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."

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. . .

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

Listening to John Woo's opinions is a kind of torture.

Two thoughts:

1. These same 'rules' would apply to any president?

2. Why has'nt the Dem majority congress done anything about this? They do write the laws in this country, don't they?

:rolleyes:

Two thoughts:

1. These same 'rules' would apply to any president?

2. Why has'nt the Dem majority congress done anything about this? They do write the laws in this country, don't they?


They haven't done anything about this because John Woo is an idiot and has no idea what is actually legal in this case. Just because some lawyer says that it's legal doesn't mean it is legal. The real problem we have is that we've become so accustom to the point-counterpoint debate concept that bases all our political talkshows, and the notion that there are two sides to every issue, that even crushing a child's testacles is a subject with a pro and con to it now. Bring in the notion of presidential omnipotence - a concept completely rejected by the Constitution's separation of powers and checks/balances structure - and the political talking heads provide just enough intellectual cover for a crew like the Bush administration to run like madmen with the opportunity. Factor in the "post-9/11" hysteria that's been pushed on the average idiot voter and the fear that all professional politicians have of losing their jobs, and you have a complete breakdown in the specific definition of what is actually real in terms of legal precendent and unlawful government policy. It ends up with the loudest and most aggressive spinners being allowed to invent legal reality on the fly.

John Woo is a resume attached to a foul mouth that's been hired by a team of really dangerous psychopaths to muddy the waters concerning some very foundational tenets of our legal system. Torturing people has always been illegal in this nation. It's never NOT been illegal in this nation. Torturing children isn't any more legal that torturing anyone else, regardless of what John Woo says or doesn't say. 50 years from now, this won't even be a debatable issue. Just like it wasn't 50 years ago.

A true warrior/patriot should be prepared if necessary to crush terrorist testicles, even if said terrorist is seven years old. Maybe some of you are fooled by these little 'al kidda' types, but just wait till the little buggers start blowing us all up like they did on 9/11.

A true warrior/patriot should be prepared if necessary to crush terrorist testicles, even if said terrorist is seven years old. Maybe some of you are fooled by these little 'al kidda' types, but just wait till the little buggers start blowing us all up like they did on 9/11.

That's pretty good. :rofl:

I almost bought it for a moment there.

A true warrior/patriot should be prepared if necessary to crush terrorist testicles, even if said terrorist is seven years old. Maybe some of you are fooled by these little 'al kidda' types, but just wait till the little buggers start blowing us all up like they did on 9/11.

Good points, Suzuran. This illustrates the truth of the maxim: "Everything changed on 9/11."

Whereas on 9/10 it may have been considered outrageous and/or immoral to crush a child's testicles, on 9/12 the same crushing action may be considered perfectly legal, indeed, a commendable act of patriotism, as Constitutional Scholar John Yoo has conclusively shown.

And here we are just six years later "debating" the merits and constitutionality of child torture.

That's pretty good. :rofl:

I almost bought it for a moment there.

There are no doubt others who are embracing 'Suzuran' at this moment as a fellow Keyboard Kommando Komrade.

Ummmm yeah.... cuz
A) There's never been a case where legality was determined without that exact case being spelled out somewhere, and
B) The President does all interrogations himself
C) :rolleyes:

Finally a Bush policy I can get behind.

There is no law that prevents the first lady from taking a dump in the rose garden. I'm outraged! Where is the call to arms over this atrocity!?

You guys are missing the point entirely ..

the problem is Bush's trusted and influential legal adviser actually believes that the constitution grants the president virtually unlimited 'executive powers' ... including the grossly illegal and indefensible hypothetical example

Finally a Bush policy I can get behind.

Child torture?

Child torture?

Dick Cheney's historical mission -- his destiny -- is to permanently undermine the rule of law in both domestic and international affairs, and Mr. Yoo's historic mission -- his destiny -- is to kiss Cheney's ass when generously given the opportunity. If a few kids' nuts are crushed along the way to convincing the "global insurgency" (as Rumsfeld called it) that this is indeed the American Century, well that's the price those kids must pay for being relevant to world history in the 21st century.

In Dershowitz's book, "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age," he says:

“No torture would be permitted without a "torture warrant" being issued by a judge....An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it....The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.”

By qualifying the type of needles that should be used during torture, Mr Dershowitz puts forward a principled and compassionate argument to justify government actions inconsistent with existing laws. The use of sterile needles -- as opposed to the rusty, bacteria-encrusted ones the terrorists use --would provide a compelling legal (and moral) argument to justify torture. Perhaps he could put forth a similar compromise when it comes to the kind of instrument used on toddlers to mutilate their genitals. Say, brightly colored plastic pliers as opposed to just plain old nutcrackers.

In Dershowitz's book, "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age," he says:

“No torture would be permitted without a "torture warrant" being issued by a judge....An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it....The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.”

By qualifying the type of needles that should be used during torture, Mr Dershowitz puts forward a principled and compassionate argument to justify government actions inconsistent with existing laws. The use of sterile needles -- as opposed to the rusty, bacteria-encrusted ones the terrorists use --would provide a compelling legal (and moral) argument to justify torture. Perhaps he could put forth a similar compromise when it comes to the kind of instrument used on toddlers to mutilate their genitals. Say, brightly colored plastic pliers as opposed to just plain old nutcrackers.

Thank God us Western Civilization types have profound and original thinkers like Alan Dershowitz (who isn't really an intellectual fraud and a proven plagerist, despite the fact that he has been conclusively shown to be both, and more) to defend our Liberal Enlightenment Values (TM) against ongoing terrorist attacks from hoards of barbaric, brown-skinned savages.

Query re torture warrants: How do we find out that a brown-skinned Allah-worshipping terrorist has crucial information that must be accessed immediately in order to save lives? Is it OK to rely on our gut feelings in making that determination?

I thought torture of any kind was illegal. I thought the only question was what defines torture. Is a cold toilet seat in a cell torture? Some might think it is...but I think most reasonable people would not think so. Would cutting off fingers or doing medical experiments on prisoners be torture? I think most reasonable people would think that it is. Now, we just have to decide about all the various situations that may exist between those two extremes. Unfortunately, I don't think we're ever going to come to agreement on that.

Thank God us Western Civilization types have profound and original thinkers like Alan Dershowitz (who isn't really an intellectual fraud and a proven plagerist, despite the fact that he has been conclusively shown to be both, and more) to defend our Liberal Enlightenment Values (TM) against ongoing terrorist attacks from hoards of barbaric, brown-skinned savages.

Query re torture warrants: How do we find out that a brown-skinned Allah-worshipping terrorist has crucial information that must be accessed immediately in order to save lives? Is it OK to rely on our gut feelings in making that determination?

I would hope that my local law enforcement agency would be equipped with the necessary warrants to act immediately and decisively if I reported that I overheard a brownish person talking to Allah while I was buying hamsteaks at Safeway.

Child torture?

YES!

You guys are missing the point entirely ..

the problem is Bush's trusted and influential legal adviser actually believes that the constitution grants the president virtually unlimited 'executive powers' ... including the grossly illegal and indefensible hypothetical example

Yes exactly. Seriously frightening stuff that conservatives will eventually embrace just like every other criminal action they eventually came to embrace and support.

In Dershowitz's book, "Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age," he says:

“No torture would be permitted without a "torture warrant" being issued by a judge....An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it....The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.”

By qualifying the type of needles that should be used during torture, Mr Dershowitz puts forward a principled and compassionate argument to justify government actions inconsistent with existing laws. The use of sterile needles -- as opposed to the rusty, bacteria-encrusted ones the terrorists use --would provide a compelling legal (and moral) argument to justify torture. Perhaps he could put forth a similar compromise when it comes to the kind of instrument used on toddlers to mutilate their genitals. Say, brightly colored plastic pliers as opposed to just plain old nutcrackers.

Hey, at least he said: STERILE! Shows he's stopping just short of real torture!:D

I thought torture of any kind was illegal. I thought the only question was what defines torture. Is a cold toilet seat in a cell torture? Some might think it is...but I think most reasonable people would not think so. Would cutting off fingers or doing medical experiments on prisoners be torture? I think most reasonable people would think that it is. Now, we just have to decide about all the various situations that may exist between those two extremes. Unfortunately, I don't think we're ever going to come to agreement on that.

It's not about coming to agreement. There are people who will never agree that drawing and quartering people, then burning the piles, should be illegal if the person they are killing in that manner are from a different country or worship a different god than they do. Coming to agreement isn't what the law is about. A society has to decide what kind of society it is before it can even be a society. We made that decision many, many decades ago and our laws can't be rearranged to suit some "coming to agreement" over that societal definition whenever some asshat decides that he doesn't agree with that foundational societal decision.

This is not a debate. Torture is pretty well defined, and procedures have been specifically determined to be torture through previous examination by courts in this society. For example, waterboarding was legally determined to be torture during WWII. End of discussion. No reason to go any further to try and "come to agreement" on it. The precendent has been legally established and that's the determining factor in any legal examination. The only way to change that is to have Congress pass a law specifically making waterboarding legal, which isn't going to happen. These monkeys that try to claim that until Congress specifically outlaws waterboarding, it will be in some "gray area" of the law are full of crap. That legal precendent was established decades ago. They're just flat out lying to keep Bush and Cheney out of the Hague.

The real problem is cowards in Congress and the rightwing media flacks that keep them cowering in their offices. 40 years ago, Bush and Cheney would have already been removed from office. We don't have grown-ups in office anymore. Just scared kids trying hard not to upset anyone that might cause a hiccup in their career.

John Woo is a resume attached to a foul mouth that's been hired by a team of really dangerous psychopaths to muddy the waters concerning some very foundational tenets of our legal system. Torturing people has always been illegal in this nation. It's never NOT been illegal in this nation. Torturing children isn't any more legal that torturing anyone else, regardless of what John Woo says or doesn't say. 50 years from now, this won't even be a debatable issue. Just like it wasn't 50 years ago.


Ok...it's not illegal in this country. So what does, and does not constitute torture? Should'nt our lawmakers, (the ones who actually make laws), get off their earmarking asses long enough to actually define torture?

This policy, that Woo is busy muddying the waters with...does this policy actually exist as a working policy? Has Bush ordered it's use? Hmm? Or is this nothing more than the latest load of leftist manure offered up because some are running a tad short on 'real' atrocities to get outraged about?

Ok...it's not illegal in this country. So what does, and does not constitute torture? Should'nt our lawmakers, (the ones who actually make laws), get off their earmarking asses long enough to actually define torture?

This policy, that Woo is busy muddying the waters with...does this policy actually exist as a working policy? Has Bush ordered it's use? Hmm? Or is this nothing more than the latest load of leftist manure offered up because some are running a tad short on 'real' atrocities to get outraged about?

In 1947, the US convicted a Japanese officer (WWII) of torture in a case where he oversaw the waterboarding of an American POW. That case established waterboarding as torture according to US law. There are many laws - most recently in 2006 - that make torture a federal crime in the US and any terroritories around the world under US control. This debate is over and all that needs to be done is for the government to enfore its laws here.

Yes exactly. Seriously frightening stuff that conservatives will eventually embrace just like every other criminal action they eventually came to embrace and support.Of course, when Democrats get their man (or woman) in office, I'm sure they'll suddenly think the president has the power to order torture of terror suspects.

It's not about coming to agreement.No? I thought that's what democracy was about.

There are people who will never agree that drawing and quartering people, then burning the piles, should be illegal if the person they are killing in that manner are from a different country or worship a different god than they do.Of course, you're talking about a very very small minority. I'm talking about "reasonable" people...not kooks and fringe wackos.

Coming to agreement isn't what the law is about. A society has to decide what kind of society it is before it can even be a society.Isn't it? I thought law was about convincing 51% to agree on something and then make it law. As I said...most "reasonable" people would think that cutting off limbs or gouging out eyeballs would constitute torture. Most "reasonable" people would also conclude that keeping a prisoner from having a warm shower every morning is not torture. So, all the crap in between is what we need to really be debating.

We made that decision many, many decades ago and our laws can't be rearranged to suit some "coming to agreement" over that societal definition whenever some asshat decides that he doesn't agree with that foundational societal decision. Coming to agreement means enacting laws that the majority of the population supports. Let's define what is and what isn't torture and let's codify it in the law.

This is not a debate. Torture is pretty well defined, and procedures have been specifically determined to be torture through previous examination by courts in this society.So, you don't think that anything society or the courts have decided merits further examination? You know, there was a time in this country when the courts ruled Africans could be a white man's property. Obviously, there was widespread disagreement about that...until it was finally changed.

For example, waterboarding was legally determined to be torture during WWII. End of discussion. No reason to go any further to try and "come to agreement" on it.I see. So, back in those days, it was legal for the president to put Japanese-Americans into prison camps. You don't think that should have been on the table for discussion any time after that? Don't be ridiculous.

The precendent has been legally established and that's the determining factor in any legal examination. The only way to change that is to have Congress pass a law specifically making waterboarding legal, which isn't going to happen.Perhaps we do need a law. At least then this wouldn't be a debate any longer.

These monkeys that try to claim that until Congress specifically outlaws waterboarding, it will be in some "gray area" of the law are full of crap. That legal precendent was established decades ago.Should we apply that logic across the board? Let's see...hmmm...let's talk about gay marriage. It seems to me that one man-one woman marriage has been "legal precedent" for many centuries. You're arguing that Congress shouldn't have to outlaw waterboarding for it to be illegal...yet folks on your side have the exact opposite opinion concerning gay marriage. A lot of you liberals think that if it isn't specifically made illegal, then it's admissable.


They're just flat out lying to keep Bush and Cheney out of the Hague.That part does not concern me. I don't care.

The real problem is cowards in Congress and the rightwing media flacks that keep them cowering in their offices. 40 years ago, Bush and Cheney would have already been removed from office. We don't have grown-ups in office anymore. Just scared kids trying hard not to upset anyone that might cause a hiccup in their career.Yeah, yeah, the "rightwing" media...blah, blah, blah... Give it up, will you? Everyone knows that 85% or more of media people vote liberal.

In any case, 60 years ago a Democrat president put American citizens of Japanese decent into prison camps...and he never got removed from office. In fact, people re-elected him again and again and again.

I think this whole debate is hilarious. We're not anywhere near as whacked-out or paranoid now as we were in those days. If we were, the president could order all Muslims or people of Middle Eastern ancestry into camps and no one would say a word.

I don't see where torture can be seen as a good thing because we once did other things that were bad, sop somehow torture should be ok now since we're afraid of big bad jihadi...

No? I thought that's what democracy was about.

We don't have a debate about every law whenever someone breaks it. Grow up.


Isn't it? I thought law was about convincing 51% to agree on something and then make it law. As I said...most "reasonable" people would think that cutting off limbs or gouging out eyeballs would constitute torture. Most "reasonable" people would also conclude that keeping a prisoner from having a warm shower every morning is not torture. So, all the crap in between is what we need to really be debating.

Waterboarding has been legally determined to be torture. It happened in 1947. It's been classified as torture ever since. It's even described as torture in the Military UCMJ. There's only you people debating it among yourselves and pretending that anyone else is debating it.

Coming to agreement means enacting laws that the majority of the population supports. Let's define what is and what isn't torture and let's codify it in the law.

What part of "waterboarding was defined in 1947 as torture" don't you understand? Are you having strokes here or are you deliberately being obtuse?

So, you don't think that anything society or the courts have decided merits further examination? You know, there was a time in this country when the courts ruled Africans could be a white man's property. Obviously, there was widespread disagreement about that...until it was finally changed.

You don't begin the debate of a law to avoid being prosecuted for having violated the law. If that's the precedent, then that's the law. Period. Look up "legal precedent" and tell me what you find. The Supreme Court wouldn't even be able to retroactively dismiss a legal precedent. End of discussion.

I see. So, back in those days, it was legal for the president to put Japanese-Americans into prison camps. You don't think that should have been on the table for discussion any time after that? Don't be ridiculous.

It was illegal at the time and there have been many legal settlements that have resulted from what happened to the Japanese-Americans in WWII. It was wrong and it was illegal. Period.

Perhaps we do need a law. At least then this wouldn't be a debate any longer.

Due to the concept of legal precedent, there would need to be a specific law allowing waterboarding for it to become legal. Look up "legal precedent" and get back to us.

Should we apply that logic across the board? Let's see...hmmm...let's talk about gay marriage. It seems to me that one man-one woman marriage has been "legal precedent" for many centuries. You're arguing that Congress shouldn't have to outlaw waterboarding for it to be illegal...yet folks on your side have the exact opposite opinion concerning gay marriage. A lot of you liberals think that if it isn't specifically made illegal, then it's admissable.

There is no legal precedent in federal US law granting gay couples the right to legally sanctioned matrimony - with all the rights and legally binding aspects associated with legally sanctioned matrimony. Your analogy is worthless and just shows your ignorance.

Yeah, yeah, the "rightwing" media...blah, blah, blah... Give it up, will you? Everyone knows that 85% or more of media people vote liberal.

99% of the people who own and manage the media vote GOP. The 1% is Ted Turner and he's insane. Media people are just like everyone else in a large corporation. They do what they are told and they keep their jobs. Period.

In any case, 60 years ago a Democrat president put American citizens of Japanese decent into prison camps...and he never got removed from office. In fact, people re-elected him again and again and again.

...and this is my fault? People were just as screwed up overe their fear as the people now are. They violated the civil rights of those Japanese-Americans, and if FDR was alive now, he'd be dealing with the ramifications of what he authorized. Thousands of the interned have been compensated for what happened to them. If it was legal to intern them, the government wouldn't have given anyone restitution. The fact that it has, is due to the fact that it has been since proven to have been illegal.

I think this whole debate is hilarious. We're not anywhere near as whacked-out or paranoid now as we were in those days. If we were, the president could order all Muslims or people of Middle Eastern ancestry into camps and no one would say a word.

If it weren't for the "liberals" then Muslims would be interned. Iran would be invaded. Our military would be in worse shambles than it is right now, and you idiots would be spying on your neighbors looking for the Islamo-Fascist boogeyman everywhere. Conservatives live in constant fear and that fear is what's most dangerous about them. You're terrified of 20,000 poorly trained, poorly equipped delusional 3rd world idiots - as if they'll actually find their way to your neighborhood and kill you and your families. You're blind with terror, and want to drag the rest of us into your personal nightmare. Well, forget about it. We Americans don't get scared of crap like that, and we don't allow our nation to become infected with the kind of hysteria and poisonous ideology that allows for the kind of abuses that you seem to need in order to feel safe.

Get a doberman and a gun, and hide under your bed. Leave the streets to those with the guts to allow our society to be free. We don't need cowards dictating to us how they think we should conduct our nation's business. We've had it with the "post-9/11" cowardice. It's over. Get some counseling and get on with your life.

this thread is full of fail. but i love how people paint a broad picture of a whole group of people over and over with the same broad brush and them stomp off feeling they bested the people they just tried to marginalize by overgeneralizing them.

i truly find it amusing and entertaining. its like jerry springer but without the annoying commercials.

this thread is full of fail. but i love how people paint a broad picture of a whole group of people over and over with the same broad brush and them stomp off feeling they bested the people they just tried to marginalize by overgeneralizing them.

i truly find it amusing and entertaining. its like jerry springer but without the annoying commercials.

I'm trying to find it amusing and entertaining. So often I find it to be exasperating and annoying. I need to develop a detachment similar to yours, because this is a spot-on summary.

Of course, when Democrats get their man (or woman) in office, I'm sure they'll suddenly think the president has the power to order torture of terror suspects.

Doubtful.

this thread is full of fail. but i love how people paint a broad picture of a whole group of people over and over with the same broad brush and them stomp off feeling they bested the people they just tried to marginalize by overgeneralizing them.


I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. And I'm not the only one that sees 'em that way. John Dean, Nixon's own chief lawyer, wrote an entire book about how the psychology of persistent fear is fundamental to the conservative ideology. I'd have to believe that a guy who worked in the Nixon administration as a chief legal counselor would know a thing or two about the conservative mindset.

Believe what you want to, but I don't paint with anything other than the brush appropriate for the situation. The whole War on Terror is riddled with foolishness and sophomoric fear mongering. Either it's fear on the part of the people peddling this crap, or it's flat out lying their asses off. You only have two choices at this stage of the whole fiasco.