Wowie zowie, the 
main event is unfolding right before our very eyes! Attorney John Yoo was one of the original members on an informal “war council” advising President George W. in the immediate post-9/11 years. “’Could interrogators torture detainees to extract life-saving information about future terrorist attacks?’ It was this … question that made Yoo famous. Yoo quickly researched the issue and concluded that it was both legally and morally permissible for interrogators to use coercive interrogation measures—and even outright torture—to induce a detainee to spill information that might save American lives.”
“Much of this legal strategy was hammered out by an informal group of lawyers, nicknamed the ‘War Council,’ who met in the White House. In addition to Yoo, the group included White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez, who reported directly to Bush, as well as David Addington, the top lawyer for Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Department General Counsel William Haynes.
The group had no formal status, and its membership was not appointed by President Bush. Its authority stemmed only from the fact that Bush relied heavily on the advice of Gonzalez and Cheney, who were trusted confidants, especially on war matters.”
This War Council penned long and comprehensive memos literally creating protocol as they went along, of course, all in response to 9/11, which as we know now in 2015 –14 years later– was an inside job orchestrated by some of these same people.
Ultimately, this new protocol was most disconcerting and controversial, to say the least. John Yoo continued his grand interpretations of the law by stating that although the anti-torture law did not define “severe pain,” he brought forth a definition from Medicare literature that provided medical services for cases of severe pain “’capable of producing organ failure or death.’ So, according to Yoo, interrogators could inflict as much pain as they wanted on a detainee, so long as it did not cause organ failure or death, and it would not be classified as torture under federal law.”
Further, this war council argued that:
– The Geneva Conventions, which restricted torture during wars, would not apply to al-Qaeda. And that the US need not follow proposals of that Convention because Afghanistan was a “failed state”—a legal nonentity under international law;
– Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters, as captured enemies, could be held without end and need not be given POW status;
– The President alone could prosecute captives and deny them a fair trial;
– Assassinations without code, or honor, were acceptable;
– The NSA was permitted to use wiretapping, even though Congress explicitly passed a law limiting this practice to foreigners.
While this war council seemed to be riding high and in fact, literally untouchable, Attorney General Ashcroft was noticeably absent. It seemed apparently he resented Yoo’s influence in his new position –after all Yoo worked for Ashcroft in the Justice Department, not reporting to Gonzalez and Addington leading this so-called “war council.” Given the heat and backlash from Ashcroft, Yoo found someone else to chair the war council.
John Yoo traveled in the same circles as then-friend University of Chicago professor Jack Goldsmith, whom Yoo had recommended to head the War Council, which off-the-record gave war advice to President George W. at the time. After finally having access to confidential memos, Goldsmith concluded that Yoo’s legal assertions regarding torture were inaccurate, clearly illegal, and requested that said memos be pulled from circulation, in turn, prohibiting the torture techniques to be used.
“Goldsmith had ruffled so many powerful feathers in his quest to reverse the Yoo mess that he decided to quit and return to teaching law school. He had lasted only nine months as head of [Office of Legal Council] and didn’t even have time to finish the new memos. But he set the revision process in motion and, in so doing, stood up to the worst excesses of the Bush administration and its shadowy War Council. He set the law back on track.”
“The ballad of Goldsmith and Yoo—hero and villain—focuses our attention on an intramural dispute between two central characters and, in so doing, diverts our attention from the bigger picture. The real story here is not the dispute and the fallout between Goldsmith and Yoo …[but] the devaluing of international law. The debate about torture floats on the surface, but beneath the water lies a much deeper and far more consequential movement to which both Goldsmith and Yoo contributed.”
Since 9/11 and our intertwined relations with the Middle East, specifically regarding detainees and torture, international law has come under fire. “That is because [academic] arguments do not stay in the abstract confines of the Ivory Tower. They influence how the State Department conducts diplomacy, how the Defense Department conducts the War on Terror, how the CIA and the NSA spy on foreigners and citizens alike, and how judges craft their opinions. And all of this from just a handful of individuals armed with skeptical arguments about the very idea of international law.”
My perspective, as a lifelong American, is that America is incredibly rogue and pompous with enough rope to hang itself… doing whatever they want, with whomever they want, against whomever they want — without the checks and balances on which our constitution is supposed to be based: Judicial, executive, and legislative branches all keeping each other in check.
Without checks and balances –or more specifically, without honoring the system of checks and balances– as evidenced by these lawyers’ “interpretations” of the law which prove to be self-serving. In other words, if you can create legislation and protocol that directly affects you, then it makes a lot of sense to me to have substantial documentation that supports your newly proposed legislation — save you appear to be “self-serving,” by definition.
Please please please, I’m no saint, definitely not. However, I do believe in creating laws and policies that are fair for all. If I create one that is advantageous for myself, then I think it’s important for me to document why this should become law from an objective perspective, rather than subjectively and arbitrarily making protocol “out of thin air” which –oh, by the way — totally benefits me!
I might as well write a policy that compensates me a billion dollars and say that this is completely legal and advantageous for everyone in our country. Fork it over, America. 🙂
Seriously, I don’t mind this former war council following their desire to want to make the US the most powerful nation. The problem for me is when it comes at a cost of treating others unfairly and unjustly, giving us all the goodies, and then claiming that we deserve it “just because.” For me, it epitomizes the self-centeredness and self-righteousness of Americans, without accepting that all people should be treated the same: With respect, love, forgiveness, and basic equal rights across the board.
International law –common law– is where Nova Earth is headed. Not the cabal’s version of a new world order, rather much more grand, compassionate, symbiotic, and unifying — in all the right ways. Dream with me, and be the change you want to see in our world. Start by shedding your lower vibrations and emotional triggers –shed all that keeps you from rising into Unity Consciousness.
We Are All One
Gavin