We did a piece a few days ago about John Yoo--here is a delightful email we got in response

[librechik]

"From: John (email address)
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 2:53 PM
To: media outlet where librechik works

Subject: JOHN YOO and the MEMOS
What was egregiously absent in this fraudaulent discussion of the Memos and John Yoo's standing at Berkeley was a bottom line question that should have been asked of the students and others who opposed him. If these individuals are opposed to torture or extreme interrogation techniques, then this must mean they are willing to sacrifice American lives. Well 'ef' them because I don't want to be one of the lives. This is a straw man argument. THE OVERARCHING JOB OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE. P E R I O D. You do whatever is necessary to protect the people and if that means torture or aggressive interrogations then by GOD you do it. YOU DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOT LET US DIE. How grotesque that anyone should have such a thought. As for the Feingolds and the Schumers and the Weiners in Congress, are they going to sacrifice their states and their districts? I think not. "


Anybody have any suggestions on what to say to this fine citizen who makes us all so proud to be Americans? I'm still picking up pieces of my head off the floor from the first time I read it, so I am still incoherent.

(By the way, don't IM me unless you want to congratulate "John --is that Yoo?" personally on his grasp of history, spelling, rules of debate, and the Constitution--Did I say that out loud?)

[mmonk]

1. Torture doesn't protect freedom or lives unless this person

believes Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and others were free and were protected through its use. I will not yield a civilization based on the rule of law to these modern day barbarians.

[librechik]

2. The first job of government is to protect the Constitution. PERIOD

and sometimes patriots have to sacrifice their lives in order to protect our America, where we are sure no one can be tortured without answering to the law.

[mmonk]

5. Yes.

Not to mention torture doesn't yield accurate information. Innocent people can be made to confess to deeds they have not committed or to future events they know nothing about.

[MindPilot]

3. I can't even imagine how horrible it is to live with all that fear in your head.

must be really painful

[damntexdem]

13. Oh, no, the writer is living with sadistic lust in the head.

Obviously gets off on the very idea of torture -- must be really pleasurable.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. Torture yields bad information and false confessions

it breeds a desire for revenge by the families of those tortured, thus furthering more, not less violence. It denigrates us as a country and as individuals with any claim to humanity or humaneness. It rots from within those forced to practice it by their country. It robs us of any claim of leadership due to moral superiority. The very LAST thing torture does, is make us safer. It does the opposite.

[rucky]

6. Why couldn't we convict these people?

Isn't that why we have a justice system?

Didn't we have enough evidence? You know, the kind that's admissible in court (not extracted from torture). If these prisoners were such a threat, you'd think we'd have enough to try and convict 'em.

[rubberducky]

7. This sounds like a person so steeped in terror of "something happening"

they will cede every right they ever had because the powers that be have convinced them that is necessary to be "safe". Tell him to come out from under the bed, no one is ever 100% "safe" from everything. Life is a crap shoot, but I refuse not to live it in the sunshine of my morals and convictions. Living is what we do before we inevitably die and you only get to do each one one time. Personally, I REFUSE to live in a state of fear, cowed into handing over everything I truelly believe in because "something bad might happen" if you don`t.

[yurbud]

8. mention the innocents tortured by "mistake"

like Mahar Arar, the other guy that got his penis sliced up, and the guy in the most famous torture photo who was asked repeatedly to become an informant about anything he sees after they release him.

Naomi Klein wrote a good piece on torture that said it's real goal is social control. I always wondered when I was younger why a government would torture someone and then RELEASE them--the answer is simple: so they will go home and tell their friends and neighbors what was done to them.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0512-23.htm

The nitwit who sent you the email assumed two things that are demonstrably false: that we only torture the guilty and that torture is the most effective way to get useful information.

If you think about it, normal police methods are so effective, they can get people to confess to things they didn't even do.

Another angle is the one in the Army interrogation manual, which is essentially the Golden Rule: don't do anything that you wouldn't want done to our troops. It's hard to argue with Jesus AND the US Army.

It's unlikely that you will score any points with this guy for a couple of reasons:

Torture is a "feel good" show for people who can't think beyond their first lizard-brained impulse: someone hurt me or scared me, so I want to hurt "them" (and not be too concerned about getting the right them). Reason could tell you that their might be better responses. For example, if we caught a major terrorist, the knee-jerk response would be to execute him. But if you thought about it a bit, you might at least consider killing him would make him a martyr, and it would be better to keep him alive and trot him out once in a while and commend him for cooperating with investigators. Hell, even give him credit for other terrorists you caught, which might demoralize his followers.

They also like torture because cruelty is never far from the surface with them. These are the same people who watch pro-wrestling, would go to Michael Vick's dog-fight if they knew where it was, and in a different era, would have been regulars at bear-batings and gladiator fights.

Finally, they think it doesn't really count as torture because it is being done to "lesser" people, which is what made it so easy for us to kill the Indians, Hitler to kill the Jews, and so on. Probably in their heart of hearts they know they are the truly inferior ones, and relish the chance to hurt and kill others before those others can outwit their dimbulb brains.

[gratuitous]

9. Speaking of "grotesque"

Yes, by all means let us use the example and the techniques of Stalin to "protect" society. I can guarantee Mr. John that the society he would create by his aggressive defenses would not look anything like the America contemplated by the Constitution. I believe he would be far more at home in Myanmar than amongst freedom-loving people who respect the rule of law instead of the whim of dictator.

[nykym]

10. My first thought was

what a complete asshole! Then it occurred to me that in this instance the email writer is willing to let BIG GOVERNMENT intrude into their life. But try to give him access to Health care he can afford or save him from the hounds of corporatism then its back off Big Government. But really had we and other nations behaved like civilized entities we probably would not have ever heard from the likes of Johnny Yoo.

[damntexdem]

11. If the overarching job of government is to protect the people, then ...

it must protect them from nutcases like this. It's first job must be to protect them from torture by it itself.

[Hekate]

12. "Barbarically hurt others to save my pasty ass" vs. "Give me liberty or give me death"...

Somehow it doesn't have the same ring to it. He's not just scared, which is personal, he's cowardly because he doesn't care who gets hurt as long as he feels "safe."

This guy John is willing to give away every freedom in the Bill of Rights (except one, guess which that would be) so he can have the *illusion* of complete safety. There's no such thing as compete safety unless you want to live in a prison of your own making.

Possibly the best thing you could do to further the discussion is to actually publish John's email and rebut it with facts: such as, our President swears he will "preserve, protect, and defend" the *Constitution* of the US, not protect one individual. Our individual protection comes from having a robust Constitution and Bill of Rights for government and the people to work off of.

For 8 years I watched the people of this country throw away their rights in the name of safety. The Bush admin tried to have people hiding under their beds in fear, from 9-11 onward. When he started plans to build a wall along our peaceful borders with our peaceful neighbors--words fail me.

This John person has allowed himself to become scared spitless. He's the result of 8 years of Bush-league propaganda.

Hekate


Presidential Oath of Office
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Where is it written that the the job of government is to 'protect the people' no matter what? I'd

ask John what happened to 'the home of the brave'? Did all Bush/Cheney's lies scare the crap out of him?

[Winterblues]

15. So he has nothing against our enemy doing "anything" to better their cause either.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander...If they believe we should torture then it is hard to understand why they wouldn't believe the enemy should torture as well...:shrug:

[immoderate]

16. Sounds like an argument for universal health care.

"YOU DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOT LET US DIE"... because we lack health insurance.

What about torture? Well it doesn't prevent anyone from dying. :shrug:

--imm

[Brother Buzz]

17. Dated by still pertinent: A brief primer designed to help you understand John Yoo's twisted logic

Perhaps you have been unable to follow the intricacies of the logic used by John Yoo, the UC Berkeley law professor who has emerged as the president's foremost apologist for all the stuff he has to apologize for. I have therefore prepared a brief, informal summary of the relevant arguments.

A brief primer designed to help you understand the workings of our new, streamlined American system of government.

Jon Carroll
Monday, January 2, 2006

Why does the president have the power to unilaterally authorize wiretaps of American citizens?

Because he is the president.

Does the president always have that power?

No. Only when he is fighting the war on terror does he have that power.

When will the war on terror be over?

The fight against terror is eternal. Terror is not a nation; it is a tactic. As long as the president is fighting a tactic, he can use any means he deems appropriate.

Why does the president have that power?

It's in the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution?

It can be inferred from the Constitution. When the president is protecting America, he may by definition make any inference from the Constitution that he chooses. He is keeping America safe.

Who decides what measures are necessary to keep America safe?

The president.

Who has oversight over the actions of the president?

The president oversees his own actions. If at any time he determines that he is a danger to America, he has the right to wiretap himself, name himself an enemy combatant and spirit himself away to a secret prison in Egypt.

But isn't there a secret court, the FISA court, that has the power to authorize wiretapping warrants? Wasn't that court set up for just such situations when national security is at stake?

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court might disagree with the president. It might thwart his plans. It is a danger to the democracy that we hold so dear. We must never let the courts stand in the way of America's safety.

So there are no guarantees that the president will act in the best interests of the country?

The president was elected by the people. They chose him; therefore he represents the will of the people. The people would never act against their own interests; therefore, the president can never act against the best interests of the people. It's a doctrine I like to call "the triumph of the will."

But surely the Congress was also elected by the people, and therefore also represents the will of the people. Is that not true?

Congress? Please.

It's sounding more and more as if your version of the presidency resembles an absolute monarchy. Does it?

Of course not. We Americans hate kings. Kings must wear crowns and visit trade fairs and expositions. The president only wears a cowboy hat and visits military bases, and then only if he wants to.

Can the president authorize torture?

No. The president can only authorize appropriate means.

Could those appropriate means include torture?

It's not torture if the president says it's not torture. It's merely appropriate. Remember, America is under constant attack from terrorism. The president must use any means necessary to protect America.

Won't the American people object?

Not if they're scared enough.

What if the Supreme Court rules against the president?

The president has respect for the Supreme Court. We are a nation of laws, not of men. In the unlikely event that the court would rule against the president, he has the right to deny that he was ever doing what he was accused of doing, and to keep further actions secret. He also has the right to rename any practices the court finds repugnant. "Wiretapping" could be called "protective listening." There's nothing the matter with protective listening.

Recently, a White House spokesman defended the wiretaps this way: "This is not about monitoring phone calls designed to arrange Little League practice or what to bring to a potluck dinner. These are designed to monitor calls from very bad people to very bad people who have a history of blowing up commuter trains, weddings and churches." If these very bad people have blown up churches, why not just arrest them?

That information is classified.

Have many weddings been blown up by terrorists?

No, they haven't, which is proof that the system works. The president does reserve the right to blow up gay terrorist weddings -- but only if he determines that the safety of the nation is at stake. The president is also keeping his eye on churches, many of which have become fonts of sedition. I do not believe that the president has any problem with commuter trains, although that could always change.

So this policy will be in place right up until the next election?

Election? Let's just say that we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It may not be wise to have an election in a time of national peril.

[niyad]

18. I would want to know exactly how this upstanding citizen is serving his country.

part of the 101st chairborne div? or the pajamahadeen?

[noise]

19. Support for torture is authoritarian

One notes how many cheerleaders for torture simply ignore double standards in the fight against terror. For example, they ignore the fact that the use of torture increases the threat of terrorism by aiding terrorist recruiting. They ignore the kid gloves treatment of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two countries who have much closer links to al Qaeda than Iraq. They ignore the lack of accountability for powerful officials who didn't do their jobs in the lead up to 9/11. They ignore the testimony of FBI agent Ali Soufan who stated that legal interrogation methods were getting results and that torture was counterproductive. They ignore all the secrecy; instead of transparency we got Cheney's fearmongering. Why on earth should we trust Cheney?