Peter Robinson’s interview… »
« unredeemable…
the evaporation of history:…

Posted on Tuesday 12 January 2010

By Citing Death Toll Of Terrorist Attacks
ThinkProgress
January 12, 2010

One of the most tragic legacies of the Bush administration was its endorsement of harsh and inhumane treatment of terrorism suspects. One of the chief advocates for these policies was former Justice Department official John Yoo, who authored legal memos that authorized the use of torture on suspects.

Last night, Yoo appeared on the Daily Show and faced questioning by host Jon Stewart over his views on the limits of presidential power during wartime. During a testy exchange between the two — which did not air on TV but which can be found on the extended interview online — Yoo admitted to Stewart that he didn’t think the Bush administration “made a mistake” in going beyond “the law enforcement paradigm” in dealing with terrorism with a new radical legal paradigm that would allow for the brutal mistreatment of terrorist suspects because the effort to combat Al Qaeda and similar groups involved an “unprecedented type of war.” When Stewart rightly pointed out that terrorism is far from unprecedented and that it has frequently occurred in the past, Yoo responded that the Bush administration’s approach was justified because of the number of people terrorists killed on 9/11:

    YOO: I don’t think they made the mistake in deciding to go beyond the law enforcement paradigm. Because it was an unconventional, unprecedented type of war.
    STEWART: How is terrorism unprecedented? In the 1930’s we had anarchists bomb government buildings.
    YOO: They didn’t blow up and kill 3,000 people in NYC either. They didn’t destroy the world trade center and try to decapitate the government, either.
    STEWART:What? So it’s all based on how many? So if you kill 100 you can torture?
    [crosstalk]
    STEWART: I’m not understanding why it’s unprecedented, terrorism has been around as long as people have been around … we all came to the conclusion that we would not treat prisoners inhumanely.
Why bother to preach to the choir about John Yoo and his Torture Memos? You know how I feel and vica versa. What Yoo says is immaterial, and he probably has no idea that a lot of us think that the actual impetus behind the Torture Meme wasn’t even known to him – to get confirmation that Iraq was involved in 9/11 to justify our invasion of that country in search of oil rights. As I watched this interview, I wasn’t so much focused on John Yoo himself. I actually found myself thinking of that Yoo was just a cog in their wheel like so many other "conservatives" whose idiosyncratic views were used to further goals that they didn’t know about eg the hyper-Christians like Monica Goodling, expunging the DoJ of godless liberals. I’m surprised that I believe what I believe about the Bush Administration now. I don’t anymore think that Conservativism, or Christianity, or fiscal restraint, or any traditional Republican ideas had anything to do with what drove the Bush Administration. They saw a window after the cold war that could make America the Sole Superpower, and more specifically, the World Business Superpower, and they engaged all the other factions – traditional conservatives, the religious right, mainstream republicans, etc. – to give them the presidency to push that Superpower Agenda. I believe that at the level of fact rather than theory. Yoo, Goodling, Gonzales, Rice, etc. were all pawns in a chess game they didn’t understand. Again I quote the source:
Defending Liberty in a Global Economy
Delivered at the Collateral Damage Conference
Cato Institute
June 23, 1998
by Richard B. Cheney

I believe that economic forces have driven much of the change in the last 20 years, and I would be prepared to argue that, in many cases, that economic progress has been a prerequisite to political change. The power of ideas, concepts of freedom and liberty and of how best to organize economic activity, have been an essential, positive ingredient in the developments in the last part of the 20th century. At the heart of that process has been the U.S. business community. Our capital, our technology, our entrepreneurship has been a vital part of those forces that have, in fact, transformed the world. Our economic capabilities need to be viewed, I believe, as a strategic asset in a world that is increasingly focused on economic growth and the development of market economies.

I think it is a false dichotomy to be told that we have to choose between "commercial" interests and other interests that the United States might have in a particular country or region around the world. Oftentimes the absolute best way to advance human rights and the cause of freedom or the development of democratic institutions is through the active involvement of American businesses. Investment and trade can oftentimes do more to open up a society and to create opportunity for a society’s citizens than reams of diplomatic cables from our State Department.

I think it’s important for us to look on U.S. businesses as a valuable national asset, not just as an activity we tolerate, or a practice that we do not want to get too close to because it involves money. Far better for us to understand that the drive of American firms to be involved in and shape and direct the global economy is a strategic asset that serves the national interest of the United States…
Nobody talks about the Bush Administration anymore [except the Cheneys]. Rove doesn’t even say much about them. It’s as if they never really happened. Recently, both Dick and Liz Cheney talked about "American Exceptionalism," and nobody picked up their lead or even commented on it. Nobody talks about "the Unitary Executive." It’s as if the first decade of the century didn’t happen. In some ways, it makes it easier for the Republicans, Limbaugh, and Fox News to mount their endless attacks. They’ve un-happened the Bush Administration and feel no need to defend it. They started from scratch as if our plight has nothing to do with a Republican Administration barely a year out of office.

So John Yoo writes a book Crisis and Command. Who cares? I doubt anybody will read or defend what he has to say. It’s hard to work up much energy about looking into all the abuses of power during those years. Obama asked us to "look forward." We didn’t want to, but that’s what is happening, whether we like it or not. I’m sure that it’s not the best thing, but it’s sure the reality. We don’t have a truth commission. We don’t even have much in the way of hearings. The British have a commission studying the Iraq War, but it’s rarely mentioned in our Press.

Will we ever address the fact that the campaign for the Iraq War was all conscious lies? Will we directly deal with Yoo’s Torture Memos or suspending the Geneva Conventions? How about the maceration of the Constitution, the misuse of the National Guard, outing a C.I.A. Agent, Cheney’s Energy Conference, etc.? I always wondered what it was like to be a German after World War II- what it would be like to look what they had done in the face. I expect it was easiest to just not think about it. That seems to be what we’re doing…

By the way. What Yoo says is complete b.s. …

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.