This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

There have been several diaries in the past few days about the Dep't of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility report whitewashing the actions of Prof. John Yoo and Judge Jay Bybee while they served in the Bush/Cheney DOJ.  There is, however, an especially troubling aspect of that report that does not yet appear to have been diaried.  Prof. Yoo openly espoused a view of untrammeled presidential power while he was interviewed for that report.  The OPR's ultimate finding that Yoo and Bybee merely showed "poor judgment" is a tacit finding that this view of excutive supremacy has merit, and it is a tacit rejection of the process that led to Richard Nixon's forced resignation.


You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

As Michael Isikoff now reports in Newsweek, the following exchange took place between Yoo and OPR investigators:

At the core of the legal arguments were the views of Yoo, strongly backed by David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's legal counsel, that the president's wartime powers were essentially unlimited and included the authority to override laws passed by Congress, such as a statute banning the use of torture. Pressed on his views in an interview with OPR investigators, Yoo was asked:

"What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? ... Is that a power that the president could legally -"

"Yeah," Yoo replied, according to a partial transcript included in the report. "Although, let me say this: So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief's power over tactical decisions."

"To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?" the OPR investigator asked again.

"Sure," said Yoo.

A similar exchange took place between David Frost and Richard Nixon during Frost's legendary 1977 interview of Nixon:
FROST: So what in a sense, you're saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it's in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

FROST: By definition.

NIXON: Exactly. Exactly. If the president, for example, approves something because of the national security, or in this case because of a threat to internal peace and order of significant magnitude, then the president's decision in that instance is one that enables those who carry it out, to carry it out without violating a law. Otherwise they're in an impossible position.

Perhaps others who are better at parsing words than I am can find a difference between Yoo's and  Nixon's views of presidential power.  I certainly cannot find one.  In the potentially vast and fundamentally amorphous field of "national security," both Nixon and Yoo explicitly reject the core concept of separation of powers that lies at the heart of our Constitution.

As Isikoff's article notes, the initial OPR report called for both Yoo and Bybee to be referred to their respective state bar associations for possible disciplinary proceedings.  That report, however, was subsequently modified to merely find that Yoo and Bybee showed "poor judgment."

Poor judgment apparently means different things to different people.  To me, it means not looking in one's mirrors before changing lanes and sideswiping another vehicle.  Openly espousing the principle that, "if the  president does it, it's not illegal" isn't poor judgment.  It's an expression of fundamental principle that was expressly rejected by our Founding Fathers in 1787.

This viewpoint of Yoo's (ratified by Bybee) led them to authorize waterboarding and other forms of torture in their infamous memo.  Philosophies can have real-life consequences, and their philosophy clearly had consequences here.  Those consequences should have led to Yoo and Bybee suffering consequences themselves.  Instead, Yoo is a tenured prof at a top law school, and Bybee is a federal appellate judge w/ life tenure.

The OPR report is a poor man's version of Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon.  In fact, since Yoo and Bybee still hold positions of public trust, maybe the OPR report isn't a poor man's version of the former whitewash at all.  Either way, the report effectively ratifies actions that were taken in direct contravention of our founding principles.

I honestly expected more from a DOJ that ultimately reports to the only Con Law expert ever to sit in the Oval Office.

Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to RFK Lives on Sun Feb 21, 2010 at 07:36 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.