a spot on the US Court of Appeals? (William J. Haynes II)
Bush has nominated him, would Democrats be obstructionist to oppose this nomination?
2006-11-14 03:46:35 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You're asking if the lawyer who said it was OK for the government to break the law should become a judge.
I can't think of anything more dangerous than a federal judge who has shown that they believe the government can break the law.
2006-11-14 03:49:59 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Let's see what happens in the Senate confirmation process. How he defends his oath to uphold the Constitution.
And why he thinks only some people deserve human rights.
John Yoo, at least, didn't try for a judiical post: just a professorship of law where he could teach others his theories on torture and the laws of war: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/01/an_unnoted_aspe.html
2006-11-14 03:52:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
The green light was given by Rumsfeld. Gonzales and Yu were handed the bill by someone else. They didn't write it. They just read it for the camera. Lawyers are liars.
2006-11-14 03:49:48 · answer #3 · answered by shrill alarmist, I'm sure 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Democrats would obstruct. Democrats support Terrorist Rights.
It paid off. The Terrorists helped the Democrats take over Congress.
Al Qaeda is taking credit for the Democrat Victory.
2006-11-14 03:50:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Aggressive interrogation techniques of illegal combatants are not against the law, UCMJ, or Geneva Conventions.
Legally, there was no reason to NOT use aggressive techniques.
Regardless of how you FEEL about it, you need to look at the LAW.
2006-11-14 04:01:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'd say yes, he didn't disqualify himself by approving interrogation techniques, if they were also used in prior wars.
The abuse scandal is different, and was punished.
2006-11-14 03:50:50 · answer #6 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋