Yoo needs a good waterboardin'

this won't get anywhere.

shame.

I still can't believe that any self-respecting American thinks that a citizen should be kept aboard a Navy brig for three years without charges, no matter what his alleged crimes. Swift justice: why are you afraid of it?

Buncha goddam brownshirts.

John Yoo is an utter scumbag. Either he's such a shiatty lawyer that the arguments he made in favor of torturing made sense to him, or he wanted to get in with this sleazy administration so bad he disregarded everything he should have been taught about the Constitution and human rights.

Either case, yeah, give his ass a good waterboarding. Then take him, Alberto Gonzalez, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, strip them bare-ass naked, and take pics of them where you pile them into a big pyramid of naked ass, while you point and laugh at them.

hillbillypharmacist: I still can't believe that any self-respecting American thinks that a citizen should be kept aboard a Navy brig for three years without charges, no matter what his alleged crimes. Swift justice: why are you afraid of it?


Agreed!

Buncha goddam brownshirts.

hey now.. leave the brownshirts out of it!

/mmm malcom reynolds

from here:

Although Padilla's lawyers say he suffered serious psychological harm and violations of numerous constitutional rights, the suit seeks only token damages of $1, along with a declaration that Yoo acted illegally.

interesting. do they mean they're only seeking 'damages' of $1, or that the damages and declaration are the only two things they'll ask for? huge difference

who is going to benefit by this suit?

/attorney fees

This entire ordeal was a travesty. Granted, he was found guilty in the end, but the ends do not always completely justify the means. I've often wondered, why not set him free but get a warrant to have him on 24 hour surveillance if he was such a threat until the government really had the evidence to build a case against him?

And John Yoo bought that crap about him being the next Attorney General or the next Supreme Court justice. He's just going to be the next Fredo.

Here is John Yoo defending his take on torture and the executive branch:

In explaining the Yoo Doctrine, Yoo made the following statements during a December 1, 2005, debate in Chicago, Illinois, with Notre Dame Law School Professor Doug Cassel:

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.[12]

I hope someday someone thinks his boy's balls are proper targets in the war on terrorism. He can take care of the kid for the rest of his life.

I don't get it, just because something is legal, doesn't make it ethical or correct. This quack thinks the president has more power than he should. However, the executive made the decision to torture, when asked he just said, 'sure, you have the power to do that.' This is one of the many problems with this administration, they really appear to believe that OK'ing torture and holding suspects indefinitely is good US policy. So, with that, I think this suit is misdirected, go after bush and the other 'deciders'.

That grinning little fark needs to be Disbarred, fired and then savagely beaten. HE is loathsome honorless scum who betrayed his country, his profession, and his oath as a lawyer to toady up to his political masters.


Not only is the conclusion of that infamous memo disgusting, But the brief itself is laughably bad, a first year law student would get an F if he turned it in in legal writing class. It is full of ridiculous reasoning and cites pathetically weak sources of prior authority that a real lawyer would be laughed out of court if they tried to stand on (new window)

For example Yoo relies Webster's dictionary to define Torture (rather than half a dozen federal laws and court case which are definitive as to its legal meaning). Even then he's so intellectually dishonest that he goes " dictionary shopping" and cites 3 separate editions (1995, 1978 and 1938) to try to define the terms the way he wants to.

His law school should be mortally embarrassed that they employ him as a professor.

First, my declaration. I consider torture morally wrong and have a hard time understanding how we got to the point where we are debating under what circumstances it is ok to do so. We are the USA, we are supposed to be the good guys. I don't care what 'they' do, I don't care how many of 'them' blow themselves up, blow ups our buildings, or light fire to my socks while I am asleep. We are the US OF MUTHERfarkING A, and we shouldn't be doing this shiat.

Along with my moral objection to it, I have a very real practical objection, it doesn't work. Yes, if you torture someone you can get them to admit anything. That's helpful. After the person spills their guts and confesses to plots to blow up all the Dennys in Arkansas or whatever else they can think of to make it stop, you now have a bunch of shiat intel. Great. That helps.

Afternoon_Delight

I'll just wait for you to back up your claim that the existence of the sixth amendment causes nuclear weapons to spontaneously detonate in Washington DC then..

The "ticking time bomb" scenario is always used by apologists to justify torture. Yet there isn't a single case where it happened, and all those cases we're hearing about (like Maher Arrar and the German guy), there was absolutely no emergency whatsoever, not even a mistaken one -- they were shipped abroad to be tortured for months.

Afternoon_Delight:

Al-Qaeda agrees 100%!

Now you're claiming that Al-Qaeda is opposed to torture, eh apologist? You're weak today Might_Dog, try again later.

A_D is a Terrorist. Constantly making threats.

nictamer: The "ticking time bomb" scenario is always used by apologists to justify torture.

The 'never never never' argument is always used by naive idealists who refuse to accept that there is such a thing as bad people in the world.

Tenebreux: A_D is a Terrorist. Constantly making threats.

A_D is a liberal doing a caricatured impression of a conservative.

Shaggy_C: nictamer: The "ticking time bomb" scenario is always used by apologists to justify torture.

The 'never never never' argument is always used by naive idealists who refuse to accept that there is such a thing as bad people in the world.

The "never" argument is presented by law-abiding citizens intent on keeping the rule of law.

We have a justice system that deals with bad people -- those are our laws, you can disagree with them, you can advocate change to them, but they are (currently) our laws and we abide by them.

Afternoon_Delight: Running a-puck: I don't care what 'they' do, I don't care how many of 'them' blow themselves up, blow up our buildings... we shouldn't be doing this sh*t.


That's very magnanimous of you. What a wonderful person you are to make such sacrifices.

The founding fathers believed that it was better that 10 guilty people go free than risk ONE innocent victim be put in jail by mistake. I could also go on and on about how those very same founding fathers enshrined in our founding documents their abhorence for torture (i.e. 'cruel and unusual punishment'), but I think you might be too far gone for that conversation.

Shaggy_C: nictamer: The "ticking time bomb" scenario is always used by apologists to justify torture.

The 'never never never' argument is always used by naive idealists who refuse to accept that there is such a thing as bad people in the world.

Non sequitor. Yes, there are bad people in the world. That's NEVER an excuse to torture.

What a huge load of BS. When I saw this on the news they had a shot of him being escorted off a helocopter surrounded by police, as if he were Osama himself. This one retarded mexican's plans were conflated just so Rush and the Republicans could have a talking point.

keithgabryelski: The "never" argument is presented by law-abiding citizens intent on keeping the rule of law.

You can't legislate the exceptions to the general rule. Should a man stealing bread for his starving family be punished the same as a man stealing bread for himself?

Alphax: Non sequitor. Yes, there are bad people in the world. That's NEVER an excuse to torture.

Would you torture the kidnapper of your child or wife?

Shaggy_C: Would you torture the kidnapper of your child or wife?

I think we went over this the other week. That's the last thing I would do, the very last.

Shaggy_C: Would you torture the kidnapper of your child or wife?

No.

Shaggy_C:

Would you torture the kidnapper of your child or wife?

Justice is not the same as vengeance. The law is not about legislating revenge.

Shaggy_C: Would you torture the kidnapper of your child or wife?

Do you not realize that when you advocate and justify atrocities on the basis of pure emotional appeals, you actually lend credence to the abhorrent acts of the very people we are purporting to fight?

Shaggy_C: keithgabryelski: The "never" argument is presented by law-abiding citizens intent on keeping the rule of law.

You can't legislate the exceptions to the general rule. Should a man stealing bread for his starving family be punished the same as a man stealing bread for himself?

Our constitution requires we do -- in the case you present "a jury of his peers" can help differentiate between a bad apple and an apple in a bad position.

Shaggy_C: This entire ordeal was a travesty. Granted, he was found guilty in the end, but the ends do not always completely justify the means. I've often wondered, why not set him free but get a warrant to have him on 24 hour surveillance if he was such a threat until the government really had the evidence to build a case against him?

do you know what he finally found guilty of?

Not conspiring to plant a "dirty Bomb" as Ashcroft said when Padilla was arrested

Not Trying to blow up Chicago hi-rises by causing gas leaks as the FBI later claimed

No, after three years of Isolation and torture so severe that Padilla is now brain-damaged, he was convicted of "providing material support for terrorism" (something that wasn't even a crime when Padilla was alleged to have done it). And the sole evidence for that charge was a single Fingerprint matching Padilla's on a document that the FBI said was an application to join Al-qaeda.

That's it. That's why an American Citizen arrested on US soil was held in a Navy prison, denied access to counsel, denied communication with anyone from the outside world and physically and mentally tortured for three years.

Afternoon_Delight: That's very magnanimous of you. What a wonderful person you are to make such sacrifices.

Yes, because we are better than that. Our civilization is not without its faults, but all in all I think that it is the best that humanity has come up with to date. We represent a beacon of light that shines on our species barbaric past and says that it was wrong.

As with every great civilization there are barbarians at the gate, and those that come after us will judge us on how we deal with those barbarians. It will do neither us nor the cause of liberty no good to become the barbarians.

Personally I suspect that you are doing an amazing job as a satirist, but there are people who actually hold the views that you are espousing. To them, and if I am wrong then to you, I say this; I am a member of civilization.

Pretty simple statement, no? But take a moment to think about it. To be a member of civilization is to look to the future and improve upon what has happened in the past. It is to say that I will not be a hostage to fear. I will not allow the actions of my foes - and make no mistake, those who pursue the path of terrorism are the foes of civilization- to dictate my actions. I will not sell out civilization and become the barbarian.

You implied that not torturing people could lead to another 9/11, (an idiotic assertion in my opinion) but I will go a step farther. If I knew, for a fact, that use of torture would prevent another instance of terrorism. If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that torture would guarantee my safety and the safety of my loved ones I would still be against it. It is not easy to be a member of civilization and it is not safe, but it is important. Perhaps the most important choice that any of us can make.

Running a-puck: Personally I suspect that you are doing an amazing job as a satirist, but there are people who actually hold the views that you are espousing. To them, and if I am wrong then to you, I say this; I am a member of civilization.

Pretty simple statement, no? But take a moment to think about it. To be a member of civilization is to look to the future and improve upon what has happened in the past. It is to say that I will not be a hostage to fear. I will not allow the actions of my foes - and make no mistake, those who pursue the path of terrorism are the foes of civilization- to dictate my actions. I will not sell out civilization and become the barbarian.

You implied that not torturing people could lead to another 9/11, (an idiotic assertion in my opinion) but I will go a step farther. If I knew, for a fact, that use of torture would prevent another instance of terrorism. If I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that torture would guarantee my safety and the safety of my loved ones I would still be against it. It is not easy to be a member of civilization and it is not safe, but it is important. Perhaps the most important choice that any of us can make.

(applause) I salute you, sir.

Afternoon_Delight: Anyone who says otherwise is lying to make a point.

Or not a psychopathic little internet tough guy with delusions of Rambo and Jack Bauer to validate his wussy little existence.

Afternoon_Delight: is probably wearing one of these as we speak!

Afternoon_Delight: Weaver95: The founding fathers believed that it was better that 10 guilty people go free than risk ONE innocent victim be put in jail by mistake. I could also go on and on about how those very same founding fathers enshrined in our founding documents their abhorence for torture (i.e. 'cruel and unusual punishment'), but I think you might be too far gone for that conversation.


Yes, but the situation has changed.

We're not talking about somebody holding up a convenience store, the OJ trial or whatever. This is a war, a strange and new kind of war, and modern methods of communication, news media, transportation and killing technology (not to mention modern lawyers) are something that Benjamin Franklin ever thought of.


Then advocate changing the laws -- but you invite secret police and others "above the law" -- that is unacceptable.

I understand you are afraid. You are afraid for yourself, your family, your friends and even the way of life you understand -- you are afraid the constitution can stand against this pressure -- It can, if we follow it. Do not be afraid for the constitution -- it can handle these problems.


Today, Benedict Arnold would be hailed as a 'whistle blower' by western leftists. They would certainly think that hanging the bastard was out of the question.


It's entirely different -- Benedict Arnold's allegence was to a different country with no benefit to this country. A whistle blower is a true conservative -- one that sees traditional values slowing being eroded and points them out.

Following the constitution is conservative.

I don't have any sympathy for jihadis. None whatsoever. George Washington wouldn't have either.

I'll give you a hypothetical example: I suspect that in the earliest days after Cornwallis' surrender, if it became known that foreign fanatics had plans to poison food supplies and livestock feed across the land, and it was known that they were damned clever, relentless and thoroughly evil, and that their goal was horrifc death and suffering for as many Americans as possible, I suspect that 'the founders' would have been in favor of boiling one alive if they were to catch him - and they'd do it too.

Do not attempt to put words in heros' mouths -- The suffered for our freedoms that you wish to squander.

Afternoon_Delight: Shaggy_C: Would you torture the kidnapper of your child or wife?

Yes, in a heartbeat. And it wouldn't be the little 'water-boarding' game either. It would involve fire.

Anyone who says otherwise is lying to make a point.

Anyone that does such is guilty of a criminal act -- although temporary insanity can mitigate the penalty -- you can not deny that torture is illegal.

Afternoon_Delight: The above quote, from you, is either a ridiculously absurd lie or the ramblings of a lunatic.

Or someone who is, right now, in a sane and non-emotional state attempting to describe his desire to hold our laws sacred.

Lunacy is what state of mind a person goes into when they are over-come by such emotions that they are driven to hurt and kill others.

Afternoon_Delight:
The above quote, from you, is either a ridiculously absurd lie or the ramblings of a lunatic.

First you claim that the existence of the sixth amendment causes spontaneous nuclear detonations in Washington DC, then you claim that Al-Qaeda is against torture, then you claim that possessing any form of basic human morality makes one a lunatic. Quit while you can Lord_Baltimore, you're certainly not improving your act today.

keithgabryelski: Or someone who is, right now, in a sane and non-emotional state attempting to describe his desire to hold our laws sacred.

I wouldn't necessarily say non-emotional. It's just that the emotion driving my stance is not fear, but hope.

I know that hope is often seen as naive, frankly I don't care. It is not our laws that I hold sacred, but rather the idea of the rule of law and the advancement of our civilization over time.

Shaggy_C:

Would you torture the kidnapper of your child or wife?

No, because I've actually been in the world of Law Enforcement and I know that if I give a shiat abut getting them back alive, standard Police/Law enforcement interrogation techniques are 10x more effective than torture in getting ACCURATE information quickly. In fact you know who first blew the whistle on the torture at GITMO? That'd be the FBI. You know why? Because it was farking up their interrogation which WERE productive until the military and CIA boys moved in with their harsh interrogation BS.

In fact you know possibly the most famous Torture victim from Gitmo, Abu Zubaydah? The one W always brings up when defending the use of torture because he was supposedly an Al-Qaeda mastermind who gave us tons of valuable info?

Pure BS. Every word.

The truth is long before Bush ordered the CIA to Torture him, The FBI had already realized he was useless as a source since he was an Al-q flunky at best and clinically insane, suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder (new window)


Torture does not now, nor has it ever worked.

"This is a war, a strange and new kind of war, and modern methods of communication, news media, transportation and killing technology (not to mention modern lawyers) are something that Benjamin Franklin ever thought of."

Indeed, that's why we should be looking closer at the Saudi Arabian connection, and who knew what, when.

Afternoon_Delight: some bull$#it right-wing cartoon justifying torture

So, in that scenario, instead of appointing a lawyer we torture the perp. And he tells us the nuke is in the House cafeteria.

When in fact it's in the White House.

And the dudes searching for the nuke look in the wrong place. And get nuked right alongside everyone else.

Does it never occur to fascists like you that a suspect being tortured can lie?

Drop the shiathead off in the mountains of Pakistan so he can catch up with his homies.

Afternoon_Delight: Weaver95: The founding fathers believed that it was better that 10 guilty people go free than risk ONE innocent victim be put in jail by mistake. I could also go on and on about how those very same founding fathers enshrined in our founding documents their abhorence for torture (i.e. 'cruel and unusual punishment'), but I think you might be too far gone for that conversation.


Yes, but the situation has changed.



Full stop right there. Principles are situation independent or they are not principles, but mere preferences. Your do not show you commitment to your core values when they are easy to uphold but when they require sacrifice. Either we are exceptional America , the "shining city on the hill" that has a right to be first in the world based on its embrace of humans rights and its commitment to freedom and justice; or we are just one more ruthless state ruling by virtue of its capacity for force and violence in a long and depressing line of the same.

It used to be the Conservatives who argued for the universal application of moral principles and railed against Democrats and liberal for believing in "situational ethics" which they regarded as evidence of the Liberal lack of spine, and weak-kneed character in general.


Interesting how quickly things have changed.

Yet still another proud graduate of both Harvard and Yale, not to mention a member of the anti-American think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. He's got the pedigree of a scumbag, for sure.

Teaching at Berkley? Shouldn't he be across town, at Stanford?

I found this Frontline show very enlightening.

Don' t bother watching, Afternoon_Delight, it is just left wing media making things up (using interviews from the people involved). It is very interesting how quick they got Jack Goldsmith out of there when he started reviewing John Yoo's judgments.

Major applause for Padilla's legal advisers.

The delay before actually conducting a trial is only the most portentous of several crimes committed against Padilla. This whole saga really makes my country look despicable.

The lawsuit may not prevail, but I'm reminded of Jim Garrison - maybe the value of this precedent will bring other secret crimes into the harsh light of day...


/hey, one can hope

Afternoon_Delight: Today, Benedict Arnold would be hailed as a 'whistle blower' by western leftists. They would certainly think that hanging the bastard was out of the question.

Yep. Those leftists. Always cuddling up to royalty.



kronicfeld: Do you not realize that when you advocate and justify atrocities on the basis of pure emotional appeals, you actually lend credence to the abhorrent acts of the very people we are purporting to fight?



Well said, Patriot.

Oh, I see Afternoon_Delight now claims to speak for our founding fathers... what's next? Bending spoons with his "mind"?

I can guess his grasp on reality will only get weaker and weaker as we get closer to the presidential elections... but I suspect he's nothing more than a bored, feeble-minded child with far too much time on his hands.



Incidents like 9/11 are the price we pay for living in a free and open society. No amount of torture is going to stop some fanatics from carrying out these types of attack in the future. In fact, torturing some of them will just fuel their determination to hurt us and further support their rhetoric that we are an evil people who need to be hurt. Good solid police work and serious intelligence gathering efforts are where we should be concentrating our efforts, not debating fanciful scenarios where a "suitcase bomb" (which by many accounts may not even exist) is hidden somewhere and we must torture someone to save American lives a la that ridiculous TV show...

kronicfeld: Do you not realize that when you advocate and justify atrocities on the basis of pure emotional appeals, you actually lend credence to the abhorrent acts of the very people we are purporting to fight?

Shaggy_C will be right with you, he is still looking up the hard words you typed.

/credence - I love that band!!!!!

kronicfeld: Do you not realize that when you advocate and justify atrocities on the basis of pure emotional appeals, you actually lend credence to the abhorrent acts of the very people we are purporting to fight?

If I were advocating attacking innocent civilians or blowing up Muslim holy sites, you'd have a point. This is entirely different - the acts that I advocate as an exception to a general rule are a far cry from the acts that are the general rule for those who wish to harm us.

Shaggy_C: If I were advocating attacking innocent civilians or blowing up Muslim holy sites, you'd have a point. This is entirely different - the acts that I advocate as an exception to a general rule are a far cry from the acts that are the general rule for those who wish to harm us.


So basically we had to destroy the Constitution in order to save it?

I still don't get how acting like the terrorists makes us better than the terrorists.....