2
   

Bush Advisor : President Has Legal Power to Torture Children

 
 
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 05:50 pm
Mathaba Net | January 9 2006

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."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/090106torturechildren.htm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 4,740 • Replies: 174
No top replies

 
detano inipo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:38 pm
This is blood-curling reading. This Yoo fellow seems to think politics is a block-buster horror movie.

The actions and mistakes of the adminstration have easily doubled or tripled the number of terrorists.

The door to fascism is opening ever so slowly. I hope that congress will slam it shut again.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 08:46 pm
detano, it is all that. But I think this John Yoo was only saying what the Bushie administration wanted said. Bushie is surrounded by this sort. "Bush's Counsel Sought Ruling About Torture"

By DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 4 - Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Gonzales's role in seeking a legal opinion on the definition of torture and the legal limits on the force that could be used on terrorist suspects in captivity is expected to be a central issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings scheduled to begin on Thursday on Mr. Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general.

The request by Mr. Gonzales produced the much-debated Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=80401
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 09:09 pm
Was there a law against it at any previous time in American history? Does it happen a lot?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 09:18 pm
A law against torturing children?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Jan, 2006 11:20 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
A law against torturing children?

He's referring to a situation which is unchanged from the entirety of American history, so how does that make George Bush a demon?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:51 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
A law against torturing children?

He's referring to a situation which is unchanged from the entirety of American history, so how does that make George Bush a demon?


Well, that's wonderfully unclear. Who is the "he" in your sentence and what is "unchanged from the entirety of American history"?

If you are suggesting that Yoo's interpretation that the President's constitutional powers are unlimited (perhaps only during war, perhaps at all times) is a traditional interpretation, you're wrong.

If you are suggesting (or hoping, on a faith-based trust in this president) that this interpretation does not permit Bush the functional status of unchecked autocrat, you're wrong again.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:56 am
Among the almost innumerable idiocies which Brandon peddles about politics, those which are "faith-based" are not among the count. He spews absolute tripe in his fanatic support of the current administration, but it is never of a religious character.

I believe i am correct in stating the Brandon is never motivated by religious scruple.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:57 am
blatham wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
A law against torturing children?

He's referring to a situation which is unchanged from the entirety of American history, so how does that make George Bush a demon?


Well, that's wonderfully unclear. Who is the "he" in your sentence and what is "unchanged from the entirety of American history"?

If you are suggesting that Yoo's interpretation that the President's constitutional powers are unlimited (perhaps only during war, perhaps at all times) is a traditional interpretation, you're wrong.

If you are suggesting (or hoping, on a faith-based trust in this president) that this interpretation does not permit Bush the functional status of unchecked autocrat, you're wrong again.

I'm responding to the original poster by pointing out that no one has passed a law giving the president any greater power to torture children than existed before. Therefore, the current president cannot be demonized on this basis.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 06:57 am
Hmmmm...kind of like dictator in an emergency...with an "emergency" that has no clear end.....l
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:00 am
dlowan wrote:
Hmmmm...kind of like dictator in an emergency...with an "emergency" that has no clear end.....l

If you are saying that Bush has greater legal power to torture children than previous presidents, give some evidence of it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:03 am
Actually, the allegation in this thread, which you either don't understand or are willfully ignoring, is that the legal advisors of the current administration have, in their toadyish way, interpreted law and legal precedent in a manner convenient to the argument that the Shrub enjoys such powers. Which makes it very much to the point about the Shrub, and without regard to whether or not such powers have ever legally existed.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:09 am
Setanta wrote:
Actually, the allegation in this thread, which you either don't understand or are willfully ignoring, is that the legal advisors of the current administration have, in their toadyish way, interpreted law and legal precedent in a manner convenient to the argument that the Shrub enjoys such powers. Which makes it very much to the point about the Shrub, and without regard to whether or not such powers have ever legally existed.

Well, if any children are actually tortured, I would certainly condemn it. I might, however, favor giving the president as much power for aggressive questioning of adults as the law allows, since we are fighting an enemy who appear to wish to destroy our way of life.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:10 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Hmmmm...kind of like dictator in an emergency...with an "emergency" that has no clear end.....l

If you are saying that Bush has greater legal power to torture children than previous presidents, give some evidence of it.


I gather he is claiming it, on a very weal legal basis.

Has a previous president claimed he is exempt from such laws?


What do YOU think of the claim, Brandon?

What is YOUR opinion of the claims?

Or do you just want to deny the news stories?

Are you claiming the news stories about the claim are incorrect?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:12 am
So...you support torture of adults?

But you would stop at kids?

I suppose that is SOME evidence of human decency on your part.

However, the debate, as you appear to have mussed it, is ABOUT differing interpretations of what the law allows.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:14 am
dlowan wrote:
So...you support torture of adults?

But you would stop at kids?

I suppose that is SOME evidence of human decency on your part.

However, the debate, as you appear to have mussed it, is ABOUT differing interpretations of what the law allows.

No, I don't. Just agressive questioning, but not torture:

Brandon9000 wrote:
I might, however, favor giving the president as much power for aggressive questioning of adults as the law allows
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:16 am
However, I repeat again, as I understand it the president is claiming his minions are exempt from laws forbidding torture.


Using a very suspect interpretation.


So, I take it you disagree with Bush's interpretation?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:17 am
dlowan wrote:
However, I repeat again, as I understand it the president is claiming his minions are exempt from laws forbidding torture.


Using a very suspect interpretation.


So, I take it you disagree with Bush's interpretation?

Bush has consistently opposed torture of prisoners.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:22 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
A law against torturing children?

He's referring to a situation which is unchanged from the entirety of American history, so how does that make George Bush a demon?


I have no idea what that means. I was asking if, when you asked if there was a law against it, you were referring to a law against torturing children. Who said that GB is a demon?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jan, 2006 07:22 am
Where?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush Advisor : President Has Legal Power to Torture Children
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/23/2014 at 12:42:34