On Behalf of the Planet, a big Fu*# Yoo.

[omega minimo]

Fuck Yoo.

"Bush and company could not have ordered prisoners to be tortured, nor could CIA agents and military interrogators have carried out those orders, had it not been for Yoo. It was his two legal opinions, now known as the "Torture Memos," that authorized cruel and harsh interrogations that had previously been defined as torture, and thus illegal under US and international law."

There is a special circle of Hell for the willing enablers of bogus cover for Bushco's crimes against humanity.


John Yoo justifies torturing children
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1-eWU2Ii0

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/02/yoo/
Glenn Greenwald
WEDNESDAY APRIL 2, 2008 07:08 EDT

John Yoo's war crimes

Yet again, the ACLU has performed the function which Congress and the media are intended to perform but do not. As the result of a FOIA lawsuit the ACLU filed and then prosecuted for several years, numerous documents relating to the Bush administration's torture regime that have long been baselessly kept secret were released yesterday, including an 81-page memorandum issued in 2003 by then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo (currently a Berkeley Law Professor) which asserted that the President's war powers entitle him to ignore multiple laws which criminalized the use of torture.
*****
It is not, of course, news that the Bush administration adopted (and still embraces) legal theories which vest the President with literally unlimited power, including the power to break our laws.


http://www.firejohnyoo.org/2009/01/john-yoo-war-criminal.html
The chances that the notorious UC Berkeley law professor will be investigated for war crimes appear to have increased in recent weeks.

By Robert Gammon
EAST BAY EXPRESS January 28, 2009

But why would Yoo be a more likely target than George W. Bush,Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld? It's clear now that they were the ones who ordered prisoners to be tortured at Guantanamo Bay prison and elsewhere. Or what about the CIA and military interrogators who waterboarded prisoners or deprived them of sleep and exposed them to cold for prolonged periods? Aren't they more responsible than Yoo, whose work consisted of writing legal opinions from the comfort of his Department of Justice office in Washington, DC?

The answer to those questions is "yes." Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the actual torturers were more responsible than Yoo. But because of vagaries in US law, they appear to be a tougher target than the University of California law professor, at least for domestic prosecutions. That may be unfortunate, but it's not as if Yoo's hands are clean. Bush and company could not have ordered prisoners to be tortured, nor could CIA agents and military interrogators have carried out those orders, had it not been for Yoo. It was his two legal opinions, now known as the "Torture Memos," that authorized cruel and harsh interrogations that had previously been defined as torture, and thus illegal under US and international law.

http://www.counterpunch.org/vanbergen04242008.html
The President's Executioner
The High Crimes of John Yoo
By JENNIFER VAN BERGEN

The title of this article --The President's Executioner --is a play on words. It refers to professor John Yoo, who teaches law at Boalt Hall, University of California, Berkeley. But this man --mild-mannered by all appearances --is not what he seems.

He is the man who was, more often than nearly any other, behind the White House decisions to violate the international laws of war. He was the one who told the White House how to get away with committing war crimes. While he may have been a henchman for others who instructed him to make the arguments he did, he repeatedly refused to reverse himself, both while he worked in the Department of Justice and after he left that office and returned to academia.

But it was also during this time period, as we now know, that the Department of Justice became “politicized.” Instead of executing the laws as it should have been doing, the Justice Department became an instrument of President Bush, executing his wishes. And John Yoo executed White House wishes to twist the law into something it was not and was not meant to be.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
By Philip Watts

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."

John "Testicle Crusher" Yoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1-eWU2Ii0

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. I have always found him one of the most interesting of the cabal.

The consiglieri.

I always picture him playing solitaire on his computer when in walks Cheney/Scooter/Addington - "Hey! Yoo Who!(I'm thinking this would have been his frat boy nickname from Bush) Have a little time? We need you to whip up a couple of quick memos saying we can use torture. But don't call it that, ok? Think you can have it by Tuesday?"

[opihimoimoi]

2. DEATH by CRUSHED BALLS....."Ye shall be taken to the Vice so as your Balls be slowly crushed."

The sentence at the trial...

[omega minimo]

3. He will be sentenced to Eternity surrounded by tormentors as obsequious as he.

:evilfrown:

[opihimoimoi]

4. A Toady Too...he will be in jail soon...and sing his guts out while the get his soft ass in a vice

[omega minimo]

9. Maybe a start would be getting fired from UC Berkeley Law School for being a slimeball

[opihimoimoi]

12. That would be a Start

[islandgirl808]

5. sorry for bringing up the race card

but i'm beyond pissed 'cause he's asian and i'm asian.
how fucking rude, you know? and i realize being asian has nothing to do with it, but it still hurts especially when i think about all the asian-american vets that fought for this country. it's just sickening and it pisses me off to the core.

okay end rant x(

[omega minimo]

8. Only the mods can answer that properly

[SemiCharmedQuark]

19. I'm Hispanic. Alberto Gonzales--First Hispanic to serve as AG

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Brother Buzz]

6. A brief primer designed to help you understand John Yoo's circular logic

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

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."

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.

[omega minimo]

7. "It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

LOVE Jon Carroll!! Thank you so much! Discovered him in the Datebook section of the SF Chronicle when Clinton was being impeached for peccadilloes.

He did a great piece on the media (still back then) pretending to be self reflective or professional about the story that had taken over... talking about talking about the media talking about how they were talking about it... and doing it anyway.

And he didn't mention Clinton once. :spray:

Instant fan. :thumbsup:

[Brother Buzz]

13. I have no doubt Jon Carroll grew up reading Art Hoppe

Social criticism and political satire is an incredibly strong tool to enlighten and inform people, and make them think. If it's done well, like Jon does, it's just plain fun to read, too.

[omega minimo]

14. absolutely. fun and funny, absurdists skewering the liars. Daily Show becomes a news source.

:hi: I never really "got" Hoppe. Only see the reruns they do these days.

[omega minimo]

28. Today's Carroll gem

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/22/DDJP175RSU.DTL

War is ugly. War is stupid. War is hell. Even when you are a courageous settler standing in front of your cabin fighting to protect your family cowering inside - ugly, stupid, hell. After all, that's probably not your land you're standing on. Probably it was stolen. There really aren't any good guys here.

But: We do have to save special contempt for the cold-blooded torturers, the ones in nice suits thousands of miles away from the action, sitting in nice offices writing thoughtful memos explaining why torture is not really torture, or not torture as defined by the Geneva Convention, or not torture per se, as it were, see footnote three.

For one thing, and the people in the nice suits in nice offices never seem to have gotten this message, torture isn't really an effective interrogation device. This is not exactly secret information. I mean, think about it - if you were having your head slammed up against a wall repeatedly, wouldn't you say just about anything to make it stop?
**************
OK, they'll find out I'm lying pretty quick, but then perhaps I am labeled an unreliable informant and they'll leave me alone. Of course, we know from some of the released memos that they did not leave unreliable informants alone; they tortured them anyway. American soldiers and civilians tortured half-wits and liars and, well, anybody they could, it would seem.

Why? Because they had guidelines. The Justice Department said they could. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. What data do you suppose the last 10 waterboardings yielded?

And this was not hot-blooded revenge. This was not jungle fighting or ignorant armies clashing by night or the fog of war descending on the brains of scared and tired young men. This was being done on the written orders of men in the Justice Department, torture weasels who should be banished to a small rock in the Atlantic. One of them, Torture Weasel Jay Bybee, is now a judge, Ninth Circuit. Isn't that swell?


more....

[I Have A Dream]

10. Very chilling indeed.

:(

(K&R)

[omega minimo]

11. The banality of evil

:thumbsdown:





Hi IHAD :hug:

[bertman]

15. Since I don't believe in that Circle of Hell stuff, I'll settle for a six by eight padded

cell with a stainless floor toilet and a bunk for his 6'10" cellmate "Squeaky" who loves poking pudgy old white guys. A fitting residence for the traitor to live in until they take him and put him against the wall for the firing squad.

[omega minimo]

16. karma

[backtoblue]

17. PBS documentary with Yoo

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/interviews/yoo.html

[omega minimo]

18. thank you for sharing that with us

:hi:

[backtoblue]

22. you're welcome!

PBS/Frontline

Interviewer:

I can see from how that could be the basis for things to begin to flow: Does Geneva apply? Are they enemy combatants? Are they POWs? Are they wearing uniforms, and are they doing unlawful acts to women and children? The logic of it could flow from what you were talking about.


Yoo:

I think a lot of the logic flows from the two I had to answer right from the beginning: Is it war or not? And then, should they be treated the same as a nation or not? Because I think some people think, well, crime is just one sort of sphere with its own rules, and war is just one sphere and its own rules, and everybody in war gets treated the same. But that's not actually the case. War has different rules for a nation and different rules for people who choose to fight kind of like pirates who are outside the control of a nation.

And in the weeks after 9/11, then we start thinking about what happens when we catch other Al Qaeda members. Do we try them? Do we detain them? Where can we detain them? And those kinds of questions then start to come up or start to think about them. But these are really driven by operational concerns. It wasn't, I think, hypothetical. It wasn't like people in the White House, the Justice Department, just sitting in a room and looking at the ceiling and saying, "Well, what happens if we capture Osama bin Laden?" As you start to prepare for a potential conflict in Afghanistan, you have to figure out what kind of facilities you even need.

So just to give one concrete example, the Geneva Conventions prohibit putting people in cells. The Geneva Conventions roughly look like the prisoner-of-war camp you saw in Hogan's Heroes or Stalag 17. Captured members of the enemy retain their military uniforms and their structure, and they live in barracks as a group, just like they were before they were captured; they just don't get to fight. If the Geneva Conventions applied, you would have to build barracks and let members of Al Qaeda live in groups. And so this is sort of an immediate thing the military needs to know, which is, what kind of facility do we need to build in order to place members of an enemy that we capture?

And it seemed obvious that they would want to put them in cells, because each individual can be so dangerous, not just to guards but to other. The initial question we had to face right away was, do the Geneva Conventions apply? And then that would drive whether they build prison barracks or they build individual cells.

[omega minimo]

29. must read this post

[sampsonblk]

20. He should be arrested and disbarred immediately (nt)

[ColbertWatcher]

21. As always ...

... I offer up the tube in the Truthiness Encyclopedia for anyone who wishes to use it to post any and every bit of information on this criminal, John Yoo.

It's a work in progress (like all pages on every wiki), so create a free account and edit to your heart's content.

[omega minimo]

23. Thanks for the link

At first glance, I would add to the "Greatest Ever," the "Greatest Presidential Powers Ever"

[ColbertWatcher]

24. I'm glad you understand that it is supposed to be ironic/sarcastic ...

... if not satirical.

[omega minimo]

25. You mean the satireyness of it?

:hi:

[ColbertWatcher]

26. LOL! Yes, now I have to go make a page for that word! n/t

[omega minimo]

27. That was quick.

:bounce:

[bigtree]

30. recommend

:kick: