Torture Lover John Yoo Excoriates Obama For Banning Torture
John Yoo, infamous author of the Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of torture on suspected terrorists, slams President Obama for banning torture in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, gravely warning that Obama “may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil.” Throughout the article, Yoo insists that torture is America’s […]
John Yoo, infamous author of the Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of torture on suspected terrorists, slams President Obama for banning torture in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, gravely warning that Obama “may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil.”
Throughout the article, Yoo insists that torture is America’s most effective weapon against terrorists and warns that without it, the U.S. will be incapable of intelligence-gathering:
Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial. […]
Relying on the civilian justice system not only robs us of the most effective intelligence tool to avert future attacks, it provides an opportunity for our enemies to obtain intelligence on us.
Considering the Bush administration repeatedly insisted its use of coercive techniques was “limited,” it would be a far stretch even for loyal Bushies to suggest that torture is not the one and only method to obtaining information. And as ThinkProgress has made clear again and again, numerous intelligence experts and real interrogators agree that, far from being “the most effective intelligence tool,” torture simply doesn’t work.
Yoo continues his screed by making up facts about Obama’s ban:
The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. … His new order amounts to requiring — on penalty of prosecution — that CIA interrogators be polite.
Yoo has no idea what he’s talking about. Nothing requires anyone to “be polite” — although the rapport building method has often proved to be interrogators’ most effective technique. And the notion that good-cop/bad-cop would be banned is simply false, Media Matters pointed out earlier this week:
In fact, the Army Field Manual explicitly permits good cop-bad cop interrogations under the name of “Mutt and Jeff” interrogations, which involve two interrogators “display[ing] opposing personalities and attitudes toward the source.” The Field Manual says the “goal of this technique is to make the source identify with one of the interrogators and thereby establish[ing] rapport and cooperation.”
It’s no secret that Yoo is an ardent torture enthusiast: He famously said that only those techniques that inflict pain equivalent to “death, organ failure or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body functions” constitute torture, and last year refused to agree that the president could not order a detainee buried alive. With Obama signaling a clean break from the Bush administration’s terrorism policies, it’s no wonder Yoo is desperate to restore his crumbling torture regime.
Who Are The 11 Democrats Who Voted Against Obama’s Economic Plan And Why Did They Do It?
Yesterday, Republicans rebuffed President Obama’s efforts at bipartisanship by refusing to deliver a single vote in favor of his economic recovery bill. Many Republicans appear to be clinging to the strategy of Rush Limbaugh, who has openly declared his hope that Obama fails. While Republicans stood united against Obama, 11 Democrats broke with the President. Although […]
Yesterday, Republicans rebuffed President Obama’s efforts at bipartisanship by refusing to deliver a single vote in favor of his economic recovery bill. Many Republicans appear to be clinging to the strategy of Rush Limbaugh, who has openly declared his hope that Obama fails.
While Republicans stood united against Obama, 11 Democrats broke with the President. Although there were some concerns about the stimulus plan expressed by progressives — such as Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), who felt like the spending provisions did not go far enough — they still voted for the bill because the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. The 11 Democrats who voted no were almost exclusively from conservative districts:
Allan Boyd (D-FL)
Bobby Bright (D-AL)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Parker Griffith (D-AL)
Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD)
Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Six of 11 (the italicized names) are members of Blue Dogs Coalition, which expressed concerns about the fiscal impact of the bill. But the Blog Dogs had extracted a pledge from Obama to balance the government’s checkbook, enabling most of them to support the economic stimulus plan. As for the others, here were some of the motivating factors.
Reps. Bright and Griffith — both freshmen congressmen from Alabama — voted along with many of their home-state colleagues against the bill. Rep. Artur Davis was the only Alabamian to vote for it. Both congressmen had been targeted by the National Republican Congressional Committee before the vote.
Freshman Rep. Kanjorski had been a skeptic of the stimulus plan, claiming it was put together too quickly and wouldn’t help the economy in the short term.
Freshman Rep. Kratovil barely squeaked out a win in a conservative Maryland district. Just days before the stimulus vote, Kratovil’s opponent in the last election announced he was planning to run again.
And finally, freshman Rep. Minnick told the LA Times today that he comes from “a very conservative district” in Idaho and said many people in his district listened to talk radio. “They listen to everybody, of course, and I’m influenced by them,” Minnick said.
