More John Yoo on “Coercive Interrogation”
Boalt Professor John Yoo is in the news again, speaking about (what else?) torture “coercive interrogation.” It’s nothing new, really, just more of Professor Yoo addressing the nexus of globalization, terrorism, and authority. He tries to justify his extreme stance; his basic argument is that “the power…that the president should have—the right to authorize interrogation and indefinite detention without trials — is in keeping with national tradition.”
Professor Yoo predicts more secrecy and more presidential power on the rise as globalization (and its threats) increases. He knows his views are challenging, but he sees the secret strong arm of government as a permanent fixture. He makes an art of justification by trying to excuse human rights violations as a part of a natural trend.
However, Professor Yoo says, “I don’t want to be the cause of any kind of violence.” But he’ll probably justify it, especially if it happens in Guantanamo.
Marshawn turning pro. Why aren’t you guys all over this one? Check out the LA Times today.
Comment by Ian — January 3, 2007 @ 10:55 am
Relax Christine, if you want to really torture these terrorist, get all their locations within 24 hours - posted on every internet website - it can be done. Just drop porno-mags, pipe-in porno movies, and command our soldiers to force all Muslim women to done sting bikinis. The war on terrorism will be over in a heart beat. That is too much torture for them to handle. The males will be running and searching the mountains and hills to seek out these frumper’s hideouts.
Comment by Glaga — January 3, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
People mock Yoo, but in all the panels I’ve seen him speak, no professor beats his arguments. If you want to lose a war, then you would oppose being violent to the enemy.
Comment by Paul — January 5, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Paul,
All one has to do (and this has been done) is turn in someone as a “terrorist”, collect the $10,000 US reward, and then that person can be tortured in Guantanemo (no sp chk oh well) with no recourse or trial.
In fact, looking arabic is pretty much the only criteria for being in Guantanemo.
Point is: Abuse of liberty leads to abuse of liberty for political reasons, just look at history. Initially it starts as “just convince the majority of people that those speaking up for liberty or peace are unpatriotic, and that allows government to justify any act of war or rights abridgement” Guess who I am paraphrasing - hint, 2nd in command under Hitler, it is Goering.
Winning an argument is secondary to perpetuating war (organized terrorism) as well as secondary to perpetuating poor militaries (eg, terrorists). A stupid war that creates less international security will just lead to more people pissed off about their children and wives being cluster-bombed and hence they will want to strap a bomb to their back, as I would if someone attacked my family.
God Bless, peace be upon us (hopefully
Thank you for reading,
UC berk programmer
Comment by anon staff — January 23, 2007 @ 8:45 am