UPDATE below
John Yoo, whose illegal actions for
George Bush have been defended by Obama’s so-called ‘Justice’ Department, has
argued the President could legally order an entire village of civilians
massacred. Michael Isikoff at
Newsweek caught the follow depravity in Mr. Yoo’s testimony to the Dept. of
‘Justice.’:
Q: I guess the question I’s raising is, does this particular law really affect the President’s war-making abilities….
Yoo: Yes, certainly.
Q. What is your authority for that?
Yoo: Because this is an option the President might use in war.
Q: What about ordering a village of resistants to be massacred? … Is that a power that the president could legally-
Yoo: Yeah. Although, let me say this. So, certainly, that would fall within the commander-in-chief’s power over tactical decisions.
Q: To order a village of civilians to be [exterminated]?
Yoo: Sure.
Our founding fathers and their
allies fought a revolution so men like this could not be in positions of
power. Yoo is a standing disgrace
to the United States and to Boalt Law School at Berkeley, where he teaches his
depravity to others. Too many
lawyers are simply hired guns, intellectual mercenaries whose souls and brains
are at auction for the highest bidder.
John Yoo seems a perfect role model for them.
I imagine the same
‘conservatives’ and ‘conservative Christians’ who defend torture will defend
mass murder: the logic is the same and so is the moral depravity. I
increasingly see no significant difference between them and the Nazis beyond
the latter’s greater opportunity to demonstrates their real character.
In the readers’ comments on Isikoff’s
article some people brought up Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Good and uncomfortable point. There are lots and lots of moral issues
regarding those events, and I personally think they were unjustified. But I want to focus on only one dimension of these counter examples because it is important
enough to stand alone on its own merits, and disturbing in its implications.
Japan had declared war on the US,
along with a simultaneous military attack. Iraq
was 100% innocent of doing anything to the US. No 9/11 involvement, no weapons of mass destruction, no
military even capable by then of doing much to anybody other than Iraqis who
did not like Saddam Hussein. So in
one case the devastation was brought on people whose government started a
bloody war. In the other we are
discussing a war of choice waged upon an innocent country (no matter how nasty
its government) where a village of civilians who resisted our efforts could be
massacred: every man, woman, and child.
Anyone who cannot see the
difference is probably a re-incarnation of one of Genghis Khan’s advisers.
UPDATE