Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm

01/08/06 "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.

It has now come out Yoo also had a hand in providing legal reasoning for the President to conduct unauthorized wiretaps of U.S. citizens. Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Few lawyers have had more influence on President Bush’s legal policies in the 'war on terror’ than John Yoo."

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.

The audio of this exchange is available online at revcom.us

[Poiuyt]

1. OMG!

Did he really say that??

[calimary]

22. No kidding - OMG!!!

These people really will stop at nothing. Except maybe going to fight their own wars THEMSELVES.

[merh]

2. so, in theory, if it is allowable to crush the testicles of someone

to protect our nation from harm, wouldn't it be appropriate to crush Yoo's testicles and the testicles of all who followed his advice? They have harmed our nation far more than the 9/11 terrorists ever could. They have stripped us of our rights, destroyed our standing in the world, made us a nation feared and distrusted, not a nation respected and admired. Using Yoo's reasoning, it would be justified to put his privates in a vice wouldn't it?

[MikeNearMcChord]

4. If Yoo thinks this I wouldn't mind having him submitted

to some loving Lynndie England or Jack Bauer treatment, or maybe he needs to be a subject in rough interrogation tactics taught at the School of the Americas. Yoo needs to be tried in the Hague.

[jwirr]

12. Not to mention those of a few other well know politicians.

[merh]

14. yupper, like I said

"and the testicles of all who followed his advice"

[Me.]

3. Someone Should Crush That Pervert's Testicles

What a monster. I hope the day comes when all his perverted thinking catches up with him.

[Me.]

7. Is This Guy Even A Citizen?

It would be the ultimate irony if this criminal who is so debasing our laws isn't one. He was born in Seoul and I don't see any info on when he became one.

“War crimes accusations

On 14th November 2006, invoking the principle of command responsibility, German attorney Wolfgang Kaleck filed a complaint with the German Federal Attorney General (Generalbundesanwalt) against Yoo, along with 13 other "co-defendants" for his alleged complicity in torture and other crimes against humanity at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Kaleck acted on behalf of 11 alleged victims of torture and other human rights abuses, as well as about 30 human rights activists and organizations. The co-plaintiffs to the war crimes prosecution included Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Martín Almada, Theo van Boven, Sister Dianna Ortiz and Veterans for Peace.”

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

[Rydz777]

5. Feed and Fodder Act

He is also being advised that under the "Feed and Fodder Act" passed during the Civil War, he has the power to keep troops in the field without Congressional appropriations. How does this apply? Well, it seems any old Civil War will do, including one in Iraq.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Patrick Henry Weighed In On This 200+ Years Ago

"They may introduce the practice of France, Spain, and Germany--of torturing, to extort a confession of the crime. They will say that they might as well draw examples from those countries as from Great Britain, and they will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity. We are then lost and undone."
- Patrick Henry (The "Give me liberty or give me death" guy)

[lonestarnot]

8. We are presently "...lost and undone."

[BrotherBuzz]

9. The intricacies of the twisted circular logic employed by John Yoo

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

by Jon Carroll
02 Jan 06

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."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

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.

[EFerrari]

19. How did I miss that one.

:)

[Jack Rabbit]

10. John Yoo should be in The Hague answering charges

The Gonzales memos, in which he had a hand in writing, make up exhibit A.

[Rev. Mother Ramallo]

11. This sounds...

...a little ridiculous. If the MSM got ahold of this one from here, they'd think we were ALL tinfoil hatters...

[Swamp Rat]

13. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[warren pease]

15. And so, in your concern to put your best foot forward...

...you would have us all take off our socks so the M$M can examine the crud between our toes to determine if it's appropriately orthodox crud or some of that discredited left wing nut crud that's been proven to cause cancer in GOP brains (assuming such exist).

So you're willing to submit to the judgment of people whose ability, motivation and objectivity has been absent for six whole years...longer if you take a look through the history of the press' traditional validation of government propaganda over the entire history of this country.

You're kidding, right?


wp

[Rev. Mother Ramallo]

18. I am...

...not here to put each of your versions of one's best foot forward. I can just be myself.

[jmowreader]

16. Tell me again what was wrong with Saddam

If we're doing things like this, we've become as bad as Saddam ever was.

In the good old days when Saddam was torturing and murdering with impunity, one of his favorite interrogation techniques was to put a mother and father in a prison cell, then put their baby in a basket just out of arm's reach and let the parents watch it starve to death.

If it's okay for the American pResident to have children's testicles crushed in front of their fathers, why in HELL did we feel we had to go after Saddam?

[EFerrari]

20. Because he was there. n/t

[camero]

17. Oh wait let me guess.

It's for the children. :sarcasm:

[Rex]

21. Soooo...Bill Clinton got IMPEACHED for lying, yet George

gets to order CHILDREN be tortured on a whim AND Congress won't IMPEACH him!?

EXPLAIN this please? Bonus points to lurkers!