Obama is not naive about torture... He condones it just fine. (even though he says otherwise so stupid people who want to hear it will believe it). Obama did not really close down Guantanamo- He just moved it to another location in the Carribean. This unfortunately did not get as much media as his "closing" of Guantanamo facility- but at least they covered it. He's a smart man. Tell the moron libs that you closed it to get their votes when in reality the torture still goes on.
Sick methods like these are the reason America is threatened by terrorists these days. The CIA helps founding Al Qaeda and is surprised that it backfires years later. They torture, abduct and kill and wonder why the world shakes it's head when the US talks about democracy and human rights. This guy is disgusting and the people that stand behind him have caused unspeakable, unjustified pain and suffering. America, get up and arrest these criminals!
John Yoo calls Barack Obama "naive." But Yoo says we have to rely on what those who ordered "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, said. It's surely naivete to the nth degree to believe those who ordered torture will now come out and say, "No, it didn't save any lives." Mr. Yoo, of course they'll say the opposite. And of course, we not only do not "have to rely" on what they say; we can't rely on it.
You can do anything if you are able to set your soul aside as Yoo does with such ease! The fact that he is a Christian asserting this amoral nonsense is appalling!
judgeing the poor quality of Americas intelligence on Iraq i'd say that torturing people doesn't work very well. Sure they might get lots of information but none of it is worth the paper its written on.
These fucking chicken hawks haven't got an ounce of morality in their bodies. This is America, we don't fucking torture people, it's illegal. All it does is make people hate us more and opens the door for our troops to get tortured and killed when they're captured. America has always taken the moral high ground, we don't stoop down to the levels of our enemies. We no longer have that moral high ground to stand on thanks to Bush and his cronies.
John Yoo may should have a look in the legal discussions from 16th to the 18th century regarding the use of torture. Even than any information gained under torture was seen by the higher courts as highly suspect.
Even the "Constitutio Criminalis Carolina" of 1532 allowed evidence gained under torture only under certain circumstances in court (Art. 22,56, 58).
I would assume from a legal adviser a better knowledge of history of law - not to repeat failed ideas of the past.
@fourthirteen I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was one of your family members having to jump from the burning 37th floor of the World Trade Center. But yeah go ahead with your holier-than-thou moral preening from a safe distance. These terrorists are not playing by our rules
Didn't the US leadership's Intelligence Agencies tell them Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction? The Leadership believed it, because they wanted to believe it. Was is true? The rest of their information was equally bullshit.
So many of you people are idiots. Compare your justifications of torture with those of the Nazi's. Fucking idiots. Next will be justification for death camps. FOAD.
Iraqi elections are soon, I'm sure you'll do everything in your power to ignore that our Iraqi brothers and sisters now have government-by-consent, and prefer it.
Oh, so you believe Bush and Cheney are worse than KSM! Well, now it's absolutely clear that we see the world very differently, and can't be reconciled.
Suggesting there's some equivalency between Cheney, Bush and KSM is cheap, and intellectually dishonest.
I'm not sure there's a state in existance today that has not been accused of crimes against humanity, even my country of Canada, for supposed murder of Muslims in Afghanistan, and etc. It's a hysterical attempt to demonize any opposing view. But, I suspect that even you know the difference between NATO fighting in Afghanistan and Saddam gassing Halabja.
Neither do I want to damage ppl, that's why waterboarding is all I'm willing to forgive as it doesn't physically or emotionally damage the subjects. Truth serum is also banned as torture. Would you be able to forgive that? Just because someone labels something torture doesn't mean it's equal or anywhere close to Al-Qaeda torture chambers in Fallujah, or the Inquisition.
The president's duty is to defend the homeland, and its citizens. That was his intention. Not a sadistic desire to harm KSM.
They didn't even damage Khalid Sheik Mohammed, if you've heard him speak recently, he's still ranting about the "honour" of mass murdering americans, and how proud he is of the charges.
I suggest you actually read the "torture" memos, if you're going to have a strong opinion about something, you should at least be informed on the subject, especially when you suggest people should be thrown in jail.
the interviewer is such a bad interviewer, if he is TRYING to be an interviewer. Trying to place words and sentences into the interviewee "don't you just wanna say obama is being silly?. Don't you?"
You have just received the typical response from a committed liberal/progressive. When you press the facts, they don't want to discuss it. Anyone who seeks truth and scans the blogosphere knows where credible info can be obtained. To varia's credit, ad hominem attacks did not start. This is the exception to the rule. Varia can not see that this is not a democrat vs republican issue. It is a USA as our founders-have-envisioned-it values to the academic utopia of Marxist thoughts.
I'm just referring to precedent. I think it's obviously a discussion that needs to be had since you think people deserve to be jailed on account of this. If you're going to condemn people, I would respect it more if I knew you heard the proper arguments and were doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong ones. But, I'm willing to drop it.
In WW2, if U.S. GIs captured german troops disguised as civilians, or as U.S. soldiers, they would execute them right there, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, as the conventions if you read them only apply to "protected persons" which are described, if they're enemy fighters, as "uniformed soldiers". The purpose of the conventions were to provide an incentive for states to fight fairly and protect civilians. Also, no enemy captured on the battlefield should be tried in civilian courts.
Fourth Geneva Convention: Article 5. "Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."
Well, FMJ is more versatile, it damages both soft and armored targets. Hunters might use hollow point because it does more damage to soft targets, but it would do very minimal damage to someone wearing a kevlar vest or helmet, as might a modern soldier wear.
But the treaty was passed before Flak Jackets, Kevlars, and body armor were around.
Let me give you a hint, it wasn't because it made war "fair". You're assertion that "fairness" was the intent of the Geneva conventions ( Softpoint had been banned long before that) is absurd.
The problem is Al-Qaeda declared war on the U.S. in 1998, are they then under civil or military jurisdiction? 9\11 was an act of war, not simply a crime.
Also, I was asking a hypothetical, I know you're not president of the United States of America........
He was a mass murderer, who changed the New York skyline forever, who boasted that there would be future attacks. You're president, what do you do? Read him his miranda rights? Tell him he has the right to remain silent? No, I'd imagine if you're decent and responsible you'll use the most effective way of obtaining information that didn't cause any physical pain, or psychological trauma, waterboarding only meets one criterium of torture, and that's the sensation of impending death - panic.
Absolutely no one was killed at Gitmo. No one was even killed in Abu Ghraib. Iran has beaten its own citizens to death in their jails, they admit it, and yet the world remains more outraged by Gitmo. Not only are there 2 doctors for every patient, but they get up to 7 hours recreation time outdoors, choice of reading material, complimentary Qur'ans and prayer mats (sometimes served with white gloves as they consider us impure), choice of meals, and access to daily news.
I don't take torturers as my heros. Khalid Sheik Muhammad planned the murder of 3000 innocent people, beheaded Daniel Pearl, and boasted about it, if the CIA waterboarded him, I'm forgiving. If they had peeled off his fingernails, or poked him with hot irons, it would be different. But, to draw to a parity between the Bush admin and the wost thugs and murderers in the world is dishonest and cheap, and is more partisan bigotry than anything else.
John Yoo. No better than other conservative tools like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. Yuppie motherfucker who says its OK to inflict pain on others without ever having experienced it himself.
you do realise the gulf war in the early 1990s never ended. saddam shot at american planes every chance he got for the next decade so yes, eh was attacking americans.
@alien13ufo thats a good point. war on terror does not have a point where it is over......
lemme ask this : If we consider that the military complex is involved in Gov's decision making.......how much influence did it have on the "labelling ' of the present "war"?
We have standards and you can't drop those standards because you don't like the people you are interrogating.
Yukio Asano, a Japanese interpreter from WW2, got 15 years hard labor for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War" i.e. waterboarding Americans, but I guess president doesn't count when we do it.
Ironically, we actually did drop, not 1 but 2, nuclear bombs on them killing tens of thousands of civilians.
last time i checked the atomic bombs ended the war meaning LESS PEOPLE DIED since america did not have to invade japan the old fashioned way like they did germany and destroy it one city block at a time.
it was criminal to end the war and save lives on both sides?
japan was busy training civilians - women and children to fight an invasion. they'd been asked for months to surrender and the whole time they were building up their defenses. tell me, WHEN WAS JAPAN GOING TO SURRENDER? after the surrender of germany? happened months before the bombs were dropped
ok, maybe I'm not writing clear enough, since English is not my native language..
the SECOND bomb wasn't necessary, THAT was criminal, the first was enough to stop the war.
And I'm not talking about you specifically, but you "american" claiming the morale high ground, while doing the torture, defending right for yourself but denying them to stranger, bombing civilian (you know the war in irak cost 1around 1 million live ?..not all combatant you know).
im not american and i never said anything about what america has done except in world war two. you're deliberately trying to change the subject.
secondly after the first bomb was dropped the US again called on japan to surrender and japan issued a press release saying that they ignored this request. well ignored is not the right word - what they literally said was they would "kill it with silence" so no, it did not look like japan wanted to surrender even then
hmm, ok you're not american, so the 'you' was wrong..it should have been 'they' (American).. you just sounded like one justifying themselves.. sorry
Checking out wikipedia (Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) The Potsdam ultimatum (without ref to nuke) was issued july 26, and japan respond "kill by silence".. THEN Hiroshima was nuked on aug 6..followed by Nagasaki on aug 9.
I know sometimes wikipedia can be wrong, but rarely with fact.
the americans dropped 16 MILLION LEAFLETS on 47 japanese cities between the 6th and the 9th of august calling for japan to surrender. the white house released numerous requests for a surrender. just how many freaking chances did you want japan to surrender? should they have said ok you can have the next 5 years to decide?
So, if wikipedia is right (and I heard similar info from some history documentary before).. there was not a refusal of surrender after the first bomb.. they barely had any time (3 days!) before the second.
But some say that japan was debating hot to surrender, and truman wanted to drop the second bomb :"to make a point" to make other power think America had many more nuke ready. (a bluff at the time)
first of all you act as though the potsdam ultimatum was some great surprise for japan. did you think the people at the conference said "do you know what tactic we should try next instead of fighting? we should ask japan to surrender!!!! wow why didn't we try that before?"
japan had been asked for years to surrender and yet again they ignored it at potsdam. that justified the first bomb.
Why you keep arguing what have already conceded? .. I said the first was justified
its the second that questionable, and you said the "kill it with silence" was the respond that triggered the second , when I show that this respond was BEFORE the first.. so it wasn't a result of the nuke.
And No, you don't give 5 year for an answer, but you wait for an answer "yes","no", .. (or if japan attack the american that equal a 'no') ..but if nothing happen, they may be tinkering about accepting.
Now, I'm not an historian and didn't study this extensively, I just pointed out other interpretation of the situation that has being debated and showed with little research that your original justification (the refusal to surrender with "kill with silence") didn't stand in the chronology.. that's all. I can't add much.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but the explanation you gave doesn't stand by itself. Just using logic.
just google "was nagasaki necessary" and you will find article and book with people advocating both side..
now I'm reading one historian :
"By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne."(google it if you care to know the rest)
General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."
General Curtis LeMay,... put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."
really that's funny because the potsdam ultimatum was actually extremely lenient - it promised japan would not be destroyed as a nation, that the japanese would be free to choose their own government and it strongly hinted that the emperor would be left on the throne.
anyone who says the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war is an idiot. japan was training women and children to fight an invasion i hardly call the preparing to surrender. the bulk of its army was preparing to fight
you seem to have the idea that world war two was this lovely civil war where everyone seemed to send each other messages that they were about to attack.
we both agreed the first bomb was justified.
before the second bomb was dropped 16 million leaflets dropped across japan warned of its arrival and still japan refused to surrender. the two bombs together had the combined effect of forcing japan to surrender despite the bulk of its forces preparing to fight off an invasion to the death.
Did you read the general's Quote ? these don't even agree on the first one!..
I said 'civil debate' (on youtube) not civil war like a gentlemen war!
You seem to think that the process from bomb to surrender happen quickly, just check today without warzone how fast the president responded to katrina or the christmas' bomber!
They need to get the general/emperor informed, asses the destruction, debate surrender and tell the USA doesn't happen overnight.
Let make an example with of smaller, human size level..
Let say, you have 2 thug running to attack you... with a bat.. you get out a gun and shoot the first one on the head!.. the second freeze and start to run away, and you shoot it on the head too..
For the first one you can claim self-defense,, but the second one is voluntary manslaughter (not sure about the exact legal term)
@liber8me japan had its whole navy completely destroyed...they were not at all going to invade anyone. it was a question of time/attrition as to when they were going to surrender. Especially since germany was also losing the war.
actually germany had surrendered months before so that is a load of crap.
secondly are you saying that america shouldn't have tried to remove japan as a military power? the bulk of its armies were still on the mainland ready to fight to the death. did you think the allies should have done the same to germany? as soon as they reached german soil said "alright i suppose they've learned their lessen lets leave hitler alone now."
my acts? i never did anything. all i did was state the obvious - the bombing of japan ENDED THE WAR. japan did not have to invaded like germany and people did not have to die while they fought to take every street in the nation
Why dont you actually open up a book and learn some WWII history instead of lying. There is absolutely no way Japan could have inflicted "millions" of casualties, they were bankrupt and completely out of oil. The war was over before the nukes landed, the japanese high command was just intent on dying.
i meant millions overall for both sides and yes it would have been no different to germany - the allies would have had to invade a far smaller area than france meanign the defences were far more concentrated, and then would have had to fight to take every city block against an enemy that was fanatically determined to defend its homeland.
so no, the war was not over before the nukes landed, the war only ended when japan surrendered.
okay, whatever. I don't expect somebody who clearly has not studied it to have any idea what they're talking about.
No, millions of lives were not saved and no it would not have been the type of block-to-block city combat you are hallucinating. Try reading an academic source account of how the end of the war played out. Japan had no oil, no money, and very little machine hardware left. Even the high command was split on whether or not to surrender and attempted assassinations within itself.
first of all if you knew anything about what was going on in japan you would know that the japanese were training women and children to fight off an invasion. they were far more fanatical than the german people and literally believed their emperor was a god.
so yes, there would ahve been block-to-block city fighting.
are you honestly stupid enough to believe the japanese were going to just roll over and allow an enemy to take over their sacred homeland quietly?
the invasion of iwo jima caused 6,200 american deaths and the US outnumbered the japanese by 4 to 1. okinawa cost 13,000 us soldiers or 35% of the invasion force and they outnumbered the japanese 2.5 to 1.
they were training civilians with sharpened bamboo poles and they believed there was nothing more honourable than to die for their emperor. children were to be used as sherman carpets - strapping tnt to themselves and jumping under american tanks.
Well if it was only Obama saying that I could agree. However many CIA people and top ranking military people also agree that torture does not bring results that are trustworthy
Its easy to condem these techniques while you sit at your computer, but if you e were on the 85th floor of the trade center deciding to jump or burn and a 911 operator told you they had the 20th hijacker in July of 2001, i wonder what you would think about pouring water on on someones face then. Look up Kevin Cosgroves 911 call, I wonder what his opinion and his familys opinion is
water boarding worked on KSM, he gave up lots of info, just have to weed out the truth from th bullshit. It worked for Col Allen West in Iraq, and its worked for the mob. Not to say it works on everyone, but that dosent mean you take it off the table
That isn't true, that only applies to torture to get confessions. The U.S. did not do that. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was an admitted member of Al-Qaeda, and boasted about his role in the attacks. If you're being waterboarded and you provide false information, they'll just keep waterboarding you. There is every incentive to tell the truth, and no incentive to lie, if you have information.
I suppose anyone can speak for most liberals,and what they think. I'm just surprised why this fucker is not in jail tossing someones salad while discussing the legality of torture.
In some journalistic traditions, the interviewer puts the opposing view - plays devil's advocate to challenge the arguments of his guest.
Here though, Robinson chose to compose a little bit of pro-torture rhetoric, then invite Yoo to endorse it. He obviously didn't go to the trouble of looking up the anti-torture arguments. I presume that wouldn't have fit in with the Hoover Institution's (why are all think tanks conservative?) preconceived values.
Did you read the torture memos? They sound more like hollywood stunts, than torture: "For walling, a flexible false wall will be constructed... it is the individuals shoulder blades that hit the wall... the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect... the individual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall..." Not exactly what you think when the media says "walling". "Wall standing" is basically yoga or pilates.
I think it interesting that, generally speaking, 'conservatives' and 'liberals' fall back on the "Oh, they're preaching hate" euphemism ('cause We call 'em like we see 'em) as an initial supporting argument. While it's hard to contend otherwise in terms of sheer volume of work, I do think it important to remember that they are not advocating senseless violence. Focusing here on what would drive a group of people to these particular extremes might prove to be...revealing...?
Yoo is a lawyer, a brilliant one, yes, but still, he's not a professional interrogator. Who the hell is he to say what will produce results. As to his point on Abdel-Rahman, I think hes just simply wrong. We seem to have gotten quite a bit of intelligence on terrorists operating within our borders from the investigation.
They said almost nothing to argue their opinion that asking whether or not we can get the same information without torture is naïve. They simply stated that the information was important, and that it's all in the past so it's useless to consider whether it could have been done another way. If you close your ears and go, "nananana," you won't learn anything from history, and while that's considered acceptable behavior we won't grow as a society.
This liberal-conservative dichotomy is far less significant than you what you make it out to be. Most liberals support Obama and his torture and foreign policies.
Wow, I like how he makes it seem like Lincoln wanted to end slavery. He did it out of necessity, the man was an evil tyrant, he was no better than the south. The only reason we think heroes have existed is because the victors have written history.
It's really said to even suggest that racist mass murderer Lincoln even had some moral objection to slavery, let alone deify him and place him alongside MLK and others.
This guy recently beat Jon Stewart in a verbal battle - so to say. He is very good with words, but the bottom line is that America should not torture under any circumstances.
If waterboarding is torture, it is the most mild form. So mild that journalists are willing to try it. Actually, those that perform it, the SERE, have to undergo waterboarding as part of their training, I'm surprised they're not suing the government for being tortured......
If you don't think there are mild forms of torture why doesn't the navy train SERE to undergo 10 000 volts of electricity, or the rack? If waterboarding were really torture equal to all other forms of torture, wouldn't SERE be disabling its trainees rather than training them?
Not only is waterboarding the most mildest form of torture, as it only causes a sensation of panic, which is only one characteristic of torture, it was only used on 4 detainees, while all SERE undergo it;100s of americans
Under duress/torture/extreme pain, one will say almost anything in order to stop the toture. Some of that information, although false, could hinder attempts to lets say, finding bombs, by misdirecting attention. Theres also the case that the "shoot first ask questions later" is a common occurence in America is it not? I'd prefer it if torture was avoided, but mostly the torture I'd have prevented is that of families who have lost relatives/friends in attacks such as 9/11 and other attacks..
Is there a more disgusting guy in government? This guy will be ridiculed for the rest of his life. In that way he's a lot of like Richard Nixon. I can't believe he's still teaching. He's a disgrace.
John Yoo is an example of the worst kind of criminal!! He is GUILTY of war crimes & he belongs in jail for the rest of his life!!! Shame on FORAtv for giving this monster a platform to speak!!!
Great, now let's start allowing the police to torture suspects for information. I'm sure that will take down entire drug trafficking networks. After all, if why should we treat criminals like human beings when we've proven that we are clearly above things like "morality".
Obama is not naive about torture... He condones it just fine. (even though he says otherwise so stupid people who want to hear it will believe it). Obama did not really close down Guantanamo- He just moved it to another location in the Carribean. This unfortunately did not get as much media as his "closing" of Guantanamo facility- but at least they covered it. He's a smart man. Tell the moron libs that you closed it to get their votes when in reality the torture still goes on.
lauraleesmithagain 9 months ago
Sick methods like these are the reason America is threatened by terrorists these days. The CIA helps founding Al Qaeda and is surprised that it backfires years later. They torture, abduct and kill and wonder why the world shakes it's head when the US talks about democracy and human rights. This guy is disgusting and the people that stand behind him have caused unspeakable, unjustified pain and suffering. America, get up and arrest these criminals!
Shadyblast 1 year ago
Chicken Hawks. All of them. And war criminals.
One day, people will decide torture out people. And there is not a thing that we can say about it.
RCK502 1 year ago
John Yoo calls Barack Obama "naive." But Yoo says we have to rely on what those who ordered "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e., torture, said. It's surely naivete to the nth degree to believe those who ordered torture will now come out and say, "No, it didn't save any lives." Mr. Yoo, of course they'll say the opposite. And of course, we not only do not "have to rely" on what they say; we can't rely on it.
Youmightberight 1 year ago
You can do anything if you are able to set your soul aside as Yoo does with such ease! The fact that he is a Christian asserting this amoral nonsense is appalling!
EFISHANT 1 year ago
It took a bunch of Christians to rationalize the use of torture! Yoo gave them the foundation for the nonsensical rational!
EFISHANT 1 year ago
I guess one can only be war criminal is you lose a war.
I will volunteer to waterboard this criminal to get the information from him.
I will give him 30 or 40 minute straight of glorious water boarding,
and I mean not the Country club treatment they gave to the KSM, I mean immersing hi head in a 50 gallon tank of water for 50 minute straight.
if he survive maybe we can proof if it produce internal organ damage or not.
JerezJulio 1 year ago
Torture is a war-crime!! period!
even to discuss if it works, shows the US has lost it`s moral values!!
log140 1 year ago
where is the evidence how can u prove conclusively that torture leads to more arrests/ preventions ?? how is iraq and afganistan atm ??
jeans423 1 year ago
judgeing the poor quality of Americas intelligence on Iraq i'd say that torturing people doesn't work very well. Sure they might get lots of information but none of it is worth the paper its written on.
srspower 1 year ago
These fucking chicken hawks haven't got an ounce of morality in their bodies. This is America, we don't fucking torture people, it's illegal. All it does is make people hate us more and opens the door for our troops to get tortured and killed when they're captured. America has always taken the moral high ground, we don't stoop down to the levels of our enemies. We no longer have that moral high ground to stand on thanks to Bush and his cronies.
NewYorkCityUSA7 1 year ago
i hate this bastard
FunkLocke 2 years ago 2
John Yoo thinks it's okay to crush the testicles of CHILDREN of the detainees in order to get them to speak.
Mahdavi1990 2 years ago
John Yoo may should have a look in the legal discussions from 16th to the 18th century regarding the use of torture. Even than any information gained under torture was seen by the higher courts as highly suspect.
Even the "Constitutio Criminalis Carolina" of 1532 allowed evidence gained under torture only under certain circumstances in court (Art. 22,56, 58).
I would assume from a legal adviser a better knowledge of history of law - not to repeat failed ideas of the past.
hartmut1164 2 years ago 2
"We should compromise our principles in the name of safety."
No, we shouldn't.
fourthirteen 2 years ago 3
@fourthirteen I'll bet you wouldn't be saying that if it was one of your family members having to jump from the burning 37th floor of the World Trade Center. But yeah go ahead with your holier-than-thou moral preening from a safe distance. These terrorists are not playing by our rules
Noodleydoo 3 months ago
Didn't the US leadership's Intelligence Agencies tell them Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction? The Leadership believed it, because they wanted to believe it. Was is true? The rest of their information was equally bullshit.
geezzerboy 2 years ago
John Yoo is an utter scumball.
KaitainCPS 2 years ago 10
interesting the one who asks has no questions and the one who answers has no questions also
xaver54 2 years ago
If this clown loves torture so much, he should move back to China.
And Gonzalez should move back to Mexico, or wherever the hell his Torture loving ass is from.
DEFYtheTHOUGHTPOLICE 2 years ago
he is a Korean-AMERICAN. emphasis added.
ieodksnw787 2 years ago
Then he must make Kim JInga Ill very happy.
DEFYtheTHOUGHTPOLICE 2 years ago
So many of you people are idiots. Compare your justifications of torture with those of the Nazi's. Fucking idiots. Next will be justification for death camps. FOAD.
URInTheVillage 2 years ago
you're a fool and a clown. move to mexico.
arequipa1 2 years ago
Iraqi elections are soon, I'm sure you'll do everything in your power to ignore that our Iraqi brothers and sisters now have government-by-consent, and prefer it.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Oh, so you believe Bush and Cheney are worse than KSM! Well, now it's absolutely clear that we see the world very differently, and can't be reconciled.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Suggesting there's some equivalency between Cheney, Bush and KSM is cheap, and intellectually dishonest.
I'm not sure there's a state in existance today that has not been accused of crimes against humanity, even my country of Canada, for supposed murder of Muslims in Afghanistan, and etc. It's a hysterical attempt to demonize any opposing view. But, I suspect that even you know the difference between NATO fighting in Afghanistan and Saddam gassing Halabja.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Neither do I want to damage ppl, that's why waterboarding is all I'm willing to forgive as it doesn't physically or emotionally damage the subjects. Truth serum is also banned as torture. Would you be able to forgive that? Just because someone labels something torture doesn't mean it's equal or anywhere close to Al-Qaeda torture chambers in Fallujah, or the Inquisition.
The president's duty is to defend the homeland, and its citizens. That was his intention. Not a sadistic desire to harm KSM.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
They didn't even damage Khalid Sheik Mohammed, if you've heard him speak recently, he's still ranting about the "honour" of mass murdering americans, and how proud he is of the charges.
I suggest you actually read the "torture" memos, if you're going to have a strong opinion about something, you should at least be informed on the subject, especially when you suggest people should be thrown in jail.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
the interviewer is such a bad interviewer, if he is TRYING to be an interviewer. Trying to place words and sentences into the interviewee "don't you just wanna say obama is being silly?. Don't you?"
ragnarocks0 2 years ago 2
re5
You have just received the typical response from a committed liberal/progressive. When you press the facts, they don't want to discuss it. Anyone who seeks truth and scans the blogosphere knows where credible info can be obtained. To varia's credit, ad hominem attacks did not start. This is the exception to the rule. Varia can not see that this is not a democrat vs republican issue. It is a USA as our founders-have-envisioned-it values to the academic utopia of Marxist thoughts.
jcomd 2 years ago
well that said a lot of the democrats knew about torture too and didnt do a damn thing
liber8me 2 years ago
Well, I can't say you have class.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
I'm just referring to precedent. I think it's obviously a discussion that needs to be had since you think people deserve to be jailed on account of this. If you're going to condemn people, I would respect it more if I knew you heard the proper arguments and were doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong ones. But, I'm willing to drop it.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
In WW2, if U.S. GIs captured german troops disguised as civilians, or as U.S. soldiers, they would execute them right there, in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, as the conventions if you read them only apply to "protected persons" which are described, if they're enemy fighters, as "uniformed soldiers". The purpose of the conventions were to provide an incentive for states to fight fairly and protect civilians. Also, no enemy captured on the battlefield should be tried in civilian courts.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
What are you a contortionist: "Mild Torture", "Purpose of the conventions was to fight fairly,"?
Tell me sir, do you know why the military switched to FMJ? Why don't hunters use it?
HBSchool 2 years ago
Fourth Geneva Convention: Article 5. "Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Well, FMJ is more versatile, it damages both soft and armored targets. Hunters might use hollow point because it does more damage to soft targets, but it would do very minimal damage to someone wearing a kevlar vest or helmet, as might a modern soldier wear.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
@Re5Publica
But the treaty was passed before Flak Jackets, Kevlars, and body armor were around.
Let me give you a hint, it wasn't because it made war "fair". You're assertion that "fairness" was the intent of the Geneva conventions ( Softpoint had been banned long before that) is absurd.
HBSchool 2 years ago
@Re5Publica
*armored targets
HBSchool 2 years ago
The problem is Al-Qaeda declared war on the U.S. in 1998, are they then under civil or military jurisdiction? 9\11 was an act of war, not simply a crime.
Also, I was asking a hypothetical, I know you're not president of the United States of America........
Re5Publica 2 years ago
He was a mass murderer, who changed the New York skyline forever, who boasted that there would be future attacks. You're president, what do you do? Read him his miranda rights? Tell him he has the right to remain silent? No, I'd imagine if you're decent and responsible you'll use the most effective way of obtaining information that didn't cause any physical pain, or psychological trauma, waterboarding only meets one criterium of torture, and that's the sensation of impending death - panic.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Absolutely no one was killed at Gitmo. No one was even killed in Abu Ghraib. Iran has beaten its own citizens to death in their jails, they admit it, and yet the world remains more outraged by Gitmo. Not only are there 2 doctors for every patient, but they get up to 7 hours recreation time outdoors, choice of reading material, complimentary Qur'ans and prayer mats (sometimes served with white gloves as they consider us impure), choice of meals, and access to daily news.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
I don't take torturers as my heros. Khalid Sheik Muhammad planned the murder of 3000 innocent people, beheaded Daniel Pearl, and boasted about it, if the CIA waterboarded him, I'm forgiving. If they had peeled off his fingernails, or poked him with hot irons, it would be different. But, to draw to a parity between the Bush admin and the wost thugs and murderers in the world is dishonest and cheap, and is more partisan bigotry than anything else.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
4 men were waterboarded.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
biased interviewer!
Steadno 2 years ago
John Yoo. No better than other conservative tools like Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. Yuppie motherfucker who says its OK to inflict pain on others without ever having experienced it himself.
Plissken07 2 years ago 9
Khalid Sheik Mohammad is Pakistani, but you seem to be unaware of a lot of things... so.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Batman did worse stuff.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
you do realise the gulf war in the early 1990s never ended. saddam shot at american planes every chance he got for the next decade so yes, eh was attacking americans.
liber8me 2 years ago
i agree
DarkNSF 2 years ago
the problem, Mr. Yoo, is that the war will NEVER BE OVER! There is always going to be nutjobs who want to blow people up.
alien13ufo 2 years ago
@alien13ufo thats a good point. war on terror does not have a point where it is over......
lemme ask this : If we consider that the military complex is involved in Gov's decision making.......how much influence did it have on the "labelling ' of the present "war"?
restlys 2 years ago
and let the poor suffer from not being properly insured for health..
moestietabarnak 2 years ago 2
What a douche bag.
We have standards and you can't drop those standards because you don't like the people you are interrogating.
Yukio Asano, a Japanese interpreter from WW2, got 15 years hard labor for "Violation of the Laws and Customs of War" i.e. waterboarding Americans, but I guess president doesn't count when we do it.
Ironically, we actually did drop, not 1 but 2, nuclear bombs on them killing tens of thousands of civilians.
KHAT0VAR 2 years ago 2
last time i checked the atomic bombs ended the war meaning LESS PEOPLE DIED since america did not have to invade japan the old fashioned way like they did germany and destroy it one city block at a time.
liber8me 2 years ago
IF we accept your point for the first one... the second one was superfluous, and criminal!
Japan was ready to surrender. too bad i dont have any link rdy, but i heard it many times from historian ..
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
it was criminal to end the war and save lives on both sides?
japan was busy training civilians - women and children to fight an invasion. they'd been asked for months to surrender and the whole time they were building up their defenses. tell me, WHEN WAS JAPAN GOING TO SURRENDER? after the surrender of germany? happened months before the bombs were dropped
liber8me 2 years ago
ok, maybe I'm not writing clear enough, since English is not my native language..
the SECOND bomb wasn't necessary, THAT was criminal, the first was enough to stop the war.
And I'm not talking about you specifically, but you "american" claiming the morale high ground, while doing the torture, defending right for yourself but denying them to stranger, bombing civilian (you know the war in irak cost 1around 1 million live ?..not all combatant you know).
etc.
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
im not american and i never said anything about what america has done except in world war two. you're deliberately trying to change the subject.
secondly after the first bomb was dropped the US again called on japan to surrender and japan issued a press release saying that they ignored this request. well ignored is not the right word - what they literally said was they would "kill it with silence" so no, it did not look like japan wanted to surrender even then
liber8me 2 years ago
hmm, ok you're not american, so the 'you' was wrong..it should have been 'they' (American).. you just sounded like one justifying themselves.. sorry
Checking out wikipedia (Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) The Potsdam ultimatum (without ref to nuke) was issued july 26, and japan respond "kill by silence".. THEN Hiroshima was nuked on aug 6..followed by Nagasaki on aug 9.
I know sometimes wikipedia can be wrong, but rarely with fact.
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
the americans dropped 16 MILLION LEAFLETS on 47 japanese cities between the 6th and the 9th of august calling for japan to surrender. the white house released numerous requests for a surrender. just how many freaking chances did you want japan to surrender? should they have said ok you can have the next 5 years to decide?
liber8me 2 years ago
So, if wikipedia is right (and I heard similar info from some history documentary before).. there was not a refusal of surrender after the first bomb.. they barely had any time (3 days!) before the second.
But some say that japan was debating hot to surrender, and truman wanted to drop the second bomb :"to make a point" to make other power think America had many more nuke ready. (a bluff at the time)
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
replace "hot" with "how" (speller didn't catch this typo eh)
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
first of all you act as though the potsdam ultimatum was some great surprise for japan. did you think the people at the conference said "do you know what tactic we should try next instead of fighting? we should ask japan to surrender!!!! wow why didn't we try that before?"
japan had been asked for years to surrender and yet again they ignored it at potsdam. that justified the first bomb.
liber8me 2 years ago
Why you keep arguing what have already conceded? .. I said the first was justified
its the second that questionable, and you said the "kill it with silence" was the respond that triggered the second , when I show that this respond was BEFORE the first.. so it wasn't a result of the nuke.
And No, you don't give 5 year for an answer, but you wait for an answer "yes","no", .. (or if japan attack the american that equal a 'no') ..but if nothing happen, they may be tinkering about accepting.
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
Now, I'm not an historian and didn't study this extensively, I just pointed out other interpretation of the situation that has being debated and showed with little research that your original justification (the refusal to surrender with "kill with silence") didn't stand in the chronology.. that's all. I can't add much.
You may be right, you may be wrong, but the explanation you gave doesn't stand by itself. Just using logic.
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
if the US had space in that time to drop 16 million leaflets then japan had enough time to say "we surrender"
the fact is that all of japan's rhetoric had indicated it was never going to surrender. america repeatedly asked it to do so and it did not.
i dont know about you but if i was fighting that war and i had a way to quickly end it i would do it
liber8me 2 years ago
just google "was nagasaki necessary" and you will find article and book with people advocating both side..
now I'm reading one historian :
"By April 1945, Japan's leaders realized that the war was lost. Their main stumbling block to surrender was the United States' insistence on unconditional surrender. They specifically needed to know whether the United States would allow Hirohito to remain on the throne."(google it if you care to know the rest)
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."
General Curtis LeMay,... put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
really that's funny because the potsdam ultimatum was actually extremely lenient - it promised japan would not be destroyed as a nation, that the japanese would be free to choose their own government and it strongly hinted that the emperor would be left on the throne.
anyone who says the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war is an idiot. japan was training women and children to fight an invasion i hardly call the preparing to surrender. the bulk of its army was preparing to fight
liber8me 2 years ago
Funny ;) .. I guess you were writing while i pasted those 'idiot' general's comment ;)
ok, whatever, there plenty of material online, I have nothing much to add, nice civil debate.
have a good day.
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
you seem to have the idea that world war two was this lovely civil war where everyone seemed to send each other messages that they were about to attack.
we both agreed the first bomb was justified.
before the second bomb was dropped 16 million leaflets dropped across japan warned of its arrival and still japan refused to surrender. the two bombs together had the combined effect of forcing japan to surrender despite the bulk of its forces preparing to fight off an invasion to the death.
liber8me 2 years ago
Did you read the general's Quote ? these don't even agree on the first one!..
I said 'civil debate' (on youtube) not civil war like a gentlemen war!
You seem to think that the process from bomb to surrender happen quickly, just check today without warzone how fast the president responded to katrina or the christmas' bomber!
They need to get the general/emperor informed, asses the destruction, debate surrender and tell the USA doesn't happen overnight.
g'nite
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
you know mate if someone dropped an atomic bomb on my country id be pretty keen to negotiate with them. i wouldn't ignore them and hope for the best.
if america had time to drop 16 million leaflets then im pretty damn sure japan had time to send america a message saying they'r ready to negotiate.
liber8me 2 years ago
Let make an example with of smaller, human size level..
Let say, you have 2 thug running to attack you... with a bat.. you get out a gun and shoot the first one on the head!.. the second freeze and start to run away, and you shoot it on the head too..
For the first one you can claim self-defense,, but the second one is voluntary manslaughter (not sure about the exact legal term)
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
@liber8me japan had its whole navy completely destroyed...they were not at all going to invade anyone. it was a question of time/attrition as to when they were going to surrender. Especially since germany was also losing the war.
restlys 2 years ago
actually germany had surrendered months before so that is a load of crap.
secondly are you saying that america shouldn't have tried to remove japan as a military power? the bulk of its armies were still on the mainland ready to fight to the death. did you think the allies should have done the same to germany? as soon as they reached german soil said "alright i suppose they've learned their lessen lets leave hitler alone now."
liber8me 2 years ago
You are ready to claim freedom and morale ground... but your acts doesn't agree.
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
my acts? i never did anything. all i did was state the obvious - the bombing of japan ENDED THE WAR. japan did not have to invaded like germany and people did not have to die while they fought to take every street in the nation
liber8me 2 years ago
@liber8me so you think bombing japan saved lives?
restlys 2 years ago
You did not address my point.
1. John Yoo is a bag of douche.
2. Torturing Americans or our allies is considered a crime and is met with harsh punishment.
3. Torture by Americans or our allies is excusable.
Standards need to apply to everyone or they are meaningless.
Mentioning nuclear bombs seem to have distracted you. I only brought them up to show the very real threat of violence that the Japanese faced.
Right or wrong, good or bad that threat that did not excuse their actions.
KHAT0VAR 2 years ago
its rather odd to bring up something that happened over 60 years ago as though its relevant to torture today.
the nuclear bombs ended world war two and saved millions of lives on both sides.
liber8me 2 years ago
No, they didn't.
Why dont you actually open up a book and learn some WWII history instead of lying. There is absolutely no way Japan could have inflicted "millions" of casualties, they were bankrupt and completely out of oil. The war was over before the nukes landed, the japanese high command was just intent on dying.
zutroy1 2 years ago
i meant millions overall for both sides and yes it would have been no different to germany - the allies would have had to invade a far smaller area than france meanign the defences were far more concentrated, and then would have had to fight to take every city block against an enemy that was fanatically determined to defend its homeland.
so no, the war was not over before the nukes landed, the war only ended when japan surrendered.
liber8me 2 years ago
okay, whatever. I don't expect somebody who clearly has not studied it to have any idea what they're talking about.
No, millions of lives were not saved and no it would not have been the type of block-to-block city combat you are hallucinating. Try reading an academic source account of how the end of the war played out. Japan had no oil, no money, and very little machine hardware left. Even the high command was split on whether or not to surrender and attempted assassinations within itself.
zutroy1 2 years ago
first of all if you knew anything about what was going on in japan you would know that the japanese were training women and children to fight off an invasion. they were far more fanatical than the german people and literally believed their emperor was a god.
so yes, there would ahve been block-to-block city fighting.
are you honestly stupid enough to believe the japanese were going to just roll over and allow an enemy to take over their sacred homeland quietly?
liber8me 2 years ago
the invasion of iwo jima caused 6,200 american deaths and the US outnumbered the japanese by 4 to 1. okinawa cost 13,000 us soldiers or 35% of the invasion force and they outnumbered the japanese 2.5 to 1.
they were training civilians with sharpened bamboo poles and they believed there was nothing more honourable than to die for their emperor. children were to be used as sherman carpets - strapping tnt to themselves and jumping under american tanks.
liber8me 2 years ago
precedent -noun.
a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.
KHAT0VAR 2 years ago
Republican asshole...
rubberbaby00 2 years ago
Typical conservatives.
blackiron60 2 years ago
Well if it was only Obama saying that I could agree. However many CIA people and top ranking military people also agree that torture does not bring results that are trustworthy
KasparHauser4 2 years ago 4
Its easy to condem these techniques while you sit at your computer, but if you e were on the 85th floor of the trade center deciding to jump or burn and a 911 operator told you they had the 20th hijacker in July of 2001, i wonder what you would think about pouring water on on someones face then. Look up Kevin Cosgroves 911 call, I wonder what his opinion and his familys opinion is
fdny9682 2 years ago
id be all for doing whatev it takes to get the info.
trouble is, torture doest get it. info from torture can be highly unreliable in any case.
if u torture someone long enough, they will tell u anything u want to know, whether it's true or not. u can make a black man say he's white.
VivekRajcoomar 2 years ago 2
water boarding worked on KSM, he gave up lots of info, just have to weed out the truth from th bullshit. It worked for Col Allen West in Iraq, and its worked for the mob. Not to say it works on everyone, but that dosent mean you take it off the table
fdny9682 2 years ago
That isn't true, that only applies to torture to get confessions. The U.S. did not do that. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was an admitted member of Al-Qaeda, and boasted about his role in the attacks. If you're being waterboarded and you provide false information, they'll just keep waterboarding you. There is every incentive to tell the truth, and no incentive to lie, if you have information.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
@fdny9682 Appeal to emotions it NOT an argument.
Kashrlyyk 2 years ago 2
Hopefully someday someone will think that torturing him will save lives.
And congrats on getting your name change btw
thunderpants10 2 years ago
I suppose anyone can speak for most liberals,and what they think. I'm just surprised why this fucker is not in jail tossing someones salad while discussing the legality of torture.
drgoodvibesxxx 2 years ago
Dear Mr Yoo, Please kill yourself
thunderpants10 2 years ago 6
Yoo is a girlie man, damn him and his patriotic act.
hurchel 2 years ago
In some journalistic traditions, the interviewer puts the opposing view - plays devil's advocate to challenge the arguments of his guest.
Here though, Robinson chose to compose a little bit of pro-torture rhetoric, then invite Yoo to endorse it. He obviously didn't go to the trouble of looking up the anti-torture arguments. I presume that wouldn't have fit in with the Hoover Institution's (why are all think tanks conservative?) preconceived values.
It's just one wanker amplifying another.
cristop5 2 years ago
John Yoo brings shame on humanity.
AimiriZ 2 years ago 5
Did you read the torture memos? They sound more like hollywood stunts, than torture: "For walling, a flexible false wall will be constructed... it is the individuals shoulder blades that hit the wall... the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect... the individual is allowed to rebound from the flexible wall..." Not exactly what you think when the media says "walling". "Wall standing" is basically yoga or pilates.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
this ex intelligence piece of shit has been stabbing with the nwo for many years
fuzzjunky 2 years ago
Why is that anyone reluctant to do evil is always accused of being naïve?
AtSwimTwoBricks 2 years ago 4
I think it interesting that, generally speaking, 'conservatives' and 'liberals' fall back on the "Oh, they're preaching hate" euphemism ('cause We call 'em like we see 'em) as an initial supporting argument. While it's hard to contend otherwise in terms of sheer volume of work, I do think it important to remember that they are not advocating senseless violence. Focusing here on what would drive a group of people to these particular extremes might prove to be...revealing...?
BrutusBlackest 2 years ago
what a tool. He's covering his ass,
Justin9Noble 2 years ago 2
Yoo is a lawyer, a brilliant one, yes, but still, he's not a professional interrogator. Who the hell is he to say what will produce results. As to his point on Abdel-Rahman, I think hes just simply wrong. We seem to have gotten quite a bit of intelligence on terrorists operating within our borders from the investigation.
eirefrance 2 years ago
They said almost nothing to argue their opinion that asking whether or not we can get the same information without torture is naïve. They simply stated that the information was important, and that it's all in the past so it's useless to consider whether it could have been done another way. If you close your ears and go, "nananana," you won't learn anything from history, and while that's considered acceptable behavior we won't grow as a society.
LokiClock 2 years ago
Monsters...
KagarBeardtooth 2 years ago 3
This Asshole should be in Jail with Rumsfeld , and Cheney ...
sjcpal 2 years ago 3
Don't forget Obama now.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
What the HELL was fora doing giving this guy a platform for this kind of evilness? shame on you fora..
Maghetti 2 years ago
I would really like to see John Yoo (and all that war criminals bunch around Bush) brought to justice -- tried and convicted.
But it is important to make them voice their opinion.
What good will it do if liberals listen only to liberals, and conservatives listen only to conservatives?
dmitriy40 2 years ago 2
This liberal-conservative dichotomy is far less significant than you what you make it out to be. Most liberals support Obama and his torture and foreign policies.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Wow, I like how he makes it seem like Lincoln wanted to end slavery. He did it out of necessity, the man was an evil tyrant, he was no better than the south. The only reason we think heroes have existed is because the victors have written history.
Mastikator 2 years ago
It's really said to even suggest that racist mass murderer Lincoln even had some moral objection to slavery, let alone deify him and place him alongside MLK and others.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Correction: it's really "sad" not said.
paganiniGOGO 2 years ago
Fuck Yoo...
...and you to.
pmnichols10 2 years ago
This guy recently beat Jon Stewart in a verbal battle - so to say. He is very good with words, but the bottom line is that America should not torture under any circumstances.
neoldd1 2 years ago
If waterboarding is torture, it is the most mild form. So mild that journalists are willing to try it. Actually, those that perform it, the SERE, have to undergo waterboarding as part of their training, I'm surprised they're not suing the government for being tortured......
Re5Publica 2 years ago
The fact that water boarding is apart of SERE says it all. Go to wiki, read about who goes to SERE, and put it together for yourself.
You can argue that torture is justifiable but don't delude yourself for the sake of Government.
"Mild TORTURE", that's a good one.
HBSchool 2 years ago
If you don't think there are mild forms of torture why doesn't the navy train SERE to undergo 10 000 volts of electricity, or the rack? If waterboarding were really torture equal to all other forms of torture, wouldn't SERE be disabling its trainees rather than training them?
Not only is waterboarding the most mildest form of torture, as it only causes a sensation of panic, which is only one characteristic of torture, it was only used on 4 detainees, while all SERE undergo it;100s of americans
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Under duress/torture/extreme pain, one will say almost anything in order to stop the toture. Some of that information, although false, could hinder attempts to lets say, finding bombs, by misdirecting attention. Theres also the case that the "shoot first ask questions later" is a common occurence in America is it not? I'd prefer it if torture was avoided, but mostly the torture I'd have prevented is that of families who have lost relatives/friends in attacks such as 9/11 and other attacks..
TurboDally 2 years ago 2
slavery would have ended on its own just as it did EVERYWHERE ELSE
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
@sexdrugsRnR that is quite a good point....
neoldd1 2 years ago
There are indeed times where torture is the best option, but the US's case was NOT ONE OF THEM.
1RadicalOne 2 years ago
The face of a psychopath.
thetimman00 2 years ago 3
This interview was just sickening.
DeletedDelusion 2 years ago 3
Maybe John should be tortured as well. I'd be curious what information we would get out of him about 9/11, Irak and Afghanistan...
Is just an idea...
yegorletoff 2 years ago 3
Since he's a lawer, I bet he would confess negotiating with osama for sadam..
moestietabarnak 2 years ago
It feels like an interview with dr. Josef Mengele.
aman57 2 years ago 5
Only if you know nothing about Mengele.
Re5Publica 2 years ago
Is there a more disgusting guy in government? This guy will be ridiculed for the rest of his life. In that way he's a lot of like Richard Nixon. I can't believe he's still teaching. He's a disgrace.
cat00012000 2 years ago 3
john 'bloody hands' yoo
Steadno 2 years ago 7
Which of the supposed torture methods drew blood?
Re5Publica 2 years ago
John Yoo is an example of the worst kind of criminal!! He is GUILTY of war crimes & he belongs in jail for the rest of his life!!! Shame on FORAtv for giving this monster a platform to speak!!!
777CARL777 2 years ago 8
Yeah, FUCK TRIALS!
HBSchool 2 years ago
Great, now let's start allowing the police to torture suspects for information. I'm sure that will take down entire drug trafficking networks. After all, if why should we treat criminals like human beings when we've proven that we are clearly above things like "morality".
Slug99 2 years ago 7
I've heard this joke before. I know, I know... the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and "obsolete." It wasn't funny the first time, either.
ONQproductions 2 years ago 6