What in the hell is a-matter with Yoo?

[Hubert Flottz]

Yoo Who?



Bush will want to have the next AG ready to go as soon as Seedy Gonzales is FIRED! YOO damned right he likes this guy.

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." MORE...

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

A War of Words: 'Declare' vs. 'Make' and Its Allies

By Dana Milbank
Thursday, February 23, 2006; Page A02

For generations, civics students have learned that the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Yesterday, the man who built the legal underpinnings of the Bush administration's terrorism strategy revised the curriculum.

John Yoo, the former Justice Department official whose writings justified the administration's treatment of military prisoners and the National Security Agency eavesdropping program, announced that Congress's warmaking powers are just a figment of the "popular imagination."

"Almost all the prominent scholars who believe that Congress should play a prominent role in foreign policy look to the 'declare war' clause as the source of Congress's power," Yoo said, 10 minutes into his talk at the Heritage Foundation. "They appeal to a very common-sense reading of the declare-war clause," he continued, and "I think in the popular imagination, declaring war does seem to equate with making war or starting war."

That is, indeed, the prevailing view. But it is not Yoo's. "I don't think if you look at the constitutional text carefully that it carries that expansive reach," he asserted. "Note that the declare-war clause uses the word 'declare.' It doesn't use the word 'begin,' 'make,' 'authorize,' 'wage' or 'commence' war." MORE...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202306.html

Uncle George Wants Yoo!

[rosesaylavee]

1. Evil. n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

2. After this Bush disaster is over, in our fair country...if it ever is over...

I think we need to find guys like Yoo a place where democracy doesn't bother him so much...Maybe North Korea would be more to his liking. I think they have a classic "Unitary Executive" type leader, something like Yoo seems to love and admire so much!

[Solly Mack]

3. That game of semantics has been a trademark of this administration

it is also the foundational thinking of "strict constructionists"

My favorite example of this is:

Did you sleep with him/her?

the other person says "No" - because they didn't sleep with anyone...they just had sex with them, got up and went home...so no sleeping was involved and the question asked was about sleep, not sex...

It's all in how you define the word

Yes, everyone knows what it really means....but that doesn't change how the game is played. And it is a game


There is the spirit and the letter of the law/justice...and even a spirit(how it is accepted/heard/understood) and the letter(strict definition) of words

Yoo for damn sure knows this.Rumsfeld knows this. Gonzales knows this for certain. Cheney knows this. Rice isn't all that good at it but she knows it. Even Bush understands this...
Tony Snow gets it and uses it. Gates knows this but prefers a smoother approach. Scalia lives by it.

[Hubert Flottz]

4. The founders never allowed for used car salesmanship in the

setting up of our legal system.

NOW is the time for our lawmakers to draw a line in the sand against this rabid, radical, shysterism that has invaded our legal system. Are we to be a "nation of laws" or a nation of outlaws?

[Solly Mack]

8. They really are fast talking con artists

but I never afford anyone in government the assumption of integrity

[Hubert Flottz]

11. Integrity in a GOP administration is as scare as hen's teeth or...

frog hair.

When will the "Moral Majority" wake up and see these people breaking every single commandment in their little black books? If Gawd is Bush's Co-Pilot he'd better bail out ASAP!

[NinetySix]

5. At the next confirmation hearing for the Attorney General,

the committee should make the nominee read the Constitution aloud, and line by line, give his or her interpretation of its meaning. This would ensure two things:

a) that the new AG will have testified under oath before Congress regarding his or her idea of the meaning of the document, so that if any blatantly inconsistent action is taken, impeachment can be expeditiously and efficiently undertaken; and

b) that the next nominee can be shown publicly to actually have READ THE GODDAMNED CONSTITUTION.



I think (b) is an important consideration for all prospective Attorneys General. Should be an inviolable standard.


edit to add quote from article:

"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."

Exactly my point. Which clause in Article II gives the President that power? (Trick question! The power to declare war is TOTALLY contained within fucking ARTICLE I!)

[ReadTomPaine]

19. The assertion of congressional authority is needed at all levels now..

and I like the idea in principle, as symbolic gesture as well as for the reasons you state

[Loge23]

6. The Evil Dr. Yoo

It can get worse! This guy (Yoo) is reputedly the author of the infamous torture memo. Where do they find these guys? Is this part of the deal with North Korea??!
This entire administration has become a very bad comedy.
Why did they kill of Saddam? Couldn't they have found a place for him in the cabinet?

[mmonk]

7. The face of banality and evil (don't give me any lectures over the

term evil, it's my post). This is what's come to power in America. It's also why I'm pretty intolerant of the DLC and other influences which break down our resolve from removing this cancer.

[Hubert Flottz]

9. The time to save America from being a total loss is slipping away

quickly. The democrats need to stay on this thing like a chicken on a June-bug! Both houses need to dig in on this and demand some REAL answers NOW! The rule of law is the whole ball of wax in a democracy! "Anything less is uncivilized!" "This Aggression Should Not Stand!"

If the people in the highest office in the land don't respect our laws and our legal system, what example do they set for the would be criminals? What do we tell the children about a gang of outlaws running our country! "Honey one day you too may grow up to be a Hairy Plunderer!"

[WinkyDink]

10. I think they give "evil" a bad name, THAT'S how evil they are.

[Hubert Flottz]

12. LMAO...

I think it might all stem from Barb's Evil Eye!

[UTUSN]

13. Kick for exposing GONZALES's actual brain

Beto just signed the memos other people wrote for him.

[ReadTomPaine]

18. Viet Dinh is another sicko who I expect they are considering...

He's the primary architect of the Patriot Act.

Dem's are going to have to provide several 'suggestions' that Bush should not be permitted to deviate from. It's time for Democrats to take charge of matters like these and render Bush's presidency impotent. No more reaction or passivity, I want them setting the agenda.

[opihimoimoi]

14. Where O Where did this guy, these people , come from? How in the World

can they think like they do....?

Damnnnnn

Bush is going down faster than a speeding bullet....wheels off the bus a long time ago....

Everyday we find out more about his Holey Evilness and the Horrid things they do.

What does it take? Have we ignored how to fix?

[BrotherBuzz]

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

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.


Jon Carroll
Monday, January 2, 2006

[ReadTomPaine]

16. I'd like Democrats to provide an "approved list" for Bush to select from.

In light of these and other scandals, he should get the message that everything he does moves through the majority party now, or it doesn't happen.

[flying rabbit]

17. well at least it's not just

pasty, fat white males doing all of the evil. The BFEE is equal opportunity! You guys see no silver linings.

[UnyieldingHierophant]

20. Waterboarding is for wimps!