Showing posts with label john yoo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john yoo. Show all posts

Sunday, October 19, 2008

The importance of "intellectual vigor"

As you might have already seen, Colin Powell has given an as eloquent an endorsement of Obama as ever you'll find:



One thing I find very interesting is Powell's emphasis on Obama's intellect: his "intellectual curiosity", his "intellectual vigor". Powell cites these things as key because he knows, more than most, that a President that lacks these qualities is one who can be easily manipulated by a small cadre of advisers with sufficient presidential access. This is, in fact, precisely what occurred in the Bush White House during his tenure as Secretary of State.

Let me relate to you an excerpt from the (excellent) book I'm reading, Jane Mayer's The Dark Side, and you'll have an idea of what I mean:
Afghanistan, like the United States, had signed the Geneva Conventions, but the President's lawyers argued that this was of no conern because the country was now a "failed state".

...

At the State Department, Powell and his legal adviser, William Howard Taft IV [!], fought a rear-guard action against Bush's lawyers and lost. This fierce fight took place almost entirely outside the public's view. In a confidential forty-page memo to [Office of Legal Council lawyer] John Yoo dated January 11, 2002, Taft argued that Yoo's analysis was "seriously flawed." Taft told Yoo that his contention that the President could disregard the Geneva Conventions was "untenable", "incorrect", and "confused." Taft disputed Yoo's argument that Afghanistan, as a "failed state", was not covered by the Conventions. "The official United States position before, during, and after the emergence of the Taliban was that Afghanistan constituted a state," he wrote. Taft also warned Yoo that if the United States took the war on terror outside the Geneva Conventions, not only could U.S. soldiers be denied the protections of the Conventions--and therefore be prosecuted for crimes, including murder--but President Bush could be accused of a "grave breach" by other countries, which would mean he could be prosecuted for war crimes.

...

Taft sent a copy of his memo to [Alberto] Gonzales, hoping that his dissent would reach the President. Within days, Yoo sent Taft a lengthy rebuttal.

...

But Taft's access to the President was no match for that of Cheney, who, as an administration source put it, "always got both the first and last bite of the apple." It remains unclear, in fact, whether anyone ever fully explained the countervailing arguments to President Bush before he signed off on the plan. According to top State Department officials, Bush decided to nullify the Geneva Conventions on January 8, 2002. This was three days before Taft sent his memo to Yoo. Evidently, the State Department was too far out the loop to catch up. [Emphasis mine.]

...

After losing the battle to uphold the Geneva Conventions, Powell concluded that Bush was not stupid but was easily manipulated. A confidant said that Powell thought it was easy to play on Bush's wish to be seen as doing the tough thing and making the "hard" choice. "He has these cowboy characteristics, and when you know where to rub him, you can really get him to do some dumb things. You have to play on those swaggering bits of his self-image. Cheney knew exactly how to push all his buttons," Powell confided to a friend.

Colonel Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, was more scathing. "You can slip a lot of crap over on someone who doesn't read a lot or pay attention to the details if you have no scruples," he said.

[Mayer, Jane. The Dark Side, pp. 122-125.]
So what happened is George W. Bush was given some very radical and unsound advice from a select group of advisers--Dick Cheney, John Yoo, and a few others--and acted on this advice before even seriously entertaining any dissenting arguments. Had Bush taken an interest in the Geneva Conventions or read about them, or had he been pro-active about making sure he has heard all sides of the debate on the issue before issuing a decision, it may well be that the United States never would have abandoned the Conventions.

Undoubtedly, Colin Powell sees Barack Obama's deliberative way of coming to decisions and now-legendary insistence on hearing all sides of an argument as insurance that a President Obama's powers will never be hijacked by a radical faction within his administration. And, just as certainly, he must see John McCain's volatile temperment and impulsive decision-making as antithetical to a properly-functioning Presidency.

PS: Extra props to Powell for going out of his way to reiterate that, not only is Barack Obama not a Muslim, but it is wrong--and un-American--to think that there would be anything wrong with him if he were a Muslim. Also, his story about the Muslim mother weeping at the grave was very powerful, and one I hadn't heard before.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Building a case

Via Sullivan, Politico reports that House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. is going to subpoena the legal architects of the Bush policy allowing "harsh interrogation techniques" (i.e., torture): John Ashcroft, John Yoo, and David Addington. Conyers wants to question them about the genesis of the so-called "torture memos":
Conyers has asked the three men to appear before his committee to answer specific questions about the rationale and process behind drafting these controversial memorandums, particularly the recently released memo from March 2003 that gave military officials broader latitude to use extreme interrogation techniques.
My hope is that he is able to get them under oath and talking about how, exactly, the United States metamorphosed into a regime that can no longer proudly display awesome propaganda like this.

Monday, April 21, 2008

An excellent point

A letter to the editor in the Washington Post makes the point that John Yoo--author of the infamous "torture memo" that gave legal sanction to prisoner abuses at the hands of the Bush administration--should not have his actions shielded in the name of academic freedom, because the offending actions were nonacademic and, indeed, nonpublic:
[Yoo] did not write this memo to express an opinion to the public.

On the contrary, he and his colleagues did everything in their power to keep the memo a secret for as long as possible. It was not "speech"; rather, it was a tactical document designed to encourage an activity globally considered to be illegal.

Berkeley should defend absolutely the right of its tenured professors to publish or state publicly any opinion. But when a member of the faculty has demonstrated a complete lack of legal ethics -- which actually and predictably leads to human rights abuses -- that individual is clearly no longer fit to teach the law to future generations of Americans.

I'm still not sure I agree on the merits that Yoo should be fired--in the end, you would still be firing him just for having a particular legal opinion. However, I think this does persuasively show that if you are going to defend him, it can't be because of concerns about academic freedom.