The interview indicates legal debates within the Bush administration would have improved substantially had Jon Stewart held an influential position in the Department of Justice.
Not sure he would have met Monica Goodling’s religious test professional standards, though.
The interview indicates legal debates within the Bush administration would have improved substantially had Jon Stewart held an influential position in the Department of Justice.
I don’t see why not – Stewart’s already shown he’d do better at news analysis (or at least not ignoring stories) than the MSM.
I’m with Anderson, and thus will never be able to speak knowledgeably about this video, but I note that Kevin Drum, who would certainly be disposed to agree with Stewart, thinks that Yoo mopped the floor with him. In general, if a Boalt professor can’t mop the floor with a TV personality, there is something wrong somewhere.
There’s a transcript of (the televised part of) the interview here.
Stewart: Well, how did we, then, conduct trials for people that had tortured Americans?
Yoo: Because all those cases were ones where what those other governments had done to our soldiers were well beyond the line of what anyone would think were torture. I mean, everyone would agree that things that happened in those other cases in the past, violate the treaty or the statute. The question is a little different, which is, you don’t want to violate the ban, but you don’t want to say to the #3 guy in Al Qaeda, “You get a lawyer, and you have your Miranda rights, and you have the right to remain silent.”
Which made me yell out at least two things. (I yell at my tv a lot.) 1. How about those guys who got prosecuted for waterboarding. and 2. Why not? It’s not like that #3 guy is going to get aquitted if he gets his day in court.
I was surprised to read reviews saying that Yoo “owned” Stewart. I wonder if they expected Stewart to try to “get” Yoo the way he “got” the guys on Crossfire or something. But Stewart doesn’t do that on The Daily Show. Instead, he engages with his guests and tries to understand them, and help the audience to understand them.
And I think, in this case, it worked brilliantly. Because Stewart gave Yoo all the opportunity Yoo could have ever asked for to explain, under his theory of executive power, where the line is between what the President can and cannot do. Did you notice he never did? He did say that the President can’t hook up a battery to someone’s testicles, but did you notice he never articulated in any way, shape, or form why not? Yoo essentially admitted that the difference between “enhanced interrogations” and “torture” is that we all “know it when [we] see it.” He demonstrated the hollowness of his own position!
Yoo lied when he claimed the US never faced the problem of defining torture (and Stewart did call him out on that, saying, “That’s not true!”), he dismissed the issue of treaties without even giving us an argument for why he (and we) can do that, and he lied about the types of activities the US had prosecuted as “torture” in the past. He demonstrated by his own words, because Stewart gave him the rope to hang himself, that not only were his conclusions erroneous, but they were based on either ignorance of or choosing to ignore the truth.
In any case, I don’t know if it was just me, but did everyone else know that Yoo was so junior in the Justice Department and that he has never (to this day, apparently) actually met George W. Bush? That was fascinating to me. Maybe I just don’t know enough about how things work at Justice.
And I also, as others have noted, felt that Yoo was the perfect example of the banality of evil. He was, as Stewart noted, “charming,” well spoken, and seemingly aware of his surroundings, and yet he still doesn’t understand the problems others have with what he did. It’s fascinating.
He also never said whether he thought he was a good lawyer or not… I wonder what that means?
It’s hard to discuss such things with a lawyer and not let them get you bogged down in the minutiae; to let the big picture slide.
There was one point in the interview where I thought Stewart should have told Yoo that he was going to waterboard Yoo on the spot, and that according to Yoo, that would be just fine. And then dragged out the bench, the towel and the water….
Another mistake was not discussing the fact that CIDT is also banned. The line “pain equivalent to organ failure or death” ought to have merited some comment. The audience needed to know what it was that Yoo thought was not torture (or CIDT).
Martinned: Why not? It’s not like that #3 guy is going to get aquitted if he gets his day in court.
When you capture someone like that your primary concern is getting him off the streets. There’s no way he could have information that could save lives.
LongCat: When you capture someone like that your primary concern is getting him off the streets. There’s no way he could have information that could save lives.
I tend to find it useful to put a html-style closing-tag in there in case of sarcasm, only with square brackets to make sure no one’s browser gets confused. Something like: [/sarcasm] or [/snark].
Of course the guy will have vital information, but none that he would tell you about quickly enough that it will still be vital when you learn about it, no matter how he is treated. If someone like that is going to get captured, his associates will learn about this within days, if not sooner, and they will rush to make sure that any information possessed by the detainee becomes obsolete as quickly as possible. So unless you have suggestions about how to break a legendary terrorist mastermind within a few days, you may as well do the PR-friendly thing and interrogate him within the limits of US criminal law.
Bill Poser: I watched it last night. Yoo is handsome and well-spoken, doesn’t come off like an ogre at all. An excellent example of the banality of evil.
Yoo didn’t torture anyone, nor did he order or explicitly encourage torture. He wrote a legal opinion. How does that make him evil? You seem to think that he deliberately wrote an opinion that he didn’t believe in order to promote and facilitate torture. Where is the evidence for such an assertion?
BTW many Americans approve of water-boarding, and don’t regard it as torture or consider it justified. It’s funny how it’s all right blow people into little pieces with ordinance, but not dunk them water. Which would you rather have happen to you?
A. Zarkov: It’s funny how it’s all right blow people into little pieces with ordinance, but not dunk them water. Which would you rather have happen to you?
I’m not so sure, and if you have any sense, neither are you. Maybe it’s better to get it over with quickly. Either way, the question makes no sense: neither morally nor legally is it true that the greater necessarily implies the lesser.
A. Zarkov: BTW many Americans approve of water-boarding, and don’t regard it as torture or consider it justified.
Why, yes. They listen to the likes of InsHannity and Limpballs who insist it’s just like some frat boy’s prank (and whose conception of the Constitution and BoR seems to have been laid out in crayons). But almost the entire ‘manual’ on “enhanced interrogation techniques” was derived from the Phoenix program and/or from what we were horrified and appalled to learn that the Commies were doing to their dissidents etc. And we prosecuted and convicted waterboarders for war crimes….
A. Zarkov: It’s funny how it’s all right blow people into little pieces with ordinance, but not dunk them water.
You do know that the major treaties and international laws in this regard make the not-so-subtle distinction between active combatants and those in custody and rendered hors de combat?
zuch: Why, yes. They listen to the likes of InsHannity and Limpballs who insist it’s just like some frat boy’s prank (and whose conception of the Constitution and BoR seems to have been laid out in crayons).
We did worse to the Japanese in WWII. We did worse to German POWs and civilians after WWII. All that before Hannity was even born.
zuch: You do know that the major treaties and international laws in this regard make the not-so-subtle distinction between active combatants and those in custody and rendered hors de combat?
I do know that and I find the distinction somewhat (but not completely) artificial.
I also the question the utility of these treaties because nearly every adversary we have faced since the First World War has severely mistreated American soldiers. This includes, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. While Germany mistreated Russian POWs, with one or two exceptions, they didn’t mistreat Americans. Sure these treaties will be useful if we have to fight France and Sweden, but virtually useless with regard to likely future foes.
I do know that and I find the distinction somewhat (but not completely) artificial.
Something to think about when you are on the committee to rewrite those treaties but not particularly relevant for those desiring to adhere to them as we signed them.
Oren: Something to think about when you are on the committee to rewrite those treaties but not particularly relevant for those desiring to adhere to them as we signed them.
But I’m not alone in this viewpoint. What Americans think matters because they elect their government. If a big majority think these treaties are not in our interest, we will withdraw from them.
ArthurKirkland says:
The interview indicates legal debates within the Bush administration would have improved substantially had Jon Stewart held an influential position in the Department of Justice.
Not sure he would have met Monica Goodling’s
January 12, 2010, 9:07 pmreligious testprofessional standards, though.Anderson says:
You can watch it here.
Or I could staple bologna to my face. I’ll think about it.
January 12, 2010, 9:18 pmRyan Waxx says:
I don’t see why not – Stewart’s already shown he’d do better at news analysis (or at least not ignoring stories) than the MSM.
He’s a man for our times, in all climes!
January 12, 2010, 9:22 pmwm13 says:
I’m with Anderson, and thus will never be able to speak knowledgeably about this video, but I note that Kevin Drum, who would certainly be disposed to agree with Stewart, thinks that Yoo mopped the floor with him. In general, if a Boalt professor can’t mop the floor with a TV personality, there is something wrong somewhere.
January 12, 2010, 9:41 pmAlex S. says:
The full unedited interview (about 25 minutes) is available at The Daily Show’s web site.
January 12, 2010, 11:14 pmA. Zarkov says:
You’re stapling bologna to your face?
January 12, 2010, 11:18 pmMogden says:
What an absolute disgrace that criminal is.
January 12, 2010, 11:50 pmneurodoc says:
Jon Stewart? What was he convicted of?
January 13, 2010, 1:58 amCrimLawStudent says:
Full interview videos here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/daily-show–exclusive—john-yoo-extended-interview-pt–1
January 13, 2010, 2:38 amhttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/exclusive—john-yoo-extended-interview-pt–2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-7-2010/exclusive—john-yoo-extended-interview-pt–3
Bill Poser says:
I watched it last night. Yoo is handsome and well-spoken, doesn’t come off like an ogre at all. An excellent example of the banality of evil.
January 13, 2010, 4:09 amMartinned says:
There’s a transcript of (the televised part of) the interview here.
Which made me yell out at least two things. (I yell at my tv a lot.) 1. How about those guys who got prosecuted for waterboarding. and 2. Why not? It’s not like that #3 guy is going to get aquitted if he gets his day in court.
January 13, 2010, 9:32 ammooglar says:
I was surprised to read reviews saying that Yoo “owned” Stewart. I wonder if they expected Stewart to try to “get” Yoo the way he “got” the guys on Crossfire or something. But Stewart doesn’t do that on The Daily Show. Instead, he engages with his guests and tries to understand them, and help the audience to understand them.
And I think, in this case, it worked brilliantly. Because Stewart gave Yoo all the opportunity Yoo could have ever asked for to explain, under his theory of executive power, where the line is between what the President can and cannot do. Did you notice he never did? He did say that the President can’t hook up a battery to someone’s testicles, but did you notice he never articulated in any way, shape, or form why not? Yoo essentially admitted that the difference between “enhanced interrogations” and “torture” is that we all “know it when [we] see it.” He demonstrated the hollowness of his own position!
Yoo lied when he claimed the US never faced the problem of defining torture (and Stewart did call him out on that, saying, “That’s not true!”), he dismissed the issue of treaties without even giving us an argument for why he (and we) can do that, and he lied about the types of activities the US had prosecuted as “torture” in the past. He demonstrated by his own words, because Stewart gave him the rope to hang himself, that not only were his conclusions erroneous, but they were based on either ignorance of or choosing to ignore the truth.
In any case, I don’t know if it was just me, but did everyone else know that Yoo was so junior in the Justice Department and that he has never (to this day, apparently) actually met George W. Bush? That was fascinating to me. Maybe I just don’t know enough about how things work at Justice.
And I also, as others have noted, felt that Yoo was the perfect example of the banality of evil. He was, as Stewart noted, “charming,” well spoken, and seemingly aware of his surroundings, and yet he still doesn’t understand the problems others have with what he did. It’s fascinating.
He also never said whether he thought he was a good lawyer or not… I wonder what that means?
January 13, 2010, 11:04 amzuch says:
Or stick your head in a bucket of ice water. ;-)
Cheers,
January 13, 2010, 11:32 amzuch says:
Is this true for Philip Johnson?
Cheers,
January 13, 2010, 11:33 amzuch says:
FWIW, Jon Stewart admits to getting pwn3d.
It’s hard to discuss such things with a lawyer and not let them get you bogged down in the minutiae; to let the big picture slide.
There was one point in the interview where I thought Stewart should have told Yoo that he was going to waterboard Yoo on the spot, and that according to Yoo, that would be just fine. And then dragged out the bench, the towel and the water….
Another mistake was not discussing the fact that CIDT is also banned. The line “pain equivalent to organ failure or death” ought to have merited some comment. The audience needed to know what it was that Yoo thought was not torture (or CIDT).
Cheers,
January 13, 2010, 11:43 amLongCat says:
When you capture someone like that your primary concern is getting him off the streets. There’s no way he could have information that could save lives.
January 13, 2010, 12:36 pmMartinned says:
I tend to find it useful to put a html-style closing-tag in there in case of sarcasm, only with square brackets to make sure no one’s browser gets confused. Something like: [/sarcasm] or [/snark].
Of course the guy will have vital information, but none that he would tell you about quickly enough that it will still be vital when you learn about it, no matter how he is treated. If someone like that is going to get captured, his associates will learn about this within days, if not sooner, and they will rush to make sure that any information possessed by the detainee becomes obsolete as quickly as possible. So unless you have suggestions about how to break a legendary terrorist mastermind within a few days, you may as well do the PR-friendly thing and interrogate him within the limits of US criminal law.
January 13, 2010, 12:47 pmA. Zarkov says:
Yoo didn’t torture anyone, nor did he order or explicitly encourage torture. He wrote a legal opinion. How does that make him evil? You seem to think that he deliberately wrote an opinion that he didn’t believe in order to promote and facilitate torture. Where is the evidence for such an assertion?
BTW many Americans approve of water-boarding, and don’t regard it as torture or consider it justified. It’s funny how it’s all right blow people into little pieces with ordinance, but not dunk them water. Which would you rather have happen to you?
January 13, 2010, 1:01 pmMartinned says:
I’m not so sure, and if you have any sense, neither are you. Maybe it’s better to get it over with quickly. Either way, the question makes no sense: neither morally nor legally is it true that the greater necessarily implies the lesser.
January 13, 2010, 1:39 pmzuch says:
Why, yes. They listen to the likes of InsHannity and Limpballs who insist it’s just like some frat boy’s prank (and whose conception of the Constitution and BoR seems to have been laid out in crayons). But almost the entire ‘manual’ on “enhanced interrogation techniques” was derived from the Phoenix program and/or from what we were horrified and appalled to learn that the Commies were doing to their dissidents etc. And we prosecuted and convicted waterboarders for war crimes….
Cheers,
January 13, 2010, 4:14 pmzuch says:
You do know that the major treaties and international laws in this regard make the not-so-subtle distinction between active combatants and those in custody and rendered hors de combat?
Cheers,
January 13, 2010, 4:17 pmA. Zarkov says:
Some soldiers and operatives are trained by water-boarding them. As far as I know no is trained by having their limbs blown off.
January 13, 2010, 10:02 pmA. Zarkov says:
We did worse to the Japanese in WWII. We did worse to German POWs and civilians after WWII. All that before Hannity was even born.
January 13, 2010, 10:05 pmA. Zarkov says:
I do know that and I find the distinction somewhat (but not completely) artificial.
I also the question the utility of these treaties because nearly every adversary we have faced since the First World War has severely mistreated American soldiers. This includes, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa. While Germany mistreated Russian POWs, with one or two exceptions, they didn’t mistreat Americans. Sure these treaties will be useful if we have to fight France and Sweden, but virtually useless with regard to likely future foes.
January 13, 2010, 10:15 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
“SAVE JON STEWART!!…HE’S OUR MOST IMPORTANT JEW!!!…”
–Mort Goldman
January 14, 2010, 8:57 amOren says:
Something to think about when you are on the committee to rewrite those treaties but not particularly relevant for those desiring to adhere to them as we signed them.
January 14, 2010, 10:09 amA. Zarkov says:
But I’m not alone in this viewpoint. What Americans think matters because they elect their government. If a big majority think these treaties are not in our interest, we will withdraw from them.
January 15, 2010, 6:33 amjim says:
This bologne word is often confusing. It is sometimes used for a city, malarky, or a sandwich meat.
January 22, 2010, 10:55 pmCelebrity News Aggregator says:
What can I say? I like Jon
February 4, 2010, 2:18 pm