Prez Has the Right to Crush Your Child's Testes

[Lemur]

I was doing a little reading about some of the legal architects of the current legal framework allowing the President to order duress on detainees, and I got interested in John Yoo. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo) From '01 to '03 he worked in the Office of Legal counsel, and he was a contributor to the memos that defined executive power in the boradest possible sense. The following exchange made me sit up and take notice:


Cassel: If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

Yoo: No treaty...

Cassel: Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...

Yoo: I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Thoughts? Are there, in fact, any legal impediments to the President of the United States ordering a child's testicles crushed? I'm not saying he would do so, but does he have the right to do so?

[Soulforged]

Thoughts? Are there, in fact, any legal impediments to the President of the United States ordering a child's testicles crushed? I'm not saying he would do so, but does he have the right to do so?
I don't think so. In appearence the law, mostly in civil matter wich is very ample, has many "holes" in the legal corp. But it's just in appearence, when the law fails to uphold the just, we must look for what is behind it, usually it's morality, but there are some principles that humanity upholds as "sacred" and that shouldn't be violated.

But I don't think we should go there. Is this man sure that there's no treaty? I think there was one, the treaty of human rights (Costa Rica), I think it was signed for USA too. If not then I think that something was said on the many conventions organized by the international community, maybe Ginebra or Genova, I'm not an expert on those particular treaties, but I think that they talk about an universal respect to certain basical principles, including the rebuke of all torture and all treatment that threatens the human dignity. I might be wrong.

[Lemur]

Apparently Mr. Yoo does not believe that anyone except the President has the right to decide whether or not we will abide by treaties. Seriously. Even though the Constitution has a little somthing to say about it, called the Supremacy Clause.

Here's a disputation of Yoo's theories, (http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=32668) specifically his New and Improved reading of the Supremacy Clause:


Yoo would go further, insisting on a presumption against judicial enforcement unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. On this view, treaties lack the force of law, and become mere political promises, having about as much force as campaign rhetoric. And he further claims that the president has unilateral authority to interpret, reinterpret, and terminate treaties, effectively rendering presidents above the law when it comes to treaties.

To support these revisionist views, Yoo relies heavily and repeatedly on a rigid dichotomy between foreign affairs -- which he sees, in the British tradition, as the executive's domain -- and domestic matters -- which he sees as the province of the legislature.

So by this reading, if it has to do with foreign affairs, the President has unchecked, total power. And our elected legislature should content itself with domestic affairs. Pretty radical, eh?

[Hurin_Rules]

Reading Yoo is almost like talking with Pindar.

Though I'm not quite sure whether Pindar would go as far as allowing crushed testicles.

[Proletariat]

Crushed testicles aside, this makes sense to me. Why should America ever be beholden to an international treaty once our executive branch decides it's not in our interest?

[Soulforged]

Crushed testicles aside, this makes sense to me. Why should America ever beholdon to an international treaty once our executive branch decides it's not in our interest?
As far as I know Prole, the president (at least in a republic) has only the power to modify (veto) an agreement, a law project, whatever, but it's up to the Congress or Parlament to decide if this will be signed and sustained or not. Here mister Yoo is giving this power, on international affairs, to the other head of the government, thus handicaping the balance between the three powers.

[Tribesman]

Crushed testicles aside, this makes sense to me. Why should America ever beholdon to an international treaty once our executive branch decides it's not in our interest?
But the issue is Prole , has the executive branch decided that it is so ?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I better go ask if my dad's done anything the president doesn't like up to date...

[LeftEyeNine]

I better go ask if my dad's done anything the president doesn't like up to date...

Your grandfather did not do for sure.. Hope this helps..

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Or maybe he did...

Paternity Tests!

*runs out of room*

[LeftEyeNine]

Or maybe he did...

Paternity Tests!

*runs out of room*

Easy Instant-Results Paternity Tests At Home :

- Ask your daddy about Presidents of the country, and note down the ones he blacklisted in a disguised hateful manner.

- Subtract the amount of years from your father's age in order to make an approximization of his childhood years.

- Compare the resulting years of your dad's chilhood age and the governing period of the blacklisted presidents. If there is an interesting correlation between the years, your father's dislike and the national prosperity of the time, start worrying even more.

Side Effects : Some dads don't keep cool. Consult your physician before use.

[KafirChobee]

Actually, Congress can limit the foreign affairs of the executive branch. They can do so by passing laws ... signed by a president. It has occurred on numourace occassions in our history and only been ignored once. See, if a president wants to turn a law around all he needs do is convince congress it would be a good thing; other wise he can simply go behind their backs and if successful convince the public that what he did was a good thing ... for them ... for America. The latter worked for Nixon; a republican Congress passed a law (in 1952?) saying that it was illegal to even acknowledge China - Nixon ignored congress and went and ate fish with Mao. Seems some times it is just a matter of timing - but, deceit never hurts in politics.

As for "crushing balls"? Well, we now live in an age (administration) that finds the "Geneva Convention" out dated and quaint. We are ruled now by men that understand corporate law and believe it applies to democratic law. Where as they come from dictatorial rule - they feel it can now be applied to democratic rule. They are accustom to total control, and now they believe it must also be availed to them - simply because they bought two elections.

No law in this land has ever, nor ever will accept the concept of torture by any means. That is one of the reasons the Bushys are in such a moral delema at present. The idea that things will get better for Bush in 2006 ---- LOL, it can only get worse. Once someone forgets the principles that gained them power, and continues on a path that proclaims the defimation of other humans as being a good thing - they lose the strength of their original premise. It becomes obvious to even the strongest supporters that they are indeed supporting the anti-christ (j/K) ... an agenda that doesnot even support them.

Still, Bush43 has so many people to draw on to support his absurdities that one can not deny that he might believe he has the power to crush childrens balls ... if it will make it safe for America! All he need do is refer once again to 9/11 (ever heard a speech of his that didn't make reference?).

Smack them balls. We all know CHeney's thoughts on the matter - god for give him - because, i never will.

[Proletariat]

As far as I know Prole, the president (at least in a republic) has only the power to modify (veto) an agreement, a law project, whatever, but it's up to the Congress or Parlament to decide if this will be signed and sustained or not.

If you're right, this is irritating. Why the hell are we calling it the executive branch if it has no authority to execute decisions? I'm fine with what Yoo is getting at. If every single branch can hamstring any other branch, what is the point in voting for a President you believe will make good decisions? Oversight and checks and balances are one thing. Paralyzing your leader is another.

I like the system, and I love the way Pindar explains it.

[Proletariat]

Crushed testicles aside, this makes sense to me. Why should America ever beholdon to an international treaty once our executive branch decides it's not in our interest?
But the issue is Prole , has the executive branch decided that it is so ?

Has decided that a certain treaty isn't in our interest? I don't understand what you're asking.

[KafirChobee]

If you're right, this is irritating. Why the hell are we calling it the executive branch if it has no authority to execute decisions? I'm fine with what Yoo is getting at. If every single branch can hamstring any other branch, what is the point in voting for a President you believe will make good decisions? Oversight and checks and balances are one thing. Paralyzing your leader is another.

I like the system, and I love the way Pindar explains it.

You are the ideal supporter of what the Bushys love - like exactly what thinking the way they do is all about (it, being our democracy).That it supports ...the idea we have an imperial presidency - seems a good idea by your standards? OK, just admit that democracy means less to you than Bush - that seems fair. Or, that by ignoring the founding fathers check and balance system; because it supports a presidency that you find OK? - that any with actual knowledge of the system finds obtrusive to the plan of democracy wish to make Americans aware of the danger in supporting the present dictoms?

Must seem strange for those that solidly support Bush; to think in manners of equality, freedom, civility, open government, or freedom for all. Or, the concept of uniting the nation - atleast in the cause of again being one nation (under law - not the premise of someones God). Still, one would like to believed that they might have an aptitude for civility. Then again, the Bushys have successfully scared them shiite outta most of us raised christian. But, we can not tollerate a administration calling another religion the "evil guys". I mean, it might sell in Des Moines - but, the real "evil doers"?. I doubt they have ever even heard of the place.

And? Thats the plan. We be successful because we ain't been attacked since 9/11. Buy it? Why not? Seems like after ignoring the problem the first 9 months of the presidency they got it under control. Right? Or, alQuaeda proved their point and what has occurred since then has served their cause far better than if they had a total plan for the destruction of America. Don't you think? Look at what the reaction was - by our president, versus what he could have done to solidify the sympathy of the other world nations. Oh, well.

Still, accepting that one side is right and the other always wrong? Why not. Why f'n not. Accepting what your father said seems to be the main road around here anyway. Why challange ones self to find their own road ... especially politically?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

You guys didn't know the Pres could stomp someones nuts?

[GoreBag]

It's also illegal to sing off-tune in North Carolina.

[Major Robert Dump]

As it turns out, if Bush were to crush a kids testicles it wouldn't be anything new. Clinton crushed a lot of kids testicles, and a few dog ones as well. This goes all the way back to Hamilton. I'm really surprised Bush hasn't crushed any testicles yet, I guess he's just waiting for the right ones.

[Soulforged]

If you're right, this is irritating. Why the hell are we calling it the executive branch if it has no authority to execute decisions? I'm fine with what Yoo is getting at. If every single branch can hamstring any other branch, what is the point in voting for a President you believe will make good decisions? Oversight and checks and balances are one thing. Paralyzing your leader is another.
I like the system, and I love the way Pindar explains it.This is one of the check and balances Prole. I don't know what Pindar has to say about this, but I'll love to read it. You're not paralyzing your president, you're only putting him in his place. The Congress decides such matters. Menem here wanted to do exactly the same, and he did, because this is not USA you know, he actually controlled the Congress and passed any law,resolution or any other crazy idea that came to his mind. If this makes things go slower so be it, but it isn't ok to just give up for a matter of quickness when it comes to important matters such as this one. Another thing keep a fixed eye on Bush because if things continue like this he'll begin to dictate your laws also in an unilateral form, Menem did it throughout "decretos" (i think it's decrees in english) surpasing any posible authority of the Congress.

[AntiochusIII]

If you're right, this is irritating. Why the hell are we calling it the executive branch if it has no authority to execute decisions? I'm fine with what Yoo is getting at. If every single branch can hamstring any other branch, what is the point in voting for a President you believe will make good decisions? Oversight and checks and balances are one thing. Paralyzing your leader is another.

I like the system, and I love the way Pindar explains it.Your idea is fundamentally flawed in the fact that you practically makes the Congress useless in that way, and also weakens the judiciary. Such a major decision by the executive should rely on the authority of the legislative body. A President who claims this authority on his own (and thus able to ignore other branches of the government) is to demand all the leadership of the nation. Why, then, would we have Congress? I thought these kinds of "assemblies" were used to check the power of the kings since ancient days, long before the Age of Enlightenment? Remember, we also vote for Congress as much as we vote for the President. Why would he has more power than they?

A historical example of what you seem to advocate is the Andrew Jackson Presidency, and I don't think it turned out that good. They used to call him "King Andrew."

[Papewaio]

Checks and balances - Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checks_and_balances)

Jefferson Letters, examined. (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/12/170511.shtml)


“One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. ... As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for,” he wrote. (2)

He was referring to the tyranny of the majority.

“The concentrating [of the legislative, executive and judicial powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one.” (3)

Essentially without the checks you have absolute power...

[Papewaio]

Again Jefferson's view on power over justice:


The rule of violence in international affairs

----- To - (?), 1813: N. Y. Pub. Lib., MS, IV, 191-192

Our lot happens to have been cast in an age when two of the most powerful nations of the world, abusing their force and to whom circumstances have given a temporary superiority over others, the one by land, the other by sea, throwing off all the bonds [and] restraints of morality and all regard to pride of national character, forgetting the mutability of fortune and the inevitable doom which the laws of nature pronounce against departures from justice, individual or national - have dared to treat her reclamations with derision and to substitute force instead of reason as the umpire of nations, degrading themselves thus from the character of lawful societies into lawless bands of robbers and pirates., they are ravaging [and] abusing their brief ascendancy by desolating the world with blood and rapine. Against such banditti, war had become preferable [and] less ruinous than peace, for their peace was a war on one side only.

If Yoo holds that crushing childrens testes is okay for the President then that kind of leader is precisely what Jefferson went to War against. It is also why there is 3 sections of government to prevent this type of abuse.

[Xiahou]

If Yoo holds that crushing childrens testes is okay for the President then that kind of leader is precisely what Jefferson went to War against. It is also why there is 3 sections of government to prevent this type of abuse.This topic strikes me as yet another one that is loaded with hyperbole. I've seen the infamous "testicles" debate excerpt circling liberal blogs, but none of them that I found provided a full transcript of the debate- just the section they wanted you to see/hear and there have been no mainstream media mentions of it that I know of.

Does anyone know where you can find the entire transcript?

[Husar]

Crushed testicles aside, this makes sense to me. Why should America ever be beholden to an international treaty once our executive branch decides it's not in our interest?
Exchange America with Germany and this sentence could´ve been said before WW2. Of course what you say is not entirely wrong, but if everybody thinks like that, WW3 is close I guess.:end:

[Lemur]

Does anyone know where you can find the entire transcript?
I'm not finding a full transcript, but here's an MP3 (http://rwor.org/audio/yoo%20excerpt.mp3) of a substantial portion of the debate. Sorry it's not in more-convenient text format, but you want context? Here's some context.

I don't think crushed testes are at all hyperbolic in John Yoo's vision of the imperial Presidency. Mr. Yoo sincerely believes that the executive branch should have absolute, unchecked power in all things that relate to foreign affairs. And the difference between him and Pindar is that Mr. Yoo was able to write position papers that became enacted policy. Whereas we are debating in a sub-forum of a gaming community. It's a small but real difference.

And let's face it -- crushed testes are funny. Darn funny. There's a reason that a whole genre of humor deals with injuries to the crotch. Nothing funnier.

[edit -- addendum]

A little something from the Wall Street Journal (9/12/2005): "Even by the standards of elite Washington legal circles, Mr. Yoo earned a reputation for what Justice Thomas calls 'a very high level of confidence in conclusions he might reach'... Mr. Yoo had an unusual degree of certainty that he knew the 'original intent' of the Constitution's authors, Justice Thomas says. 'We'd kid him sometimes that he was right there at the founding.' "