Though 9/11 was troubling, there is a deep sense of tragedy to think that our country would treat prisoners in this reprehensible manner.
(Laughter)
Basing your worldview of the war on terror on a stoner comedy movie is sad. Even sadder is that you think it’s a “documentary”.
As for 9/11 being “troubling”, tell that to the people standing in the broken windows on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center who had to decide between burning to death or jumping a thousand feet to die.
If that attack could have been prevented by making a bad guy think he was drowning, would you approve?
Sorry, there is no /irony font.
Some of the protagonists on this thread actually think like this.
Though 9/11 was troubling, there is a deep sense of tragedy to think that our country would treat prisoners in this reprehensible manner.
(Laughter)
Basing your worldview of the war on terror on a stoner comedy movie is sad. Even sadder is that you think it’s a “documentary”.
As for 9/11 being “troubling”, tell that to the people standing in the broken windows on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center who had to decide between burning to death or jumping a thousand feet to die.
If that attack could have been prevented by making a bad guy think he was drowning, would you approve?
Sorry, there is no /irony font.
Some of the protagonists on this thread actually think like this.
Pesca, I got it. Next time, try the “sarc/on - sarc/off” button.
It is a war crime to violate the Geneva conventions, or to order such violation, or to knowingly fail to put a stop to such violation, including the use of torture which was ordered by top administration officials and performed at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Oh, and violating 18 USC 2441 carries a maximum death sentence if someone is tortured to death—which has happened.
Let me get this strait, Bit. You believe that Deputy Attorney General John Yoo should be charged with a “War Crime” because he wrote a memo in August of 2002? At the request of his boss, A.G. Alberto Gonzales, Yoo wrote a “legal opinion” on a piece of paper and now he is a “War Criminal”?
Did you actually read the whole opinion? I thought it was well-reasoned based on the law. That is what some lawyers do. They write opinions based on their interpretation of the law. That you disagree with his interpretation of the law and his conclusion is your problem.
Personally, I believe that the law allows that any insurgent found on the battlefield not in uniform should be executed, just like the U.S. Army did in WWII during the Battle of the Bulge. But that is just my opinion, based on the law. If I apply your standard, Janet Reno would be in Levenworth right now making little rocks out of big rocks.
(John Yoo a “War Criminal”. You guys on the left just crack me up.)
You mean the Loonie left, like those who conducted the Trials for war criminals in Germany at the end of world war 2?
A poster stated that 44 deaths of detainees out of the thousands of detainees, was not a war crime, I posed the question HOW MANY DEATHS OF DETAINEES DOES IT TAKE TO BE A WAR CRIME?
No answer.
I will tell you. One, murder by torture of people who have been detained by the US Armed Forces, if proven as the med. reports from DOD show died in some cases by being strangled to death, when did murder by US Citizens become legal? President or not, he might grant you a pardon, legal, no way.
Do you have a flimsy legal opinion on that?
And I did read the entire opinon by yoo. A dumb first year law student would not use it for toilet paper, let alone encourage the president of the USA to believe that POS he wrote, he should be disbarred and in fact I know of one nation wide assoc. of Lawyers who are demanding he be disbarred and fired from Berkely, rightfull so.
War Crimes are war crimes, and it would take a far better opinion than anything I have yet read to convice me that Bush, Cheny, Gonzales and Yoo are not aware that murder and torture is a crime. The President of the United States does not have the power to commit Genocide, crush your sons balls so you will tell the president what ever you might or might not know, any one who thinks that kind of crap is a good thing needs their head bands adjusted.
I ask you a question, Can you beleive that a former air force officer who is in his over fifty years of age is not aware that murder and torture by United States Forces of detainees by said forces would be a crime?
Do you have a flimsy legal opinion on that?
And I did read the entire opinon by yoo. A dumb first year law student would not use it for toilet paper, let alone encourage the president of the USA to believe that POS he wrote, he should be disbarred and in fact I know of one nation wide assoc. of Lawyers who are demanding he be disbarred and fired from Berkely, rightfull so.
I think we have already covered what “one nation wide assoc. of Lawyers” you are talking about. (Leftists)
“He should be disbarred” for writing an opinion.
“He should be fired from Berkely.” (Altan will be providing your spelling correction shortly)
Rightfully so. Because you say so. Ok. that settles it.
Bio from Wikipedia:
As an infant, Yoo emigrated with his parents from South Korea to the United States. He grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and graduated with a B.A., summa cum laude in American history from Harvard University in 1989 and Yale Law School in 1992. Yoo clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman. From 1995 to 1996 he was general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is currently a Professor of Law at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley, California. Professor Yoo is an active member of the The Federalist Society and is one of the most influential members of the Federalist Society in Northern California.
Sure. Summa cum laude from Harvard. What a moron.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ clerk. Probably affirmative action hire to get an Asian-American.
Federalist Society. Just about says it all, huh Jimbo?
HOW MANY DEATHS OF DETAINEES DOES IT TAKE TO BE A WAR CRIME?
“Deaths of detainees” is not a war crime at all so the number is irrelevant in a discussion of war crimes.
oldjim - 03 May 2008 11:42 AM
I will tell you. One, murder by torture of people who have been detained by the US Armed Forces, if proven as the med. reports from DOD show died in some cases by being strangled to death, when did murder by US Citizens become legal? President or not, he might grant you a pardon, legal, no way.
Murder of a person who is being detained by the US armed forces is a crime, not a war crime.
Murder which was done by an agent of the US government but not at the direction of the US government would rarely be considered a war crime. War crime tribunals have very rarely been convened to prosecute a singular murder.
Murder which was done by an agent of the US government at the direction of the US government would be a war crime.
.
.
.
Some honest questions here. The answers may exist but I don’t know what they are.
Why was there an autopsy in that one case?
I believe its reasonable to assume it was part of the investigation that would typically follow the death of someone who is in custody.
Regardless of whatever may or may not have happened on the national level with legal findings and what may or may not be approved as interrogation techniques, a case is made based on evidence of that individual case which is uncovered during the investigation.
Has that investigation concluded the man’s “torture” injuries were caused by agents of the US government rather than something which happened to him prior to capture? A medical exam should be able to show that.
Have the investigations into any of the other @43 deaths of detainees shown similar injuries which would have been inflicted during the time frame when the man was in US custody? I’ll assume is a correct number for the sake of this question though I don’t recall seeing any proof of the accuracy of that number being presented in this thread
Have the investigations shown all 44 of the deaths to be violence inflicted on the detainee by someone else and without cause? That is, no suicides, no one legitimately shot while trying to escape or while trying to kill a guard, no one dying of natural causes, no one dying of illness or injuries the detainee had before becoming a captive, etc.?
Have any investigations concluded the deaths were inflicted by the captors rather than someone else?
Have any of the investigations concluded the deaths were inflicted due to a captor following orders in the course of his duties?
Regardless of the outcome of any of those investigations, is there any reason to doubt the integrity of the investigation process and the Judge Advocate General’s Corps?
Illegal enemy combatants are not covered under the Geneva but more importantly most sane Americans don’t care what happens to these thugs after they are captured.
I for one am so glad that most americans are insane, aren’t you?
Thats why so many americans are against bush, I betcha.
Does Magna Carter or constitution or bill of rights or any of that ring any bells for you?
If not, its pointless to point out that pretty much all that “stuff” as regarding human rights and we are americans are part of the human race, tho after bush the rest of the homo sapiens may very well deicde to push us out into the wilderness, sad as it may be, but are you aware that you no longer have the right to a speedy trial? That you can be picked, some vague charge, bond not allowed, and be held in JAIL FOR YEARS, even life and there is not one thing you can do, except bitch?
Military Act, of 2006, which has still not been repealed to this point. And Sen. Chris Dodd, Ct. is against that as are many onther people, and its still the law. Voted on by our elected idiots in both house and senate, approved by a huge majority, and at this point in time it is still the law?
This is not my specialty but the MAGNA CARTA is a British document that does not have any position in this country. As for the Constitution and the Bill of rights ends at our borders.
Habeas corpus is a concept that dates to the Magna Carta, and is a fundamental right of the U.S. legal system. It gives any person held by the government the means to go before a court for a fair determination of whether there is a reasonable basis for detention.
Maybe you need to read a bit closer.. Re Magna Carta.
It’s a detail but we can’t take it out of country and enforce it.They happen to be in Cuba not on our soil.It’s a a s small detail but it has held up for a few years now and seems to be a thorn in your side that’s going to stay just where it is.
And stop being so generous with our rights as U.S.citizens. Don’t give them to criminals from foreign countries being held in foreign countries.
And once again the Geneva convention does not apply to OBL and his thugs of UNUNIFORMED CRIMINALS.
And if you beleive the above nonsense, you really need to talk to someone, what the heck do you think all the flap about torture memos etc. is all about? Reporters having nothing better to do?
WAR CRIMES ARE WAR CRIMES Sir, and it does not matter if a repub. a demo, a muslim, a nazi, a communist, or and other political or religious party by any name and 44 dead men by torture as shown by the DOD death Reports, some of which are posted here by me are WAR CRIMES. They were for the Nazi Party, and the excuse of “I was only following orders was bulldroppings at the war crime trials in Germany and it ought to happen right here in the USA. Will it?
I darn sure hope it does and there are several of these people who deserve to receive all that the crimes against the human race calls for in these kinds of conditions.
Are you, a resonable man, going to tell me that a USAF Officer, a yale grad., a man from a wealth family, with an excellent ed. can convice you that he does not know that it is illegal to torture people? Even tho he is the president? Cesar he is not and to have some so called lawyer, yoo write a legal opinon after the fact to cover his butt is, that opinon would not stand up in any court of law run by anyone with more than a first year law student.
Can you convice yourself that the President of the USA has the right, a legal or moral right to order your sons balls crushed because he is conviced that you know something and will not tell him, so you have to watch as your sons balls or crushed? You can convince yourself that the President of the USA has the leagal right to order war, on any one, at any time, any where, for any reason or none, simply because he is the president? Is it the legal right of the POTUS to commit Genocide any time, on anyone, simply because he is the POTUS and gives the order?
My gawd, surely not.
If you have laws of the above, voted on by the congress of the USA and approved by the House and Senate, please be kind enough to post them.
Not some flimsy legal opinion by some shyster such as john yoo legal garbage that a first year law student would use for anything other than toilet tissue and then flush same away quickly before any thinking human being had a chance to read such gross stupitity.
ANd you have conviced yourself this crap is legal, moral and acceptable?
Do you have a flimsy legal opinion on that?
And I did read the entire opinon by yoo. A dumb first year law student would not use it for toilet paper, let alone encourage the president of the USA to believe that POS he wrote, he should be disbarred and in fact I know of one nation wide assoc. of Lawyers who are demanding he be disbarred and fired from Berkely, rightfull so.
I think we have already covered what “one nation wide assoc. of Lawyers” you are talking about. (Leftists)
“He should be disbarred” for writing an opinion.
“He should be fired from Berkely.” (Altan will be providing your spelling correction shortly)
Rightfully so. Because you say so. Ok. that settles it.
Bio from Wikipedia:
As an infant, Yoo emigrated with his parents from South Korea to the United States. He grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and graduated with a B.A., summa cum laude in American history from Harvard University in 1989 and Yale Law School in 1992. Yoo clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman. From 1995 to 1996 he was general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is currently a Professor of Law at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley, California. Professor Yoo is an active member of the The Federalist Society and is one of the most influential members of the Federalist Society in Northern California.
Sure. Summa cum laude from Harvard. What a moron.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ clerk. Probably affirmative action hire to get an Asian-American.
Federalist Society. Just about says it all, huh Jimbo?
Jimbo, you couldn’t hold his bedpan.
I have no desire to hold his bedpan, I do have a strong desire to see him tried for his acts of writing flimsy legal opinons, the same way lawyers wrote for Hitler before and after some of his
outrageous, insane, criminal behavior. After all, most of Hitler’s crimes did not break the laws he had written to his spec.s. In fact, I would doubt that Hitler broke any laws during his time as Der Fuher..JUST LIKE YOO AND HIS CRAP
Now if you think torture is great, you are in favor of your sons balls being crushed, having you legal right removed by some POS like Yoo, be my guest.
Me? I am darn sure against it. And it would not matter if the POTUS is a repub., a Demo, a Muslim, or preacher from the bible belt, war crimes are war crimes.
And it this case the shoe fits the named, not because I say so, because of their actions and behaviors. ANd I for one, hope they are called into courts in the USA to account for their precived illegal behaviors.
How about getting your head out of backside and stop supporting this kind of crap?
A Commentary on the Justice Case
by Doug Linder (c) 2000
No one contends, of course, that German judges and prosecutors destroyed as many lives as did the SS, Gestapo, or other agencies of the Nazi machine. Their victims number in the thousands, not the millions. A judge who knowingly sentenced even one innocent Jew or Pole to death was, however, guilty in the eyes of the prosecutors and judges at the Justice Trial in Nuremberg. There would be no “only a couple of atrocities” defense.
Ingo Muller, in Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich, provides a penetrating picture of the workings of the criminal justice system in Nazi Germany. Muller’s analysis of the evidence suggests that most German judges--contrary to common opinion--were ultraconservative nationalists who were largely sympathetic to Nazi goals. The “Nazification” of German law occurred with the willing and enthusiatic help of judges, rather than over their principled objections.
Many judges appointed before the Nazi rise to power--because of the economic and social circles that judges were drawn from--had views that were quite compatible with the Nazi party. A few Jewish judges sat on the bench when the Nazis assumed power--but only a very few. A 1933 law removed those few Jewish judges from officee.
Only a handful of the non-Jewish judges demonstrated real courage in the face of Nazi persecution and violations of civil liberties. One who did was Lothar Kressig, a county court judge who issued injunctions agains sending hospital patients to extermination camps. When ordered to withdraw his injunctions, Kreyssig refused. He also attempted to initiate a prosecution of Nazis for their role in the program. Kreyssig, under pressure, eventually resigned.
In the Justice trial, American prosecutors sought to demonstrate a pattern of judicial and prosecutorial support for Nazi programs of persecution, sterilization, extermination, and other gross violations of human rights. In order to prove an individual defendant guilty, prosecutors had to show that the defendant consciously furthered these human rights abuses.
The violations of human rights progressively worsened as the Nazis solidified power and began their wars of aggression. In 1938, laws were adopted that imposed different levels of punishment for the same crime--a tougher punishment for Jews, a lighter one for other Germans. By 1940, sterilization programs were underway. By 1942, the “Final Solution,” the wholesale extermination of Jews and other persons deemed undesirable, was in full swing.
Two features of German law combined to facilitate the Nazi’s evil schemes. The first was that German law, unlike the law of the United States and many other nations, lacked “higher law” (constitutional or ethical standards) that might be resorted to by judges to avoid the harsh effects of discriminatory laws adopted by the Nazi regime. The second difficulty was that there was no separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government. Hitler declared, and the Reichstag agreed, had the power “to intervene in any case.” This was done, legally, through what was called “an extraordinary appeal for nullification of sentence.” The nullification invariably resulted in a sentence the Nazis thought was too light being replaced by a more severe sentence, often death. If these features of German law weren’t enough, the Nazis also assigned a member of the Security Service to each judge to funnel secret information about the judges back to Hitler and his henchmen. The excerpt from the decision of the tribunal (printed on this page) includes the judgments for two of the Justice trial defendants, Franz Schlegelberger and Oswald Rothaug. In the movie Judgment at Nuremberg, Burt Lancaster played the role of a German judge (Ernst Janning) that was based loosely on the prosecution of Schlegelberger.
Schlegelberger is the more sympathetic of the two defendants. He served in the Ministry of Justice from 1931-1942. For the last seventeen months of his service, Schlegelberger was Director of the Ministry of Justice. He wrote several books on the law and was called at the time of his retirement, “the last of the German jurists.” Schlegelberger argued in his defense that he was bound to follow the orders of Hitler, the “Supreme Judge” of Germany, but that he did so only reluctantly. Schlegelberger pointed out that he did not join the Nazis until 1938, and then only because he was ordered to do so by Hitler. Schlegelberger claimed to have harbored no ill-will toward the Jews. His personal physician, in fact, was Jewish. In his defense, he also stresses that he resisted the proposal that sent “half Jews” to concentration camps. Schlegelberger suggested giving “half Jews” a choice between sterilization and evacuation. He also argued that he continued to serve as long as he did because “if I had resigned, a worse man would have taken by place.” Indeed, once Schlegelberger did resign, brutality increased.
And do not think it cannot happen here. It can.
This is one ice cube floating in the punch bowl, now if you would like more, I will be happy to pour you several servings.
Could honestly think any partly rational, most of the time person, with my charm and wit could or would possibily make this crap up?
ANd there is ever so much more, I will tell you this much, the man comes by it honestly, now if you question me on that I will be happy to post more about in-laws, out-laws, law-suits, trading with the enemy, hidden bank accounts, brown brothers, Harriman, Dutch banks, gold and all sorts of interesting things. However, I am not going there, unless you request it.
HOW MANY DEATHS OF DETAINEES DOES IT TAKE TO BE A WAR CRIME?
“Deaths of detainees” is not a war crime at all so the number is irrelevant in a discussion of war crimes.
oldjim - 03 May 2008 11:42 AM
I will tell you. One, murder by torture of people who have been detained by the US Armed Forces, if proven as the med. reports from DOD show died in some cases by being strangled to death, when did murder by US Citizens become legal? President or not, he might grant you a pardon, legal, no way.
Murder of a person who is being detained by the US armed forces is a crime, not a war crime.
Murder which was done by an agent of the US government but not at the direction of the US government would rarely be considered a war crime. War crime tribunals have very rarely been convened to prosecute a singular murder.
Murder which was done by an agent of the US government at the direction of the US government would be a war crime.
.
.
.
Some honest questions here. The answers may exist but I don’t know what they are.
Why was there an autopsy in that one case?
I believe its reasonable to assume it was part of the investigation that would typically follow the death of someone who is in custody.
Regardless of whatever may or may not have happened on the national level with legal findings and what may or may not be approved as interrogation techniques, a case is made based on evidence of that individual case which is uncovered during the investigation.
Has that investigation concluded the man’s “torture” injuries were caused by agents of the US government rather than something which happened to him prior to capture? A medical exam should be able to show that.
Have the investigations into any of the other @43 deaths of detainees shown similar injuries which would have been inflicted during the time frame when the man was in US custody? I’ll assume is a correct number for the sake of this question though I don’t recall seeing any proof of the accuracy of that number being presented in this thread
Have the investigations shown all 44 of the deaths to be violence inflicted on the detainee by someone else and without cause? That is, no suicides, no one legitimately shot while trying to escape or while trying to kill a guard, no one dying of natural causes, no one dying of illness or injuries the detainee had before becoming a captive, etc.?
Have any investigations concluded the deaths were inflicted by the captors rather than someone else?
Have any of the investigations concluded the deaths were inflicted due to a captor following orders in the course of his duties?
Regardless of the outcome of any of those investigations, is there any reason to doubt the integrity of the investigation process and the Judge Advocate General’s Corps?
I am not going to just toss some answer at you, I am going back to be sure that the questions asked are honestly answered and as close to the facts as possibile.
HOW MANY DEATHS OF DETAINEES DOES IT TAKE TO BE A WAR CRIME?
“Deaths of detainees” is not a war crime at all so the number is irrelevant in a discussion of war crimes.
oldjim - 03 May 2008 11:42 AM
I will tell you. One, murder by torture of people who have been detained by the US Armed Forces, if proven as the med. reports from DOD show died in some cases by being strangled to death, when did murder by US Citizens become legal? President or not, he might grant you a pardon, legal, no way.
Murder of a person who is being detained by the US armed forces is a crime, not a war crime.
The ACLU website further reveals how: “a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was “undetermined” although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.
Another Iraqi detainee died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated. He was standing, shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth, at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries.
So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, “There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths.” ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, “These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations.”
Additionally, ACLU reports that in April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. So responsibility for these human atrocities goes directly to the highest levels of power.
Murder which was done by an agent of the US government but not at the direction of the US government would rarely be considered a war crime. War crime tribunals have very rarely been convened to prosecute a singular murder.
Murder which was done by an agent of the US government at the direction of the US government would be a war crime.
.Read the above
.
.
Some honest questions here. The answers may exist but I don’t know what they are.
Why was there an autopsy in that one case? 44, autopsy were done that are known to the abvoe.
I believe its reasonable to assume it was part of the investigation that would typically follow the death of someone who is in custody. True.
Regardless of whatever may or may not have happened on the national level with legal findings and what may or may not be approved as interrogation techniques, a case is made based on evidence of that individual case which is uncovered during the investigation.
Has that investigation concluded the man’s “torture” injuries were caused by agents of the US government rather than something which happened to him prior to capture? A medical exam should be able to show that. Yes, Blunt Force, Strangling, shackled to a door frame
Have the investigations into any of the other @43 deaths of detainees shown similar injuries which would have been inflicted during the time frame when the man was in US custody? I’ll assume is a correct number for the sake of this question though I don’t recall seeing any proof of the accuracy of that number being presented in this thread, Yes, tho all of the 44 have not been investagated that I know about.
Have the investigations shown all 44 of the deaths to be violence inflicted on the detainee by someone else and without cause? That is, no suicides, no one legitimately shot while trying to escape or while trying to kill a guard, no one dying of natural causes, no one dying of illness or injuries the detainee had before becoming a captive, etc.? See above, deaths by blunt force, strangling etc.
Have any investigations concluded the deaths were inflicted by the captors rather than someone else?
Have any of the investigations concluded the deaths were inflicted due to a captor following orders in the course of his duties?
Regardless of the outcome of any of those investigations, is there any reason to doubt the integrity of the investigation process and the Judge Advocate General’s Corps?
[b]Additionally, ACLU reports that in April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of “environmental manipulation” as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. So responsibility for these human atrocities goes directly to the highest levels of power
While not fully answering your questions, a start has been made? And I will be happy to answer directly or refer you to other sources when I can.
Do you have a flimsy legal opinion on that?
And I did read the entire opinon by yoo. A dumb first year law student would not use it for toilet paper, let alone encourage the president of the USA to believe that POS he wrote, he should be disbarred and in fact I know of one nation wide assoc. of Lawyers who are demanding he be disbarred and fired from Berkely, rightfull so.
I think we have already covered what “one nation wide assoc. of Lawyers” you are talking about. (Leftists)
“He should be disbarred” for writing an opinion.
“He should be fired from Berkely.” (Altan will be providing your spelling correction shortly)
Rightfully so. Because you say so. Ok. that settles it.
Bio from Wikipedia:
As an infant, Yoo emigrated with his parents from South Korea to the United States. He grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and graduated with a B.A., summa cum laude in American history from Harvard University in 1989 and Yale Law School in 1992. Yoo clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman. From 1995 to 1996 he was general counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is currently a Professor of Law at Boalt Hall School of Law in Berkeley, California. Professor Yoo is an active member of the The Federalist Society and is one of the most influential members of the Federalist Society in Northern California.
Sure. Summa cum laude from Harvard. What a moron.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ clerk. Probably affirmative action hire to get an Asian-American.
Federalist Society. Just about says it all, huh Jimbo?
Jimbo, you couldn’t hold his bedpan.
As stated before, no desire to hold his bedpan, nor do I give a dam if he has a degree from Oral Roberts U, and Clemson as well. A nazi is a nazi and the opinions he wrote is that of a nazi.
