May, 15 2009, 03:40pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Brandon Hersh (202) 471-3205
bhersh@mediamatters.org
Erikka Knuti (202) 756-4135
eknuti@mediamatters.org
Yoo Brings History of Inconsistency and Hypocrisy to 'Inquirer'
WASHINGTON
Today, Media Matters for America responded to Philadelphia Inquirer editorial page
editor Harold Jackson's reported justification for hiring University of
California-Berkeley law professor and former-Bush Justice Department lawyer
John Yoo as a regular columnist. Jackson
defended the decision, saying, among other things that "[o]ur readers have been able
to get directly from Mr. Yoo his thoughts on a number of subjects concerning
law and the courts." But, as Media
Matters has documented, in previous work for the Inquirer and other publications, readers
have not received clear and consistent explications of Yoo's
"thoughts" on key legal and judicial issues. Among other things,
Yoo has misrepresented the Bush administration's position on the
constitutional limits of its authority regarding detainee treatment and
interrogation and hypocritically criticized President Obama for endorsing
qualities in judicial nominees that Yoo himself praised in Justice Clarence
Thomas.
Media
Matters President Eric Burns
said of Yoo's hiring: "Mr. Yoo
engaged in morally and possibly legally reprehensible behavior during the Bush
administration but his behavior as a columnist has not been much better. Yoo
has repeatedly and unapologetically provided his readers with inconsistent,
unreliable information."
Burns added: "In a time when newspaper space is a precious
commodity, it is troubling that Mr. Jackson gave that space to a columnist with
a history of misinforming the public."
BACKGROUND
As Media Matters documented, Yoo has a
history -- in his writing for the Inquirer
and elsewhere -- of inconsistency and hypocrisy:
Inconsistency
on whether torture is prohibited by federal law
In his
May 29, 2004, Wall Street Journal op-ed, Yoo wrote 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, 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." He thus concluded, "[W]e
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."
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."
Inconsistency
on the legal status of Afghanistan
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 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
January 9, 2002, draft 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." Harvard Law professor Jack
Goldsmith, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel
from late 2003 to 2004, wrote in his book, The
Terror Presidency, that there was a "very sharp internal
dispute over the reasons for" concluding that the Taliban and Al Qaeda
detainees were presumptively not POWs under the Geneva Conventions. In that
dispute, Goldsmith wrote, "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."
Hypocrisy
on judges showing empathy
Yoo has also made inconsistent, hypocritical statements on the issue of
judges showing empathy. In his May 10 Inquirer
column,
Yoo denounced Obama's stated intention to nominate a Supreme Court justice who
demonstrates the quality of empathy. But in a
review of Thomas' 2007 memoir, My
Grandfather's Son -- 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. Yoo wrote that
Thomas "is a black man with a much greater range of personal experience
than most of the upper-class liberals who take potshots at him" and argued
that Thomas' work on the court has been influenced by his understanding of the
less fortunate acquired through personal experience.
For
more information on Yoo, please see:
In 2004 WSJ op-ed, Yoo made claims at odds with
his Justice Department memos
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
LATEST NEWS
Sanders Unveils Resolutions to Block US Arms Sales as Israel Rejects Cease-Fire Call
"Sending more weapons to Netanyahu's extremist government is unacceptable," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sep 26, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and a pair of his Senate colleagues on Wednesday formally introduced resolutions aimed at blocking a series of proposed arms sales to the Israeli government as it bombards Gaza and Lebanon, deepening humanitarian crises there and pushing the region to the brink of all-out war.
The six Joint Resolutions of Disapproval, five of which were backed by Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), would together prevent the sale of $20 billion of U.S. weaponry to Israel. The Biden administration approved the massive sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions, tank ammunition, F-15 fighter jets, and other military equipment last month.
In a statement, Sanders (I-Vt.) said that "there is a mountain of documentary evidence demonstrating that these weapons are being used in violation of U.S. and international law."
On top of the legal case for scrapping the sales, Sanders said Wednesday that "there are also clear policy reasons not to proceed," noting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has obstructed cease-fire efforts at every turn.
"It is clear that Netanyahu is prolonging the war to cling to power and avoid prosecution for corruption," the senator said. "Meanwhile, his government has also overseen record illegal settlement expansion in the West Bank and unleashed a wave of violence there that has killed nearly 700 Palestinians, including 150 children, and several Americans over the last 11 months. And now the world must contend with the dramatic escalation in Lebanon."
"Sending more weapons to Netanyahu's extremist government is unacceptable," he added. "That is why many of our closest allies have already stopped offensive arms transfers. Congress must now act to uphold U.S. and international law and use our leverage to advance U.S. policy goals."
Sanders, Welch, and Merkley introduced the resolutions as U.S., France, Qatar, and other nations issued a joint statement calling for a three-week cease-fire on the Israeli-Lebanon border—a proposal that Israel's foreign minister swiftly rejected as Israeli forces carried out a fresh wave of bombings in Lebanon, killing dozens.
"There will be no cease-fire in the north," Israel Katz wrote on social media. "We will continue to fight against the terrorist organization Hezbollah with all our might until victory and the safe return of the residents of the north to their homes."
The Sanders-led Joint Resolutions of Disapproval face long odds in a U.S. Congress that has passed billions of dollars in military aid to Israel since the Hamas-led October 7 attack.
With the formal introduction of the resolutions, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee now has 10 calendar days to consider the measures. Once that period is up, "the sponsor(s) of the resolution can force a floor vote on a motion to discharge the resolution from committee," Sanders' office explained in a fact sheet. Because the resolutions are privileged, they can't be amended or filibustered and require just a simple majority to pass.
The Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project said Wednesday that the resolutions mark "the first time in U.S. history" that "there will be a vote in Congress to block weapons to Israel."
"Sending Israel weapons is a violation of U.S. law and opposed by a majority of Americans, who are sick of seeing their tax dollars fund Israel’s war crimes against Palestinians," the group added.
Dylan Williams, vice president of the Center for International Policy, applauded the resolutions as "an appropriate, measured, and sadly necessary response to a security partner's repeated violations of U.S. and international law."
"We welcome Senator Sanders' initiative to put a stop to this carnage and U.S. complicity in it," said Williams.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Condemned for 'Genocidal' Threat to Destroy Iran
"Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned," said the National Iranian American Council.
Sep 25, 2024
Former U.S. President Donald Trump's threat on Wednesday to blow Iran "to smithereens" if he returns to power was condemned by a leading Iranian American advocacy group as "genocidal."
Trump—the 2024 Republican nominee—addressed a campaign rally in North Carolina on Wednesday after he was reportedly briefed about alleged Iranian assassination threats against him.
"If I were the president, I would inform the threatening country—in this case, Iran—that if you do anything to harm this person, we are going to blow your largest cities and the country itself to smithereens," he said to raucous applause. "We're gonna blow it to smithereens, you can't do that. And there would be no more threats."
Responding to the former president's remarks, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement that "Trump's threat to blow Iran's largest cities and the country itself 'to smithereens' is an outrageous threat that should be widely condemned as psychotic and genocidal."
"Just like his threat to target 52 of Iran's most cherished cultural sites, Trump appears disturbingly willing to kill millions of Iranians who have no say over the actions of their authoritarian government," NIAC continued. "These remarks should be disqualifying for a man vying to once again be commander in chief and have sole authority over launching nuclear weapons with the power to make good on his horrifying threat."
"Likewise, we unequivocally condemn any Iranian threats that may be targeted at Trump or former officials," the group added. "Political violence must be rejected and prevented in all forms. Assassinations are a path to war and human suffering, as was demonstrated by the strike on [Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen.] Qasem Soleimani that engendered these threats, and risk further embroiling the region in violence."
Trump ordered the January 2020 airstrike that killed Soleimani in Iraq. He also unilaterally withdrew from the so-called Iran nuclear deal and ramped up sanctions on Tehran, exacerbating Iran's economic woes.
While Trump is known for his boastful and sometimes empty claims, as president he also followed through on his 2016 campaign promise to "bomb the shit out of" Islamic State fighters and "take out their families," resulting in thousands of civilian casualties in countries including Iraq and Syria.
Although Trump often presents himself as the peace candidate, critics have warned voters not to be fooled.
"He's a liar. C'mon, you know he doesn't tell the truth at all," Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)—the only member of either legislative chamber who voted against authorizing the so-called War on Terror in 2001—said in a recent interview with The Nation.
"Just look at his record, who he cozies up to in terms of dictators," Lee added. "He wants more investment in the military budget. What his strategy is, is to create a more dangerous world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
CBO: GOP Social Security Plan Would Cut Benefits by Thousands, Not Extend Solvency
"Their goal is to destroy our Social Security system," one advocate for seniors said of Republican politicians.
Sep 25, 2024
Social Security defenders have long argued that former Republican U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the Oval Office could spell disaster for seniors, and a nonpartisan government analysis released Wednesday bolsters their warnings.
U.S. House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to analyze the impact of raising the full retirement age (FRA) for Social Security from 67 to 69, as various Republican groups have proposed.
"This report shows that raising the retirement age to 69 would slash benefits by an average of $3,500 a year," Social Security Works executive director Alex Lawson told Common Dreams. "For seniors and people with disabilities, that means not being able to buy groceries, pay a heating bill, or buy birthday presents for their grandkids."
"This cruel benefit cut would hit those who claim benefits early—largely people who work on their feet, not those who work in offices—the hardest," Lawson noted. "Even worse, it is only one of the benefit cuts that Republicans are backing. Their goal is to destroy our Social Security system."
As CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote to Boyle:
All people affected by such an increase in the FRA would receive a smaller amount of Social Security benefits over their lifetime. Workers who chose to delay claiming their retirement benefits by the same number of months as the increase in the FRA would receive the same monthly benefit for a shorter period. Those workers who claimed retirement benefits at the same age as they would have claimed them under current law would receive a smaller benefit for the same number of years.
In a statement responding to the report, Boyle's office highlighted that "for workers currently in their 30s and 40s who are subject to the full retirement age increase, the average annual benefit cut would be 13%, or around $3,500 a year."
As the congressman's office pointed out, the CBO also found that "though increasing the retirement age would reduce spending, it would not create enough savings to change the expected exhaustion date of the Social Security Trust Fund, which is projected to be unable to pay full benefits by the end of fiscal year 2034."
Boyle and Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) have introduced the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, which would extend the solvency of both programs by requiring Americans with higher incomes to pay more than they do now.
"Social Security is a sacred promise that after a lifetime of hard work, Americans have earned the right to retire with dignity," Boyle said Wednesday. "This independent, nonpartisan report shows just how devastating Republican plans to rip away hard-earned Social Security benefits would be for American workers."
"Instead of saving Social Security by making the ultrarich pay their fair share, the GOP is hellbent on gutting benefits for the middle class," he warned, specifically calling out the congressional Republican Study Committee and the Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025. "Democrats will never stop fighting to keep the promise of Social Security and defend Americans' retirement security from Republican attacks."
The CBO report comes less than six weeks away from the U.S. general election. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris is facing Trump in the race for the White House.
Before President Joe Biden left the contest and passed the torch to Harris, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, National United Committee to Protect Pensions, and Social Security Works Political Action Committee were backing him over Trump. All three groups have endorsed Harris.
"As president, Biden has been an unwavering protector of Social Security and Medicare," Social Security Works president Nancy Altman wrote in a July opinion piece for Common Dreams. "Harris will be as fierce a defender, and she will do more. She will expand Social Security and Medicare and ensure that all benefits will continue to be paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future by requiring billionaires to pay their fair share."
"In stark contrast, Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress are a serious threat to our earned benefits and to our families," she stressed, also warning of the GOP's positions on medication prices and tax breaks for the rich. "A vote for Democrats is a vote to expand benefits, lower prescription drug prices, and require those billionaires to start paying their fair share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular