Amazon.com Widgets

« Mr. Deity and the Hard Wire | Main | Look Out »

John Yoo

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show: Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

 

Comments

Yoo is just so wrong: it is not sufficient that Al Qaeda isn't a nation state to excuse throwing away the National moral compass.

this guy is full of it. his logic is irrational. why have rules, laws, or congress if the president can claim overriding power. the guantanamo tortures are a permanant black stain on our moral character as a nation.

Arg - anyone who thought that actions such as water boarding were/are OK as an interrogation technique should say "I'm sorry" and shut up.

The telling part is that Bush and company went to a lawyer for legalese to allow immoral interrogation techniques. Just as Yoo 1st presented the scenario as either "enhanced interrogation" vs. "reading them their Miranda rights and letting them remain silent," Bush and Co. painted a black and white picture for the general public.

Had the administration really wanted to know what would be most effective and how to avoid torture - legal or otherwise, it would have consulted seasoned interrogators. Perhaps Yoo is right in saying that the majority of Americans don't think things such as stress positions, demeaning poses, water boarding, etc are wrong.* However, the vast majority of interrogators will tell anyone who cares to listen at the least that torture is not effective in gathering intel. Crafty Q and A along with being nice is way way better than so-called "enhanced interrogation." Maybe Yoo wasn't aware of such interrogation history back in 2002, but he damn well should have done some reading between then and now. The best intel collected from Khalid Sheik Mohammed came prior to the multiple water boarding sessions.

I suppose from a precedent standpoint, there is something good that can come from this: we have a control group of sorts that shows that torture - if not considered immoral (which it is) - is decidedly ineffective. The next John Yoo needs to take note.

*I doubt he's right, but who knows the stats?

Perhaps Yoo is right in saying that the majority of Americans don't think things such as stress positions, demeaning poses, water boarding, etc are wrong.

Well then, I guess the Geneva convention and the Nuremburg trials were entirely unnecessary. Perhaps all the defendents had to do was cite what the majority of Germans thought was right. And what a wonderful country we would have if John Yoo's conception of what is the "right" interpretation of presidential power is accepted:

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.

John Yoo is scum.

I agree with you Tim. I'm merely suggesting that MAYbe he's right in his claims about what Americans think, although I doubt it.

Since it appears we'll never have a trial to hold people like Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rummy, Rice, Yoo (the list could continue, but I'd prefer going top down) accountable for the horrible actions they sanctioned/encouraged/justified/rationalized, we'll have to rely on the likes of John Stewart to have them reveal their cards on his show.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

P.S. or John Cassel. Sorry; the sentence was long enough already.

I'm understood you weren't subscribing to this scumbag's fascistic garbage. The illogicality of his position is so blatantly obvious it is disgusting. We sign treaties (in fact, we drafted the treaties) banning torture. The treaties apply to behavior of the nation in wartime - that's what they're about! But the president has the power to order the crushing of a child's testicles - as long as it is wartime. There is just so disgusting that I had break up watching this bastard into about 8 intervals.

By the way, can somebody tell me just exactly when was the last time were weren't in "wartime"? Was it before 9-11 or before the USS Cole or before the first World Trade Center bombing or before the first Gulf War or ... Oh, wait - Congess is supposed to issue a declaration of war, right? Like the Geneva convention, that seems so quaint these days, doesn't it?

George Bush ordered the crushing of a child's testicles?

What a reasonable sounding scum bag torturer he is.

What I'm still left wondering is what is a workable definition of torture. Practically I'd love to say "I know it when I see it" but I just don't think that's workable, especially when there are people who profit from such vagueness.

For those who oppose torture as a matter of principle, let me pose this hypothetical question. Suppose we have solid intelligence that a terrorist group is about to set off a nuclear weapon in a major U.S. city in 24 hours (millions will die) and we have captured one of their operatives who has detailed knowledge of the plot. Do you think it is OK to torture this person under this circumstance?

I understand that torture does not necessarily work but don't you think we ought to try everything in this scenario?

Oh geeze, the ticking time-bomb scenario has been beaten to death for years now. It's not anything especially novel or thought provoking once you really dissect it.

This scenario has never occurred and will likely never occur with all the detailed conditions that have to be met for it to hold water: a person has information of an impending and destructive attack, this person knows of the bomb's location, the time in which it will detonate, whom it will be detonated by, and that we know this person knows this. Terrorists are simply smarter than to give all the details to one person to materialize the plan. The scenario as is constructed is simply one that will most likely never occur (and hasn't ever; hmm, wonder why) except in TV shows like 24.

Moreover, torture will make any person give out whatever the torturer wants to hear so as to stop the pain. The information that you can retrieve from torturing someone is very questionable. By the way, were you aware that the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who was waterboarded around 183; hmm, why so many times if torture is supposed to work?) and Bin al-Shibh was entirely unnecessary in obtaining the information we needed? They had already explained the details of the 9/11 attacks in an April 2002 interview with Yosri Fouda, an Al Jazeera correspondent.

I understand that torture does not necessarily work but don't you think we ought to try everything in this scenario?

Please read and consider what Erick has to say. Torture does not work. period. (no necessarily about it) If you're not concerned about the welfare of those being interrogated, at least think about what torture does to those who carry out such acts.

I am sorry someone managed to convince you with the ticking time bomb scenario. Convince him, her, or them the other way please.

You can watch him hedge his bets. He suggests strongly that torture is OK in certain cases (directly related to protecting the US in a wartime situation yada yada), while at the same time trying to imply that what he helped to authorize was not really "torture".

The truth is, of course, that purposefully inflicting physical pain (however minor) in order to get someone to confess or give intel is always torture. There are many, many reasons, both moral and practical, that torture is not legal and should not be legal, and it is distressing that the Bush administration put up such smokescreens to defend themselves.

what a soul-less cretin. i couldn't watch the whole thing, my stomach turned. does jon find his stride eventually? bizarre that the chief sadist of the idiot-disaster-death-war-hate-bigot-failure-torture administration would be interviewed on comedy central. what he did was anything but funny. he seems to have no inkling at all of the severe cartoon villain monster he is. why mince words? maybe i'll try and watch the rest.. eek.

I disagree.. the interviews on TDS are often the most in depth I can find. JS also treats people he disagrees with with respect, and reads up before talking with them. Other than Charlie Rose, where do you find that?

I watched it twice, just to make sure I understood his argument. I also agree with J. Stewart to understand the reasons involved.

Without getting into the details of the decision of what is or is not torture, I understand the issue at hand: A large, highly motivated organization with no capital has attacked you and tried to decapitate your government.

Now what do you do, and what can you legally do.

Most of us can't imagine protecting the lives of ten people (as in, you 100% control their fate, like fish in an aquarium) let alone several million, but that IS what it is to be in high military command. And, the question of "what legally can we do?" is absolutely a good question.

Legally, I think he is accurate, that in times of war the president CAN do whatever is required to save the country, even if I don't agree with it. The president must make the case that what he needs to do is going to defend our nation.

So, the question is ok. The desire to protect Americans is ok. His answer is technically accurate (to the best of his knowledge), but the incorrect issue is the President not taking the high road and publicly exposing the 3rd highest AQ member and then treating him humanely, for all the world to see.

See, Bush was wrong thinking that intelligence was the way to win the war. It is part of it, of course, but the way to win the war (any war) is to sap the desire and resources of an opponent until they can no longer resist your aim.

I could easily argue the opposite as well... that we should take the guy onto a boat in international waters and do whatever we want, but that the president has 100% deniability, and if the agents involved are exposed, they should be tried as criminals. It isn't legal in any way, but is the way Intelligence normally operates.

What is absolutely stupid is finding a legal way to torture people and then having the president advocate the action.

"...the way to win the war (any war) is to sap the desire and resources of an opponent until they can no longer resist your aim."

... and that by admitting we torture, we give the enemy credibility, funds and hundreds of new recruits.

One of my favorite lines from the wonderful German film, The Lives of Others, comes at the end when the protagonist meets his nemesis who was a high communist party official. “I can’t believe my country was led by men like you.” This is how I feel about the Bush years when America was led by unctuous little creeps like this asshole.

If Yoo has even a shred of intelligence he didn’t let it shine through in this interview. Here is the bottom line with torture: if it is OK for us to use it then it is Ok for our enemies to use the same tactics. We are either better than Al Qaeda or we aren't. Yoo argues for the later.

if it is OK for us to use it then it is Ok for our enemies to use the same tactics.

yes.

We are either better than Al Qaeda or we aren't.

"we" aren't, mr. spanish expat.

bottom line is the enforceability of these treaties. there is none. so put whatever you want in the treaties- "torture is illegal" or whatever. use the treaties to show your nation's moral character, by all means. but they won't prevent a single captive from being actually tortured, on any side. humans are scum, i advise avoiding falling into their hands.

I welcome our future robot overlords. May they have enforceable treaties.

Wow, Jonathan, How do you actually think mankind became more civilized?

Ah well, Anne Frank, you're not but, then again, she's dead --- oh, and, an inspiration to people everywhere.

Anne Frank, you're not but, then again, she's dead

yep.

Appropriate place for you to stop a quote:) You have a future as a cut-rate marketer:

The movie was fantastic for the first five minutes and then it was a bore = The movie was fantastic....

banality of evil; nothing else, just that.

John Yoo is a despicable, morally bankrupt tool of oppression. The fact that this monster is on a talk show rather than in jail for war crimes boggles the mind.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives