John Yoo-Presidential Powers Extend to Ordering Torture of Suspect's Child

[Clara T]

John Yoo – Presidential Powers Extend to Ordering Torture of Suspect's Child
by Philip Watts
December 30, 2005, posted at revcom.us

John Yoo publicly argued there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including by crushing that child’s testicles.
This came out in response to a question in a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel.

What is particularly chilling and revealing about this is that John Yoo was a key architect post-9/11 Bush Administration legal policy. As a deputy assistant to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, John Yoo authored a number of legal memos arguing for unlimited presidential powers to order torture of captive suspects, and to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.

<snip>

This fascist logic has nothing to do with “getting information” as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?

<snip>

This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

http://rwor.org/a/028/john-yoo.html

Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the ‘war on terror’ than John Yoo.
The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us go to article to hear it.

[PSPS]

1. Sounds like a guy Bartcop could relate to

[FreedomAngel82]

2. A child?????

[daleo]

24. Part of Bush's "no child left behind" policy

Right wingers of this sort think it would be discriminatory not to torture people, just because of their age.

[Jackpine Radical]

85. No Child Left Unmaimed.

[High Plains]

28. Explain, please?

[Octafish]

33. Bartcop's good people.

He's done more to peg the criminality, warmongering and treason onto the chests of the Bush Crime Family than most anyone.

[NNN0LHI]

60. Did you forget he wanted to "glass" Afghanistan after 9/11?

He wanted to nuke the whole goddamn country including women and children!

I didn't forget that.

Don

[Octafish]

65. Must've missed that one.

That's not a position I agree with, either, by the way.

[NNN0LHI]

66. I used to read bartcop first thing every day

http://www.bartcop.com/0590.htm

September 14, 2001 Pt 2

Does the Pentagon read bartcop.com?

"One has to say it's not just simply a matter of capturing people and holding
them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems,
...and ending states who sponsor terrorism..."
-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz


That's the kind of talk I want to hear.
Glass them, please.

[yankeedem]

68. I love bartcop

and I'm not the type that has to agree with everything that someone says to support them.

I don't agree with his "ticking bomb" torture scenario.
As far as Afghanistan, 3 days after 9/11 was a very emotional time. He could be forgiven if he said something less than tolerant in that time.

[me b zola]

55. pms, pms?

[Catrina]

3. This is proof that these monsters torture people, including children

as was reported. And what does Yoo mean that there is no treaty that could stop Bush from torturing people? Are we no longer among the civilized countries of the world that observe the Geneva Conventions?

They are sadistic, evil freaks and I don't know how this country got taken over by them. All of them need to be prosecuted, and jailed for this alone.

The torturing of children, omg, even Saddam was not accused of that! And that's what's in the Abu Ghraib photos they're trying to hide. Where are they, btw?

Maybe a little time in one of their own torture chambers would be in order for these creeps.

[me b zola]

56. Horrific, isn't it?

"Are we no longer among the civilized countries of the world that observe the Geneva Conventions?"

I believe that the administration has been quite clear that we no longer observe the "quaint" Geneva Conventions. They are getting ready to argue before the SC that an "enemy combatant" has no right to habius corpus nor the Geneva Conventions.

Saddly, that train has left the station a few years ago.

[Amonester]

93. Their appearance before The Hague Tribunal is long overdue.

Who's brave enough to bring them there?


On Ed: Typo.

[Poiuyt]

4. The reason John Yoo has had so much influence on Bush's legal policies is

because Bush likes what he hears from him. Never mind the other 99.9% of legal scholars. Torturing children brings George back to his childhood frog torturing days.

[hootinholler]

10. Of course it's legal...

My lawyer told me it's ok.

See you in court shrubby

-Hoot

[Moochy]

20. Because he is a hack

He's a scholar of "presidential powers" and is a big executive branch booster. Also, he is a moron, his debate at the commonwealth club with Phillipe Sands, a leading human rights lawyer in UK, was very revealing of his limited intellect.

I can't find a transcript, but this is the event that was on KQED, a PBS radio station in San Francisco, and probably nationwide.

Philippe Sands and John Yoo debate http://www.itsyourworld.org/program.php?page=1368

[FreedomAngel82]

38. Bingo

And Bush can say it's legal because Yoo says it.

[DELUSIONAL]

5. This is NOT civilized behavior

How can anyone support this sort of crap.

Yoo needs to be tortured -- but then he is betting on staying on the good side of the bushie crime family.

I'd like to see Yoo tried for war crimes.

He is an enabler -- and he is evil.

[fooj]

7. Yep. He is a monster. A criminal.

And he is evil...:grr: To the Hague!

[fujiyama]

21. I'm with you

He is one sick fuck.

[truth2power]

32. John Yoo is crazier than a shithouse rat...

and he needs to be sent to the Hague with all the rest of the BFEE scum.

[shanti]

52. i'd like to see john yoo's

testicle's crushed - think he'd change his mind on this?? :(

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Can he be deported to China?

:hide:

[MisterP]

9. well, then he'll be much closer to you

maybe he can go to Mars in 2030, like the Monkey said

[Oversea Visitor]

13. It is ok

Do not need to torture in China
Got no use of it
Just roll all over with tank.

I think it be good for him
He do not realiase how precious doing things the right way is.

[notadmblnd]

35. From what he has written

it sounds to me like he (John Yoo) already thinks he's living in China. will we ever be able to stop the evil monsters?

[PA Democrat]

14. I read that he emigrated with his parents to the US from Korea

Shame he didn't stay in Korea . He would have been happy working for Kim Jong Il.

[Surya Gayatri]

71. Yes, sounds like he and another Korean,

the Rev. Moon, have a lot in common. Dangerously deluded dingbats who suck up to power. SG

[FreedomAngel82]

39. I'd say Egypt

[eppur_se_muova]

8. Oh, please. Why doesn't he just say cannibalism is OK too? What's left?

[Rose Siding]

11. That is just incredible

Will there be a SINGLE reporter who asks McClellan if bush embraces Yoo's rationale in THIS instance?

[MnFats]

12. Is there a source that is not gleefully Stalinist?

not saying it's inaccurate, but.....

[Clara T]

17. Yes numerous

google and your off.

Or just listen to the words live from the link.
Or check out the Notre Dame Law School Audio Archive.

[struggle4progress]

77. Who is watching the watchmen?

Teddy O’Reilly
The Daily Cardinal
Wednesday, December 14, 2005

http://www.dailycardinal.com/article.php?storyid=1028126

[Hissyspit]

15. President can order crushing of child's testicles, but not the marriage of

two men or women who love each other?

Yeah.

O.K.

Can we impeach him now? Please, hunh?

[FreedomAngel82]

40. So would Jesus torture children?

I don't think that's what Jesus said when he said to let the children come to him.

[tblue37]

16. This needs to be widely publicized.

Send it around--and to Conyers, Olbermann, et al.

[FreedomAngel82]

41. Dean, Reid and Pelosi

[LibertyorDeath]

18. Evil personified

This is the type of person bush surrounds himself with
psychopathic sadists that can envision circumstances
where it is acceptable to them to torture Children
by crushing their genitals.

[FreedomAngel82]

42. I wonder if he has children

[LibertyorDeath]

49. He may have. He obviously has no morals or decency.

It's a creepy thought

can't find any info one way or the other

John Yoo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

John Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall), and is best known for his work from 2001 to 2003 in the United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. He contributed to the PATRIOT Act and wrote controversial memos regarding the USA's obligations to enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention.

As an infant, Yoo emmigrated with his parents from South Korea to the United States. Yoo grew up in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and graduated 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 visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

After he left the Department of Justice, it was revealed that Yoo authored memos defining torture and American habeas corpus obligations narrowly.<1> Protestors at Berkeley demanded that he renounce the memos or resign his professorship. He has done neither.

It has recently come out that Yoo authored the position that the President had sufficient power to allow the NSA to monitor the communications of US citizens on US soil without a warrant.<2>

Yoo holds some controversial positions on executive authority, once asserting "in the exercise of his plenary power to use military force, the President's decisions are for him alone and are unreviewable."<3>

Recently in a debate with Doug Cassel, John Yoo took part in the following exchange<4>:

Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty...

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Yoo's academic work includes analysis of the history of judicial review in the U.S. Constitution. (See discussion in the Marbury v. Madison entry.)

Yoo is the son-in-law of television reporter Peter Arnett.

In the spring of 2006, John Yoo can be found teaching a course on Asian Law at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall. The course meets thursdays from 3:20-5:10pm in room 140.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

[Jawja]

69. So basically,

Yoo is an immigrant to this country as a child who is now interpreting our Constitution and treaties? I have nothing against immigrants becoming naturalized and participating in the system, but it's not lost on me that he has no real understanding of what our forefathers fought and died for in the way of establishing this Constitution and this Republic?

I'm sure he's a very smart and well educated man, but I take offense at a first generation immigrant having the power to give the Executive branch "cover" to violate the Constitution and International treaties signed on to by previous administrations. Does this make me a bigot?

If so, I am bigoted in this case.

on edit: I answered my own question. He has the power to influence the Executive branch over other Legal Scholars because he DOES give them the cover they seek. Never mind that he is a first generation immigrant. I would just like to see some other scholars with input and get some balance.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

86. The fact that dude is an immigrant, first generation or other, is

irrelevant. So, what, some born in America redneck with a 5th grade education is better qualified than an immigrant scholar PhD to interpret our laws?

B.S. on that.

I take issue with the fact that the guy is a partisan hack, and there's no real apparent "reasoning" aside from "9/11, we're at war, therefore the president can do whatever he wants and interpret the law however he wants if he thinks that will protect us".

Obviously shrubco just found a hack with some degrees and academic credentials to say what they want: a "scholarly/legal" statement that we (shrubco) can now assume imperial, dictatorial powers.

Again, I really wonder how this kind of hackery can get one a faculty position at a top university like UC Berkeley.

[leftchick]

62. I would love to see his genitals crushed

if he had any! This vile scum is also a C-Span regular. :grr:

[Surya Gayatri]

72. His face reminds me

of the psychopathic oriental killer in the Bond film "Goldfinger"--Oddjob I think his name was. SG

[Peter Frank]

19. This guy's whacked...

...and he fits right in with this admin.

He wrote an article called "Using Force." Here's a thumbnail review of it from the Social Science Research Network:

This paper explores the international law governing the use of force in the wake of conflicts in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Developments since the conclusion of World War II, such as the emergence of international terrorism and rogue states and the easier availability of weapons of mass destruction, have placed enormous strain on the bright line rules of the UN Charter system. This paper argue that a more flexible standard should govern the use of force in self-defense, one that focuses less on temporal imminence and more on the magnitude of the potential harm and the probability of an attack. It further argues that the consensus academic view on self-defense - that force is justified only as a necessary response to an imminent attack - which was largely borrowed from the criminal law, makes little sense when transplanted to the international context.

It concludes by questioning whether self-defense, grounded as it is in a vision of individual rights and liberties in relation to state action, is the proper lens through which to view the use of force in international politics.

Rather than pursuing doctrinal or moral approaches, this paper addresses the rules governing the use of force from an instrumental perspective. It asks what goals the international system, and its most currently powerful actor - the United States - should seek to achieve with the use of force, and whether the current rules permit their pursuit. An approach that weighs costs and benefits to the stability of the international system, which could be seen as an international public good currently provided by the United States and its allies, might better explain recent conduct and provide a guide for future action.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=530022

[Clara T]

22. The Consummate Fascist and Demented Technocrat

Yet Yoo, 38, an engaging and outspoken lifelong conservative who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, can be found at seminars and radio microphones, standing up for Bush administration legal arguments that will be studied for decades.

"The worst thing you could do, now that people are critical of your views, is to run and hide. I agree with the work I did. I have an obligation to explain it," Yoo said from his Berkeley office. "I'm one of the few people who is willing to defend decisions I made in government."

Those decisions, made when he was a mid-level Justice Department adviser, have been the most fiercely contested legal positions of the Bush presidency. Framing the battle against terrorism as a wartime emergency, Yoo redefined torture, reinterpreted the Constitution and classified as archaic the long-established humanitarian rules of the battlefield.
Yoo wrote a memo that said the White House was not bound by a federal law prohibiting warrantless eavesdropping on communications that originated or ended in the United States. When news of the program broke, members of both parties called for hearings.

Yoo believes he was correct, even if critics say the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "threatens the very idea of America," as one editorial said. "It would be inappropriate for a lawyer to say, 'The law means A, but I'm going to say B because to interpret it as A would violate American values,'" Yoo said. "A lawyer's job is if the law says A, the law says A."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/25/AR2005122500570.html

[JanusAscending]

23. I wonder if he has any connection to the "moonies" ?

Shrub is in so damn tight with them too!

[newspeak]

44. that's what I was thinking

does he have any connections with Moon? I know there are a few Moonies in the administration. And, I just read that Moon does have property in North Korea and he has given money to Kim Jong II.

[Peter Frank]

45. That crossed my mind as well...

Let's find out.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

46. As far as I'm aware, dude is just a Korean-American. Why would he be a

"Moonie" just because he's Korean? I don't see anything "Moonie" about his beliefs, just fascist.

[BrotherBuzz]

25. A Scathing Jon Carrol column on John Yoo

Jon Carroll

Monday, January 2, 2006


Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

<more>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/02/DDG5TG01E31.DTL

[Clara T]

26. Breathtaking

"Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate."

"Always does not mean eternally except in the war on terror which is forever." Ugh. I'm saying a boatload of straightjackets needs to head into DC and cart these loonies into the asylum.

[BrotherBuzz]

37. So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

....

What I really like about Jon Carroll's column is that he whacks the whole issue down to a size that even idiot freepers with their pea brains can understand even though the satire and circular logic escapes them.

[Clara T]

43. Eyes crossed here

"Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?"
"No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works."

A few matrimonial disruptions in Afghanistan to the contrary.

John Yoo- Wingnut Maximus
A perfect fit "In These Times"
"To protect and serve", will someone out there get this freak off the streets.

[long_green]

73. Carroll's last sentence is a logical end of Yoo's arguments

Only Bush can protect us so he will determine whether or not an election is safe.

[troubleinwinter]

27. I have no words. It is so ugly, I don't want to say 'kick'.

[Dunvegan]

29. "Triumph of the Will", eh...

[PsychoDad]

30. Shameful

Shameful, Cruel, Inhuman and Evil.

This is the face of evil personified.

These people must be removed from power for the sake of our republic and brought to justice for their actions.

[High Plains]

31. What can be done about this asshole?

He should be the subject of permanent pickets. At his office, at his home, everywhere he goes.

He should be shamed and scorned.

Isn't he a law professor somewhere? Berkeley? He needs to be run out of town.

Prudence dictates I not advocate what I really think should happen to him.

[Octafish]

34. Torturing children is what NAZIs do.

Aryan thinking, theirs is.

I've never been so ashamed to be a citizen of the United States.

Sy Hersh brought this up a while back...

Seymour Hersh : The US government has videotapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib prison.

"The worst is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking," the reporter told an ACLU convention last week. Hersh says there was "a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher."

SOURCE w/VIDEO:

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6492.htm

Thanks for bringing to light exactly how these fascist gangsters "rationalized" their evil.

[Dunvegan]

36. That's why Yoo is there...

...to rationalize what we've already long done: torture children to obtain spurious confessions from their relatives to fill the intellegence gaps where no intellegence to ground Cheney and Rumsfeld's actions exist.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

47. The basic premise is "Bush = supreme emperor because of 9/11"

and "He can do whatever he wants".

Wow that is some sophisticated legal reasoning!

Do you have to go to an Ivy League School to be able to come up with this kind of thinking, or will Enormous State U. do?

How can this mofo be a professor at a famous U. like Berkeley with kind of simple minded thinking?

[notadmblnd]

48. I found an interesting review of John Yoos book

the reviewer IMO does a pretty good job of blowing away Yoo's Thesis regarding Presidential Power and the Constitution

The Powers of War and Peace:The Constitution and Forein Affairs after 911
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18431?email

snip:

Yoo's task is to reconcile the contemporary uses of American power with his belief in original intent. His views prevailed under the Bush administration, and therefore should be examined not only for their cogency and historical accuracy, but for their consequences for US policy in the "war on terror."

Snip:

Many of the framers passionately defended the decision to deny the president the power to involve the nation in war. When Pierce Butler, a member of the Constitutional Convention, proposed giving the president the power to make war, his proposal was roundly rejected. George Mason said the president was "not to be trusted" with the power of war, and that it should be left with Congress as a way of "clogging rather than facilitating war."<2> James Wilson, another member, argued that giving Congress the authority to declare war "will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."<3> Even Alexander Hamilton, one of the founders most in favor of strong executive power, said that "the Legislature alone can interrupt by placing the nation in a state of war."<4> As John Hart Ely, former dean of Stanford Law School, has commented, while the original intention of the Founders on many matters is often "obscure to the point of inscrutability," when it comes to war powers "it isn't."<5>

In the face of this evidence, Yoo boldly asserts that a deeper historical inquiry reveals a very different original intention—namely, to endow the president with power over foreign affairs virtually identical to that of the king of England,

Much Much more.... Not very kind to Yoo, IMO.

[Peter Frank]

50. John Yoo...

John Yoo
Born: 10-Jun-1967
Birthplace: Seoul, South Korea


Gender: Male
Ethnicity: Asian
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Government

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Thinks Geneva Conventions are obsolete

Former clerk for Laurence H. Silberman at the Court of Appeals, and later for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas 1994-5. Served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ 2001-3, where wrote substantial parts of the PATRIOT act with Viet Dinh, and he co-authored a report that basically trashed the Geneva Conventions. He is now a law professor at U.C. Berkeley's Boalt Hall Law School.

The forty-two page memo in question, which he authored in January 2002, stipulated that since Afghanistan has no formal government to speak of, neither the Geneva Convention nor any other laws of war apply. This breaks a fifty-year U.S. military tradition of upholding those rules, rules that we adopted because we expect them to be applied to us. When the U.S. state department read Yoo's memo, they were "horrified", their chief legal advisor calling it "seriously flawed." But George W. Bush approved the policies in the memo, ultimately resulting in the Abu Ghraib fiasco and similar atrocities being committed in other Iraqi prisons as well as those in Afghanistan.<snip>


http://www.nndb.com/people/327/000049180

[Binka]

57. This Guy Is STRAIGHT? Right.

[NuttyFluffers]

89. i'm blind! gay face... too bright... see nothing... but rainbows! ahhh!

even in black and white his picture is like the spell 'color spray.' overwhelmed... must sit down... so dizzy.

ooohhh... and the bastard has a serious case of carb face. big chipmunk cheeks. wonder how many nuts he can store in there?

[Peter Frank]

94. He may not be straight...

...but he sur is "Right."

[Clara T]

95. Terrorists Are Not POWs

Terrorists Are Not POWs

Proposed Ban Would Deprive the United States of a Weapon to Protect Its Citizens
By John Yoo
Posted: Wednesday, November 2, 2005
ARTICLES
USA Today  
Publication Date: November 2, 2005

Suppose that the United States captures a high-level al-Qaeda leader who knows the location of a weapon of mass destruction in an American city. Sen. John McCain's amendment would prevent the president from taking necessary measures--short of torture--to elicit its location.

To protect the United States against another 9/11-style attack, it makes little sense to deprive ourselves of important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Physical and mental abuse is clearly illegal. But should we also take off the table interrogation methods that fall short of torture--such as isolation, physical labor, or plea bargains--but go beyond mere questioning?

While the impulse behind the McCain amendment is worthy, it would not have prevented the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which were unrelated to interrogations. Those abuses resulted from sadistic behavior on the "night shift" and were illegal. The Geneva Conventions--which already prohibit the torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners--clearly apply in Iraq.

McCain's only real effect would be to limit the interrogation of al-Qaeda terrorists. They are not prisoners of war under Geneva, but a stateless network of religious extremists who do not obey the laws of war, who hide among peaceful populations, and who seek to launch surprise attacks on civilian targets. They have no armed forces to attack, no territory to defend, and no fear of killing themselves in their attacks.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23407/pub_detail.asp

[yurbud]

51. Just when I thought they couldn't surprise me anymore

[yurbud]

53. If a soldier sees someone doing this, what would happen if they just shot

the torturer?

That would seem like a pretty good defense at your court martial: I shot him because he was raping a ten year old girl, or whatever.

[Peter Frank]

54. This goes deeper than we want to imagine...

We are dealing with the incredulity that the "Big Lie" might be happening on our own soil.

[yurbud]

74. what do you mean?

[Solly Mack]

58. Yoo is admitting to 2 things (whether he realizes it or not)

#1 - The US Government would (and has) torture children


#2 - The Bush Regime know and understand that there are laws against torture and they ignored those laws by redefining the meaning of those laws.



Yoo never answers the question of "No laws?" He says instead, "No treaty" - even though that is also a lie, since treaties do exist banning torture. But by not answering the direct question of "no laws?" , Yoo is evading and deflecting from the fact that such "laws" (as in US Federal Code) do exist. His final answer is basically claiming the law is open to Presidential authority and interpretation - which is just using the "Did you sleep with him/her defense"

When asked "Did you sleep with him/her?", the guilty party thinks, "Sleep?", "No" - "Did I have sex?" - "Yes" - so the answer to the question, "Did you sleep with him/her?" is truthfully No (if you decide not to go by accepted definition and implications of "sleep") ...but since it's well understood that asking if you've slept with someone means "sex" - it's a lie to say No...same with torture. Existing definitions of torture exist - legal definitions that are accepted - but if you redefine torture, then you're no longer guilty of torture (in your mind) - or by your interpretation of what torture is...

It's a lie detector ploy - it's all in how you "hear" the question. "Did you steal from the company?" - Well, is taking the office computer home really stealing if I do some work on it?- if you determine it's not - then you answer "No" - and to your way of thinking, it's the truth. And if you think it's the truth, your physical response to the question won't be a give-away that you're lying.

So, I'm not stealing because I do work, no matter how little , on the office computer I brought home and never plan to return.(to the guilty employees way of thinking)

I'm not torturing if I don't define fingernail removal as torture - AND - I can rationalize the action (Presidential authority/national security). (to Yoo's and Bush's way of thinking)

It's a two-fold mental process. It's lying on the pathological level.


-snip-
This part of the exchange during the debate with Doug Cassel, reveals the logic of Yoo’s theories, adopted by the Administration as bedrock principles, in the real world.
Cassel: If the President deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress. That is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo.
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
-snip-

[leveymg]

59. He said this publicly? Is Yoo insane? Even if officials condone such

things in anonymous policy directives (usually in general terms, without graphic examples) he's got to be a lunatic to put his name on such barbaric and patently illegal policies.

Yoo is going to go down in history with Machiavelli and Dr. Josef Mengele as a personification of evil.

[jmowreader]

61. Was John Yoo previously an advisor to Saddam Hussein?

Because one can never be sure exactly what evils Saddam is supposed to have committed are evils Saddam really committed, take this with a grain of salt...

In the runup to the war, we were told on several occasions that one of Saddam's favorite "interrogation" techniques was to lock a man and wife in a jail cell, then put their baby in a basket just outside of arm's reach. The parents would then watch as their baby starved to death.

I have no idea of how many times Saddam had this done, who invented it, if Saddam approved of its being done, or even if it was done at all. For all we know Saddam may have really been a Shriner, loving of all children, benevolent of all mankind and a benefactor of all living things. He almost definitely was NOT--but after all the lies we've been told by Bushes and Bush syncophants, I can definitely say I have no idea at all who Saddam really is.

Anyway, assume Saddam's a tyrannical despot and he really liked capturing Shi'ite families and letting them watch their babies slowly die. Is that really so much different from what John Yoo is proposing? That it's perfectly okay to capture people and let them watch their children's testicles be crushed? (There's no point in torturing children except to elicit confessions from their parents, which won't work if you don't make the parents watch the festivities. No, wait. This is the Bush administration. For all we know, they torture the children and videotape the sessions, then send the videos back to the White House where Bush and Rove jack off to them. I really think they would like that.)

[marylanddem]

63. These evil fucking people. n/t

[Clara T]

64. kick for info

[texpatriot2004]

67. Torturing children? And these EVIL people dare to claim that

they are Christian! Sick, EVIL, shameful...indefensible.

[annabanana]

70. How could this guy have gone through an American

school system? A child in grade school gets the basic "checks and balances" info before they get to middle school. How could any trajectory of education bring him to this imperial presidency? What "clever counterintuitive" kind of reasoning gets him here?

[yurbud]

75. Is there a full transcript or audio of this anywhere?

[doublethink]

83. Go to this link ......

http://rwor.org/a/026/torture-victims-confront-advocate.htm

On the page there is the 24 second audio of the torturing children question. And about a 6 minute patrial transcript audio of the interview also. This shit is pure evil, no other way to describe it. Peace.

[democrank]

76. John Yoo....

a sickening example of how far to the right this administration has gone. He`s scary.

[The Backlash Cometh]

78. How much of this do you think they're arguing to cover themselves

retroactively? Do you think the allegations that they tortured children by raping them is the cause of this argument?

[Bluerthanblue]

79. I believe we have done this- I have to

go back and find the name- but there was a man arrested... in Afgansistan? and his children had been taken into custody, and were being 'used' to convince him to 'talk'- this was a few years ago at least, and I ranted about it on another board, all the while thinking that the 'threat' of hurting his kids was abhorrent enough...
.....
little did i know what evil lurked in the minds of this government....

[Bluerthanblue]

81. Found the LINK-

It bothered the hell out of me when I read it before-
It bothers me more now-

the article says the 'boys' were handled with 'kid gloves'- I don't find that reassuring any longer- or credible.

Boys quizzed about their terrorist boss father

By Olga Craig in Kuwait
March 10 2003

Two young sons of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks, are being used by the CIA to force their father to talk.

Yousef al-Khalid, nine, and his brother, Abed al-Khalid, seven, were taken into custody in Pakistan in September when intelligence officers raided a flat in Karachi which their father had fled hours earlier. They were found cowering behind a wardrobe with a senior al-Qaeda member.

The boys have been held in Pakistan, but this weekend they were flown to America to be questioned about their father.

(more at:




http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/09/1047144871940.html

[Dunvegan]

84. Agreed...just what I said up-thread. Yoo's in charge of retroactive CYA...

36. That's why Yoo is there...

...to rationalize what we've already long done: torture children to obtain spurious confessions from their relatives to fill the intellegence gaps where no intellegence to ground Cheney and Rumsfeld's actions exist.

[greiner3]

80. That's so fucking biblical;

HOw does it go? Visiting the sins of the father upon the child? Nice people!

[Acryliccalico]

82. BIZARRE, CRAZY THINKING! .............n/t

[Just Me]

87. Alrighty then! Who the hell is this SICK FUCK?!?!?!!!!!!

I'm serious!!! I've read numerous opinions by this asshole, all of which center around expanding executive powers. There is no doubt in my mind that this sociopath is ideologically bent upon promoting a "benevolent" leadership (eg DICTATORSHIP) under the guise of "spreading democracy".

However, this man must be a sociopath of the worst order to propose such violence against humanity.

He is criminally insane. All those who advocate/adopt/accept his position should be placed in an 8X8 cell and CONTAINED, humanely, for the rest of their lives in order to protect themselves and society.

S-I-C-K F-U-C-K-S!!!! :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Clara T]

88. This is John Yoo- American Enterprise Institute

John Yoo

Yoo is a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley (Boalt Hall School of Law) and a former deputy assistant attorney general in the office of legal counsel of the Department of Justice.
Professional Experience
-Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California at Berkeley, 1993-present
-Visiting Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School, 2003
-Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, 2001-2003
-General Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 1995-1996
-Law Clerk, Justice Clarence Thomas, 1994-1995
-Law Clerk, Judge Laurence H. Silberman, 1992-1993

Education
J.D., Yale Law School
B.A., history, Harvard University

Articles and Short Publications
A President Can Pull the Trigger
Alito Brings Qualifications, Not Conservative Tilt, to Court
Terrorists Are Not POWs

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.74,filter.all/scholar.asp

A President Can Pull the Trigger
By John Yoo

ARTICLES
Los Angeles Times  
Publication Date: December 20, 2005

Iraq seems to have the imperial presidency in retreat. Last week the White House accepted Sen. John McCain's proposal to prohibit cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of enemy combatants. President Bush is under fire for authorizing the NSA's warrantless interception of international phone calls and e-mails that were linked to possible terrorists and that ended or originated in the U.S.

My name has come up for criticism over these issues because of my service in the Justice Department during Bush's first term. I've defended the administration's legal approach to the treatment of Al Qaeda suspects and detainees. I cannot address the National Security Agency's program, which remains classified. But both instances bring up the issue of presidential power in times of war, and I can speak directly to that: The Constitution creates a presidency that is uniquely structured to act forcefully and independently to repel serious threats to the nation.

Let's consider the president's right to start wars. Liberal intellectuals believe that Bush's exercise of his commander-in-chief power has exceeded his constitutional authority and led to a quagmire in Iraq. If only Congress had undertaken the solemn process of declaring war, they have argued, faulty intelligence would have been smoked out, the debate would have produced consensus, and the American people would have been firmly committed to the ordeal ahead. But they are off the mark.

Neither presidents nor Congress have ever acted under the belief that the Constitution requires a declaration of war before the U.S. can engage in military hostilities abroad. Although this nation has used force abroad more than 100 times, it has declared war only five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican-American and Spanish-American Wars, and World Wars I and II. Without declarations of war or any other congressional authorization, presidents have sent troops to fight Chinese Communists in Korea, to remove Manuel Noriega from power in Panama and to prevent human rights disasters in the Balkans. Other conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf War, received "authorization" from Congress but not declarations of war.

Critics of these wars want to upend this long practice by appeals to an "original understanding" of the Constitution. The Constitution, however, does not set out a clear process for starting war. Congress has the power to "declare war," but this clause allows Congress to establish the nation's legal status under international law. The framers wouldn't have equated "declaring" war with beginning a military conflict -- indeed, in the 100 years before the Constitution, the British only once "declared" war at the start of a conflict.
Further, the Constitution specifies no step-by-step process to govern war-making, yet it is specific every other time it imposes shared power on the executive and legislative branches.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23600/pub_detail.asp

[Lars39]

90. No words to describe my contempt for this administration.

:kick:

[Clara T]

96. This guy is unbelievably freakin' sick

Prof. Yoo Sees Broad Powers For Presidents at War;
White House Backs Away / New Definition of Torture

By PAUL M. BARRETT, Staff Reporter of the Wall St. Journal
September 12, 2005; Page A1  

In June, about 100 people gathered at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank, to hear a lecture by John Yoo on "fighting the new terrorism." Mr. Yoo recommended an unusual idea: assassinating more suspected terrorists.    ....

During a two-year stint at the Justice Department from 2001 through 2003, he wrote some of the most controversial internal legal opinions justifying the Bush administration's aggressive approach to detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists.

Some of those memos have become public, but not all of them. Asked after his AEI talk whether there is a classified Justice Department opinion justifying assassinations, Mr. Yoo hinted that he'd written one himself. "You would think they -- the administration -- would have had an opinion about it, given all the other opinions, wouldn't you?" he said, adding, "And you know who would have done the work." A spokesman for the Justice Department declined to comment.  ....

At the Justice Department, Mr. Yoo crafted legal arguments for the president's power to launch pre-emptive strikes against terrorists and their supporters. ... And he interpreted the federal antitorture statute as barring only acts that cause severe mental harm or pain like that accompanying "death or organ failure."

http://zfacts.com/p/100.html

[Lars39]

97. I hope I live long enough to see him and his buddies at the Hague.

[mandyky]

91. Seems Bush has a lot in common with Saddam!

Isn't that the kind of stuff SH is being acused of? Good Lord!

[Clara T]

92. "Alito Brings Qualifications, Not Conservative Tilt, to Court"

Alito Brings Qualifications, Not Conservative Tilt, to Court
By John Yoo

San Diego Union-Tribune  
Publication Date: November 7, 2005

President Bush has taken the next step in the road map toward peace.
Not with Israelis and Palestinians, but with the Senate.

By naming Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, Bush did not just heal the rift with his conservative base, angry over the nomination of Harriet Miers. The President also picked a judge with the highest educational credentials and professional qualifications who brings more judicial experience to the job than anyone in the last 70 years.
     
President Bush could have chosen a conservative firebrand designed to spark a fight with the Senate and rally the Republican troops. Instead, he chose a mild-mannered, soft-spoken, modest bookworm whose only hobby appears to be the Philadelphia Phillies (a pitiful interest that I happen to share). Alito has not written books sharply critical of liberalism like Judge Robert Bork, nor has he given speeches suggesting a revolutionary overhaul of constitutional law like Justice Clarence Thomas. Unlike Justice Antonin Scalia, Alito--whom the press has racially profiled with the nickname “Scalito”--does not look to the Framers to dictate the Constitution’s meaning. Alito has simply spent the last 15 years careful interpreting and applying Supreme Court precedent to the cases before him.
     
If Senate Democrats try to stop Alito, they will be taking a stand against ability, hard work, and accomplishment. He was born in a blue-collar Italian neighborhood in Trenton to an immigrant father, went to public schools, and graduated from Princeton and Yale Law School. After serving as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey, Alito joined the Reagan Justice Department, won 12 cases before the Supreme Court, served as a deputy assistant attorney general, and then served as the head federal prosecutor in his home state before assuming a federal judgeship. Vote against Alito, and Democrats will be providing the grounds for a Republican Senate to block the next Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer, both outstanding liberal judges with a lifetime of accomplishment.
     
Liberal interest groups and some Democrat Senators, however, will oppose Alito because of his conservative views. Alito’s opinions, however, are noteworthy not for espousing any political philosophy, but for the painstaking effort devoted to divining the views of Justice O’Connor, whose votes have determined the outcome on controversial issues ranging from abortion to affirmative action to religion. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, for example, Alito did not suggest that Roe v. Wade was wrong or at least intellectually empty (as even some honest liberal professors and judges will admit). Instead, he accurately predicted that the Court would adopt Justice O’Connor’s vague and ambiguous “undue burden” test for reviewing abortion restrictions. He simply guessed wrong that she would find unreasonable Pennsylvania’s requirement that a wife to notify her husband of her decision. If correctly predicting the future mind of Justice O’Connor is a job requirement for the Supreme Court, then the entire federal bench would be disqualified from the office.
     
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23420/pub_detail.asp

[AlienGirl]

98. See that fin far below us? That's the shark America is jumping.

:wtf:

[Clara T]

99. Terrorists Are Not POWs

Terrorists Are Not POWs
Proposed Ban Would Deprive the United States of a Weapon to Protect Its Citizens
By John Yoo
Posted: Wednesday, November 2, 2005

Suppose that the United States captures a high-level al-Qaeda leader who knows the location of a weapon of mass destruction in an American city. Sen. John McCain's amendment would prevent the president from taking necessary measures--short of torture--to elicit its location.

To protect the United States against another 9/11-style attack, it makes little sense to deprive ourselves of important, and legal, means to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. Physical and mental abuse is clearly illegal. But should we also take off the table interrogation methods that fall short of torture--such as isolation, physical labor, or plea bargains--but go beyond mere questioning?

While the impulse behind the McCain amendment is worthy, it would not have prevented the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, which were unrelated to interrogations. Those abuses resulted from sadistic behavior on the "night shift" and were illegal. The Geneva Conventions--which already prohibit the torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of prisoners--clearly apply in Iraq.

McCain's only real effect would be to limit the interrogation of al-Qaeda terrorists. They are not prisoners of war under Geneva, but a stateless network of religious extremists who do not obey the laws of war, who hide among peaceful populations, and who seek to launch surprise attacks on civilian targets. They have no armed forces to attack, no territory to defend, and no fear of killing themselves in their attacks.

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23407/pub_detail.asp

[AlienGirl]

101. Disgusting

Under the same logic, civilians interned in the Nazis' concentration camps would also not be POWs, but rather "stateless" people who "have no armed forces to attack, no territory to defend..."

The test of whether the Geneva conventions apply ought to be whether the force keeping the prisoners imprisoned is a military--not whether the prisoners were wearing a uniform at the time of capture.


Tucker

[Tsiyu]

100. The Constitutional concept of cruel and unusual punishment

is dead, apparently, even for children.

Wimmins! Pop them fetuses out so we got sumpn' ta TORTURE!!!!!Cuz we is PRO LAHF!!!!

:wtf: