The unedited interview, which has much more time and substance than the broadcast, starts here and is broken up into several sections:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/daily-show--exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--1 My take:
Initially I wondered about legitimating war crimes by having the author of torture memos on the show. But Stewart, as usual, does a good job and implicitly humiliates the corporate media by showing them once again how to do their job and ask hard questions (and still get those kinds of guests on his show).
Selected Highlights
Stewart starts by saying he's "not a constitutional lawyer." While this may appear to undermine his own opinion, on the contrary the firmness with which he opposes torture makes it clear that the wrongfulness of torture is obvious to the layperson.
THIS IS CRITICAL BECAUSE a primary way that constitutional rights of detainees are being denied is the claim that a reasonable government worker couldn't know for sure that constitutional rights applied. (I'm not kidding, courts have ruled that)He introduces Yoo by saying (in his first comment) "you are Infamous." Effectively points out that "it's a war" (and a perpetual one) on one hand, and then it's not a war for purposes of prisoners of war and the Geneva Conventions creates a "netherworld" of essentially unlimited power.
In every case, the justification chosen is the one that increases presidential power.Tells Yoo his rationales don't make sense. Stewart is bothered at several points, and says so, or physically acts out reflecting his discomfort.
Stewart can't even believe Yoo's position that while we signed a treaty entitled "Convention Against Torture" we never defined what torture WAS. In fact, it's defined in the treaty as shown in the box below, which means that Yoo's position (though he never specifically says so here) is essentially that
we don't know what the meaning of the words "ill-treatment" and "severe" are as used in the definition of torture, which is nevertheless the same in US statute as it is in the treaty.Definition, from Treaty (Article I) and US Statute essentially identical.
"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
THE ONLY BIG THING TO BE WISHED FOR
Given that Yoo's "issue" was how to "define" torture in what he claims are less severe cases (nobody that's been waterboarded "properly" considers it "un-severe"), he's trying to escape the absolute torture prohibition which, of course, specifically says it admits of
"no exceptions whatsoever" under any circumstances, regardless of war or peace or state of emergency.HOWEVER, "ill-treatment of prisoners or detainees" is a class of crime less severe than torture, but it is still a war crime and, if widespread or systematic, a crime against humanity (whether in time of war or in time of peace).
But, maybe Jon Stewart thought we'd all figure that last part out - that less severe ill-treatment is still a violation -- because the very title of the applicable treaty is:
"CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment"
It's well recognized that "other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" is that which is less severe than torture, but still inhumane.
Again, time of war or not is irrelevant: The law admits of no exceptions whatsoever. Despite hundreds of cases applying international law in US courts, the
only available tactic to avoid this absolute prohibition is to claim international law no longer applies in US courts. And that's what courts have been asked to hold, and some have.
But international law has been recognized in US Courts at every stage of our history. The Alien Tort State expressly designed for international law claims began in the US in 1789 by act of Congress, and
the Constitution also says Congress can "define AND punish" violations of the "Law of Nations." The Constitution provides no authority for EXCUSING violations of the law of nations. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence is in large part an appeal to international law and the community of nations to hear our reasons for separation from Great Britain, and declares the only purpose for which governments are created is to "secure" individual rights, i.e guarantee them.
The Bush administration has turned the American way on its head by approaching the whole issue as whether "Congress intended to GRANT rights to detainees, etc."
Free governments don't GRANT rights, they guarantee them.
Dictators GRANT rights - making the public entirely dependent on the leaders.
Regardless of outcomes in US courts, international law applies in international tribunals, beyond any doubt. In fact, to even ask the question of whether international law applies in international tribunals is absurd, because it is a question that answers itself: Of course
international law applies in
international tribunals. That's why the US feels it must resist the jurisdiction, as against all Americans, of the International Court of Justice.
Once again, a professional comedian does an enormously better job than MSM "journalists."
Part I starts at this link below. Jon Stewart shows the book, but does not, as he so often says, say "Buy this book." Good for him.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/daily-show--exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--1