McCain amendment, and other policies -- that give our people who are fighting this war the guidance they need to make sure they understand what's in bounds and what's not, and we have a new president," Graham added. 

Graham said he appreciates that President Obama is trying "to repair our image and to create rules for the road" but warned against  harshly judging "those who had to make decisions we don't have to make."

As Democratic lawmakers plan more hearings, an attempt by Republicans to blunt further efforts to implicate former Bush administration officials was stymied Tuesday night when the  spy agency turned down a request by Rep. Pete Hoekstra for the CIA to declassify the "notes to file" from the CIA officers who briefed members of Congress on the enhanced interrogation program.

The agency told the House Intelligence Committee that the documents "remain highly compartmented and classified."

"This decision is unbelievable -- that, even with all the exposure this program has gotten, these documents would not be released," said Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

Hoekstra said he believes the documents would provide far more detail and make clear what kind of techniques were described in the briefings, shedding more light on what Pelosi and others were told, according to contemporaneous notes from those who briefed them.

Closing Guantanamo

As the witnesses on the Senate panel debated the use of harsh methods, they also discussed whether it is wise to close the Guantanamo Bay facility.

Zelikow said that the prison is more symbol than substance and the detainees there could be maintained in prisons inside the United States.

But Robert Turner, an associated director at the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, said it's a mistake to close Guantanamo. 

"It's a propaganda victory for our enemies because we are saying to the world we have something to apologize for -- we're holding these people illegally, we're torturing them, which has never occurred at Gitmo and that's the exact opposite message we should be sending," Turner said.

 

In 2004 WSJ Op-Ed, Yoo Made Claims At Odds With His Justice Department Memos

On May 11, Philadelphia Daily News senior writer Will Bunch reported that Philadelphia Inquirereditorial page editor Harold Jackson had justified his decision to hire University of California-Berkeley law professor John Yoo as a regular columnist in part by claiming that Yoo is "very knowledgeable about the legal subjects he discusses in his commentaries. Our readers have been able to get directly from Mr. Yoo his thoughts on a number of subjects concerning law and the courts, including measures taken by the White House post-9/11." However, Yoo's newspaper writing may not have always presented his actual "thoughts" or views: In a May 29, 2004, Wall Street Journal op-ed, Yoo made assertions that were later revealed to be highly misleading or at odds with legal memos he had written during the Bush administration as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

In his Journal op-ed, Yoo stated that "interrogations of detainees captured in the war on terrorism are not regulated under Geneva. This is not to condone torture, which," he then asserted, "is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law." However, in a March 14, 2003, memo to William Haynes, then the general counsel for the Defense Department, Yoo wrote that "[i]n our view, Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield" and thus concluded, "we will construe potentially applicable criminal laws ... not to apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority":

As we have discussed above, the President's power to detain and interrogate enemy combatants arises out of his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. Any construction of criminal laws that regulated the President's authority as Commander in Chief to determine the interrogation and treatment of enemy combatants would raise serious constitutional questions whether Congress had intruded on the President's constitutional authority. Moreover, we do not believe that Congress enacted general criminal provisions such as the prohibitions against assault, maiming, interstate stalking, and torture pursuant to any express authority that would allow it to infringe on the President's constitutional control over the operation of the Armed Forces in wartime. In our view, Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield. In fact, the general applicability of these statutes belies any argument that these statutes apply to persons under the direction of the President in the conduct of war.

To avoid this constitutional difficulty, therefore, we will construe potentially applicable criminal laws, reviewed in more detail below, not to apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority. We believe that this approach fully respects Congress's authority.

Similarly, an August 1, 2002, memo -- reportedly written "primarily" by Yoo -- on "Standards of Conduct for Interrogation" under the federal torture statute stated that the prohibitions of federal law did not apply to interrogations authorized by the president as part of the war against Al Qaeda because "Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield." From the August 1, 2002,memo, signed by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee:

V. The President's Command-in-Chief power

Even if an interrogation method arguably were to violate [the federal law prohibiting torture, 18 U.S.C.] Section 2340A, the statute would be unconstitutional if it impermissibly encroached on the President's constitutional power to conduct a military campaign. As Commander-in-Chief, the President has the constitutional authority to order interrogations of enemy combatants to gain intelligence information concerning the military plans of the enemy. The demands of the Commander-in-Chief power are especially pronounced in the middle of a war in which the nation has already suffered a direct attack. In such a case, the information gained from interrogations may prevent future attacks by foreign enemies. Any effort to apply Section 2340A that interferes with the President's direction of such core war matters as the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants thus would be unconstitutional.

[...]

In order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign against al Qaeda and its allies, Section 2340A must be construed as not applying to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority. As our Office has consistently held during this Administration and previous Administrations, Congress lacks authority under Article I to set the terms and conditions under which the President may exercise his authority as Commander-in-Chief to control the conduct of operations during a war.

[...]

As we discuss below, the President's power to detain and interrogate enemy combatants arises out of his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief. A construction of Section 2340A that applied the provision to regulate the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief to determine the interrogation and treatment of enemy combatants would raise serious constitutional questions. Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield. Accordingly, we would construe Section 2340A to avoid this constitutional difficulty, and conclude that it does not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority.

In addition, in the Journal op-ed, Yoo made statements about the legal status of Afghanistan that contradicted what he wrote in a Justice Department memo about why Taliban detainees were not entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions. In the Journal op-ed, Yoo wrote: "While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the [Geneva] Conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war." But in a draft January 9, 2002, memo to Haynes about the "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees," Yoo had a different view of Afghanistan's status as a party to the Geneva Conventions. He wrote: "Afghanistan was without the attributes of statehood necessary to continue as a party to the Geneva Conventions, and the Taliban militia, like al Qaeda, is therefore not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions." From the January 9, 2002 draft memo by Yoo and then-special counsel Robert J. Delahunty:

III. Application of the Geneva Conventions to the Taliban Militia

Whether the Geneva Conventions apply to the detention and trial of members of the Taliban militia presents a more difficult legal question. Afghanistan has been a party to all four [sic: of] the Geneva Conventions since September 1956. Some might argue that this requires application of the Geneva Conventions to the present conflict with respect to the Taliban militia, which would trigger the WCA [War Crimes Act]. This argument depends, however, on the assumptions that during the period in which the Taliban militia was ascendant in Afghanistan, the Taliban was the de facto government of that nation, that Afghanistan continued to have the essential attributes of statehood, and that Afghanistan continued in good standing as a party to the treaties that its previous governments had signed.

We think that all of these assumptions are disputable, and indeed false. The weight of informed opinion strongly supports the conclusion that, for the period in question, Afghanistan was a "failed State" whose territory had been largely overrun and held by violence by a militia or faction rather than by a government. Accordingly, Afghanistan was without the attributes of statehood necessary to continue as a party to the Geneva Conventions, and the Taliban militia, like al Qaeda, is therefore not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, there appears to be substantial evidence that the Taliban was so dominated by al Qaeda and so complicit in its actions and purposes that the Taliban leadership cannot be distinguished from al Qaeda, and accordingly that the Taliban militia cannot stand on a higher footing under the Geneva Conventions.

Harvard law professor Jack Goldsmith, who was the head of the Office of Legal Counsel from late 2003 to 2004, wrote in his book The Terror Presidency:

When the Bush administration decided in early 2002 to deny al Qaeda and Taliban forces legal protections under the Geneva Conventions, it was acting in step with this long-held U.S. position that terrorists and other enemy fighters who did not wear uniforms or carry their arms openly would be denied POW status. Contrary to conventional wisdom, this decision was not controversial inside the administration. lt had the full support not only of the Justice Department but also of the Department of Defense and the State Department. "The lawyers all agree that al Qaeda or Taliban soldiers are presumptively not POWs," wrote Will Taft, the State Department's Legal Advisor, in February 2002.

There was a very sharp internal dispute over the reasons for this conclusion. John Yoo floated the idea that the Taliban did not receive POW protections because Afghanistan was a failed state and thus did not deserve the protections of the Geneva Conventions at all. The State Department vehemently opposed this argument. So did the Pentagon, where the normally mild-mannered Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, argued passionately against Yoo's position. He believed, according to Douglas Feith, that the Geneva Conventions were "ingrained in U.S. military culture," that "an American soldier's self-image is bound up with the Conventions," and that "[a]s we want our troops, if captured treated according to the Conventions, we have to encourage respect for the law by our own example." Feith supported Myers and argued to [Donald] Rumsfeld that the "failed state" approach harkened back to the subjective and politicized criteria in Protocol I that the United States had rightly rejected twenty years earlier. These men did not believe or argue that Taliban soldiers should get POW protections. They simply thought it was important to affirm the treaty's applicability to the traditional interstate conflict with Afghanistan even if the United States denied Taliban soldiers rights under the treaty. Rumsfeld eventually agreed. [Pages 113-114]

In a February 7, 2002, memo, President Bush stated that he had the "authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time." He also stated: "Based on the facts supplied by the Department of Defense and the recommendation of the Department of Justice, I determine that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants and, therefore, do not qualify as prisoners of war under Article 4 of Geneva."

As Media Matters for America documented, Yoo has also made inconsistent, hypocritical statements on the issue of judges showing empathy. In his May 10 column, Yoo denounced President Obama's stated intention to nominate a Supreme Court justice who demonstrates the quality of empathy. But in a review of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' 2007 memoir, My Grandfather's Son(HarperCollins) -- in which Yoo praised Thomas' "unique, powerful intellect" and commitment to "the principle that the Constitution today means what the Framers thought it meant" -- Yoo touted the unique perspective that he said Thomas brings to the bench and argued that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the less fortunate acquired through personal experience.

From Yoo's Journal op-ed:

A response to criminal action by individual soldiers should begin with the military justice system, rather than efforts to impose a one-size-fits-all policy to cover both Iraqi saboteurs and al Qaeda operatives. That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members -- as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001 -- violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction. While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the Conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.

As a result, interrogations of detainees captured in the war on terrorism are not regulated under Geneva. This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law. Nonetheless, Congress's definition of torture in those laws -- the infliction of severe mental or physical pain -- leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation. Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating.