Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
DEEP ROT.
Although John Yoo certainly deserves all of the criticism he's getting today and far more, it's also important to remember that his analysis only meant something because he was telling the President and his subordinates what they wanted to hear. Consider this, for example, from GOP Moral Sage James Dobson explaining why he's not wild about John McCain:
Mr. Dobson took issue with a litany of Sen. McCain's positions, including support for embryonic-stem-cell research and opposition to a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Those stances, plus Sen. McCain's discussion of global warming and his push to outlaw torture and shut down the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have "frustrated" conservatives "whom McCain seems to have written off," Mr. Dobson said.
What's more, as far as I can tell Dobson is hardly an outlier. The mean and median GOP voter and public official seems to believe at least tacitly accept the ideas that the president should be able to torture people at his whim irrespective of any statutes or treaties, and that morality requires that the United States Constitution explicitly make gays and lesbians second-class citizens. The fact that so many people share these views is the real problem here.
And, as Glenn Greenwald points out, Democrats in Congress haven't covered themselves in glory here either. It's outrageous that it required an ACLU lawsuit, rather than strong Congressional action, to get these documents (which had no business being classified in the first place) declassified.
--Scott Lemieux
COMMENTS (7)
and far more, it's also important to remember that his analysis only meant something because he was telling the President and his subordinates what they wanted to hear.
Not to belittle the damage and enabling that Yoo provided a "legal" basis for, but I think it would be unwise to think that this administration would have given up on the torture angle if Yoo didn't come through for them. They would have just found another hack that would have given them what they wanted. This is why we should look beyond Yoo (but not dismissing or downplaying his role) and shine the light at the people above him who asked for the legal scapegoat for their torture plans
Posted by: anonymoose | April 2, 2008 5:02 PM
Actually they believe any Republican president should be allowed to torture at his whim. For a Democrat, it would be an impeachable offense
Posted by: Cromagnon | April 2, 2008 5:09 PM
I saw the same Dobson quote that you include and wondered to myself how strange was this catalog of issues of a purported "Christian" leader. McCain isn't conservative or Christian enough because he is soft on torture? I thought such items as the torture of Jesus and the rule that one should turn the other cheek would temper Rev. Dobson's entusiasm for torture. Truly amazing.
Posted by: TK in Texas | April 2, 2008 6:03 PM
"I saw the same Dobson quote that you include and wondered to myself how strange was this catalog of issues of a purported "Christian" leader."
Dobson isn't a Christian leader-- he's head of Focus on the "Family."
Actually I am all for keeping the Republican torture statute on the books until Hank Paulson testifies to all he knows of our little domestic housing and international securities fraud scandal.
No one ever said the renaissance had to happen all at once.
Posted by: Anonymous | April 2, 2008 7:05 PM
Did you ever have a hunch about something, but not really be able to prove it? Here is my hunch: The Bush White House really wants to use a legal mind like Yoo to establish a modest amount of ambiguity about what is legal and what is not legal for interrogation. They actually want the public perception that they have crossed a legal line - without going so far as to be indicted - and used whatever means possible for national security.
Somewhere deep in the Bush White House, a political calculation was made soon after 9-11, that there were more votes to gain from the Republican base by appearing to ignore the law in the pursuit of national security - than votes to lose among their base. The people whose values oppose torture are not Bush's base.
This would not be the first time a Republican pursued this tactic. McCarthyism was based on the idea that you could gain politically by ignoring the Constitution and civil liberties in the name of national security.
Posted by: Michael A. Shea | April 2, 2008 9:57 PM
Democrats support torture all the damned time. Just take a look at the Chicago Police Dept., which makes Abu Ghraib look like a small time operation (terrible as it was). Or the Daley machine's coverup and stonewalling on said torture. Why don't the Dems care about all the poor African Americans who are getting tortured in Chicago?
Posted by: Third Degree | April 3, 2008 12:49 AM
Maybe there should be some provision where the president can order torture on a case by case basis (so he/she can be held accountable). On top of that, each president can issue a memo describing situations in which he will pardon torturers: the "ticking bomb" situation that comes up on 24 more often than real life; or the "person is dying in a pit" like on Dirty Harry; etc.
Posted by: Bill C | April 3, 2008 7:45 AM