John Yoo is officially a sick f***.

[originalpckelly]

MY GOD!! We ARE really dealing with modern day Nazis!

This may have already been posted, but I didn't see it, so here it is again.

John Yoo actually said this:

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

"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."

Here is the MP3 of it:
http://rwor.org/downloads/file_info/download1.php?file=yoo_on_torture.mp3

[RufusEarl]

1. They hate us for our freedoms "Right"

[Greeby]

2. I heard that a little while ago

Sick fuck :grr:

[originalpckelly]

12. I only saw it when I went to look up Mr. Yoo...

in Wikipedia. I found the audio and article there. I can't believe a human being would actually say this is okay. This man is the first Korean Neo-Nazi.

[anarch]

3. I don't get it. What's wrong with crushing a child's testicles?

I mean, he's the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the greatest and most super-awesome free country ever in the history of the universe, so he should be able to torture and kill as many children as he wants, right? No? Gott Mit Uns.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. Yes.

And the Revolutionary Communist Party will surely save us from this peril!

[redqueen]

6. are you implying the story is a lie?

that yoo didn't use this reasoning?

because if not, i don't see how your comment makes any sense at all.

[originalpckelly]

11. I encourage you to listen to the MP3. Compare it...

to other words by John Yoo.

[RUZIK1]

13. facsism in america

The success of the GOP cum American Fascist Party is due to the fact that the US worker has been made a fool of by his masters. If there was ANY kind of socialization of the worker, there would be no fascism. Without a labor movement, you have a capitalist domination of the means. The USA is the most classic example of the failure of labor. Who knew that the entertainment would be so over powering! And that the Fascists would be such a teeny-tiny 1% of the population. Past dictators lacked the means that Huxley predicted, Hitler must be envious in his Xian paradise.

[Blue_Tires]

27. welcome to the site!

[originalpckelly]

30. Oh yeah...WELCOME TO DU!!!

:hi:

[originalpckelly]

20. I have confirmed the story independently...

While I cannot confirm the accuracy of the recording beyond saying the "room sound" is the same in all parts of the tape, something that wouldn't be true if this was a splice of Mr. Yoo's comments, I can confirm the debate did happen on December 1st, 2005; this is from the website of the organization that sponsored the debate:
"GOAt presents…
The Truth Can Hurt: Torture and Security in the Age of Terrorism

Thursday, December 1, 2005

w/ John Yoo and Douglass Cassel

7:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

HotHouse
31 E. Balbo, Chicago

Members/Nonmembers $10
(For ages 18 and older. Alcohol is served. ID required.)

John Yoo, professor of law, University of California Berkeley and visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; author, The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11. Douglass Cassel, professor and director, Center for Civil and Human Rights, University of Notre Dame Law School. Moderated by Jerome McDonnell, host of Chicago Public Radio’s Worldview.

Protection of U.S. land, its people, and its military personnel is a priority for our government. So, to what lengths should the government go to ensure our safety? John Yoo, author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11 (University of Chicago Press, 2005) and currently a professor of law at University of California Berkeley, debates this question and many more alongside Doug Cassel, professor and director for the Center for Civil and Human Rights at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Mr. Yoo’s former position as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice (2001-2003) placed him at the forefront of the security debate. It was during this time he wrote some of the most controversial internal legal opinions justifying the Bush administration's aggressive approach to detaining and interrogating suspected terrorists. As a law expert in international human rights, Mr. Cassel has spoken out many times against the U.S. administration’s treatment of detainees at both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. He was also a consultant to the lawyers for the prisoners in the Supreme Court cases.

As is the tradition of GOAt, there will be an in-depth Q & A with the audience following the moderated portion of the discussion.

Mr. Yoo’s book will be available for purchase on site and he will fulfill signature requests following the program."

http://www.ccfr.org/events/pastevents.asp
(Select the GOAt event for December 1st 2005)

[leveymg]

5. It won't take the jury long to deliberate about Mr. Yoo.

Guilty of all charges, your honor.

[tocqueville]

7. it's not the act in itself (how horrible it might be) that is interesting

but to know if he is right or wrong. Because if he is formally and legally right, the US is in far bigger fucking trouble than the rethorical example might imply.

Because it means that the President has ABSOLUTE powers and is not bound by laws and treaties. Which, if it is the case, the Constitution has to be rewritten.

That's the central question Democrat president candidates should ask themselves...

[hootinholler]

15. The Supreme's disagree with him.

See Hamden Vs Rumsfeld.

-Hoot

[originalpckelly]

21. We can only hope one day America will disagree with him.

This man is pathetic waste of space.

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Notice that Yoo had a very short career in public service.

He is a dangerous bastard and they knew it.

[derby378]

9. I have no words

:cry:

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Professor Yoo needs to take a course in reading comprehension

The Convention against Torture categorically prohibits what Yoo is talking about. The United States is party to this treaty and consequently no act of Congress is needed to prohibit it. Furthermore, any act of Congress to circumvent the Torture Convention and give the President such authority is, to say the very least, suspect.

The Torture memos were not good faith legal advice. They were nothing more than a document to give the Mr. Bush cover to order heinous and illegal acts in his offshore network of gulags. Those who wrote these memos should, along with those who ordered torture, be tried for crimes against humanity. That includes Professor Yoo.

[leveymg]

14. Actually, there is a Torture Act that enabled the UN Convention

But, you're right about Mr. Woo's apparent lack of reading comprehension. See,

Daily Kos: WHY PARDONS WON'T MATTER: The Convention Against Torture
WHY PARDONS WON'T MATTER: The Convention Against Torture ... Mark G. Levey, 2006. Tags: Convention Against Torture, Torture Act of 2000, Abu Ghraib, ...
www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/24/13644/9576

[Jack Rabbit]

16. Enabling the convention

EDITED for typing

What the act of Congress did was to put gloss on the treaty. It provides for sanctions against government officials who abuse their authority and employ torture or other humiliating methods of interrogation.

Under Article 6 of the COnstitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land. The point is that Congress can no more pass legislation allowing for electrodes to be used on terror suspects, thus abrogating the Convention against Torture, than it can abrogate the First Amendment and pass a law against calling the President a dope.

Even without any legislation, the use of torture authorized by the President is an impeachable offense. The absence of that legislation would simply mean it would be difficult to prosecute him in a federal court for crimes against humanity. He would have to be bound over to an international tribunal to answer for such crimes.

[leveymg]

17. Treaties don't have domestic effect without enabling legislation,

Yes, I know that seems to contradict Article 6, but that's the way it's been interpreted.

Anyway, the Torture Act provides for the death penalty for those who incite, enable, or carry out torture that results in the death of another outside the U.S..

That's makes it pretty clear that Mr. Yoo, along with his bosses, have committed capital offenses.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. I am not disagreeing with you

Note that I said that without the legislation, the use of torture would be impeachable, but not criminal.

Without the treaty, Congress could pass legislation authorizing the use of torture. As it is, it cannot.

[leveymg]

19. Agreed.

:hi:

[BrotherBuzz]

22. A brief, informal summary of John Yoo's logic...

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

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.

[originalpckelly]

24. I read this earlier when I was trying to verify the article...

I searched for John Yoo and torture. I soon learned I had to make my search more specific as there are 110,000 records on google for John Yoo and torture.

[BrotherBuzz]

28. John Yoo is a loose cannon and has Bushco's ear

Crazy twisted individuals, all of them.

The end never justifies the means.

[seg4527]

23. when he came to the U of Minnesota, we disrupted his speech

well, it was actually a "debate" by him and a former cia guy whose way of arguing was "i agree, but"

yeah, a bunch of us got removed by the cops. about 2/3rds of the crowd of a couple hundred was there to protest him. at the end he said "this is the only school that i've had this kind of reception at" and everybody clapped and shouted. :-P

these people are war criminals, and don't anybody forget that.

[originalpckelly]

25. I think you are right...

Anyone who would say it is okay to torture an innocent little child is a sick fuck.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

26. "Freedom ain't free". Sometimes, the cost is crushing a child's testicles

Who are you to question fearless leader?

[originalpckelly]

29. Don't you mean the Fuhrer?(nt)

[Rex]

31. John Yoo is a fucking idiot.

Why would he be any different then the rest of the motards at 1600 Penn. Avenue?

Ugh! Our country is being run by motard-nazis! We are sooooooooooooooooooooo fucked. :(

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

32. It has been posted before. But, again, the only response: "F. Yoo!"

[TNMOM]

33. Wonder what this idiot would think

if the child whose testicles were crushed was his own?

[Roland99]

34. Wasn't that interview not long after Abu Ghraib broke?

Yoo is a complete and utter ASSHOLE!

[originalpckelly]

35. No it was a debate in Chicago last year December 1st...

a day that will live in infamy.