factbat.com

This author having found himself staring befuddled at a previously neglected front page article in a local periodical, which escaped notice until just this morning, was compelled to write the following response...

On February 12, 2010 the local San Mateo County periodical, The Daily Journal, ran an article titled “Protesters Greet Yoo” that details some of the talking points of John Yoo, former Bush administration Department of Justice advisor and lawyer who wrote the famous so-called “torture memos.” These memos were writings of legal opinion which sought to set a precedence for legitimizing acts of extraordinary rendition (aka torture) such as water boarding and sleep deprivation -- among others -- as means for extracting information from alleged terrorists.

Unfortunately, these methods have been employed in countless other capacities, all with the same results; abuse of people who were innocent in order to extract written or verbal confessions. Furthermore, the main academics of the studies into this activity prove that the intelligence extracted is rarely reliable.

Seldom mentioned, if ever, is the fact that victims of torture are not reserved to the recipients of the malicious treatment. Those who are directed to administer the abuse are some of the more mentally damaged, because no human being is designed in such a way as to be aware of the true consequences of such action. There are basically three different types of reaction to this injury.

Most common are the persons who become depressed and suicidal, experiencing nightmares as a result of being forced to administer abusive treatment to another human being. Next are those who become withdrawn and callous. And lastly, but most importantly, are those who have the least amount of resistance to the injury, and thus are those who must choose to enjoy the abuse in order to retain some semblance of sanity.

These are the types of terrified people John Yoo has arduously attempted to create within the ranks of today’s United States Military, while claiming to be preventing further acts of terrorism.

Yoo is also responsible for creating policies which persuaded officials to flout the law, and allow the Bush administration to avoid the rules of engagement set out in the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, he set the stage for acts of privacy invasion which called for warrant-less wiretaps on the communications of millions of innocent Americans.

His complacent and dysfunctional analysis of fact, where he ignores the underlying causes of various crises in opt for a more self-gratifying proposal of problem-reaction-solution, exposes his inability to truly codify the complex structures of society in a way which compliments the process of equative reasoning. Therefore, Yoo expects to present arguments that exist within a vacuum, while positing they are viable opinions which propose solutions that encompass the vast array of diverse social environments now existing in the world.

The article is rife with spurious statements and erroneous analogies made by Yoo, which present him as a rather contemptuous man who’s delineations belie a despotic and authoritarian bent aimed at denigrating American ideals; ideals which clearly state that the sovereign rights of the individual are to be preserved.

Yoo appears to believe that some accusations are such that those accused of them do not deserve juris prudence nor due process of law. This is a precarious position to undertake and has been the instigator of insidious levels of despotism all throughout history. The Constitution of the United States was created expressly for the purpose of prohibiting the abuses which John Yoo now proposes are “necessary evils.”

However, his argument has been proffered before by the likes of Stalin, Hitler and Mao, and history is replete with various atrocities which ensued as a result of taking this complacent and illegitimate position to the extreme.

What is significant to analyzing the mentality of Mr. Yoo, is first understanding the nature of his delusion., and this is best extruded by exposing the many faults in his overall thesis. Foremost in the argument is recognizing the fact that far too many sophists, such as Yoo, actually appear to believe their position whole heartedly, and thus seem a bit more sinister and criminally complicit than they actually are.

Proper engagement of a person such as Yoo, requires an environment where those around him are capable of logically repudiating his many well presented, albeit ignorant and simplistic, theories.

Yoo, like far too many lawyers, has forgotten the first rule of debate which insists that one be most critical of their own analysis if they intend to be anything more than a mere mechanism of persuasion. Furthermore, expertise in the art of verbal conflict is not in-and-of-itself a legitimate basis for regarding one as capable of shaping public policy or interpreting the law.

Yoo also seems to enjoy postulating on foreign policy, to the extent that his meager insight allows him to remain a viable threat to actual conflict resolution. He chides the Obama administration for attempting to employ diplomacy in Iran and broaden the conversation on that country's nuclear exploits.

Yoo believes that certain countries should not possess nuclear weapons, and claims that only those who can use them responsibly -- though there is no such thing -- be allowed to manufacture them. Yoo needs to be reminded that the United States is the only nations to have ever dropped an atomic bomb on another country, and nothing in history has ever proven this to have been a wise decision.

Regardless of the fact that Iran expresses erroneous policies, intentions and edifices, this in no way legitimizes the position of Yoo by default. Yoo himself presents as an extremely low benchmark, and appears to be little more than a mirror image of Ahmadinejad.

Yoo states that “People think that Iraq was the first time in history the United States waged an offensive war. That is simply not true.” Regardless of just what “people” Yoo is referring to, this author certainly is not among them, and likely neither are many other informed Americans. His dubious statement comes on the heels of his promotion for a book he recently wrote titled, of all things, “Crisis in Command: A History of Executive Power from George Washington to George W. Bush.”

Let’s get it straight right now that George W. Bush bears absolutely no similarities to George Washington, who by the way was president of a fledgling country which was newly emancipated and thus found itself in extenuating circumstances which in no way parallel those of the current state of the nation.

Yoo, an obvious simpleton, claims “I have no problem debating people who disagree with me. That’s how you determine what is right, ultimately.” This statement could not be more wrong, especially considering the first concern in such an atmosphere would be just who one is engaging in debate.

While debate is certainly the cornerstone of all legitimate engagement, it is no more a tool of education than is school sports or group therapy. It is truth that determines what is right, nothing more, nothing less. And those who bend and subvert this truth, as Yoo does, do so at their own peril, and the peril of all who display obsequiousness to the ridiculous “solutions” their disingenuous, and sophist arguments propose.

What is remarkable when analyzing the delusion in Yoo’s many well articulated policy positions is the fact that he makes incredulously ignorant and blatantly false statements as if they are utterly irrefutable. A few examples -- from the article -- being “The United States is the guarantor of peace” and “Terrorism is not a criminal justice problem.”

These statements are completely without merit since the United States is a beacon of Freedom, nothing more. And any crime perpetrated in, or against, this free and constitutionally protected nation falls squarely within the jurisdiction of its judicial system. It appears that John Yoo’s main talent is reserved to the art of absurdity, of which Adolph Hitler was an ingratiating fan. It has been proposed often by proponents of propaganda that the most effective method of manipulating and subverting entire populations, is the employment of mendacious audacity.

Hitler himself stated “if you are going to tell a lie, make it a big lie and just keep telling it over and over again until people believe it, or are merely afraid to oppose it.” John Yoo easily fits the profile of a person who would use this type of strategy, and exhibits behaviors which illuminate his inability to think objectively, and thus he is the first to fall prey to his fallaciously corrosive analyses he then convincingly presents to others.

Yoo, a lawyer, remarkably claims that the law is only for certain people and that it bears no relevance to the plight of those accused of terrorism. However, this is a completely illegitimate position, and likely a disingenuous one, which he expects to convince the public that those accused of criminal acts are first-and-foremost guilty, regardless of the fact that one is considered innocent until proven by a court of law to have engaged in illegal acts.

John Yoo’s statement that those accused of terrorism have no right to legal recourse in the matter appears to be nothing more than a blatant attempt to absolve himself, and the Bush administration, of the crimes which they endorsed and were responsible for. His audacious contentions basically prove him to be a vehicle for misinformation and scurrilous sanctions which may have been predominantly elicited by those who would find it necessary to thwart various investigations arising from the events which transpired on September 11, 2001, during George Bush’s watch.

John Yoo addressed the San Mateo Rotary Club on Thursday Feb. 11, 2010, where his theme was on the power of the presidency, speaking to a crowd of approximately 100 while a small group of protestors gathered outside the event where they called for his arrest for war crimes.

The truth is that this nation employs a governmental system that is for the people, by the people and of the people. No person in this nation is exempt from the law, and the office of the President of the United States of America holds no more power, per se, than any informed and duly sworn citizen within its varying boundaries. The executive office is afforded its various prerogatives under the umbrella of ultimate accountability, and that is all. Thus, many of the actions taken by those who have held, or do hold, the office shall eventually be exposed as excessively beyond its powers as set out by the supreme law of this land…The United States Constitution.

John Yoo is presenting an “ends justifies the means” image where a pragmatic approach precludes one from engaging the many equations to proposed solutions, and thus relies primarily on knee-jerk reaction rather than factual analysis.

John Yoo appears to have been watching too much television and is no more capable of making international decisions than are actors such as Keifer Sutherland and Arnold Schwarzenegger, just to name a few.

This man -- using the term “man” rather generously -- would be better suited for the cast of “24” or some other ridiculous representation which attempts to mimic the actions of what are typically known as “rogue figures.” Unfortunately, Hollywood consistently gets the image wrong since they are generally seeking to employ the most marketable levels of shock value and vicarious edifications which will appeal to a wide audience base.

One should note that the silver screen will likely never be graced by the actual personal life of Frank Serpico that has evolved since the culmination his ordeal with the New York Police Department which got him shot in the face during a routine drug bust. Serpico is one of those few figures in society who is a truly dedicated public servant, and therefore presents as less than the larger-than-life image the entertainment business enjoys spuriously creating as a means for encouraging movie goers to fork over mountains of cash.

Be assured that Frank Serpico will always epitomize the image of what all Americans should aspire to, and endeavor to contribute wholehearted to with wide support for his indefatigable commitment to just action, however sobering and mundane it may appear to people. The fact is that the nightmarish ordeal he was subjected to at the hands of the law enforcement community, which he considered one of his own, has not abated one molecule in the many years that have passed, and a movie which could delve unpretentiously into the heart and soul of this man would appeal to a great many people. Yes, I am a big fan, since I had the opportunity, in February of 2009, to read the book which detailed his struggle. And at the risk of tarnishing the image of this great man, I will simply state that the struggles of this author bear some disturbing similarities, and paralleling exfoliations, to his which are impossible to ignore.

While it is true that many movies are somewhat of an approximate rendition of actual events, it appears that Mr. Yoo takes the entertainment industry far too seriously.

It is widely known that embellishment has been employed ad nauseam by directors and producers who felt that the truth just wasn’t interesting enough to sell movies. Of course, this is also an illegitimate notion perceived by a largely ignorant group of profiteers who’s main qualifications are that they possess veritable warehouses of money necessary to invest in the extremely costly arena of film production. Most of these investors have yet to actually connect on a common level with society.

John Yoo is one of many “legal professionals” -- again using a term incredibly generously -- who could certainly benefit from a healthy injection of common human compunction. His tactless and callous statements against the mounting consternation over his continued measures of political arm-twisting and vocational influence afforded him by other seemingly derelict institutions, certainly prove him to be much less an American and more of the authoritarian politician he so deceptively claims he has no interest in being.