Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

[positive14]

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=504353


US Human Rights
click for free news index

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Advisor Says President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
Posted: 01/09
From: revcom.us

By Philip Watts

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

Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children ? As David Cole puts it, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."

What is the position of the Bush Administration on the torture of children, since one of its most influential legal architects is advocating the President’s right to order the crushing of a child’s testicles?

This fascist logic has nothing to do with "getting information" as Yoo has argued. The legal theory developed by Yoo and a few others and adopted by the Administration has resulted in thousands being abducted from their homes in Afghanistan, Iraq or other parts of the world, mostly at random. People have been raped, electrocuted, nearly drowned and tortured literally to death in U.S.-run torture centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantánamo Bay. And there is much still to come out. What about the secret centers in Europe or the many still-suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib? What can explain this sadistic, indiscriminate, barbaric brutality except a need to instill widespread fear among people all over the world?

It is ironic that just prior to arguing the President's legal right to torture children, John Yoo was defensive about the Bush administration policies, based on his legal memo’s, being equated to those during Nazi Germany.

Yoo said, "If you are trying to draw a moral equivalence between the Nazis and what the United States is trying to do in defending themselves against Al Qauueda and the 9/11 attacks, I fully reject that. Second, if you’re trying to equate the Bush Administration to Nazi officials who committed atrocities in the holocaust, I completely reject that too…I think to equate Nazi Germany to the Bush Administration is irresponsible."

If open promotion of unmitigated executive power, including the right to order the torture of innocent children, isn’t sufficient basis for drawing such a "moral equivalence," then I don’t know what is. What would be irresponsible is to sit by and allow the Bush regime to radically remake society in a fascist way, with repercussions for generations to come. We must act now because the future is in the balance. The world cannot wait. While Bush gives his State of the Union on January 31st, I’ll find myself along with many thousands across the country declaring "Bush Step Down And take your program with you."

Philip Watts - pwatts_revolution@yahoo.com






http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=504353

[Rudey]

We've got another one of these on our hands.

-Rudey
--Great

[RedRoseSAI]

My guess is that the President also has legal authority to cover himself in yogurt and run up and down Pennsylvania Avenue screaming the words to "Hail to the Chief" but I doubt he'll do it.

[hoosier]

--------------------------------------------
What is Mathaba News Network?

Mathaba is an alternative to ABC, BBC, CNN, FOX, WAR, WAR, WAR...

... United in our diversity, we are beyond the political left and right.
--------------------------------------------

Believe this confirms my theory, posted in another thread, since they are not an alternative to CBS.

Beware of Boysenberry yogurt and Mathaba.

[Senlable]

Yeah... I read about that. I wonder what Yoo thought the benefits of that statement would be? Seems like a ridiculous idea... therefore, no need for a statement on the topic.

heres a link to John Yoo's reponse, transcribed and in audio:
http://rwor.org/johnyoo/

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Senlable
I am a lying moron

Remember when you posted fake news?

Did you have the legal power to do that?

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
--------------------------------------------
What is Mathaba News Network?

Mathaba is an alternative to ABC, BBC, CNN, FOX, WAR, WAR, WAR...

... United in our diversity, we are beyond the political left and right.
--------------------------------------------

Believe this confirms my theory, posted in another thread, since they are not an alternative to CBS.

Beware of Boysenberry yogurt and Mathaba.

Fine then hooiser - you can look up the John Yoo interview in the Fifth Estate documentary examining Abu Gharib:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/badapples/

The documentary tries to understand the circmstances and motivations of the abusers at Abu Gharib - looking at the philospohy and policies of the US Administration, through to the military, finally down to speaking to the individuals invovled.

In the interview, John Yoo defines torture as only being physical pain so intense that it causes organ failure or death - everything else isn't torture in his mind. Wit a shit like that forming legal policies around torture and the Geneva Coneventions it's no wonder people assume that the US Administration tactically (if not outright) condones torture...

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Fine then hooiser - you can look up the John Yoo interview in the Fifth Estate documentary examining Abu Gharib:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/badapples/

The documentary tries to understand the circmstances and motivations of the abusers at Abu Gharib - looking at the philospohy and policies of the US Administration, through to the military, finally down to speaking to the individuals invovled.

In the interview, John Yoo defines torture as only being physical pain so intense that it causes organ failure or death - everything else isn't torture in his mind. Wit a shit like that forming legal policies around torture and the Geneva Coneventions it's no wonder people assume that the US Administration tactically (if not outright) condones torture...

And the definition of torture for some is kindly asking them for info and giving them a gun and ticket to Mecca on the way out even if they don't cooperate.

-Rudey

[Tom Earp]

So, now this question is asked when "Just Citizens, Men, Women, and Children", are blown up by some friggen Nut Cases?

What makes this so right?

I would not condone anything of this nature unless there is a but!

For every oppinion, there is an Ass Whole Behind it.

Rudey, isnt this kind of like Risk Management?

Dont do it or get in deep doodoo!

"If People are bad, then do bad to those who are"!

[hoosier]

A quick Google search finds a WashPost Op-Ed Sunday, and a review of Woo's new book. Hope you'll all buy a copy.
---------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010501653.html

John Yoo deserves much credit for helping open up a secretive subject for public discussion, even when it has meant unpleasantness for himself. As the apparent author of many of the Bush administration's post-9/11 policies, including those that authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to violate the wiretap statute and strip Geneva Convention protections from anyone suspected of affiliation with al Qaeda and the Taliban, Yoo lives in a firestorm. In the past few months alone, international lawyers have called for his criminal indictment, students have broken into his classroom at Berkeley (where the former deputy assistant attorney general now teaches law) to stage a mock detainee hearing, and lecture halls where he is scheduled to speak have been boycotted. Such political grandstanding is shameful behavior; in fact, Yoo should be commended for not hiding behind the standard Washington clich of saying, "That's classified; I can't talk about it."

[hoosier]

Originally posted by RACooper
Fine then hooiser - you can look up the John Yoo interview in the Fifth Estate documentary examining Abu Gharib:
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/badapples/

The documentary tries to understand the circmstances and motivations of the abusers at Abu Gharib - looking at the philospohy and policies of the US Administration, through to the military, finally down to speaking to the individuals invovled.

All GLOs have anti-hazing policies.

Similarly, our govt. has standards for treatment of prisoners.

Some GLO hazing happens.

Some mistreatment of prisoners happened.

Attempting to condemn the whole Phi Delt organization for the hazing actions of their Utah chapter (see Risk Mgt. thread) is like condemning the whole US govt. for Abu Gharib.

[Tom Earp]

Originally posted by hoosier
All GLOs have anti-hazing policies.

Similarly, our govt. has standards for treatment of prisoners.

Some GLO hazing happens.

Some mistreatment of prisoners happened.

Attempting to condemn the whole Phi Delt organization for the hazing actions of their Utah chapter (see Risk Mgt. thread) is like condemning the whole US govt. for Abu Gharib.

Well, once again, the old saying is so true.

A Few Bad Apples spoil the Barrel!

No Matter What, the S*it still splaters far and wide doesnt it?

[RACooper]

Originally posted by hoosier
All GLOs have anti-hazing policies.

Similarly, our govt. has standards for treatment of prisoners.

Some GLO hazing happens.

Some mistreatment of prisoners happened.

Attempting to condemn the whole Phi Delt organization for the hazing actions of their Utah chapter (see Risk Mgt. thread) is like condemning the whole US govt. for Abu Gharib.

If we continue your analogy though - lets say for the sake of arguement that a member of the IHQ staff writes a policy memo for IHQ stating that it can only be considered hazing if someone ends up in the hospital - does that not create an enivorment more permissive of hazing at both a IHQ and chapter level?

I'm not condemning the whole US govt. for Abu Gharib - but nor am I absolving the whole US govt. either. There were those in policy making positions that set the stage for the abuses in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Abu Gharib - in fact only a few high level officials and military officers are associated with policy and/or command of the places where abuses/deaths took place.

My point, and the point of the documentary link I posted, is this: contrary to the portrayal of the abuses as the actions of "a few bad apples" there was a more systemic issue with creating the enivroment where these abuses became more or less condoned... the problem is it was only the guys on the lowest rung that took the blame - not the actual commanders, NGOs, or government officials that pretty much orcastrated the whole thing through their actions, words, and policies.

[hoosier]

Originally posted by RACooper
If we continue your analogy though - lets say for the sake of arguement that a member of the IHQ staff writes a policy memo for IHQ stating that it can only be considered hazing if someone ends up in the hospital - does that not create an enivorment more permissive of hazing at both a IHQ and chapter level?

I'm not condemning the whole US govt. for Abu Gharib - but nor am I absolving the whole US govt. either. There were those in policy making positions that set the stage for the abuses in Gitmo, Afghanistan, and Abu Gharib - in fact only a few high level officials and military officers are associated with policy and/or command of the places where abuses/deaths took place.

My point, and the point of the documentary link I posted, is this: contrary to the portrayal of the abuses as the actions of "a few bad apples" there was a more systemic issue with creating the enivroment where these abuses became more or less condoned... the problem is it was only the guys on the lowest rung that took the blame - not the actual commanders, NGOs, or government officials that pretty much orcastrated the whole thing through their actions, words, and policies.

Who condoned it? Where's the memo from IHQ? As soon as it was discovered, charges were filed and several are in big boy jail. Do you think the perps asked permission, or reported their acts, to higher ups?


PS: I'm submitting your new word "orcastrated" to the 2006 Best New Word Contest (and I'll share the prize with you in American $$$). Is the best definition "removal of the balls of an orca"?