Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
JOHN YOO'S NEW GIG.
The Philadelphia Inquirer has hired torture architect John Yoo, who believes the president has the authority to crush a child's testicles if he feels like it. Will Bunch provides a thoughtful response. I just can't get over the irony of a newspaper hiring someone who believes that newspaper's right to print whatever they want is subject to the whims of the president. Moreover, I find the choice of Yoo somewhat inspired. Why not hire Rod Blagojevich on political ethics? David Vitter as a relationship columnist? Michael Vick for a column on how to take care of your pets?
A few weeks ago, Katha Pollitt noted that the architects of America's torture policy have all gone on to live very comfortable lives, despite what they've done. The Inquirer's decision to hire Yoo after the revelations of the torture memos makes that uncomfortable observation into something resembling high farce. Someone needs to tell the nearly two and a half million people in prison that if you're jacking purses or selling drugs, you're in the wrong game. Torture is where it's at. Not only do you not go to prison, you get book deals and syndicated columns. Just make sure you ask the government's permission first.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (5)
"Inquirer," please. Although it may not deserve having its name spelled correctly, in that it's also given Rick Santorum a regular column.
Posted by: Joyful Alternative | May 12, 2009 11:13 AM
Yoo has had a monthly column at the Inky for some time. I dropped my subscription several months ago when I realized this and refuse to resubscribe until they get rid of Yoo.
The owner of the Inquirer is active in local Republican politics, and the op-ed page has become decidedly conservative over the last couple of years -- as noted above, Rick Santorum is a regular op-ed columnist, as is the former on-line editor of the Weekly Standard -- but Yoo is beyond the pale.
Posted by: MG | May 13, 2009 10:53 AM
Don't you mean "make sure you give the government permission first"?
Posted by: Byron | May 13, 2009 11:08 AM
I can't believe I'm about to say something that could conceivably be construed as defending Yoo, but... I don't think his point was that the president could engage in underage-testicle-crushing "if he felt like it", it was that international treaties are not binding on the president---that's why he said there was "no treaty preventing it." Not that such a point is right, or moral, or sane, but it is a little different from flat-out asserting the right.
Posted by: That Fuzzy Bastard | May 14, 2009 12:47 AM
I don't think his point was that the president could engage in underage-testicle-crushing if he felt like it
Posted by: Sand castings | May 14, 2009 3:02 AM