John Yoo Blasts Obama on Torture Ban - Incriminates Bush for War Crimes

[Vyan]

In an WSJ Op-ed former OLC Attorney John Yoo blasts President Barack Obama for removing the One and Only Effective Tool for protecting America from the horrors of Terrorism which is - well - using Terrorism.

While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001.

You mean the policy that captured, tried and successfully imprisoned Terry Nichols, Ramzi Yousef, the "Blind Sheikh" and executed Timothy McVeigh under Clinton or the "Ok, Now you've covered you ass" policy of Bush?

He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.

Michael Hayden would be the former head of the NSA who illegally spied on Everyone? Yeah, we should take his advice.

Not only does Yoo have a rather distorted view of the past, he can see the future too.

The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.

What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks.

It can't? You mean that it wasn't civilian law enforcement that prevented the Millenium Attacks on the L.A.X., the bombing of Lincoln and Holland tunnels and Project Bojinka (A plot to blow up 12 planes over the Pacific simultaneously, led by WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef)?

It's not like regular cops, the border patrol and the FBI foiled all these plans using fully legal and humane methods.... except that they did!

What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

So Bush and Rice spent 9 months blowing off Richard Clarke who urged we need to take urgent action on al Qeada, and they blew off George Tenet and the August 6th PDB which said that al Qeada was likely to "Hijack Planes and attack New York and Washington" - and their only recourse after 9-11 - is to use Torture - and Yoo Verifies that Bush did exactly that at least three times!. Interesting that he wouldn't say any of that when he was under oath before congress.

Coincidence? I think not.

Then Yoo really starts talking some straight up nonsense.

The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America.

No, it doesn't Mr. Boalt Hall Professor. From Media Matters via Thinkprogres.

In fact, the Army Field Manual explicitly permits good cop-bad cop interrogations under the name of “Mutt and Jeff” interrogations, which involve two interrogators “display opposing personalities and attitudes toward the source.” The Field Manual says the “goal of this technique is to make the source identify with one of the interrogators and thereby establish rapport and cooperation.”

Wanna go 0 for 6 Professor Yoo? I thought you did.

Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions.

No, actually that Order came from the Supreme Court in Hamdan V Rumsfeld. It's also in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Obama is simply following and implementing the law - unlike yourself.

His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.

Y'know what - according to the people who actually perform interrogations, including former Special Forces Operative Matthew Alexander, the man who'se techniques led to the neutralization of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi head of Al Qeada In Iraq - Being Polite Works! - while getting all Jack Bauer with it actually puts us and our troops at far greater risk.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.

...

I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.

More from Alexander on Countdown. Watch Video



More Yoo.

Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.

All of which are parts of - um - Our Constitution, y'know that thing you swore and oath to protect and defend as a member of the U.S. Government?

Here's the thing, Yoo notes that the Israelis and the British have used these techniques (against the PLO and IRA) respectively - but he leaves out the fact that both of them found that they generally created a ton of Blowback. Just as Alexander points out - it energizes the forces against you when you use inhumane techniques, Israel is having the problem right now after hitting Gaza with White-Phosphorus and destroying the UN headquarters.

He forgets that in WWII many Italian and even some German soldiers were more than eager to surrender because they knew they would be treated well by American Troops, and this was even true during the first Gulf War when many Iraqi soldiers gave up immediately upon encountering our forces without fighting. Contrast those facts to the rise of the insurgency following Abu Ghraib - and you have the answer to his hypothetical question of "risk vs reward" on the banning of torture and other coercive interrogation techniques. Following the law saves lives - Our Lives and Their Lives Too!

Yoo would seem to believe that techniques such as water-boarding are NOT torture simply because he wrote a memo saying so which re-defined "Torture" as treatment leading to imminent organ failure or death.

Here's the thing, if you stuff a pillow or a rag over someone's nose and mouth - how long will it take for their lungs to fail from lack of oxygen? And if you add water to that - how much quicker will they fail as the person DROWNS? The reason people respond so quickly to waterboarding is because - It's Attempted Murder. They're Killing YOU!

Oh sure, it doesn't leave any bruises - which allows for deniability, something that the Khmer Rouge certainly loved - but it's still attempted murder. The only thing that prevents from being full-on murder is whether they stop soon enough. And it's not that hard to cross that line.

According to Human Rights Watch - this type of "Murder" is not a hypothetical question from their 2006 Report

Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global “war on terror.” According to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.

Ya hear that Billo? Get it Johnny? Tortured TO DEATH. NOT "Near Organ Failure" - Not "Simulated" or "Feels Like" - Dead!!

Estimates from the ACLU's review of various autopsy reports are far higher, more than 44 detainees tortured to death. If true, that's 44 War Crimes all punishable by Execution under U.S. Law.

Those deaths - all of them in addition to thousands of needlessly injured, wounded and dead U.S. soldiers - lay directly at the feet on John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush.

Eat it up Johnny.

Vyan


P.S. Jack Bauer is a Fracking Tool (of the Right-Wing) - not a "Hero".

FYI - John Yoo's Homepage at UC Berkeley

[bluestateguy]

1. Can't he shut up

Smearing the commander in chief in a time of war is what plays into the hands of the terrorists.

[LaPera]

2. The slimy fucker Yoo loves torture, loves knowing people are being tortured, never wants it to stop!

Torture truly gets the sick republican bastard John Yoo off.

[Hissyspit]

3. Larisa Alexandrovna's response to Yoo:

http://www.atlargely.com/2009/01/john-yoo-hoping-and-praying-not-to-go-to-jail.html

John Yoo: hoping and praying not to go to jail...

John "Loves Torture" Yoo is all upset - poor man - because he is not happy with President Obama. Penning a best-of-Bush-propaganda for the Wall Street Murdoch, Yoo writes the following (apparently his lawyer has not told him to shut up yet):

During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists. While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001.

Now boys and girls, how many lies can you spot in just the above paragraph alone?

Lie 1: Torture produces good intelligence. No, it does not. Ask any credible intelligence officer (and I have asked plenty) and they will tell you no it does not work and does not produce actionable results.

Lie 2: The CIA has special authority. No, it does not. The last time this argument was used was during the Church Investigations. It did not work then and it won't work now.

Lie 3: 9/11 Could have been stopped if the CIA was allowed to torture. No, the attack on this nation was not a failure of intelligence. The IC did its job - the 8/6/2001 PDB (among other, many warnings) is an example of this - it is the leadership who failed. Spin it any way you want - and it has been by the Bush administration - 9/11 was a failure of the President to take action, not a failure of intelligence.

Now, back to Yoo's additional distortions and fabrications:

What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

Really? Ask the UK.

The real reason John Yoo wrote this foolish, inaccurate piece is in the hopes of gathering around him some support for his illegal actions.

You may wish to read his latest epic verbiage festival, but I would urge you not to waste your time. The man is a liar, a coward, and now defends his illegal actions by using lies and discredited propaganda to justify the unjustifiable.

[Why Syzygy]

4. And American military suicides skyrocket.

K/R

[nankerphelge]

5. Err?

How is this person a professor of law?

[snake in the grass]

11. ...and in Berkeley of all places?

[L. Coyote]

6. WSJ!

[Danger Mouse]

7. What a freak.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

8. Yoo needs to be locked up with Bush and Cheney

[Raineyb]

9. Why is this man allowed to teach law?

I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that Mr. Yoo's knowledge of the law when it comes to torture seems to be somewhat lacking.

Regards

[Brother Buzz]

10. A brief primer designed to help you understand Jon Yoo's circular logic fallacy

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.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. Great summary! n/t

[annabanana]

15. This post deserves it's own thread!

"Understanding Yoo"

:yourock:

[mythyc]

12. K&R---Excelent post and seamless refutation of Yoo's B.S.

I hope he'd held accountable.

Heard Alexander in an NPR interview on Being Polite Works. Really impressed me, particularly b/c his work occurred during the last administration

[bertman]

13. Fuck YOO!

[BlueMTexpat]

16. When Yoo and his fellow BushCo war criminals

are finally facing the full consequences of their actions, I will rejoice.

But comments like this are all the more reason why their war crimes simply cannot be swept under the carpet in an attempt to "make nice" ... they have admitted no wrong, are completely unrepentant, and would continue their illegal actions once they are in power again. Given the collective amnesia of the US population (out of sight, out of mind), the last is all too real for us ever to relax our vigilance.

:banghead:

[BlueMTexpat]

17. To clarify, by "comments like this"

I meant Yoo's WSJ pice ... NOT the refutations. Good going!

Sorry for the ambiguity.

[BlueMTexpat]

18. Sheesh ... can't spell either.

Meant "WSJ piece" ... argh!

[bdamomma]

19. why is this guy even teaching at Berkeley?

let us torture you Yoo!

[Gman]

20. Going to prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity is a very real possibility

for Yoo. They're all starting to act and argue like former Nazi Germany officials in the Nuremberg trials.

[wolfgangmo]

21. It seems clear

That someone needs to take care of Yoo, Cheney, Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, et.al..

If the US no longer has the respect for the constitution and the rule of law, then perhaps a functioning democracy will do it for us.

[Dangerously Amused]

22. Thank you, well done. K&R.

[The Wizard]

23. John Yoo

Needs a hot lead enema.

[polly7]

24. John Yoo ...... is he the dirtbag that thought it would be permissable

to crush young boys testicles to get them to give information on their fathers? I think so ..... it was on some Canadian interview he did. He's one sick *ck.

[Why Syzygy]

25. Yet, Obama's Justice Department is going to be *defending* this guy.

Reality. Who knew.

[Vyan]

26. That's largely a technical issue

of whether *any* government official can be sued personnel for performing their duties, even if they do them as badly as Yoo. What's needed is a Special Prosecutor to look at the consequences of his actions.

[WinkyDink]

27. Blow it out yer arse, Yooey.

[DRoseDARs]

28. For the sake of national security, someone needs to rip his nipples off and rub salt in the wounds.

He'll confess to be the one who ACTUALLY assassinated Pres. Lincoln, kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, and stole the cookie from the cookie jar.

[WinkyDink]

30. I'd say, a bit lower than chest level.

[Nacklefoodle]

29. Can Yoo be prosecuted?

I have a feeling that something can be worked out to get this guy in the slammer for his fake opinion on the legality of torture.

[WinkyDink]

31. Why not?

[defendandprotect]

32. Torture is good for you . . . John Yoo should be in jail -- not anywhere near legal decisions . .

[byeya]

33. Disbarment

Why aren't disbarment proceedings ocurring against Yoo's law license? Didn't he violate professional ethics during his time at Bush's White House? Can't pressure be put on the Dean of the law school to ditch this guy? I mean, what are his colleagues and his students thinking in allowing Yoo to continue to pollute the campus atmosphere?

[defendandprotect]

35. Disbarment and prosecution . . .!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. Weren't there more than 12000 deaths from terrorism on their watch?

[JayMusgrove]

36. I love counselors to Bush who

implicate Bust in war crimes.