Torture Architect John Yoo Hypocritically Blasts Democratic Party For Violating Constitution’s Intent
Torture Architect John Yoo Hypocritically Blasts Democratic Party For Violating Constitution’s Intent
In today’s Wall Street Journal, former Justice Department official John Yoo blasts the Democratic party for its “undemocratic” system of superdelegates:
This delegate dissonance wasn’t anything the Framers of the U.S. Constitution dreamed up. They believed that letting Congress choose the president was a dreadful idea. Without direct election by the people, the Framers said that the executive would lose its independence and vigor and become a mere servant of the legislature. They had the record of revolutionary America to go on. All but one of America’s first state constitutions gave state assemblies the power to choose the governor. James Madison commented that this structure allowed legislatures to turn governors into “little more than ciphers.”
Since when did Yoo become so concerned with the Constitution? During his time in the administration, he aggressively urged the administration to push moral, ethical, and legal boundaries:
– Yoo was the author of the administration’s infamous torture memo, which argued that interrogation techniques only constituted torture if they are “equivalent in intensity to…organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” [Link, Link]
–Thanks to Yoo’s legal work, the Bush administration justified the creation of a new category of detainees: “illegal enemy combatants.” He advised that President Bush did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the war on terror. [Link]
– Yoo argued that President Bush “didn’t need to ask Congress for permission to invade Iraq.” The 1973 War Powers Resolution, according to Yoo, is “irrelevant.” [Link]
– Yoo helped craft the legal justification allowing the Bush administration to secretly eavesdrop on Americans without court-approved warrants. In 2001, Yoo brushed aside constitutional concerns, stating that after 9/11, “the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties.”[Link]
Additionally, despite what Yoo claims, the Founders never envisioned “direct election by the people.” In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, “a plan to have the president elected directly by the people was defeated twice.”
(HT: Andrew Sullivan)
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
67 Responses to “Torture Architect John Yoo Hypocritically Blasts Democratic Party For Violating Constitution’s Intent”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Yoo hoo……
March 24th, 2008 at 4:32 pmgawd, he just epitomizes the soft, flabby pigface of republicans, doesn’t he.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pmAh yes, two egg rolls please, and one stir-fried “lice.”
Sank you, belly much.
Sorry to contribute to the constant barrage of garbage here today, but TP is really shit.
Nice site redo, without anything to actually improve the blog experience.
Nuttin but window dressin’ on the crappy, dilapidated old store front.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pmYoo Hoo Scumbag! Now you’re concerned about the constitution when you’re the one who has violated it and every convention we’ve ever signed on torture? How overtly hypocritical of you! Shameful behavior to be speaking with forked tongue, Yoo Hoo.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pmlets see if he wants a “swimming lesson.”
March 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pmwow Mr. Yoo - I don’t think the Framers thought that having the SCOTUS overrule a State’s laws and install a President would be a very good idea either.
Did Sun Myung Moon sell Mr. Yoo to the Bush family as a child or something?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmNevar: I see we’re on the same page. Didn’t see your Yoo Hoo moniker before typing. Great minds think alike:)
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmScrew Yoo!!
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmYohn Yoo - Nuremberg trial 2009
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmJohn Yoo should be brought before an international tribunal on charges of abetting crimes against humanity. Were he held to the standards imposed in the Nuremberg trials, he would be hanged.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmJohn Yoo: Another typical Republicscum Fascist Pig.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pmVerbalkint: I think we’ll be seeing Mr. Yoo again when he’s brought up on charges of crimes against humanity. He’s the one who provided legal opinion on it; he’s the one who will suffer the consequences along with the Bush Crime Cabal.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pmNever mind the fact the President is not actually elected by the popular. Remember the election Bush “won” while losing the popular vote?
The president is elected by electoral college votes which is virtually indistinguishable from delegates in the primary.
His argument falls apart at the premise stage because we don’t elect the President by popular vote. Why would their be an implicit requirement that the primary be held to a different standard? He should be sued for legal malpractice and incompetence. He clearly doesn’t understand the electoral college.
BTW - I do think the primary system is stupid. But, that doesn’t change the fact that Yoo’s reasons don;t hold water.
You is what I like to call a “Retarded Republican”. And I say retarded because he honestly doesn’t understand his own arguments are refuted by his premise.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pmMs Joanne! You definitely get the prize today! Love it! New name for John Yoo = Screw Yoo!
March 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pmSo now we know precisely whom another of the infamous unpatriotic “architects” of the torture approval happens to be? He should have kept his mouth shut and slipped into obscurity. And to speak about democracy as though he has the first clue about it, is nothing short of moronic and “retarded” as #13 said above. He’s another Bushie Bufoon Moron!
March 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pmTobie: Yoo Hoo - Nuremburg Trial 2008, indeed!! Let’s all post this reminder so Mr. Screw Yoo realizes that he’s just stepped into some deep dookey.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pmput him in the internment camp
March 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pmI think Yoo is a “plant” by Kim Jong Il, to help make America look more like North Korea…
March 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pmYoo-hoo, what does the primary selection process have to do with your premise?? If you want to talk primaries, how did Bush win the 2000 Republican nomination? By the popular vote or by using Rovian smear tactics??
March 24th, 2008 at 4:45 pmIt’s always hysterical to hear a die-hard Republican criticize the “undemocratic” process with the Democratic Party, especially since the superdelegates were created specifically to avoid the “excess of democracy” that drove conservatives crazy in the 60s and 70s. Talking out the other side of his mouth, Woo would no doubt be asserting that the Democrats need to avoid their “left wing” and drive as far to the right of center as possible — precisely the purpose of the superdelegates.
It’s just “wah wah wah Dems suck” in shiny words.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:55 pmLook, do we have to lump John Yoo’s ethnicity in with criticism of him?
Can’t we all just agree that John Yoo is d!ck-head, no matter what color his skin?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pmhey junkies. check out my show last night with the panduhs. we played our one time only “Easter Song” last night
its a very anti torture song.
global thermal nuclear war!
http://www.oldhacks.blogspot.com
March 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pmI really can’t stand that guy.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pmSee Taxi to the Dark Side for a little more detail on what a scumbag Yoo is.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pmIgnoranceIsNotBliss Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
100% agreed. He’s creepy. Amoral. He might be, in fact, an android.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pmthe constitution does not guarantee individuals the right to vote for president. members of the electoral college are appointed by the state in the manner that the state shall choose.
article 2 section 2 clause 2.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pmYoo is a war criminal.
In the spirit of The Sound of Music let’s hear Edelweiss:
http://youtube.com/ watch?v=1li-KnnXTbI&feature=related
The wonderful scene where the Austrians sing and resist the occupation by folks like Yoo.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pmbonus: the constitution doesnt include the right to vote for senators either. article 1 section 3 clause 1. state legislatures choose the senator.
yoo is misrepresenting basic historical facts when he could just say “superdelegates are a silly idea” without looking like a jackass.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pmUnfortunately, one of Bush’s first efforts was to pull the US out of the ICC (International Criminal Court) so it may very well be unlikely that we ever see these war criminals pay for what they have inflicted on Iraq - a sovereign nation - for the greed of the neocons. This is an abomination.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/asp/statesparties.html
He knew what was planned all along. He covered his and his cronies respective asses.
It makes me want to scream!
Rendition anyone?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pmUmmm … what does the Constitution have to do with the way a political party chooses their candidates? Personally, I don’t like the superdelegate scheme but this is not electing anyone to office; its deciding who will represent that party in the election.
If the Democrats or Repuplicans wanted to have a committee select their candidates without any input from party members whatsoever, there is nothing wrong from a constitutional standpoint.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pmwhile i think the super delegates are a horrible idea along with the electoral college (where is yoo’s commentary on that?) where does it say that a political party and its rules have to be governed by the US constitution?
March 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pmThe Constitution says nothing about political parties. The Democratic party is a collection of individuals who have banded together to select candidates for office and then promote those candidates. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The Constitution says nothing about delegates, caucuses, primaries, etc. All of these rules were created by the political parties and the rules vary by state.
The Constitution says nothing about majority leaders, minority leaders, committee assignments, etc. All of those rules were created by the Congress internally.
It is unseemly for a Republican to be commenting on the internal matters of the Democratic party. I’m opposed to the Republican’s whole misguided, bigoted platform from word go, but I’m not a god damn Republican so they can do whatever the hell they want.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:15 pmIt is unseemly for a Republican to be commenting on the internal matters of the Democratic party.
It is unseemly that Yoo is not in prison. I think he would get along nicely with the ‘fellas’.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:21 pmSure Yoo, as if any appointee of our illustrious leader gives a moment’s thought to what the constitution says. Nice try.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:23 pmtest
March 24th, 2008 at 5:23 pmBush/Cheney/John Yoo - Hague Trials ‘09
March 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pmJohn Yoo is also the one who was one of the leading advocates of an Unitary Presidency. His legal work essentially says that the President, during a war, has unlimited powers and that the President can ignore both Congress AND the Supreme Court.
Of course he used his own articles to justify most of his decisions. He also used the fact that he could make his findings official without any supervisory approval.
Many of Mr. Yoo’s opinions have been found to be more along the lines of justifying what has occurred or wanted rather than investigation of whether the issue is legal or not.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pmUnless Yoo is a Democrat, why in the world does he care how the Democrats choose their nominee?
Political parties weren’t mentioned in the constitution — in fact, George Washington was against them.
We have a de facto two-party system in this country, even if it wasn’t officially established by the constitution. And ANY party (whether one of the two big guns or a minor party) can choose their nominee however they wish. In fact, if a party wished to do away with primaries, caucuses, and conventions altogether and pick their nominee with a game of rock-paper-scissors, they could.
It has been said that the Electoral College won’t be done away with until three quarters of the states are dissatisfied with the results it produces. Similarly, when enough Democrats are dissatisfied with the results produced by superdelegates, the rules will change.
Yoo is just hot air.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pmpuunjab Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
You is what I like to call a “Retarded Republican”. And I say retarded because he honestly doesn’t understand his own arguments are refuted by his premise.
Why do you give this criminal the benefit of trying to be rational??? He is not retarded at all! He knows EXACTLY what he is saying and why. He is one of the architects of the torture policy that has gained tremendous traction here. Now what you hear, is a “discussion” about torture that should not exist. Torture is illegal and there should be no discussion about it!
Frankly, I tire of smart people here on this board believing that this cabal is stupid, incompetent or insane. Or trying to have real arguments about solving a problem. Nothing these neocons say or do is about anything other than getting what they want, any way they can. THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS! Lies, deception, evasions and avoidance. Whatever it takes. They learned the lessons of Machiavelli well!
Please stop believing these criminals are OK people who just can’t shoot straight!
March 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm#28 El Mike,
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution was modified by the 17th Amendment. The US Constitution does indeed allow for the direct election of US Senators by the voters.
“Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures…”
March 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pmIOKIYAR
March 24th, 2008 at 5:40 pmadmin Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
test
RESPONSE.failed
March 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pmYoo Yoo is just mad because his party is bombed out and the Dems are gonna take over. Waaaaaaaa!
March 24th, 2008 at 5:43 pmExley,
absolutely. i was taking issue with yoo’s historical point. the people who wrote the constitution had no problem with leadership appointed by the government.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:43 pmI would say that the method of picking delegates by political parties, which are private entities, comes under the freedom of association.
Which, contrary to this slavish lickspittle’s delusions, does not involve penning people up in barbed-wire fence “free speech zones”.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:56 pmJohn Yoo is a fascist. Look at his memos, his beliefs, everything he espouses drips of fascism.
He would be in the top 10 defendants at any war crime trial if the World would be courageous enough to put on. His torture memo alone should have him serving the rest of his years in a cage… maybe water boarded for good measure- make him confess to something outrageous for the sheer enjoyment of seeing how ineffective torture is.
Throw Sen. Kyl in too for good measure- that last TP entry about that S.O.B. boiled my blood.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pmEl Mike,
Understood. I would quibble, however, with your contention that the relevant portion of Article I, Section 3 was indicative of “leadership appointed by government.” Since the senators were chosen by elected state legislators, it was more of an “indirect election” of senators, rather than an appointment. But, as I wrote, I understand your point.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:00 pmThis has got to be a parody. Even someone like Yoo who clearly has utter contempt for US history and the constitution must know that for decades after the ratification of the constitution, delegates to the electoral college were elected by state legislatures. The constitution does not require direct election of electors, a state legislature which wanted to take back that power could (doesn’t Yoo remember the Florida Republican legislators who talked about doing just that *after* the election in 2000?). The US constitution does not provide for direct election of the president. State laws do so. I thought everyone knew that.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pmPity the Yoo . . I-mean Foo . .
March 24th, 2008 at 6:12 pmJohn Yoo is yet another Chickenhawk who refuses to serve his country. That must be why Dick Cheney liked him so well. The Chickhawks stick together.
Let’s hope both of the Chickhawks are brought up on charges before the World Court.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pmThe real question is whether the MSM will mock Yoo for his misunderstanding of the constitution.
1. The electoral college was originally inserted into the constitution because the founders did not necessarily trust the vote of the common man. Indeed, at the founding, most states had property owning requirements before one could be a voter. Women, of course, did not count.
2. The electoral college was elected to cast their own vote. In the beginning, they were free to cast that vote in whatever manner they chose. It has been an evolving legal requirement with questions still arising as to whether an elector must cast their vote as the state voted.
3. Senators were not elected by the people under the original constitution. The will of the people (House of Representatives) was to be countered by the interest of each state government (Senate.) This did change with the 17th amendment. Please note that the 17th amendment was not passed by the house and senate until 1911 and 1912 with it impacting the 1913 elections. Thus, it was the will of the founding fathers that not all voting should reflect the democratic will of the people.
John Yoo ranks right up their with the attorneys that were recruited by Hitler to support his terrible misdeeds. He should be disbarred for a lack of ethics and moral unfitness to practice law.
March 24th, 2008 at 6:25 pmThe Dems if they have control of the Senate, House and White House could add 3 more Supreme Court Justices, or 10 more if wanted to!
March 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pmSize of the Court: Wikipedia
March 24th, 2008 at 6:29 pmDear Mr. Yoo,
The framers of the Constitution did not dream up “delegate dissonance,” or delegates, or primaries, or caucuses, or political conventions, or political parties. Neither did they envision television sets or bubble gum. So what is your point, Mr. Yoo?
Neither did the framers envision “direct election by the people” of the president, as you seem to think. Instead, they cooked up something called the electoral college. Have you ever read the U. S. Constitution, Mr. Yoo?
Have your employers (past and present) ever asked you to confirm that you have at least read it, Mr. Yoo? But no, they certainly would not do that, would they?
March 24th, 2008 at 6:58 pmWell if it isn’t another case of pot & kettle. Both are pretty soot covered.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:07 pmJohn Yoo is a despicable piece of poo.
But, this whole mixture of “private” political party primaries with “public” elections is totally screwed. The D’s and the R’s can hold their own nominating primaries any old way they please and pay for it all themselves. Then there should be an actual public primary general election followed by a 2 way runoff. What’s so hard about that people? Oh, that would be actual democracy and we can’t have that in this country.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:07 pmMarch 24th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
These guys are only doing a job they think they know because they have “security clearance”. WHAT?
What are there creditinals? Are they Scholars in the subject of WAR and related data? They may have a masters in something, but most likely in law, but what other experience do they have? Oh, thats right, they have gone on book tours after they left a department in government on our dime! But I still go back to the main question, he has no credibility because he has based his findings on propaganda pushed by government officials to justify money to cronies with out accountability.
So, Scholar in the subject (any) or a person who says he knows and understands just because he got a degree in something? I go with the scholar!
March 24th, 2008 at 7:35 pmJohn Yoo thinking and ‘dog having a crap in Bagdahd’ is the same thing!
March 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pmCan someone point to where the constitution bans the torture of non-citizens captured on the battle field?
March 24th, 2008 at 7:55 pmmandolin - March 24th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Besides the fact that your question is completely besides the point, the torture of war prisoners is banned here:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
The US has signed, ratified international treaties that ban the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Due to the clause above, that ban has also become “the supreme Law of the Land” in the United States.
You’re welcome.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:28 pmIn today’s Wall Street Journal, former Justice Department official John Yoo blasts the Democratic party for its “undemocratic” system of superdelegates….
Are Yoo [;-)] a Democrat? No? Didn’t think so. Then fut the shuck up.
Parties are private concerns (and in fact, the founders didn’t think much of factionalism to begin with, so affording parties constitutional privilege would have been far from their concern).
So if they decided to award delegates based on who’s got the best slicked-back hair (Reagan?) or on a coin toss or a Texas Hold’em tourney, that’s their concern, not yours. So STFU, Yoo, and go siddown.
Cheers,
March 25th, 2008 at 1:11 am.
Yoo continues to prove that one can not take back stupid, ignorant, bumbling, should be disbarred Attorney who argued for the ability of the president to usurp the People’s Rights resulting in acts of TREASON.
Yep, he’s credible…
.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:16 am… Oops… [/snark]
March 25th, 2008 at 1:17 amJMOHR Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The real question is whether the MSM will mock Yoo for his misunderstanding of the constitution.
1. The electoral college was originally inserted into the constitution because the founders did not necessarily trust the vote of the common man. Indeed, at the founding, most states had property owning requirements before one could be a voter. Women, of course, did not count.
Don’t forget that most states ALSO had a minimum voting age of 21 in addition to the property requirement (even if you owned a required property value but were under 21, you had no vote). Also, some states barred voters based on other criteria as well and there were actually people who could vote for President but were unable to vote for their own governor or state legislator (religion couldn’t be a bar to voting for President but states could, and often did, prohibit some religious groups from voting in local elections where the Constitution was not believed to be applicable).
2. The electoral college was elected to cast their own vote. In the beginning, they were free to cast that vote in whatever manner they chose. It has been an evolving legal requirement with questions still arising as to whether an elector must cast their vote as the state voted.
Well, that’s one way of putting it, but it’s also a very, very “Reader’s Digest Condensed Version” way. (Of course, the full story would make Machiavelli realize he’s a mere political amateur.)
3. Senators were not elected by the people under the original constitution. The will of the people (House of Representatives) was to be countered by the interest of each state government (Senate.) This did change with the 17th amendment. Please note that the 17th amendment was not passed by the house and senate until 1911 and 1912 with it impacting the 1913 elections. Thus, it was the will of the founding fathers that not all voting should reflect the democratic will of the people.
Actually, the Amendment was proposed in 1911, passed by the Senate that year and the House in 1912 and sent to the States on May 13. Massachusetts was the first to ratify (on May 22) and Connecticut was the 36th (and last necessary) on April 8, 1913. (Arizona, which had been admitted as a state the year before was the 2nd state to ratify.) According to the Wiki entry on the Amendment, there were 8 states which had direct elections before the Amendment was ratified (OR, NV, AZ, CO, KS, MN, OK, MT) and Maryland held a special election to fill a Senate seat. The AZ elections (held in 1911, with statehood pending) had one senator elected as a Class 1 Senator (the seat would be up in 1916) and one senator elected as a Class 3 (the seat would be up in 1914). In 1914, all Class 3 Senators were up (32 of them); in 1916, all Class 1 seats were up (32 of them); and, in 1918, all Class 2 seats (the remaining 32) were up. When the new Senate was called into session in 1919, all Senators were there via direct election. Only Alaska and Hawai’i have never had Senators under the Constitution’s original direction. (And, since 1919, as far as I’m aware, the State Legislatures’ power to name US Senators has been taken over by the State Governors.)
March 25th, 2008 at 2:40 am1. Yoo’s construct of the Constitution vis-a-vis the Democratic Party’s nomination process (according to Party rules) is ridiculous, at best. The “Framers” had no comment on the process of nominating a PARTY candidate.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:46 pm2. How any reputable law school could hire Mr. Yoo (let alone UC-Berkley) is beyond me. This individual has written more onerous… and grossly erroneous… legal opinions (on the U. S. Constitution) than any other individual in recent American history.
3. Mr. Yoo may be personally satisfied that he will be remembered in American history; even though that memory will be one of political expediency rather than loyalty to the Constitution or the ‘rule of law.’
4. Mr. Yoo, I regret to say, using Republican terminology, is UN-American, Anti-American and anti-constitutional. He should be repudiated wherever he walks………….
Clinton takes Indiana by a ‘razor’ and Obama wins North Carolina by a huge margin. Nevertheless, Kentucky, Montana and West Virginia are still to come.
The Democratic race for nomination is still very much alive – and most likely to be decided by superdelegates
If you’re tired of waiting around for those super delegates to make a decision already, go to LobbyDelegates.com and push them to support Clinton or Obama
If you haven’t done so yet, please write a message to each of your state’s superdelegates at http://www.lobbydelegates.com
Obama Supporters:
Sending a note to current Obama supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Clinton supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Obama, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Obama. It’s that easy…
Clinton Supporters too …. !
It takes a moment, but what’s a few minutes now worth to get Clinton in office?! Those are really worth !
Sending a note to current Clinton supporters lets them know it’s appreciated, sending a note to current Obama supporters can hopefully sway them to change their vote to Clinton, and sending a note to the uncommitted folks will hopefully sway them to vote for Clinton. It’s that easy…
May 9th, 2008 at 8:11 am