The Father of the Bush Torture Policy

War Criminal John Yoo is testifying before the House Subcommittee of the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. It is time to remember what a cockroach Yoo is. His full March 2003 memo is here in pdf (part 1) and (part 2). In his memo Yoo declared:

• Neither the Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions apply should the President as Commander-in-Chief declare them invalid. ("First, the Fifth Amendment was not designed to restrict the unique war powers of the President as Commander in Chief." and "[The Geneva Convention] therefore would not apply to the interrogations of unlawful belligerents such as al Qaeda or Taliban members." )
• No laws govern the President's conduct. ("It is also a canon of construction that laws of general applicability are not read to apply to the sovereign." and "the President may decide to override customary international law at his discretion.")
  
• And when it comes to war absolutely no laws govern the President. ("In light of the President's complete authority over the conduct of war...we will not read a criminal statute as infringing on the President's ultimate authority in these areas.")
• Even the War Crimes Act does not apply to the President. ("We conclude that the War Crimes Act does not apply to the interrogation of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees.")
• Prohibitions against torture do not apply to Guantanamo specifically because it is controlled by the United States. This one is particularly elegant in its construction. According to Yoo, since the War Crimes Act prohibits US personnel from using torture anywhere outside of United States jurisdiction, torture is therefore permitted on US property. ("The criminal prohibition against torture therefore would not apply to their conduct of interrogations at U.S. military bases located in a foreign state.")
  
• Torturers are absolved from criminal intent as long as they say "maybe he'll like it" before the torture. Another elegant construct. It is torture only if you specifically intended to commit torture. If you are just generally trying to hurt the guy it is perfectly legal. Specific intent bad, general intent good. ("If the defendant acted knowing that severe pain or suffering was reasonably likely to result from his actions, but no more, he would have acted only with general intent." and "Thus, even if the defendant knows that severe pain will result from his actions, if causing such harm is not his objective, he lacks the requisite intent.")
• Yoo's classic redefinition of torture as ("death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions.")
• When all else fails, reject the letter of the law. The UN Convention Against Torture (CAT) states clearly "no exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." Yoo gets around that by invoking self-defense as a justification of torture. ("We do not believe, however, that a treaty may eliminate the United States' right, under international law, to use necessary measures for its self-defense.")
• But the CAT ultimately doesn't matter because Bush can ignore any law or treaty. ("if the President ordered that conduct, such an order would amount to a suspension or termination of the Convention.")

John Yoo is war criminal, little different than another lawyer, William Frick, in that Yoo wrote the enabling text that permitted a regime of torture by the United States.

All quotes are John Yoo's own words from John Yoo's memo.