Master Torturer John Yoo Says: President Bush Can Legally Torture Children and Order The Crushing Of Their Testicles.
Courtesy Of: YouTube
Added September 02, 2006
From: robrobbins
RunTime: 00:24
The Baker Institute Student Forum (BISF) hosted a discussion involving three panelists on November 3 2006, one of which was John Yoo, co author of the PATRIOT ACT and various controversial memos in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions. Yoo also decreed that it was legal to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
Yoo is asked to explain the moral justification for crushing a child's testicles or raping a child in front of a parent.
Yoo backtracks on previous comments he made during a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.
Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Yoo suggests that his comments were taken out of context and blames the internet suggesting that you "can't believe everything you hear on the internet".
Yoo cannot deny that there is no moral justification for the actions he argued were technically legal. Yoo is using the legal argument to hide behind a clear avocation of genocide.
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children?
Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
Courtesy Of: YouTube
Added September 02, 2006
From: robrobbins
RunTime: 00:24
The Baker Institute Student Forum (BISF) hosted a discussion involving three panelists on November 3 2006, one of which was John Yoo, co author of the PATRIOT ACT and various controversial memos in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions. Yoo also decreed that it was legal to declare war anytime, any where, and on anyone the President deemed a threat.
Yoo is asked to explain the moral justification for crushing a child's testicles or raping a child in front of a parent.
Yoo backtracks on previous comments he made during a December 1st debate in Chicago with Notre Dame professor and international human rights scholar Doug Cassel, John Yoo gave the green light for the scope of torture to legally include sexual torture of infants.
Cassel: If the president deems that he’s got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person’s child, there is no law that can stop him?
Yoo: No treaty.
Cassel: Also no law by Congress — that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo…
Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.
Yoo suggests that his comments were taken out of context and blames the internet suggesting that you "can't believe everything you hear on the internet".
Yoo cannot deny that there is no moral justification for the actions he argued were technically legal. Yoo is using the legal argument to hide behind a clear avocation of genocide.
Yoo argues presidential powers on Constitutional grounds, but where in the Constitution does it say the President can order the torture of children?
Georgetown Law Professor David Cole wrote, "Yoo reasoned that because the Constitution makes the President the 'Commander-in-Chief,’ no law can restrict the actions he may take in pursuit of war. On this reasoning, the President would be entitled by the Constitution to resort to genocide if he wished."
Last September the Senate officially gave President Bush the legal authority to abduct and sexually mutilate American citizens and American children in the name of the war on terror when it passed new detainee legislation. [1]
Sources:
[1] Bush Given Authority To Sexually Torture American Children
a) Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
b) Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."
c) So if the President thinks he needs to order children's penises to be put in vices, there is no law that can stop him and after last night's vote, the Senate and Congress, exemplified by sicko 16-year-old boy groomer Mark Foley (R-FL), has graciously provided Bush its full support for kids around the world to be molested in the name of stopping terror.
d) The policy of torturing children in front of their parents has already been signed off on by the Pentagon and enacted under the Copper Green program and it happened at Abu Ghraib.
e) Women who were arrested with their children were forced to watch their boys being sodomized with chemical glow sticks as the cameras rolled. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that the U.S. government is still withholding the tapes because of the horror of the "soundtrack of the shrieking boys" and their mothers begging to be killed in favor of seeing their children raped and tortured.
f) The bill also retroactively gives Bush, the Neo-Cons or any of their henchmen immunity from war crimes charges dating back to September 11.
Ask yourself why they would be so careful to protect themselves from accusations of war crimes....Could that possibly be because they are knowingly committing war crimes?
The legislating of torture itself should be a criminal act. All laws that contradict the U.S. Constitution are null and void. It was once a law that black people were slaves.
Only by engaging in civil disobedience and refusing to tolerate or acknowledge the laws of a criminal regime that has greased the skids for sexually torturing kids can we ever have a hope of returning America to its past glory.
Sources:
[1] Bush Given Authority To Sexually Torture American Children
a) Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman states in the L.A. Times, "The compromise legislation....authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. And once thrown into military prison, they cannot expect a trial by their peers or any other of the normal protections of the Bill of Rights."
b) Similarly, law Professor Marty Lederman explains: "this [subsection (ii) of the definition of 'unlawful enemy combatant'] means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to 'hostilities' at all."
c) So if the President thinks he needs to order children's penises to be put in vices, there is no law that can stop him and after last night's vote, the Senate and Congress, exemplified by sicko 16-year-old boy groomer Mark Foley (R-FL), has graciously provided Bush its full support for kids around the world to be molested in the name of stopping terror.
d) The policy of torturing children in front of their parents has already been signed off on by the Pentagon and enacted under the Copper Green program and it happened at Abu Ghraib.
e) Women who were arrested with their children were forced to watch their boys being sodomized with chemical glow sticks as the cameras rolled. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says that the U.S. government is still withholding the tapes because of the horror of the "soundtrack of the shrieking boys" and their mothers begging to be killed in favor of seeing their children raped and tortured.
f) The bill also retroactively gives Bush, the Neo-Cons or any of their henchmen immunity from war crimes charges dating back to September 11.
Ask yourself why they would be so careful to protect themselves from accusations of war crimes....Could that possibly be because they are knowingly committing war crimes?
The legislating of torture itself should be a criminal act. All laws that contradict the U.S. Constitution are null and void. It was once a law that black people were slaves.
Only by engaging in civil disobedience and refusing to tolerate or acknowledge the laws of a criminal regime that has greased the skids for sexually torturing kids can we ever have a hope of returning America to its past glory.
Audio Of The John Yoo Interview:
No comments:
Post a Comment