it's a shame to see John Yoo holding the american flag,,,teaching law to americans is the biggest insult to George Washington,,,,american people!!!!! you deserve better
Could the President nuke the Vatican because he thinks the Pope is encouraging MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSLEM extremists with appeasement and putting our "boys" in danger?
Yoo really makes me ill. The way they should phrase these questions is like this: Mr. Yoo, can the president order you to be buried alive? Mr. Yoo, can the president order you to cut off your (body part of your choice) and make you eat it raw?
How can some retarded fucktard order someone to be killed? tortured? buried alive? of course people should spread the word and prosecute bush for war crimes.
Ugh. You really think he intended to answer the question? No, he did not. Hence the unnecasarry suffixes he adds to his responses, Conyers understands this tactic very well and anyone (And I'm hoping you at least meet this criteria) who has ever watched a Politician during an interview understands it. I.e that you misdirect your response, which is what he was trying to do..
Either an answer beginning 'Yes, Because..'' or 'No, because..' or ''Maybe, because..' would have been ok.
wait so why are people picking on John Yoo? Because he strays from a totally unusual and pretty emotional question? And all the goddamn brainwashed liberals (and conservatives alike) who don't realise that no politician ever gives a straight answer
Lincoln threw a guy in jail and ignored a court order from the chief justice to release him. He deemed it necessary. FDR put american citizens who happened to be of japanese descent in concentration camps. He deemed it necessary. So, yes, if for some reason a president found it necessary to bury, or pour water on, a suspect to protect the nation, he as commander and chief certainly has the power to do it. If the officers he orders to do find it to be unlawful, they have a duty to disobey.
@blastforth Just because presidents in the past have given such orders does NOT mean that they were legal. It's a sad fact of history that injustices and illegal acts are often tolerated in times of war, and especially in instances where the country is in a state of panic. Lincoln's actions in that case were clearly unconstitutional (only Congress can suspend habeas corpus), as were FDR's (fifth/fourteenth amendments), and these facts are now widely acknowledged.
Also, the reason the President does not have to directly order someone to be buried alive is that it's generally understood that he condones such practices. That's why we have buried people alive, or at least began the process. The evidence for this is sparse of course; all we have to go by is the CIA's own notes about the incident(s).
Yoo gets two prizes for this one: Most Frustrating Sonofabitch of All Time, as well as the highly coveted Most In Need of an Epic Backhand. I say we bury him alive.
Yes the president could, for example, order that a trench full of enemy soldiers shooting at out troops be buried alive with armored bulldozers. In fact that happened in the First Gulf War. Perfectly OK.
John Yoo is a Berkley Law professor? The students should ask for their money back unless they are stupid enough to think this man can teach them anything worthwhile. Or maybe since they are in law school obfuscation, deception and lying are what they want to master.
Actually Yoo is one of the most distinguished law professor at Berkley. Conyers is being a moron here. Yoo's job was to conduct legal research and advise the administration on various questions of law posed to him. How exactly can Yoo give out a legal opinion whether the President can do this or that when he has not done the research?
@digitalcntrl Yoo has been roundly criticized for his legal memos to the White House being result oriented and pandering to the political demands of the White House rather than representing legal research.
The fact that Yoo's work has been criticized by others does not mean that it is not legal research. It just means that it is controversial. I don't believe Yoo pandered to anyone. If you read his works as a professor before his stint with the Bush admin. you see he previously espoused such controversial legal views.
@digitalcntrl Research about this cruel and unusual punishment? Are you serious? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND?? What is happening to us as a country?? Are we so blind that the burring of a person alive needs to be researched because we are all in the dark about this "confusing" legal matter??
Clinton invaded the Balkan, and is a war criminal.
Obama continues the war in Iraq and has escalated the war in Afghanistan and is trying to include Pakistan in the global war of American terror... and has been rewarded the Nobels Peace Prize for his "peaceful" nature... when he should have been shot dead for war against the peace.
No American president, no matter color, creed or political party, will ever be a man of peace. Never.
No he didn't! He played that rightwing neo-con voluminous not get down to specifics evasive answering. He said nothing! It's nice to have a legal (yes man) to keep Cheney out of jail.
@hoonerdog and by legal yes man you mean executive power especially in wartime that allows bush and cheney to make EXECUTIVE decisions. do you know the meaning of the word executive? you need a dictionary and an american history textbook. far from the first administration to do something without the consent of congress during wartime, weve had some very good results in the past from decisions made in this way.
a conservative who doesnt pay his bills? you must be new to politics, youve got your stereotypes backwards. i appreciate your personal messages but just repeatedly saying something doesnt make it correct. bush and cheney are not close to first historically to utilize their executive power granted to them in the constitution... far from... as far as your "by the way..." comment im not going to address anything that far off topic, just trying to elaborate on a topic youre clearly not familiar with
Your in total denial! Did you see Ventura on Hannity? Sean complained that the Democrats are going to raise the taxes and Ventura said at least, unlike the conservatives, the democrats pay for what they do. Just becaus Fox says it doesn't make it so. 84% of the deficit was created by the conservatives.
@rigatony019 Also I can tell you don't know what your talking about. But if you believe that the constitution can be interpret as the Executive branch sees fit then the Democrats have not gone against the constitution as per your beliefs. You need to read more about both sides instead of listening go Fox News.
assuming im a viewer of fox news is an even more ignorant presumpion than the rest. dem presidents have in the past made executive decisions against the will of congress. ill say it again, get a history book. just because you personally disagree with something doesnt make it wrong. the emancipation proclamation was an executive decision made against the will of congress i suppose you dont think that was a poor decision... fdr preemptively brought us to war against the will of congress.
@rigatony019 You listen to Fox News. I know what history says. The emancipation proclamation was an executive decision based on a vote from congress. It was also done to give a moral reason agains (states rites) which was the real reason the civil war was faught. FDR did want us in WWll but he did not get us involved preemetivly (though he wanted to) he waited for Pearl.
@hoonerdog I had to refresh my memory on the Civil War and you were correct about it being an executive decision. But their were two decision and the second was the executive decision because he didn't believe he could get it through the first time. But it was done on moral grounds and used against "States Rights". And the republican have never balanced a budget.
an executive decision based on vote from congress? you fundamentally dont even know what you are talking about! it wouldnt even BE an executive decision if it was a decision made my congress! despite your very rusty history and concept of political structure in general the bush administration didnt need yoo to get away with waterboarding... he is a legal yes man in no way. he was hired as a lawyer to pin point what advanced interrogation methods could be used whilst not violating any treaties
@rigatony019 That's not what I said. I said he tried once and knew he couldn't get it through he made an executive decision based on the fact that war had been declared. But what your saying is that all a president has to do is declare war and that automatically gives him unlimited power. By the way, Congress never declared war on Iraq they gave Bush the option. And a legal "Yes Man", is what Yoo was.
"The emancipation proclamation was an executive decision based on a vote from congress" your exact words. and im not saying that at all, i also never said congress declared war... congress can stop a war at any moment if they dont believe in it by either checking the pres or by simply ceasing to fund his actions. do yourself a favor and read crisis in command by yoo a reflection on this very topic by someone who understands the constitution leaps and bounds above you.
@rigatony019 That may have been my first statement because it's been 50 years since High School. But my second statement said that he (Lincoln) didn't beleive he could get the Proclamation thru congress the first time so he used executive decisions to get it through. But I"m against "Legal Yes Men", are you?
or you could even watch him on the daily show talking with jon stewart for a crash course in constitutional law... id recommend the entire book however for someone as in the dark on that topic as you
@rigatony019 I did see him on the Daily show and if I remember Yoo couldnt come up with a legit reason for why he came his decisions. Daily did. And those reasons, based on what your saying, means that we don't have an democracy any more because a "legal yes man" can find any reason to go against the constitution and your civil rights.
??? i dont know where to start... your first sentence doesnt make sense, who's "Daily" and the legal yes man didnt find a way for him to go against the constitution he found a way no to violate any treaties. the power to make executive decisions in wartime was already granted to the president.the constitution was written that way for a reason, having to consult congress after capturing the 3rd man in al qaeda about what they can and cant do would have been a giant waste of very precious time
@rigatony019 No if you saw it, like I did, he was vague voluminous and non committal. Then Daily came up with an explaination which Yoo aggreed with.
You are agreeing with everything the Bush administration did! And Cheney, by his own statement after Nixon quit, said that the President is above the law, and you believe that? But even more important, do you think that after 911 that congress wouldn't have gotten together in emergency session and decided for Bush ?
once again who is daily? we are watching different shows because there is nobody by that name on the daily show that im referring to and the host of the daily show that im referring to names jon stewart quite literally was made a fool of by yoo to the point where he felt obligated to apologize to his audience the following evening.... im not agreeing with anything the bush administration did, what im saying is that yoo is a scapegoat to the media and no crimes were committed
@rigatony019 I'm sorry Stewart of the daily show. And he was not made a fool of in any way. Yoo did not answer the questions directly. I started reading his book Yoo that is, and I need to know, where does the presidents power end? Is Yoo the scapegoat or like Libby the guy that took the bullet for the team? And what do you agree with?
rewatch it, because right now what your suggesting is that stewart capitulated by the end of the discussion saying he must admit he does not know enough historically especially to discuss matters of constitutional law as well as formally appologizing for no reason since he actually got the better half of the dialogue. And no you don't need to know what agree with because that not the discussion I'm merely attempting to clarify a few things
@rigatony019 You are exactually correct! After he knew he wasn't going to get a straight answer he (John Stewart) came up with one. But what it comes down to is, if the Bush administration had nothing to hide than why be so evasive? But it looked to me, much like the questioning from Conyors, that Stewart would get nothing. But did Bush/Cheney use the war to increase their powers. Yes or No.
if he had lost the debate due to yoo being especially evasive and vague he would have said so the following eveing and would have made a lame joke about him being a snake. instead what he did was formally admit on national television that he was not educated enough on the topic of constitutional law ("historically especially," his words) to hold a conversation with him. why is that jon stewart can so easily admit being out of his element in front of a devoted audience but you cant?
@rigatony019 If stonewalling is winning than Yoo won. But it doesn' get back to the basic question. Does the US, because the Bush administration can find a legal "yes man", have the rite to torture just by renaming it as enhanced interrogation? When I was growing up I was taught that torture was wrong no matter who did it. Was I brought up wrong or is it if only the enemy tortures?
what you mean to say is that if having a larger knowledge base on the topic and being much better prepared with many years studying and executing constitutional law is winning, than yoo won. henceforth, john stewarts capitulation and apology... plain and simple. like i said rewatch the clip. even the biggest of "daily" fans can admit he was way out of his element much yourself right now.
@rigatony019 No that's not what I was saying. What I am saying is what did he use that larger knowledge for? Did he use it to confirm the law or did he use it to vauge up the law so he could break it? Did he use his knowledge for Cheney's culpable deniablity so an area, which I thought was black and white, is now grey? And what do you want? Are you in admiration that Yoo knowledge allowed him to think of this? I need to know.
thats a shame thats not what youre saying because thats clearly what happened. he used that knowledge to answer a question that hadnt yet been adressed. the question was what can a person do to get information from the 3rd person in command in al qaeda beyond the usual law enforcemement paradigm (undoubtedly be ineffective) but doesnt cross lines of international treaties. if you ever saw it as black and white thats your own misinterpretation of a complex issue
@rigatony019 Boy! do I ever doubt that. My proof is, how many times do you see Cheney answering question on this subject? Rearly if ever. And as far as what does and doesn't cross the line, renaming it doesn't make it legal! But the stonewalling and secrets were the hallmark of the Bush/Cheney administration. Don't admire someone because you think he's savy. Admire them because they did the right thing. And torture is wrong.
2... how can i explain this as simply as possible without pictures to someone as close minded as yourself...
in time of war, executive decision trumps congress albeit they can check or end funding. BUT international treaties trump executive decision. it wasnt renaming torture. it was a matter of finding what lies in between normal law enforcement interrogation and torture as defined by geneva.
you dont have to like it but its the way it is. constitutionally speaking, no crimes were comitted
@rigatony019 That's a "cop out" and you know it. He (Yoo) was hired, by Cheney, to find a way to legally water board. Water boarding is torture. That's what the UN says. He (Yoo) couldn't find anyway around it except by renaming it at the behest of Cheney. Thats also why Cheney won't talk about the legal asspects of WB. What kind of moral standard do you want this country to stand for? And is this an "I can do it but don't you"?
you are an absolute amateur and know literally nothing. if you were serious when you said its been 50 years since highschool that makes me sad. like i said you dont have to agree with the constitution but thats the way its set up... you can argue with waterboarding ethically if you want but thats not the issue. to claim they were breaking the law you are over simplifying a much more complex issue. watch the clip, read the book, read a middleschool text book or two youre admittedly rusty
@rigatony019 Again, that's a "cop out", to the max. I agree with the constitution but it's how it's used that I find offence with. Voltair once said, about the Bible, that if it's one thing the Bible proves is that you can prove anything by the Bible. That seem to be Yoo interpretation of the constitution. Legal or otherwise! You need to go back to the real basic this country was founded on not what some knowledgable "yes man" lawyer says that can gives deniablity.
this proves my point undoubtedly. so thank you for that. you agree with the executive decision made by lincoln with the emancipation proclomation. but you dont agree with the EXACT SAME right to executive decision bush used. on ETHICAL grounds you agree with one and not the other like alot of people, but that doesnt make them war criminals. the constitution doesnt ensure people are WILL make good choices everyone agrees with it ensures that they CAN
@rigatony019 Because silly applies to those who reinterpret the meaning of the constitution I can take what you said with a grain of salt. But where you said this undoubtedly prove your point and won't explain what that point is, I'm glad that you are now seeing that Yoo was a political legal "Yes Man". With out any ethics and a bullet taker for Cheney. I also noticed you removed your statement after you sent it!
aha earth to confused old man do you copy? I did state what my point was that you proved. That you don't ETHICALLY agree with the way the power of executive decision was used in this case but you do in others like the emanc. Proc. Its not a legal. its not a constitutional issue. at least now you can admit you don't agree with it for ethical reasons which is fine a lot of people don't.
@rigatony019 Your the one who's confused. You sound like the type of conservative , which you say your not, that now believes in rewriting history which their trying to do in Texas. Sure makes for a clear conscious. If the republicans put us at war then why didn't they pay for it. Also you haven't my question. Did Bush/Cheney use Yoo to create a new discriptor and use that to allow torture?
Also before you get too excited I've removed a couple of statements either due to horrendous spelling errors or because it got put up twice... so you can calm down now
Oh also before you get too excited my finger slipped and gave you that thumbs up... nobody actually thinks that a good response haha sorry
@rigatony019 And your point is moot. The reasons again was that Bush/Cheney need someone to take a bullet for on their decision to use waterboarding. Yoo was that man. We, as far as I know, have never condoned waterboarding because we, the US, thought it was not only against our laws but international laws. Yoo found away around that by renaming it. And I can tell by your statement that ethics are the last thing your worried about.
it really doesnt matter what im worried. what you or i are worried about doesnt change the fact that nothing criminal took place... love it or leave thats a fact. find me a legal document dating prior to yoos involvement that states the US considers water boarding torture. until you can find the page that states that wb by definition is torture in the geneva convention or any other international treaty you are the one whos point is "moot." dont worry, ill wait...
@rigatony019 If it doesn't matter what you or I worry about than why didn't Yoo answer any questions? I'll tell you why because if answering the question straight forward and now vaugly Bush/Cheney might have been found to over step their powers. The balance between the branches would have been found out to not be a balance at all. And again our point is moot. Simple question. Are you a conservative or not?
more rhetoric? the only way for you to prove your point is to present those documents. all the rest is vast speculation on your part... ill keep waiting. it shouldnt be too difficult
youre playing the same games yoo is in this clip ahaha. find the page of the geneva convention that states the US considers water boarding torture....or cut the speculative crap. nothing you say is worth anything until you can provide that
@rigatony019 The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[44]
This was in responce to an anti torture agreement that calls all forms of torture wrong. Yoo made it legal.
@rigatony019 No this was in responce to something that happened in 1993. We, the US, signed off on it. The Bush/Cheney administration reclassified torture so they could waterboard. And I'll try to get the whole thing but it's 14 pages long and it has it's origins in the Korian war where the North Korians use it on American Solders. It was to reafirm what torture was. But Bush/Cheney & Yoo knew.
in 2006? in response to something that happen in 1993? while the khalid sheikh mohammed incidence took place 3 years before it as well? like i said, ill keep waiting...
@rigatony019 I'll try to get this in a shorter format. The whole UN agreement is over 240 Pages. But all of what I sent you is in responce to what happened in Bangladesh and to our solders during the Korian war. But more important this consensus we the US signed off on. And if you read what I sent you it's to re-afirm what the world including the US had agreed on. Having a legal "yes man" doesn't make it right.
you can find it in any format you want but it doesnt change the fact it was 3 years after the interrogations in question in this video. it should be that hard, look up the geneva convention and shoot me the page that defines waterboarding as torture. ill keep waiting
my political views effect the reality of political process in accordance to executive deicision and its juxtapoisition with international treaties as much as yours. in other words, it doesnt matter! im not going to get sucked into a moral pissing match over personal political ideaologies as its entirely irrelevant. jon stewart is an outspoken liberal and he was man enough to capitulate and admit he was not versed enough on the subject. in other words, he was wrong. get it?
@rigatony019 Their was nothing to capitulate from. Yoo never said anything!
My brother who's a lawyer read Yoo's book. I'll see where he stands. And I don't blame you for being evasive because it opens up the matter of how much power a president should have or be allowed. Cheney says it's unlimited. That's the moral question. Do we have a dictatorship or not?
@rigatony019 No! The law was signed off on by the US in 1993 and Yoo at the behest of Bush/Cheney self created a word (enhanced introgation) so torture could by used. By the way, what do you want? Do you like savy reinterpretation of agreed laws or does the ends justify the means?
what do i want!? i want people to know what they are talking about! i want people to understand the constitution and political process. obviously what i want is utterly unatainable... my example? you.
@rigatony019 And you do???? You can't put a cogent sentence to gether plus you won't answer any question. If you want someone to point the finger at that doesn't know anything you need to look in the mirror. But again, what do you want?
make sure you dont miss the last message i sent about 2 seconds ago. this is what happens when people like you start scrambling around when proven wrong and the conversations start overlapping. youve already admitted to being rusty on your basic middle school american history. youve said about 3-4 things youve had to immediately take back. why dont you just take the high road and quit now. learn when to fold em
@rigatony019 I'll fold when I'm wrong. And you are the only one who's been taking things back. Remember"I don't want to get into a moral pissing match".
Your a cancer that allowed the destruction of this country. We're done.
And you allowed it to happen. I think you should go back to school and relearn what the constitution is supposed to be about. By the way what do you think about the Texas conservatives rewriting history. Right up your alley.
@rigatony019 I'll rephrase that, you started talking circular. You won't tell me where you stand. And just because the conservaatives used their preception of the constitution to give Bush more power doesn't mean it does. Also this country makes most of their voting decision based on precieved morals. Oh an taxes. Yoo is a legal, stonewalling, yes man. Ethical or not. And where have I gone back on my basic statement about Yoo?
yes rephraase that. and by rephrase that i mean say something completely different hahaha. im talking circular because no matter how many times i state plain straighforward bonnified fact you respond with personal opinion of morality and ethics and other issues defined as subjective by nature. the constitution isnt about perception no matter how many times you say it. you agree with the emanc. proc. but not this on personal grounds not legal ones. you cant hate one and not the other
@rigatony019 I don't care what you think you said was right. If it was right, which it wasn't, then why didn't he answer the questions Conyers asked him? And if it was right than why would he be protecting Bush/Cheney? If he followed the constitution then why didn't he answer any questions? Because he didn't follow the constitution and over stepped by making answers vauge the Executive power. Like I said you who won't answer question, what do you want?
thats the problem with this conversation, you dont care. the president is granted exapnsive power during war time, trumped only by international treaties. the founding fathers wanted this from the very beginning. the same root of power used by lincoln (which you agree with)is the root used by bush (which you dont). these are personal issues of yours and until you can argue the constitutional illegality of this with facts and not false rhetorical anecdotes,this conversation must be over.
@rigatony019 No I care about the country I don't care for someone who disrespects the constitution then used it to hide behind so he can evade answer basic question.
Your arguement is moot. what you saying doesn't have anything to do with what Yoo did because if what he did was by the book than he would have answered the questions asked him. What do you want?
also since you are clearly one of those last word kind of guys... be my guest. everything youve said so far you said in the first couple responses and then simply proceeded to copy and paste...
@rigatony019 So you not answer the basic question which started this means I've copied and pasted. So far I haven't but I can tell by what you've said I should have because you won't answer my question. Very conservative of you. If Yoo followed the constitution than why didn't he answer the questions?
not answering a question is NOT an admittance of guilt. one might presume or speculate that its means hes guilty but it of course is nothing but that, presumption and speculation. clearly this clip is not yoos shining finest moment. BUT until you can present FACT i.e. constituional clauses, treaties, documentation of anykind (prior to the interrogation in question) your distaste for yoos actions remain personal and subjective and i must attempt to find more stimulating debate elsewhere...
@rigatony019 It's all simple no admittance no guilt. We have prisons full of those kinds of people. Basic question, if he didn't go againts the constitution than why be evasive? Show me! And I do distaste Yoo and would like an explaintion.
I don't think he was evading the question; he just didn't want to answer the Chairman's questions in the affirmative without properly explaining his answers.
@UdallIn72 No. I was in an talk with someone about this about 4 months ago. And Yoo's interpretation of the law was that under war the President has the power to do what Yoo was defending . We, the US, signed an agreement in the UN to not torture but that agreement we signed was never ratified by Congress. And that's why Yoo believes he has the law and history on his side.
@UdallIn72 "Yes", would have made the questioning easier. But if you remember Conyors said "I see what's happening here and were all lawyers here". Meaning he knows how to play the law delaying game.
@UdallIn72 Your missing the point. Yoo was saying that he had history on his side when it came to the decisions he made and that made those questions moot. That it was the right of the administration in power. Based on history. The average blue collar joe wants black and white answers to questions. The Bush administration made everything grey and that allowed for flexablity.
@hoonerdog No! What it means is that the Constitution is a fluid document that is and can be interpreted at the behest of the political party running the country at that time.
also since you are clearly one of those last word kind of guys... be my guest. everything youve said so far you said in the first couple responses and then simply proceeded to copy and paste...
@rigatony019 Also lets get back to the basic of Yoo's testimony. Did he answer Conyers questions or did he evade them? And if he did evade them and he had the constitution on his side, then why? I am going send you the 292 pages plus the original one that its based on over 300.
By the way, if we are at war then why did Bush/Cheney not pay for it??? They even cut taxes on the rich and the ultra-rich increasing the debt. Most presidents pay for the wars they start. Except the republicans.
@desantiscm Yea, he clearly did answer the question. People look for a scapegoat, even if it's a man who may have helped save hundreds of American lives!
I COMPLETELY AGREE. The moment I first learned of Yoo and the crimes against humanity that he actively promoted, and then I saw his FACE, I want to drive to Berkley and immediately womp on the criminal fuck with a baseball bat!
This is another example of some random Clip taken out of context. What purpose does this serve? We have enough real issues to be concerned about, economists warning us that Obama possibly bankrupting our grandchildren rather than waste time with some idiot like Conyers asking/ bagdering his hypothetical question.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Conyers is asking a hypothetical question, theres really no answer, He should ask the and he's badgering the witness.... too bad the witness is so intimidated, I wouldn't have taken his shit. Conyers lack of tact shows what a One-side liberal he really is.
Also, whos the idiot who posted this?? FYI, the proper spelling is " BURY" Duhhhh
Yes, he was asking a hypothetical question. And the answer was a simple yes or no. Obviously, this weasel scumbag does not want to say "NO", because that would hurt his argument that the POTUS can order the torture of a prisoner. But, he does not want to say what he really thinks, which is "YES", because that answer would admit to the world that he thinks the president's authority has no limits.
hes not a judge he is a US congressman in the house of representatives. those guys were not on trial, they were subpoenad to give testimony to the US house.
To all Americans: Prof. Yoo is a great defender of our constitution. he is a proud American and deserves the protection from prosecution. His actions prove that Americans will protect our homeland regardless of racial or social background. Keep up the good job Dr. Yoo.
To all the American haters: now you know that we will bring the war to you!!!!!!! whether you are a terrorist in the middle east, the pirate in somalia, or a communist in Venesuala, we will come get you.
a great number of military lawyers disagree with your opinion there, challenging yoo's memos on violating the 8th amendent and several other amendments. you might argue he was defending the country, but i find it hard to understand how he was defending the constitution, when he and his 'war council' friends saw the constitution as a barrier and an impediment to doing what they thought should be done.
Yes, the Constitution has always been a pesky piece of paper when political priorities are threatened by over-reaching zealots who are more concerned with their own power than the principles our country was founded on. Now we know that they weren't defending our country, as bulltrap09 ignorantly assumes.
ecept that the entire theory of yoo addington etc was like nixon, 'if the president does it, its not illegal'.... or in this case, 'if thee president oes it, its not torture'
Here is my question to war criminal Yoo: "Council, with the understanding that any answer other than 'no' will be considered and entered into the records as an affirmative: can the president, using your opinion, order someone to be buried alive?"
how about his actual answer, where he's so shocked by how stupid a question it is. if he just came out and said "yes, he theoretically has that power since nobody thought it would be a good use of time to tell him not to" the internet would be ablaze with a fresh batch of batshit insane conspiracy theories.
and if he just came out and said 'yes, he theoretically has the power to put someone in a small box with insects' then we'd also get a bunch of 'conspiracy theories'........ except... oh wait..... the OLC actually said that it would be ok to put people in a small box with insects in it.
its not a stupid question, its the kind of question the supreme court asks of counsel all the time. it gets to the main question.... where do you draw the line. is there anything tha yoo wouldn't have justified
the law is not based on what you would have done, or where you draw your personal boundaries. we don't prosecute people for what they're capable of. we prosecute people for what they did. George W. Bush did NOT authorize or order anybody being buried alive. Yoo did NOT advise anybody to be buried alive. beyond that, what the hell does it matter?
on the one hand, i think you are right... they should stick to the facts... on the other hand, the supreme court oral arguments go into hypotheticals all the tie, because they are dealing with questions of principle and they are setting precedents for the future with their decisions.
on the third hand.... how do you know he didn't authorize burying people alive? maybe there was a 'nuclear ticking time bomb'...just as silly as the rest of the rguments for torture you hear
this is the problem with most Bush haters (i don't support Bush), you think that just because he theoretically has the power to do something, it's going to become common practice within days, unless you tell everyone you know about the issue, including the entire internet.
Bush has never used that method of execution, nor is there a record of him expressing a wish to use it. Get over it.
Yoo is frightened - and he is not man enough to face his fears and give an honest answer!
jagara1 3 months ago
it's a shame to see John Yoo holding the american flag,,,teaching law to americans is the biggest insult to George Washington,,,,american people!!!!! you deserve better
gnawi2002 6 months ago 3
Could the President nuke the Vatican because he thinks the Pope is encouraging MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSLEM extremists with appeasement and putting our "boys" in danger?
RPenta 7 months ago
Yoo really makes me ill. The way they should phrase these questions is like this: Mr. Yoo, can the president order you to be buried alive? Mr. Yoo, can the president order you to cut off your (body part of your choice) and make you eat it raw?
caveatemp 8 months ago
We're all missing the point that Conyers is acting like a huge dickweed and everyone around him realizes it.
iwazhear77 11 months ago
@iwazhear77 YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
DO you not realize how serious this is?
How can some retarded fucktard order someone to be killed? tortured? buried alive? of course people should spread the word and prosecute bush for war crimes.
HE SHOULD BE EXECUTED!
BUSH SHOULD BE EXECUTED BY A LETHAL INJECTION!
...
MrWsad 10 months ago
@iwazhear77 Bullshit. Yoo is a war criminal and he's deflecting and Conyers isn't putting up with it. Go ahead. Defend war criminals.
Hissyspit 7 months ago
@Hissyspit I'm not defending anyone. But it's kind of hard to answer questions when the person asking is being extremely hostile.
iwazhear77 7 months ago
@iwazhear77
Ugh. You really think he intended to answer the question? No, he did not. Hence the unnecasarry suffixes he adds to his responses, Conyers understands this tactic very well and anyone (And I'm hoping you at least meet this criteria) who has ever watched a Politician during an interview understands it. I.e that you misdirect your response, which is what he was trying to do..
Either an answer beginning 'Yes, Because..'' or 'No, because..' or ''Maybe, because..' would have been ok.
BelfastAtheist 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrBullfrog9876 1 year ago
wait so why are people picking on John Yoo? Because he strays from a totally unusual and pretty emotional question? And all the goddamn brainwashed liberals (and conservatives alike) who don't realise that no politician ever gives a straight answer
hellomotobleh 1 year ago
What's better, practicality or morality?
well which one runs the world?
idaho777 1 year ago
Lincoln threw a guy in jail and ignored a court order from the chief justice to release him. He deemed it necessary. FDR put american citizens who happened to be of japanese descent in concentration camps. He deemed it necessary. So, yes, if for some reason a president found it necessary to bury, or pour water on, a suspect to protect the nation, he as commander and chief certainly has the power to do it. If the officers he orders to do find it to be unlawful, they have a duty to disobey.
blastforth 1 year ago
@blastforth Just because presidents in the past have given such orders does NOT mean that they were legal. It's a sad fact of history that injustices and illegal acts are often tolerated in times of war, and especially in instances where the country is in a state of panic. Lincoln's actions in that case were clearly unconstitutional (only Congress can suspend habeas corpus), as were FDR's (fifth/fourteenth amendments), and these facts are now widely acknowledged.
bs17 8 months ago
I bet if the President ordered John Yoo buried alive that fat pussy would have an opinion about it's legality.
borjon23 1 year ago
Also, the reason the President does not have to directly order someone to be buried alive is that it's generally understood that he condones such practices. That's why we have buried people alive, or at least began the process. The evidence for this is sparse of course; all we have to go by is the CIA's own notes about the incident(s).
DRok112 1 year ago
Yoo gets two prizes for this one: Most Frustrating Sonofabitch of All Time, as well as the highly coveted Most In Need of an Epic Backhand. I say we bury him alive.
DRok112 1 year ago
the question should be could the president order someone killed for national security reasons ?
absolutely without a doubt,
but he dont have to do that,normally he asks his lieutenants,"do whatever it takes to get the job done",
my 2 cent
hlimkb 1 year ago
Wow, Yoo is a piece of ****. HIs answer isn't "no" but rather "I don't think any president would 'have to' order that."
DominicMetal1979 1 year ago
Yes the president could, for example, order that a trench full of enemy soldiers shooting at out troops be buried alive with armored bulldozers. In fact that happened in the First Gulf War. Perfectly OK.
blastforth 1 year ago
@blastforth
That's called warfare. The question was about someone in custody.
borjon23 1 year ago
"I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that question."
-- Yogi Berra
jamieblond1 1 year ago
John Yoo is a Berkley Law professor? The students should ask for their money back unless they are stupid enough to think this man can teach them anything worthwhile. Or maybe since they are in law school obfuscation, deception and lying are what they want to master.
klard 1 year ago 6
@klard
Actually Yoo is one of the most distinguished law professor at Berkley. Conyers is being a moron here. Yoo's job was to conduct legal research and advise the administration on various questions of law posed to him. How exactly can Yoo give out a legal opinion whether the President can do this or that when he has not done the research?
digitalcntrl 1 year ago
@digitalcntrl Yoo has been roundly criticized for his legal memos to the White House being result oriented and pandering to the political demands of the White House rather than representing legal research.
klard 1 year ago
@klard
The fact that Yoo's work has been criticized by others does not mean that it is not legal research. It just means that it is controversial. I don't believe Yoo pandered to anyone. If you read his works as a professor before his stint with the Bush admin. you see he previously espoused such controversial legal views.
digitalcntrl 1 year ago
@digitalcntrl then with a couple of backhanders he became a lapdog... Everyone has a price apparently...
mikedraper1000 1 year ago
@digitalcntrl Research about this cruel and unusual punishment? Are you serious? HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND?? What is happening to us as a country?? Are we so blind that the burring of a person alive needs to be researched because we are all in the dark about this "confusing" legal matter??
MrBullfrog9876 1 year ago
Conyers is at fault for trying to force Yoo to say something that would be embarrassing when taken out of context. Conyers is the problem.
BigFritz2 1 year ago
john yoo is a joke
roughboyusa 1 year ago
This is good YT...
ripousse 1 year ago
What a vile sack of shit.
borjon23 1 year ago
Great Lawyer!!
OakIslandBandit 1 year ago
had the Clinton or Obama team been in power during 911, he'd been praised as a hero.
OakIslandBandit 1 year ago
@OakIslandBandit only if they'd done the right thing.
Clinton invaded the Balkan, and is a war criminal.
Obama continues the war in Iraq and has escalated the war in Afghanistan and is trying to include Pakistan in the global war of American terror... and has been rewarded the Nobels Peace Prize for his "peaceful" nature... when he should have been shot dead for war against the peace.
No American president, no matter color, creed or political party, will ever be a man of peace. Never.
TraustiHraunfjord 1 year ago
Wait, he answered the fucking question, end of story.
desantiscm 2 years ago
No he didn't! He played that rightwing neo-con voluminous not get down to specifics evasive answering. He said nothing! It's nice to have a legal (yes man) to keep Cheney out of jail.
hoonerdog 2 years ago
@hoonerdog and by legal yes man you mean executive power especially in wartime that allows bush and cheney to make EXECUTIVE decisions. do you know the meaning of the word executive? you need a dictionary and an american history textbook. far from the first administration to do something without the consent of congress during wartime, weve had some very good results in the past from decisions made in this way.
rigatony019 1 year ago
You must be a conservative. You don't pay bills run up the debt than blame it on someone else.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
You must be a conservative. You don't pay bills run up the debt than blame it on someone else.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
a conservative who doesnt pay his bills? you must be new to politics, youve got your stereotypes backwards. i appreciate your personal messages but just repeatedly saying something doesnt make it correct. bush and cheney are not close to first historically to utilize their executive power granted to them in the constitution... far from... as far as your "by the way..." comment im not going to address anything that far off topic, just trying to elaborate on a topic youre clearly not familiar with
rigatony019 1 year ago
Your in total denial! Did you see Ventura on Hannity? Sean complained that the Democrats are going to raise the taxes and Ventura said at least, unlike the conservatives, the democrats pay for what they do. Just becaus Fox says it doesn't make it so. 84% of the deficit was created by the conservatives.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
@rigatony019 Also I can tell you don't know what your talking about. But if you believe that the constitution can be interpret as the Executive branch sees fit then the Democrats have not gone against the constitution as per your beliefs. You need to read more about both sides instead of listening go Fox News.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
assuming im a viewer of fox news is an even more ignorant presumpion than the rest. dem presidents have in the past made executive decisions against the will of congress. ill say it again, get a history book. just because you personally disagree with something doesnt make it wrong. the emancipation proclamation was an executive decision made against the will of congress i suppose you dont think that was a poor decision... fdr preemptively brought us to war against the will of congress.
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 You listen to Fox News. I know what history says. The emancipation proclamation was an executive decision based on a vote from congress. It was also done to give a moral reason agains (states rites) which was the real reason the civil war was faught. FDR did want us in WWll but he did not get us involved preemetivly (though he wanted to) he waited for Pearl.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
@hoonerdog I had to refresh my memory on the Civil War and you were correct about it being an executive decision. But their were two decision and the second was the executive decision because he didn't believe he could get it through the first time. But it was done on moral grounds and used against "States Rights". And the republican have never balanced a budget.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
an executive decision based on vote from congress? you fundamentally dont even know what you are talking about! it wouldnt even BE an executive decision if it was a decision made my congress! despite your very rusty history and concept of political structure in general the bush administration didnt need yoo to get away with waterboarding... he is a legal yes man in no way. he was hired as a lawyer to pin point what advanced interrogation methods could be used whilst not violating any treaties
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 That's not what I said. I said he tried once and knew he couldn't get it through he made an executive decision based on the fact that war had been declared. But what your saying is that all a president has to do is declare war and that automatically gives him unlimited power. By the way, Congress never declared war on Iraq they gave Bush the option. And a legal "Yes Man", is what Yoo was.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
"The emancipation proclamation was an executive decision based on a vote from congress" your exact words. and im not saying that at all, i also never said congress declared war... congress can stop a war at any moment if they dont believe in it by either checking the pres or by simply ceasing to fund his actions. do yourself a favor and read crisis in command by yoo a reflection on this very topic by someone who understands the constitution leaps and bounds above you.
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 That may have been my first statement because it's been 50 years since High School. But my second statement said that he (Lincoln) didn't beleive he could get the Proclamation thru congress the first time so he used executive decisions to get it through. But I"m against "Legal Yes Men", are you?
Read the Wrecking Crew.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
or you could even watch him on the daily show talking with jon stewart for a crash course in constitutional law... id recommend the entire book however for someone as in the dark on that topic as you
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 I did see him on the Daily show and if I remember Yoo couldnt come up with a legit reason for why he came his decisions. Daily did. And those reasons, based on what your saying, means that we don't have an democracy any more because a "legal yes man" can find any reason to go against the constitution and your civil rights.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
??? i dont know where to start... your first sentence doesnt make sense, who's "Daily" and the legal yes man didnt find a way for him to go against the constitution he found a way no to violate any treaties. the power to make executive decisions in wartime was already granted to the president.the constitution was written that way for a reason, having to consult congress after capturing the 3rd man in al qaeda about what they can and cant do would have been a giant waste of very precious time
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 No if you saw it, like I did, he was vague voluminous and non committal. Then Daily came up with an explaination which Yoo aggreed with.
You are agreeing with everything the Bush administration did! And Cheney, by his own statement after Nixon quit, said that the President is above the law, and you believe that? But even more important, do you think that after 911 that congress wouldn't have gotten together in emergency session and decided for Bush ?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
once again who is daily? we are watching different shows because there is nobody by that name on the daily show that im referring to and the host of the daily show that im referring to names jon stewart quite literally was made a fool of by yoo to the point where he felt obligated to apologize to his audience the following evening.... im not agreeing with anything the bush administration did, what im saying is that yoo is a scapegoat to the media and no crimes were committed
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 I'm sorry Stewart of the daily show. And he was not made a fool of in any way. Yoo did not answer the questions directly. I started reading his book Yoo that is, and I need to know, where does the presidents power end? Is Yoo the scapegoat or like Libby the guy that took the bullet for the team? And what do you agree with?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
rewatch it, because right now what your suggesting is that stewart capitulated by the end of the discussion saying he must admit he does not know enough historically especially to discuss matters of constitutional law as well as formally appologizing for no reason since he actually got the better half of the dialogue. And no you don't need to know what agree with because that not the discussion I'm merely attempting to clarify a few things
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 You are exactually correct! After he knew he wasn't going to get a straight answer he (John Stewart) came up with one. But what it comes down to is, if the Bush administration had nothing to hide than why be so evasive? But it looked to me, much like the questioning from Conyors, that Stewart would get nothing. But did Bush/Cheney use the war to increase their powers. Yes or No.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
if he had lost the debate due to yoo being especially evasive and vague he would have said so the following eveing and would have made a lame joke about him being a snake. instead what he did was formally admit on national television that he was not educated enough on the topic of constitutional law ("historically especially," his words) to hold a conversation with him. why is that jon stewart can so easily admit being out of his element in front of a devoted audience but you cant?
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 If stonewalling is winning than Yoo won. But it doesn' get back to the basic question. Does the US, because the Bush administration can find a legal "yes man", have the rite to torture just by renaming it as enhanced interrogation? When I was growing up I was taught that torture was wrong no matter who did it. Was I brought up wrong or is it if only the enemy tortures?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
what you mean to say is that if having a larger knowledge base on the topic and being much better prepared with many years studying and executing constitutional law is winning, than yoo won. henceforth, john stewarts capitulation and apology... plain and simple. like i said rewatch the clip. even the biggest of "daily" fans can admit he was way out of his element much yourself right now.
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 No that's not what I was saying. What I am saying is what did he use that larger knowledge for? Did he use it to confirm the law or did he use it to vauge up the law so he could break it? Did he use his knowledge for Cheney's culpable deniablity so an area, which I thought was black and white, is now grey? And what do you want? Are you in admiration that Yoo knowledge allowed him to think of this? I need to know.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
thats a shame thats not what youre saying because thats clearly what happened. he used that knowledge to answer a question that hadnt yet been adressed. the question was what can a person do to get information from the 3rd person in command in al qaeda beyond the usual law enforcemement paradigm (undoubtedly be ineffective) but doesnt cross lines of international treaties. if you ever saw it as black and white thats your own misinterpretation of a complex issue
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 Boy! do I ever doubt that. My proof is, how many times do you see Cheney answering question on this subject? Rearly if ever. And as far as what does and doesn't cross the line, renaming it doesn't make it legal! But the stonewalling and secrets were the hallmark of the Bush/Cheney administration. Don't admire someone because you think he's savy. Admire them because they did the right thing. And torture is wrong.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
2... how can i explain this as simply as possible without pictures to someone as close minded as yourself...
in time of war, executive decision trumps congress albeit they can check or end funding. BUT international treaties trump executive decision. it wasnt renaming torture. it was a matter of finding what lies in between normal law enforcement interrogation and torture as defined by geneva.
you dont have to like it but its the way it is. constitutionally speaking, no crimes were comitted
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 That's a "cop out" and you know it. He (Yoo) was hired, by Cheney, to find a way to legally water board. Water boarding is torture. That's what the UN says. He (Yoo) couldn't find anyway around it except by renaming it at the behest of Cheney. Thats also why Cheney won't talk about the legal asspects of WB. What kind of moral standard do you want this country to stand for? And is this an "I can do it but don't you"?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
you are an absolute amateur and know literally nothing. if you were serious when you said its been 50 years since highschool that makes me sad. like i said you dont have to agree with the constitution but thats the way its set up... you can argue with waterboarding ethically if you want but thats not the issue. to claim they were breaking the law you are over simplifying a much more complex issue. watch the clip, read the book, read a middleschool text book or two youre admittedly rusty
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 Again, that's a "cop out", to the max. I agree with the constitution but it's how it's used that I find offence with. Voltair once said, about the Bible, that if it's one thing the Bible proves is that you can prove anything by the Bible. That seem to be Yoo interpretation of the constitution. Legal or otherwise! You need to go back to the real basic this country was founded on not what some knowledgable "yes man" lawyer says that can gives deniablity.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
Comment removed
rigatony019 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this proves my point undoubtedly. so thank you for that. you agree with the executive decision made by lincoln with the emancipation proclomation. but you dont agree with the EXACT SAME right to executive decision bush used. on ETHICAL grounds you agree with one and not the other like alot of people, but that doesnt make them war criminals. the constitution doesnt ensure people are WILL make good choices everyone agrees with it ensures that they CAN
rigatony019 1 year ago
Comment removed
rigatony019 1 year ago
and lastly i dont even have television so try to keep the rhetorical "you watch too much fox news" to a minimum as it makes you look even sillier
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 Because silly applies to those who reinterpret the meaning of the constitution I can take what you said with a grain of salt. But where you said this undoubtedly prove your point and won't explain what that point is, I'm glad that you are now seeing that Yoo was a political legal "Yes Man". With out any ethics and a bullet taker for Cheney. I also noticed you removed your statement after you sent it!
hoonerdog 1 year ago
aha earth to confused old man do you copy? I did state what my point was that you proved. That you don't ETHICALLY agree with the way the power of executive decision was used in this case but you do in others like the emanc. Proc. Its not a legal. its not a constitutional issue. at least now you can admit you don't agree with it for ethical reasons which is fine a lot of people don't.
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 Your the one who's confused. You sound like the type of conservative , which you say your not, that now believes in rewriting history which their trying to do in Texas. Sure makes for a clear conscious. If the republicans put us at war then why didn't they pay for it. Also you haven't my question. Did Bush/Cheney use Yoo to create a new discriptor and use that to allow torture?
Also are Bush/Cheney above the law?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
Also before you get too excited I've removed a couple of statements either due to horrendous spelling errors or because it got put up twice... so you can calm down now
Oh also before you get too excited my finger slipped and gave you that thumbs up... nobody actually thinks that a good response haha sorry
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 And your point is moot. The reasons again was that Bush/Cheney need someone to take a bullet for on their decision to use waterboarding. Yoo was that man. We, as far as I know, have never condoned waterboarding because we, the US, thought it was not only against our laws but international laws. Yoo found away around that by renaming it. And I can tell by your statement that ethics are the last thing your worried about.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
it really doesnt matter what im worried. what you or i are worried about doesnt change the fact that nothing criminal took place... love it or leave thats a fact. find me a legal document dating prior to yoos involvement that states the US considers water boarding torture. until you can find the page that states that wb by definition is torture in the geneva convention or any other international treaty you are the one whos point is "moot." dont worry, ill wait...
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 If it doesn't matter what you or I worry about than why didn't Yoo answer any questions? I'll tell you why because if answering the question straight forward and now vaugly Bush/Cheney might have been found to over step their powers. The balance between the branches would have been found out to not be a balance at all. And again our point is moot. Simple question. Are you a conservative or not?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
more rhetoric? the only way for you to prove your point is to present those documents. all the rest is vast speculation on your part... ill keep waiting. it shouldnt be too difficult
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 What's to speculate? If Yoo and the Bush/Cheney administration has nothing to hide than why do they?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
youre playing the same games yoo is in this clip ahaha. find the page of the geneva convention that states the US considers water boarding torture....or cut the speculative crap. nothing you say is worth anything until you can provide that
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[44]
This was in responce to an anti torture agreement that calls all forms of torture wrong. Yoo made it legal.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
thats over 3 years AFTER the incidence in question with yoo. it would be helpful if you could find documentation prior to that...
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 No this was in responce to something that happened in 1993. We, the US, signed off on it. The Bush/Cheney administration reclassified torture so they could waterboard. And I'll try to get the whole thing but it's 14 pages long and it has it's origins in the Korian war where the North Korians use it on American Solders. It was to reafirm what torture was. But Bush/Cheney & Yoo knew.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
in 2006? in response to something that happen in 1993? while the khalid sheikh mohammed incidence took place 3 years before it as well? like i said, ill keep waiting...
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 I'll try to get this in a shorter format. The whole UN agreement is over 240 Pages. But all of what I sent you is in responce to what happened in Bangladesh and to our solders during the Korian war. But more important this consensus we the US signed off on. And if you read what I sent you it's to re-afirm what the world including the US had agreed on. Having a legal "yes man" doesn't make it right.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
you can find it in any format you want but it doesnt change the fact it was 3 years after the interrogations in question in this video. it should be that hard, look up the geneva convention and shoot me the page that defines waterboarding as torture. ill keep waiting
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 It's part of the UN Charter on the treatment of prisoners.
But I'm going to send you all 292 pages. Your getting just a evasive as Yoo.
Are you a conservative? And why would Yoo be evasive in the first place?
If he had nothing to hide.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
my political views effect the reality of political process in accordance to executive deicision and its juxtapoisition with international treaties as much as yours. in other words, it doesnt matter! im not going to get sucked into a moral pissing match over personal political ideaologies as its entirely irrelevant. jon stewart is an outspoken liberal and he was man enough to capitulate and admit he was not versed enough on the subject. in other words, he was wrong. get it?
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 Their was nothing to capitulate from. Yoo never said anything!
My brother who's a lawyer read Yoo's book. I'll see where he stands. And I don't blame you for being evasive because it opens up the matter of how much power a president should have or be allowed. Cheney says it's unlimited. That's the moral question. Do we have a dictatorship or not?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
@rigatony019 No! The law was signed off on by the US in 1993 and Yoo at the behest of Bush/Cheney self created a word (enhanced introgation) so torture could by used. By the way, what do you want? Do you like savy reinterpretation of agreed laws or does the ends justify the means?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
what do i want!? i want people to know what they are talking about! i want people to understand the constitution and political process. obviously what i want is utterly unatainable... my example? you.
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 And you do???? You can't put a cogent sentence to gether plus you won't answer any question. If you want someone to point the finger at that doesn't know anything you need to look in the mirror. But again, what do you want?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
make sure you dont miss the last message i sent about 2 seconds ago. this is what happens when people like you start scrambling around when proven wrong and the conversations start overlapping. youve already admitted to being rusty on your basic middle school american history. youve said about 3-4 things youve had to immediately take back. why dont you just take the high road and quit now. learn when to fold em
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 I'll fold when I'm wrong. And you are the only one who's been taking things back. Remember"I don't want to get into a moral pissing match".
Your a cancer that allowed the destruction of this country. We're done.
And you allowed it to happen. I think you should go back to school and relearn what the constitution is supposed to be about. By the way what do you think about the Texas conservatives rewriting history. Right up your alley.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
what did i take back?
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 I'll rephrase that, you started talking circular. You won't tell me where you stand. And just because the conservaatives used their preception of the constitution to give Bush more power doesn't mean it does. Also this country makes most of their voting decision based on precieved morals. Oh an taxes. Yoo is a legal, stonewalling, yes man. Ethical or not. And where have I gone back on my basic statement about Yoo?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
yes rephraase that. and by rephrase that i mean say something completely different hahaha. im talking circular because no matter how many times i state plain straighforward bonnified fact you respond with personal opinion of morality and ethics and other issues defined as subjective by nature. the constitution isnt about perception no matter how many times you say it. you agree with the emanc. proc. but not this on personal grounds not legal ones. you cant hate one and not the other
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 I don't care what you think you said was right. If it was right, which it wasn't, then why didn't he answer the questions Conyers asked him? And if it was right than why would he be protecting Bush/Cheney? If he followed the constitution then why didn't he answer any questions? Because he didn't follow the constitution and over stepped by making answers vauge the Executive power. Like I said you who won't answer question, what do you want?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
thats the problem with this conversation, you dont care. the president is granted exapnsive power during war time, trumped only by international treaties. the founding fathers wanted this from the very beginning. the same root of power used by lincoln (which you agree with)is the root used by bush (which you dont). these are personal issues of yours and until you can argue the constitutional illegality of this with facts and not false rhetorical anecdotes,this conversation must be over.
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 No I care about the country I don't care for someone who disrespects the constitution then used it to hide behind so he can evade answer basic question.
Your arguement is moot. what you saying doesn't have anything to do with what Yoo did because if what he did was by the book than he would have answered the questions asked him. What do you want?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
also since you are clearly one of those last word kind of guys... be my guest. everything youve said so far you said in the first couple responses and then simply proceeded to copy and paste...
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 So you not answer the basic question which started this means I've copied and pasted. So far I haven't but I can tell by what you've said I should have because you won't answer my question. Very conservative of you. If Yoo followed the constitution than why didn't he answer the questions?
hoonerdog 1 year ago
not answering a question is NOT an admittance of guilt. one might presume or speculate that its means hes guilty but it of course is nothing but that, presumption and speculation. clearly this clip is not yoos shining finest moment. BUT until you can present FACT i.e. constituional clauses, treaties, documentation of anykind (prior to the interrogation in question) your distaste for yoos actions remain personal and subjective and i must attempt to find more stimulating debate elsewhere...
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 It's all simple no admittance no guilt. We have prisons full of those kinds of people. Basic question, if he didn't go againts the constitution than why be evasive? Show me! And I do distaste Yoo and would like an explaintion.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
@hoonerdog
I don't think he was evading the question; he just didn't want to answer the Chairman's questions in the affirmative without properly explaining his answers.
UdallIn72 1 year ago
@UdallIn72 No. I was in an talk with someone about this about 4 months ago. And Yoo's interpretation of the law was that under war the President has the power to do what Yoo was defending . We, the US, signed an agreement in the UN to not torture but that agreement we signed was never ratified by Congress. And that's why Yoo believes he has the law and history on his side.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
@hoonerdog
I agree that Yoo would basically have answered "yes" to both of those questions had the Chairman allowed him to explain himself.
UdallIn72 1 year ago
@UdallIn72 "Yes", would have made the questioning easier. But if you remember Conyors said "I see what's happening here and were all lawyers here". Meaning he knows how to play the law delaying game.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
@hoonerdog
And Yoo knew that Conyers was playing the political "get a short soundbite that we can later take out of context" game.
I don't really blame Yoo for hedging.
Conyers should have let him keep talking, though, as it seems pretty obvious Yoo would eventually have given him the answer he wanted.
UdallIn72 1 year ago
@UdallIn72 Your missing the point. Yoo was saying that he had history on his side when it came to the decisions he made and that made those questions moot. That it was the right of the administration in power. Based on history. The average blue collar joe wants black and white answers to questions. The Bush administration made everything grey and that allowed for flexablity.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
@hoonerdog No! What it means is that the Constitution is a fluid document that is and can be interpreted at the behest of the political party running the country at that time.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
also since you are clearly one of those last word kind of guys... be my guest. everything youve said so far you said in the first couple responses and then simply proceeded to copy and paste...
rigatony019 1 year ago
@rigatony019 Also lets get back to the basic of Yoo's testimony. Did he answer Conyers questions or did he evade them? And if he did evade them and he had the constitution on his side, then why? I am going send you the 292 pages plus the original one that its based on over 300.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
@rigatony019 No your agreeing with the evasiveness Yoo is showing.
Why don't you admit it that you like savy more than honor.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
By the way, if we are at war then why did Bush/Cheney not pay for it??? They even cut taxes on the rich and the ultra-rich increasing the debt. Most presidents pay for the wars they start. Except the republicans.
hoonerdog 1 year ago
NO HE DIDN'T FUCK STICK
eqsmooth 1 year ago
@desantiscm Yea, he clearly did answer the question. People look for a scapegoat, even if it's a man who may have helped save hundreds of American lives!
evo1137 1 year ago
@desantiscm Show me specifically where he answered anything?
Don't make up stuff. Show me!
hoonerdog 1 year ago
HAHAHAHAHA
aznkent29 2 years ago
Comment removed
aznkent29 2 years ago
is it just me or Yoo has a face perfect for punching?
AimiriZ 2 years ago 5
I COMPLETELY AGREE. The moment I first learned of Yoo and the crimes against humanity that he actively promoted, and then I saw his FACE, I want to drive to Berkley and immediately womp on the criminal fuck with a baseball bat!
YoknapatawphaKid 2 years ago
SHOT GUN!
AimiriZ 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who the fuck is the cooky nigger?
lachmeneger 2 years ago
Ship that asshole off to Syria and let them use a few "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him.
PancakeRecipes 2 years ago 4
John Yoo is a disgrace, If anyone attends Berkley or Chapman they should call this guy out for the jackass he is.
lestliness 2 years ago 6
"i think we understand the games that are being played." well said.
paleopeneyes 2 years ago 3
John Yoo is a fucking piece of shit.
deveousdevil 2 years ago 4
This is what happens when law and education gets injected into people that are incapable of making their own judgments.
oasis408 2 years ago 3
The only fat asian man happens to be a bushie
BuckFush64 2 years ago
This is another example of some random Clip taken out of context. What purpose does this serve? We have enough real issues to be concerned about, economists warning us that Obama possibly bankrupting our grandchildren rather than waste time with some idiot like Conyers asking/ bagdering his hypothetical question.
tonymarathon58 2 years ago
It's not out of context, Yoo has suggested that the president is above the law on several occasions.
lestliness 2 years ago 6
I wanna strangle this motherfucker every time I see his fat, engorged, war criminal face.
YoknapatawphaKid 2 years ago 5
that fat fuck
miraeja 2 years ago 3
Didn't Bush Sr. buried Iraqi soilders alive when his tanks bulldozed through the soilders in his war?
cooljeansguy 2 years ago
Not relevant. War is war. These guys are kidnapped and flown to Gitmo. According to ALito and Yoo, they have no rights
specialedition66 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Conyers is asking a hypothetical question, theres really no answer, He should ask the and he's badgering the witness.... too bad the witness is so intimidated, I wouldn't have taken his shit. Conyers lack of tact shows what a One-side liberal he really is.
Also, whos the idiot who posted this?? FYI, the proper spelling is " BURY" Duhhhh
You must have been absent for that lesson, too.
tonymarathon58 2 years ago
Yes, he was asking a hypothetical question. And the answer was a simple yes or no. Obviously, this weasel scumbag does not want to say "NO", because that would hurt his argument that the POTUS can order the torture of a prisoner. But, he does not want to say what he really thinks, which is "YES", because that answer would admit to the world that he thinks the president's authority has no limits.
juarezrt 2 years ago 7
@juarezrt
Yes, Conyers does have a face that is perfect for punching. Another liberal liar.
glendaleskater1 1 year ago
@glendaleskater1
Yes, some people really have no business poking their nose in a grown up conversation. Don't waste my time, son.
juarezrt 1 year ago
i think the judge is so rude..
xzkaratzx 2 years ago
hes not a judge he is a US congressman in the house of representatives. those guys were not on trial, they were subpoenad to give testimony to the US house.
phdecora 2 years ago
To all Americans: Prof. Yoo is a great defender of our constitution. he is a proud American and deserves the protection from prosecution. His actions prove that Americans will protect our homeland regardless of racial or social background. Keep up the good job Dr. Yoo.
To all the American haters: now you know that we will bring the war to you!!!!!!! whether you are a terrorist in the middle east, the pirate in somalia, or a communist in Venesuala, we will come get you.
bulltrap09 2 years ago
a great number of military lawyers disagree with your opinion there, challenging yoo's memos on violating the 8th amendent and several other amendments. you might argue he was defending the country, but i find it hard to understand how he was defending the constitution, when he and his 'war council' friends saw the constitution as a barrier and an impediment to doing what they thought should be done.
phdecora 2 years ago 7
Yes, the Constitution has always been a pesky piece of paper when political priorities are threatened by over-reaching zealots who are more concerned with their own power than the principles our country was founded on. Now we know that they weren't defending our country, as bulltrap09 ignorantly assumes.
madisonhack 2 years ago 4
@phdecora
hoonerdog 1 year ago
I don't know why he couldn't answer yes or no.. its not like hes the president.
Skidawg53 2 years ago
isnt that william hung?
Lifesabluff 2 years ago
The answer should be " NO a president dose not have the POWER to barry some one alive"
300ZXturboXX 3 years ago
ecept that the entire theory of yoo addington etc was like nixon, 'if the president does it, its not illegal'.... or in this case, 'if thee president oes it, its not torture'
phdecora 2 years ago
He could have said NO.. but yet he played around with the answer... WOW what is this world come to
300ZXturboXX 3 years ago
Is that Mr. Bean behind Yoo?
blaze4metal 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hold your breth.
copy and paste to 1 vid.
if u can do with out takeing 1 brthe u r a grate kisser :\
pablojets424 3 years ago
Holy fucking shit, that's not a hard question.
BigWinky 3 years ago 3
That was the longest 'yes' ever recorded.
gruzman 3 years ago 4
BURY BURY BURY One R...come on...
TenDeuChen 3 years ago 3
"Yes", you fucking cunt.
Salsien 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Conger is a dick
dgreene13 3 years ago
Language is a wonderful tool.
Here is my question to war criminal Yoo: "Council, with the understanding that any answer other than 'no' will be considered and entered into the records as an affirmative: can the president, using your opinion, order someone to be buried alive?"
Try to weasel your way out of that one, John.
wowthungsten 3 years ago 2
I would say, "Answer yes or no. If you do not, we will put you in prison for wasting our time."
Salsien 3 years ago 3
And it's terrible for one to use language and ask asinine questions. Then language becomes a manipulative tool for dicks in politics.
atticuscochran 3 years ago
how about his actual answer, where he's so shocked by how stupid a question it is. if he just came out and said "yes, he theoretically has that power since nobody thought it would be a good use of time to tell him not to" the internet would be ablaze with a fresh batch of batshit insane conspiracy theories.
Kevinhall11 3 years ago
and if he just came out and said 'yes, he theoretically has the power to put someone in a small box with insects' then we'd also get a bunch of 'conspiracy theories'........ except... oh wait..... the OLC actually said that it would be ok to put people in a small box with insects in it.
its not a stupid question, its the kind of question the supreme court asks of counsel all the time. it gets to the main question.... where do you draw the line. is there anything tha yoo wouldn't have justified
phdecora 2 years ago
the law is not based on what you would have done, or where you draw your personal boundaries. we don't prosecute people for what they're capable of. we prosecute people for what they did. George W. Bush did NOT authorize or order anybody being buried alive. Yoo did NOT advise anybody to be buried alive. beyond that, what the hell does it matter?
Kevinhall11 2 years ago
on the one hand, i think you are right... they should stick to the facts... on the other hand, the supreme court oral arguments go into hypotheticals all the tie, because they are dealing with questions of principle and they are setting precedents for the future with their decisions.
on the third hand.... how do you know he didn't authorize burying people alive? maybe there was a 'nuclear ticking time bomb'...just as silly as the rest of the rguments for torture you hear
phdecora 2 years ago
the answer is clearly "yes" since he wont come out an answer.
ehumphri 3 years ago 4
Only if the person were a zombie and it was in self-defense would it ever be necessary to order someone buried alive.
OzStone 3 years ago
this is the problem with most Bush haters (i don't support Bush), you think that just because he theoretically has the power to do something, it's going to become common practice within days, unless you tell everyone you know about the issue, including the entire internet.
Bush has never used that method of execution, nor is there a record of him expressing a wish to use it. Get over it.
Kevinhall11 3 years ago
Bush is a war criminal. We need to hold him accountable for his acts.
OzStone 3 years ago 6