Does John Yoo frighten you?

The Web site for the award-winning alternative weekly, the Philadelphia City Paper.

email
font size
comments
0
share
options
 

Does John Yoo frighten you?

POSTED: Tuesday, January 12, 2010, 4:09 PM
Filed Under: Media | News | television

Perhaps you're already familiar with Bush administration lawyer/Inky columnist/Philly native John Yoo, the guy who authored memos while at the Justice Department sanctioning the expanse of executive power during wartime (although, and not to be a stickler about this, but Congress never actually declared war), as well as the torture of enemy combatants. In essence, Yoo argued, and the Cheney/Bush folks were all too happy to agree, that enemy combatants fell outside of the parameters of the Geneva Conventions, and didn't deserve dick by way of federal or international protections. For advocating these far-right-field positions, which got adopted as policy under theocrat/world-class songwriter John Ashcroft, some folks want to get Yoo disbarred in Pennsylvania (third item).

In case you missed it, Yoo went on the Daily Show last night to pimp his new book (read the Washington Post's review here). And Jon Stewart did what Jon Stewart does: Watch it here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Daily Show: Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis


The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - John Yoo Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Yoo's argument strikes me as not unlike Richard Nixon's famous declaration that, "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal," perhaps with a wartime caveat. And in part two, above, Stewart tries to pin Yoo down on exactly what he thinks the limits of presidential power are. The answer: Not much. In his view, if you dissemble it to the core, the potential for a gross misuse and abuse of executive power, a la Nixon, is part and parcel of the American system. You may get a Nixon or a Bush, but these same vast powers enabled FDR and Lincoln to enter WW2 and free the slaves, respectively. You take the good with the bad, in other words, because, in theory, if the bad gets bad enough, Congress and/or the courts can step in.

It's an — how to say? — interesting imagining of American history, though I'm not sure how one could read the Federalist papers and find a warm embrace of executive power, war or not. Still, I don't think it's a point that can be altogether dismissed. Lincoln did revoke habeas corpus; FDR did go behind Congress's back to support the Allies. And yet, these men rank among our greatest leaders.

So, dear Cloggers, here's the question: Does John Yoo have a point? Or does his conception of almost limitless executive (wartime; presumably, the beneficent president gives it back when things settle down) power scare you?


Larry West
Posted 2010-01-13 11:52:15
It was interesting. I was listening to the unedited one and, yeah, I kinda see the point. The guys we admire (FDR is, and will always be, a hero of mine) did some things that were... well, bad. Sometimes the ends do justify the means, but most of the time it doesn't. We do give the President certain powers during war time, but its a bit of the trade-off we get for protection.



That said, its a thin line. Like he said, sometimes it works out (FDR) and sometimes it doesn't (Nixon and Bush).

Dean
Posted 2010-01-13 12:54:34
Afraid?  Hardly.  I am relieved someone of his intellect and reasoning was called on for this type of analysis in dealing with an enemy which chose to cut off the heads of their prisoners. I will bet the Lincoln and Roosevelt Administrations never bothered to consult their in-house attorneys for parameter definitions prior to enacting what is being viewed by today's historians as dangerously close to abuses of power, but in their day were probably the correct path to take. I question Yoo's judgment to submit to an interview by a jackass like Stewart with his obvious agenda and stacked audience - just like City Paper. I think Stewart admitted he did not fully read the book! He also did not let Yoo answer a question completely without repeatedly cutting him off.  Yoo handled himself admirably. Yoo would do better explaining his position on C-Span rather than a fluff show such as this one.
Posted by Jeffrey Billman @ 4:09 PM  Permalink | Post a comment
Comments  (0)


About this blog
Here at The Naked City, you'll find breaking news, analysis, gossip and surprises about everything from crime and politics to the beating pulse of city life itself. We're good listeners, too:

Daniel Denvir: daniel.denvir@citypaper.net

Ryan Briggs: ryan.briggs@citypaper.net

Samantha Melamed: samantha@citypaper.net

The Naked City on Twitter: @CPNakedCity @danieldenvir @rw_briggs @samanthamelamed

Topics:
Blog archives:
Past Archives: