Guy Who Wrote Legal Memos Defending Torture Defends NSA- It Takes Too Long To Obey The Constitution

[Catherina]

Guy Who Wrote Legal Memos Defending Torture Defends NSA Because It Takes Too Long To Obey The Constitution

from the a-despicable-human-being dept

John Yoo, of course, is somewhat infamous for being the author of the so-called "Torture Memos," while he was Deputy US Attorney General for President George W. Bush, giving the Bush administration a horrific legal "justification" for torture. It's no surprise, of course, that he's been spewing ignorant and ridiculous claims concerning other issues as well. We recently wrote about his claims that new media properties like Wikileaks have no First Amendment protections because they're "not the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal." Because in Yoo's demented world, only old school newspapers count. He also made factually incorrect claims, stating that Bradley Manning and Julian Assange "communicated regularly" when the record showed that was simply not true.

Not surprisingly, he's now strongly defending the NSA's activities spying on Americans because there appears to be no part of the Constitution that John Yoo won't spit on and pretend he's merely polishing it up. He argues that while the Justice Department should obey the 4th Amendment, it should not apply to military and intelligence agencies like the NSA:

Once we impose those standards (basic 4th Amendment respect for privacy) on the military and intelligence agencies, however, we are either guaranteeing failure or we must accept a certain level of error. If the military and intelligence agencies had to follow law-enforcement standards, their mission would fail because they would not give us any improvement over what the FBI could achieve anyway. If the intelligence community is to detect future terrorist attacks through analyzing electronic communications, we are asking them to search through a vast sea of e-mails and phone-call patterns to find those few which, on the surface, look innocent but are actually covert terrorist messages.

Except, that's not how it works. We have the 4th Amendment specifically to protect against government intrusion. We don't say "oh, it's okay because they need to do it." That's not how it works. There's no "exception" to the 4th Amendment for military and intelligence agencies.

Then he tries to argue that the "mistakes" are no big deal, because, hey, all of law enforcement makes mistakes.

...

Actually, I'm not sure in what world Yoo lives in, but for the most part we don't accept those mistakes. We find them abhorrent and we work to stop them. And, this isn't "seeking the warrant for the wrong guy," or searching "the wrong house." This is collecting all information on everyone. There's a difference.

...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130817/22391824220/guy-who-wrote-legal-memos-defending-us-torture-defends-nsa-because-it-takes-too-long-to-obey-constitution.shtml

[nashville_brook]

1. not even trying. b/c it's too difficult. niiiiice.

[neverforget]

2. Fuck Yoo and the Cheney he rode in on.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

3. Sounds about right.

Remember this?


White House wants suit against Yoo dismissed

The Obama administration has asked an appeals court to dismiss a lawsuit accusing former Bush administration attorney John Yoo of authorizing the torture of a terrorism suspect, saying federal law does not allow damage claims against lawyers who advise the president on national security issues.

http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/White-House-wants-suit-against-Yoo-dismissed-3207954.php

[tblue]

25. Unforgivable.

[Pholus]

4. Reminder: "Terrorism" has a very nebulous definition

and a history of pressed into service for the convenience of government.

[HardTimes99]

5. Further to your point: when the strong commit terrorism upon the weak, the strong

justify it by calling it 'war.' When the weak commit war upon the strong, the strong whine that it is 'terrorism.'

[Pholus]

7. It helps to read official statements on surveillance when you...

replace the word "terrorist" with apparent synonyms like: "Quaker pacifist" or "82 year old nun" or "environmental activist"

It also handily demonstrates what this is *really* about.

[Autumn]

6. John Yoo is a low life fucking piece of shit.

If he defends something you know its a sleazy policy.

[Mnemosyne]

8. Exactly this ^^^^^. nt

[HardTimes99]

9. Further to your point: when Cheney spoke up in defense of the

NSA surveillance state, I knew its entire premises were rotten to the core. Subsequent events and revelations have only futher confirmed my initial verdict.

[fujiyama]

10. Sadder yet that many on this board

have become sounding like Yoo and Cheney. Rabid partisanship destroys one's ability to think clearly.

[Autumn]

11. hell yes, and you are gonna love this shit right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11781349

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023502432

[Catherina]

13. W.T.F. n/t

[Autumn]

14. Yeah, that's a great big WTF.

[calimary]

29. Awfully hard supporting something that john yoo and dick cheney are for...

I find that sometimes that helps when trying to figure out where I stand on various ballot propositions that I don't know much about or haven't had a lot of time to study. I look at who's pushing it, who's funding the campaign, who's endorsing. If I don't like THEM, then it's a pretty safe bet I won't like the proposition, either.

[gopiscrap]

12. Jesus Chirst and the sorrow of it is that a great portion

of this intellectually lazy nation will go right along with him!

[struggle4progress]

15. He's a disgrace

[silvershadow]

16. Where is he in hiding, anyway? (I can only assume he would be in hiding) nt

[Baitball Blogger]

17. The transformation is complete. Government has become a business.

Expediency is more important than the rule of law

[markpkessinger]

18. If we were still a nation of laws . . .

John Yoo would be in jail.

[Demo_Chris]

19. In a sense he is correct. The POINT of the Constitution is to restrict government action...

Which is why there is a Constitutional process that that must be followed before government can do ANYTHING, including acting against a citizen. It's designed to make it difficult to search, spy, arrest, prosecute, and convict.

How much simpler to ignore it. Spy on anyone you like, search their papers, read their mail, listen in on their calls, track them through their phone or car, arrest them without charges, prosecute them in a secret prison, deny them witnesses or the opportunity to defend themselves, imprison them forever without trial, torture them (or have an overseas friend do it), and the latest trick just kill them. No need for a trial and all that, just kill them.

It's easier.

[MisterP]

20. the GOP's basically okay with this--I guess opponents aren't just being racist

[JEB]

21. Yoo needs

a depleted uranium enema.

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. Yoo is, quite simply, no more qualified to interpret the Constitution...

than my dog! He is an abomination and there is no amount of scorn and ridicule that would be too much in regard to this jack-booted thug of a lawyer.

What is amazing to me is that, in some respect, Yoo became the sole arbiter of American freedom during the Bush years. It was grotesque then and it is still grotesque.

He is UC Berkeley's shame now.

[Iliyah]

23. The original Constitution of America.

Can my child learn true history.

[blackspade]

24. John Yoo can fuck off.

Why does the media even print one of his bullshit opinions?

[Warren DeMontague]

26. And, it's inconvenient! Think how much easier the drug war would be, if cops could just walk into

anyone's house any time and go through their shit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

27. Yea, well, he can't be all bad. He defended the drone policy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/06/1214339/-John-Yoo-defends-Obama-Administration-Again

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Has Yoo ever heard of the Third Amendment?

It deals with quartering military in people's homes. That is about as obtrusive as the military can get, and the Constitution says no. And the Forth doesn't have any division between civil authority searches and military ones. Madison certainly could have done so. He left the Fourth very broad in that regard. I'm quite sure the colonists were familiar with the concept of military searches and seizures during the War.

[backscatter712]

31. I could argue that the NSA's and FBI's insistence on ISPs installing backdoors...

is a violation of the Third Amendment.

We're talking about ISPs being forced to let the feds have server rack space, computing and networking resources, and periodic service from the IT department, just so the feds find it convenient to illegally snoop.

[Hydra]

30. OMG! accidental truth:

their mission would fail because they would not give us any improvement over what the FBI could achieve anyway.

The FBI was in position to stop the 9/11 suspects. THE 9/11- you know, the worst thing ever(tm)?

We don't need more than the FBI, the old laws and the Constitution if we want to fight terrorism.

[hootinholler]

32. !