- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search


Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

The below article from THE SWAMP should be sub-titled, "The Secrets of John Yoo", key DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE architect of legal "policy" in the wake of 9/11.  On its face, the below article at the very least raises and discloses substantive issues of fact and law.  The "INTERROGATION MEMO" recently declassified is far more revealing and far more significant in both historical and current context than the 'UNITED STATES', would have the world perceive.
To wit:
1.   The Lieber Code was adopted by President and Commander in Chief Lincoln April 24, 1863.  The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus per the Organic Constitution was summarily suspended in order to more efficiently prosecute a false flag war against the ten southern states.
2.   There is no record of termination of  Lieber Code authority since Lincoln.  Under Article II, termination of its authority and Martial Law, is as follows: 
            "Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief,
            or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the
            conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same".
3.   The Lieber Code has underscored all matters internal and external matters of 'state', the American people, the Union of the several states, aka "United States of America", since Lincoln and Johnson, as well of "THE UNITED STATES"-'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' since the creation and inception of THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1871.  To wit, Article III says:
            "Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and
            and of the domestic  administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and
            force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

            The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times

            of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority."

4.   The significance of these facts is little known or understood by the "community of nations", the people of those nations, the indigenous people who pre-existed the creation of said "nations", as well as the People of the "New Israel" or "New Rome" who came to be the United States of America by thrust of their several sovereing republic states, parties to the organic Constitution for the United States of America, 1787. 

5.   We the People are a multi-generational 'body politic', or an "assembly", arising and originating from a series of wars for Independence [from tyranny], and Liberty under the inherent laws and conditions of the Divine Creator-Creation, to be freemen, 'Sovereigns without Subjects".  The summary effect of the adoption of the Lieber Code was/is to destroy that body politic, our 'republic states', our Union of our states, and our "original jurisdiction" and Vested [inherent, fundament, irrevocable] Rights.  Simply read the words above, and understand that the Civil War was brought upon the newly 'independent' colonial freemen by powers intent on seizing control of their lives, their politics, their commerce, their minds and hearts, and the lands they now inhabited with the indigenous.

6.   Mr. Yoo, an employee of a federal corporation, domiciled within the 'DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA', which means "UNITED STATES" or 'United States' by definition found in Title 26 and Title 28, fails to take cognizance of and disclose the fact that the purported authority of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-UNITED STATES, no longer exists within any organic Constitution for the United States of America, but by military law authority and occupation of the American people, the American states of the organic Union, a 'republic', under Lieber Code.  The Code can only be terminated by formal proclamation of the Commander in Chief or by special mention within a treaty of peace.  This has not been done since Lincoln first invoked the Lieber Code in 1863.

7.   Hence, Lieber Code authority operates as the 'substrate' 'law authority', along with the intended effect of related subsequential 'treaties', agreements, commercial law contracts for 'money loaned' to the UNITED STATES by foreign international bankers and sovereign monarchies.  The United States of America was bled and depleted during war and occupation.  It was 'dismantled' and 'reconstructed' methodically in/around 1868-1871 with the Reconstruction Acts, 14th Amendment [never lawfully enacted], and the Organic Act of 1871, which a purported 'Congress assembled' passed to create a new corporation as the seat and corpus of the new "federal" [corporate] government within the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, under Lieber Code occupation of the people and states of the war-ravaged 'state' republics of the United States of America.

8.   Mr. Yoo, acts for a military-styled occupational force which has domiciled itself on American soil "within the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA" since 1871.  The occupation of America by THE UNITED STATES, was planned before it even occurred.  Furthermore, the occupation caused a second and new 'constitution' to be created, which was adopted by resolution of the "Congress assembled" as 'by-law' of their new legislatively created "UNITED STATES".

9.   Any lands or territories, diverse and/or distinct peoples, nations, etc. are and have been deemed to be "foreign to" and "without the United States", meaning 'outside the District of Columbia'.  This can be found in the legal definitions for "United States" as 28 USC 1746(1), where diversity and distinction between United States of America and "United States" may be found; or at 28 USC 3002 (15), where the meaning of "United States" is "a corporation", agency, or instrumentality therof; or at INTERNAL REVENUE CODE, Title 26, 7701, "United States" means only the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA and the federal territories and 'States'.  The obfuscatory word art "includes" is intended to create confusion as to what is 'included' within the meaning, but which has been thoroughly deconstructed by Sovereignty Education Defense Ministry, at, to conclude that the de jure republic states of the organic Compact Union, aka United States of America, are/is not 'included'. 

10.   The American states are "without the United States"-District of Columbia, and are not subject to its legislative jurisdiction and authority under precedent origina jurisdiction and authority of their organic Constitution and state territorial boundaries, established by official "meets and bounds".  But, those same states have been subject of military occupation since Lincoln's adoption of the Lieber Code, 1863.  The several de jure republic states are the core progenitor of the first "Confederation" and the resultant Compact Union of 1787, which came to occupy all the republic states during the Civil War in the first place; the same states gave rise to the lawful Government of the People, which was never re-instated or 're-constituted' after closure of the Civil War.  Absemt a Treaty of Peace making special attention, or a formal declaration by the Commander in Chief of the United States of America, which Lincoln was at the time of adoption of the Lieber Code, the 'occupier' continues its occupation. 

11.   The anomyly is:  The Union Government of the American states fractured and the ten southern states withdrew by and within the sovereign authority each had as party to the Compact.  The Union operated under the Constitution for the United States of America, which was a document of record denotinig a plurality of constituent parts.  It was not a document denoting exclusivity under creation of any singular form to the exclusion of its parts.  The Union was converted by it's own Lieber Code 'occupation', appointed 'civil servants' of the occupation, compelled modification of state constitutions, voided lawful political processes within the 'occupied territories' after cessation overt hostilities, and compelled the states legislatures to all ratify and sanctify the sacred 14th Amendment under duress and coercion.  Failure to do so would mean that the people and the state would not be 're-united' or 're-instated' into the alleged "Union", but which Union was no longer of the same nature or character as the "organic union" of wholly sovereign independent republic states.  The new union was an abomination built on the original intent of the Founders, became a simulation, under Lieber Code 'administration' of an 'occupational authority', in-stating an entirely new system as a 'civil authority' of a totally masked and corrupted military dictatorship, which itself operated on and for undisclosed third party principals, foreign to the people and states of the United States of America.

12.   Mr. Yoo's recently declassified memorandum deals with the substantive issues of post 9/11 "enemy combatants outside the United States" and "the government's legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques used by the military against captured enemy combatants....".

13.   Mr. Yoo, being the adept law man that he is, fully knows and understands that the American people were reclassified under U.S. law in Trading With the Enemy Act, 1933, as "enemies of the state".  The below quote is taken from Rick Stanley's research set forth in consolidated form as, "SEEING THE UNSEEN; LEARNING THE UNKOWN" posted to Fourwinds10 by "S" under Fourwinds title:  "U.S. Code Collection", to wit:

        "We are enemies of the State (Trading with the Enemy Act 1933 Act of 1917 & 1933) Trading with the Enemy Act 1933 Act of 1917 & 1933 (People declared the Enemy) Oct. 6, 1917, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, Section 2 subdivision ( c ) Chapter 106 – Enemy defined “other than citizens of the United States…” March 9, 1933, Chapter 106, Section 5, subdivision (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act of Oct. 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) amended as follows: “…any person within the United States.” See H.R. 1491 Public No. 1."

14.   The orginal Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917 defined "enemy" as "other than 'citizens of the United States'".  What was the legal meaning and intent of the word art "United States" at that time?  Did it mean persons "foreign to the District of Columbia" or outside the District of Columbia, within or 'on' the several states of the American Union, United States of America?  Or, were such people already deemed by the occupation to be "citizens of the United States" by virtue of "voter registration" and other 'adhesion agreement', 'privileges' granted by 'license' or 'franchise' under its erroneous 14th Amendment and post-Reconstruction 'legislation' and Executive Orders, all of which are under Lieber Code autority of the 'occupation'.

15.   The subsequent or amended version of Trading with the Enemy Act, March 9, 1933, modfied the original meaning of "enemy" to include or partain to "...any person within the United States".  What is the legal meaning of that word art, "United States"?  Is it the 'continental' land area of the lower 48 states; or is it the District of Columbia?; or is it the United States of America, reupblic union of serveral states?    Mr. Yoo would have access to that information, indeed, along with everyone who is an "officer" or "employee" "of the United States", including its  'judiciary', which is now organized beneath and within the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, all presently incorporated entities and listed on DUN & BRADSTREET as 'company' names.  All U.S. agencies are lmited to operating 'within the District of Columbia', [see Title 4 United States Code], and doing business allegedly only 'within the District of Columbia'. 

16.  It is clear, by either definition of Trading with the Enemy Act,  the People of the American states were progressively subject to inclusive 'conversion' by legal eeze 'statutory' legislative "occupational" 'Acts of Congress' and other occupational 'law authority'.  American people of their several states, unwittingly became attached to the UNITED STATES=DISTRCIT OF COLUMBIA via compelled 'franchises' for induced, or 'offered', or compelled or coerced 'federal benefits'.  By becoming a benefit applicant, including the benefit or 'privilege' to 'vote', 'register' children as "property of the STATE", license for just about anything that could be classified as a benefit under the military Lieber Code authority of "occupation", the People of the American states became compelled [by association] or induced-coerced 'citizens of the United Statesor "U.S. citizens", which inherently caused them to become bound to the District of Columbia, by undisclosed means, subject to and object of its legislative municipal 'law' administrative authority.  This modus operandi is one of the core elements of how "occupation" caused a 'conversion' and divestiture of original jurisdiction, stripping away of their Rights, Title, Interests, and Herediments, and further compelled or induced adherence to 'law authority' and "jurisdiction" "foreign to" or without the United States of America. 

The result of contracting by 'franchise privilege' or 'license' with the United States-District of Columbia was deadly.  My Yoo would know and understand that, even when the American people of the several de jure states republic had/have no standing to apply for federal benefits in a manner consistent with one who is already 'opted' to be a federal employee, officer, or "official", the occupational government invites and accepts them as 'citizen' 'resident alien', or a "non resident alien" who 'opts' or 'elects' to be treated as a 'citizen' or 'resident' of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

17.   The mere signing of U.S. government "offers" for federal benefits or federal status, causes a diminution, or at least presumption and impression of such, of the original jurisdictional rights, status, standing, and capacity of the real man who looks to the occupier of his 'state' to provide him a license, under implied and express terms and conditions 'to contract' whereby he/she is reduced to mere slave or 'indenture' status.  "Enemy of the STATE" is but a term of a military authority, defining where, when, by whom, under what conditions, and to or over whom its authority is superior.  Any "enemy" combatant, or not, is subject to said military occupation and authority if the authority so deems and determines.

18.  The Secret which Mr. Yoo relied upon to make his architecture fit the movie script of the post 9/11 global war on terror was that he is an employee for a federal corporation, which relies on no Constitutional autority to do any thing under either the Organic Constitution of 1787 or the 'adopted' District of Columbia Constitution within the District of Columbia Charter and Code at the time of incorporation.  That incorporation was and remains an abomination, not founded or supported by any organic Constitutional law authority.  The Federal Convention, Committee on Stiles, September 14, 1787, Philadelphia, in assembly of the states' delegates, "rejected" the motion by vote to grant any authority to the new Congress assembled to incorporate or grant charters to incorporate.   Certainly, Mr. Yoo would know that as well, given his astute nature and comprehension of the 'law' under the Law of Nations.

19.   The Secret of Mr. Yoo is that "enemy combatants without the United States" includes those who have already been classified under occupational authority as  "enemy of the state", because that 'enemy', being the sovereign occupied People of the American states, are still deemed to be at war with the United States from the time of Lincoln and Reconstruction.  There is no Peace Treaty, no declaration of suspension, rescission, revocation, or cessation of Martial Law since its incept date, April 24, 1863.  The "United States", or 'UNITED STATES' is a war machine de facto government, obeys only those terms and conditions or 'rules of engagement' that it deems 'necessary' or expedient, operates for its own interest and those interests it deems essential, either 'foreign' or 'domestic'.  Mr. Yoo has already created the blue print or "architecture" to treat all "enemies of the state" in any manner the de facto U.S. corporate District of Columbia 'government' deems necessary, and only the unitary Executive or Commander in Chief allegedly makes the first and final decision as to what is 'necessary' at any time.

20.   Mr. Yoo and his superiors are already dropping the hammer on the occupied American states, visa vie their abominable 'statutory-administrative scheme' to 'administrate' via 'public policy' a civil, military-styled and gestated 'national security' police state, which according to the Army Field Manual and other writings of the military is the source and origin for so-called 'civil' law enforcement authority and 'rules of engagement' or 'projection of force'.   That is the Secret of Amerika under the current regime of occupational 'law', which is regulation by any means necessary, and use of brute force, or extreme prejudice when 'necessary' or expedient to deal with undesirables, dissidents, 'threats' of any nature, which the 'occuaption' finds unacceptable.

21.  Mr. Yoo well understands and knows that individually or collectively, 'enemies of the state' are without legal or lawful standing to invoke or assert original vested Constitutional Rights under their organic Compact Constitution, unless they are competent to compel U.S. occupational employees and/or officers/officials (of the U.S. CORPORATION COURTS) to take cognizance and give way to 'the law of the contract'.  The law of contract is not first and foremost a 'civil', 'criminal' or other matter.  IT is first and foremost a commercial matter under admiralty venue proceeding, in International Law maritime commerce.  The only way to compel 'original Constitutional jurisdiction and venue' under the organic Constitution at Article III, is via provisional remedies of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Trading with the Enemy Act, and the type of writing that F. Lee Bailey entered for JFK in a 'secured motion', a copy of which has been posted to

22.  IN SUMMARY:  Mr. Yoo does not act for himself or in a vaccuum.  He is acting for the Executive, and the POWER projected via the EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, a federal corporation, which is an instrument capable of reaching any expedient or necessary determination to justify the implementation and use of the Law of the Jungle....brute force.  It is most recently exemplified as Mr. Bush, the alleged 'office holder' or 'occupier' of the UNITED STATES, in his meetings with Mr. Putin of Russia.  He apparently informed Mr. Putin of his intentions to attack Iran, and then " made him an offer he could not refuse".  Where have we heard that before, Oh God Father?  To perceive the controversy or material issue as limited to only persons or groups of natural people elsewhere in the world on foreign soil, is exactly what 'they' do not want you or I or the world at large to see.  While our attention is diverted to wars and conflicts and egregious anti-human treatment of peoples far beyond the continental "United States", or even its legitimate 'territories', the THING is creating the infra-structure for a prolonged and intensified 're-investment' of its military=police=intelligence=security force right at home, within the occupied territory of the several United States of America and the Peoples thereof.  Conversion of We the People into compelled fiduciaries for a fictitiuos commercial 'legal entity' [ens legis] which is a creation of the occupation within the District of Columbia, by FRAUD, is how they have accomplished their strategic ability to harness the "faith and credit" as 'carte blanche' to underwrite any or every monetary expenditure it so deems 'necessary' to operate throughout the world in its own 'interest' and that of undisclosed foreign and domestic principals and partners.  In a "debt as money"

 system, ie. Federal Reserve Bank System, acting as a private 'central bank' for the federal CORPORATION by contract-charter of Congress assembled, 1913, the only way the Bank could continue operating beyond March 1933 after its twenty year charter 'sunsetted', was if there existed a formal declaration of a 'state of national emergency'.  Hence, the occupation of America and the People and states thereof were further diminished and reduced to 'enemy of the state', but also were 'procured' as 'property' for 'warehousing and future distribution', to become 'human capital' and a 'natural resource' on the commercial and monetary registries of the UNITED STATES.  "Enemey of the State?"  Who the hell or what is THAT but a Zionist-Fascist term which classifies all beings apart or outside itself, even its own 'citizens' as a 'threat' or force that must be neutered, denegraded or reduced to a virtual nullity.  

    Go read the recent Fourwinds10 post by S on "Capitis Diminutio Maxima" = "SLAVE" in April 2, 2008 Fourwinds10 post, "JFK Motion for Constitutional Jurisdiction".   In short, if you are legally bound to, 'attached', or 'identified' with or as an ALL CAPITAL LETTER NAME, you have been decapitated [usually at birth by 'registration'] and have been reduced to serve the holders-owners of the 'NAME' as a commercial enterprise or franchise in perpetuity in the form of a DECEDENT ESTATE.    The below legal meaning goes all the way back to the 'Book of Daniel' and the Law of Babylon re: 'slave names'.  To wit:                      


Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's condition was changed from one of freedom to one of bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.

Diminutio.  Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away; loss or depravation.

Capite. - Lat. By the head.






Text size:  A A A A A

« Obama, Clinton deadlock-breaker: 'Breakfast club' | Main | Swamp: Take a look at a new look »

Justice interrogation memo: Constitution not in play

Email Print Link
Election 2008
[What is this?]
Posted April 1, 2008 8:30 PM
The Swamp

by James Oliphant

The Justice Department late Tuesday released a declassified 2003 memorandum long sought by congressional Democrats and other administration critics that outlines the government's legal justification for harsh interrogation techniques used by the military against captured enemy combatants outside the United States.

(Here are part one and part two of the memo.)

The memo, written by John Yoo, then a key architect of legal policy in the wake of 9/11, dismisses several legal impediments to the use of extreme techniques.

Yoo was long a proponent of an aggressive approach in the war against terrorism and a believer in executive branch authority. But the memo was withdrawn as formal government policy less than a year after it was written.

In the March 14, 2003 memo, Yoo says the Constitution was not in play with regard to the interrogations because the Fifth Amendment (which provides for due process of law) and the Eighth Amendment (which prevents the government from employing cruel and usual punishment) does "not extend to alien enemy combatants held abroad.":


The memo goes on to explain that federal criminal statutes regarding assault and other crimes against the body don't apply to authorized military interrogations overseas and that statutes that do apply to the conduct of U.S. officials abroad pertaining to war crimes and torture establish a limited obligation on the part of interrogators to refrain from bodily harm.

It also defines the United States' obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other international treaties prohibiting torture to be confined to ensuring that interrogators do not apply "cruel and unusual punishment" as defined by American constitutional law, regardless of differing international standards.

And it restates the oft-repeated view held by administration officals that the Geneva Conventions, which governs the treatment of prisoners of war, does not apply to members of al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The memo also reflected Yoo's belief in that the executive branch had the inherent authority during wartime to obtain information by necessarily hazardous means:

"If a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate a criminal prohibition, he would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network," Yoo wrote. "In that case, we believe that he could argue that the executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions."

It was during 2003, while the memo was operative, that guards and other military personnel committed the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Baghdad, Iraq. The memo was withdrawn shortly thereafter, but before those abuses came to light.

The memo was prepared by Yoo for William Haynes, then the Pentagon's general counsel and another key player in the administration's legal strategy. It was declassified Monday by Haynes' acting successor, Daniel Dell' Orto. Yoo is now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has repeatedly asked the Justice Department to release the memo and others like it, had this to say Tuesday evening:

It has been more than four months since I asked the White House – again – to declassify the secret Justice Department opinions on interrogation practices. Today’s declassification of one such memo is a small step forward, but in no way fulfills those requests. The administration continues to shield several memos even from members of Congress.

The memo they have declassified today reflects the expansive view of executive power that has been the hallmark of this administration. It is no wonder that this memo, like the now-infamous “Bybee memo”, could not withstand scrutiny and had to be withdrawn. Like the “Bybee memo”, this memo seeks to find ways to avoid legal restrictions and accountability on torture and threatens our country’s status as a beacon of human rights around the world.

Digg Delicious Facebook Fark Google Newsvine Reddit Yahoo



What constitution??? I think the Bush administration has accomplished it's mission.

Who needs civil rights anyway.

Although John McCain initially opposed torture, he has since warmed up to the Bush administration program of "enhanced interrogation," recently agreeing with Bush & Co. that waterboarding should not be prohibited. So much for the maverick label, McBush.

little by little they chip away our constitution.

president Bush will go down in history as the worst president America has ever had

John Yoo, professing the beliefs about law that he does, obviously does not understand law and is not qualified to be a professor of law.

He should be imprisoned along with the people whom he enabled to commit torture.

This connection to Berkeley suprised me.

This is typical in every way of the Bush Administration's policies. Hide or destroy evidence; ignore the constitution and international treaties when it suits their purpose; lie when the opportunity presents itself; use no moral criteria when taking actions; use diplomacy as a last resort; be confrontational and unilateral internationally with allies and opponents equally. The amazing thing to me has always been the number of people in this country who favor this approach. I wouldn't be surprised if we voted voluntarily for a dictatorship. The mirror was right: How can 59,054,087 Americans be so DUMB?


McCain is nowhere near the same as GW. They disagree on about as many issues as the agree on. Furthermore, these enemy combatants that you want shown the virtue of our Constitution would NOT show you any rights under any law (see video of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl). Get a clue... while you are off hugging trees and singing kumbieya (sp?) there are enemies of our country that would love nothing more than to see every American dead (save Muslims).

We are not being harsh enough.... we either fight fire with hotter fire or give up! Because as long as we fight with one arm tied behind our back... we don't have a chance in hell of winning. Now if we absolutely decimate and dominate without any mercy... we will win.

The "They did it too" strategy of sinking to the lowest level your enemy has achieved is futile and immoral Big Daddy.

By that same logic we shouldn't show criminals the "virtue of our constitution." We wouldn't need to give them trials either and we could punish or torture them however we like. the only problem with this (besides reverting to the mideval ages) is that one day, some one might point at you and call you a terrorist. Than you wouldn't get a trial either, and you'd be the one in the stocks. Its everybody or nobody.

If we aspire to be like them, and achieve acting like them.... can we call them terrorist?

The 9-11 attacks were meant to shock and awe the United States.

Bushco adopted those practices.

nly one thing to say to that (and not my words - they are 2000 years old, but I can't improve on them- they're still pretty fitting)

"I have been insulted! I have been hurt! I have been beaten! I have been robbed! Anger never ends for those who think like this.

I have been insulted! I have been hurt! I have been beaten! I have been robbed! Anger ends for those who do not think like this.

Quarrels are certainly never settled by enmity. They are settled by freedom from hatred. This is the eternal law.

Others may not understand that we must practice self-control, but strife dies away in those who understand this fact."

The idea that torturing on leased property won't reflect poorly on the US, because it isn't on our soil is a most amoral, simple view of a soulless person. And the idea that we can do it to others first, because we just know they would do it to us given the chance is childish and silly, if not immoral or amoral as well. It wouldn't work on your elementary school principal and it doesn't work here. Grow up. We are talking about America here!

Fancy legal footwork by Yoo. The Congress creates the laws by which the military will be required to adhere to the treaty obligations. The Congress has the express authority to legislate the rules by which US military forces will be governed.

It's a red herring to say the President can ignore treaty obligations. Congress can make the laws that govern the military. As Commander-in-Chief the President must make certain those laws are obeyed. He has no authority to override Congress.

Big Daddy,

Don't you understand, we do not want to become like our enemy. If becoming like our enemy worked then the Palestinian/Israeli conflict would have been settled a long time ago and places like Chechneya would be safe and serene.

Just think how you are reacting to the terrorist's tactics. You want to kill and torture. It's a natural reaction, but also one that just generates as much passion and power to do likewise on the other side.

The dark side look appealing and easy, but only the weak give into it.

Don't give into it. It doesn't work and you become what you hate.

Strength is doing the right thing when all around you are doing wrong.

It wins in the end.

I always thought that the oath of office was to defend the constitution not to supercede it. This memo puts Bush above all law (according to him), international law and domestic law.

Are all heads of state able to claim the same immunity?

Two thoughts come to mind.

One: Does this mean the guards convicted as a result of the Abu Grahib scandal can go back to court and say, "The US government said it was 'okay'"?

Two: Why is the government hiding this and other memos that merely tell the world what it already knows: The Bush administration was in favor of torturing people it thought to be "enemy combatants"? It's not like nobody knows this already.

What "status as a beacon of human rights around the world?" As more memos are finally forced from the administration's hands, the awful picture only gets clearer. The damage, however, was done long ago. The United States' "status" isn't "threatened"--it's held in utter contempt.

Every individual we've tortured has created a thousand enemies. George W. Bush and all who support him have destroyed the divine principles that made our country great. Our children's future has been destroyed because the Bush administration convinced so many that poisoning our American Soul was the only way to escape the fear of death.

Why shouldn't we torture terrorists if that might help stop an attack against us? And why shouldn't our enemies torture American soldiers if in doing so they might stop an attack against them? I agree with the Bush Administration: it's ok for our soldiers to be tortured, just as long as we get to do it back!

John Yoo from South Korea comes to America to apply North Korean principles. His parents should have migrated a few miles north to give him the home he deserved. Would have made an excellent right hand man for Kim Jong.

Big Daddy writes "Furthermore, these enemy combatants that you want shown the virtue of our Constitution would NOT show you any rights under any law"


The Bush dictatorship has taken us back to the robber barrrons of the late 1800's and will take 100 yearss to fixx.

* * * * *

Posted by: Mans World | April 2, 2008 12:22 AM

Don’t you think your post is just a little hysterical or hyperbolic? Does one criminal’s violation of the laws “destroy the divine principles that made out country great”? Does one President’s failure to abide by the Constitution destroy our children’s future? Of Course Not!

The President doesn’t have the power to destroy the Constitution or our laws. And when he is no longer President, the next person in office is under no compulsion to follow his example. Indeed, notwithstanding any of Duh’bya’s failures, the next President in office is still under the same constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .” (U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 3.) Thus, to the extent that Duh’bya’s actions were illegal, the next President will be duty bound not to repeat them.

That we are “a nation of laws, and not men . . . ,” as Chief Justice John Marshall once said, means that the fiber of our legal system depends on our written Constitution, laws and treaties, and not on the arbitrary discretion of individuals. The bottom line is that the principles that made this country a positive example cannot be destroyed because of one man’s, or even a group of men’s, attempt to denigrate them.

So this clears the government of harsh interrogation methods of convicted enemy combatants ... doesn't say anything about suspected. And just exactly how many convicted combatants are there now, anyone... anyone...

If the US must torture then it should face up and legalize it. Have a doctor be present - just like when they cane people in Singapore. But foremost - be a man about it.

I wonder who were tortured. Where are they now. Dead? So they cannot speak? Were it people that Afghanistan/Pakistan was asked/compensated to deliver? Had they anything to do with 9/11? No wonder that the US abroad is known as the United Bluff.

Now if we absolutely decimate and dominate without any mercy... we will win.

Posted by: Big Daddy | April 1, 2008 10:19 PM

Win what??? Hearts and minds???

Get real. Ya can't bomb the world...or can you???

Here's a way to test Yoo & Bush's commitment to torture: Let's put electrodes on John Yoo's testicles and light them up. Then, we waterboard him. Then, we use fire hoses of cold water & leave him in a dark room 24 hours a day for a week. THEN, let's see if he still thinks all that is fine. Heck, let's throw in the Bush twins for good measure to see how daddy likes HIS kids treated that way.

Big (?) Daddy,

You're so full of ☁.

Hey Big Daddy,

The problem with torturing "enemy combatants" is that none of them have been proven to be so. Most of them were just poor shmoes rounded up in sweeps and tossed in prison. They're not guilty of anything and don't have any information to give but we torture them anyway until they tell some lie to get us to stop. Put 'em on trial and produce some evidence and convict them fairly and then punish them. But don't torture them.

Why is it since 911 the liberal Democrats have defended the enemies of our nation the radical Islamic Jihadists?

Liberals hate President Bush more than they hate Mahmoud of Iran. This is why the Democrats will have trouble come November because what American really thinks they will keep us secure they are too busy worrying if their feelings are being hurt. Why don't Islamist Jihadists like us--because they are animals who kill innocent women and children and are afraid of freedom. But then so are most liberals. They have trouble with our constitution--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberals don't like life they are for abortion the culture of death.

They want to restrict our liberties don't drive an SUV or smoke or eat transfats. Telling us what to do with our private property etc.

Lastly, I've never met a liberal Democrat who was happy they are always whining about something or other. Jerry White,. Springfield, IL

John Yoo, professing the beliefs about law that he does, obviously does not understand law and is not qualified to be a professor of law.

He should be imprisoned along with the people whom he enabled to commit torture.

Posted by: David Dickinson | April 1, 2008 10:11 PM

David, hopefully you do not know anyone who expired during the 9/11 attacks because if you did, I think you be on board with this type of interrogation. Remember, this type of interrogation is used on US citizens and prisoners of war as well by other countries. Why should we always be the nice guy? Get your head out of your a#@ and try to write something constructive.

We should reconvene the Nuremberg war crimes trials of 1945-46, and put Pres. Bush in the dock alongside German leaders.

I still, for the life of me, can't understand what is wrong with hugging a tree and why people sling that accusation at others as if they would be insulted. What is wrong with trees? They provide oxygen and shade, are a renewable resource for building materials and paper, and are beautiful to look at. What did they ever do to deserve such scorn?

Let's just hope that all you Liberal idiots out there lose plenty of family members in the next "911", because we weren't allowed to torture enemy combatants.

The FIRST responsibility of our armed forces is to protect American lives, WHATEVER IT TAKES.

Considering that killing enemy combatants in action, as well as whole destruction of enemy strongholds (and all inhabitants) is allowable in war, torture as a "crime against humanity" falls pretty low on the list, don't you think?

I would rather America be known as the "Meanest mother***** in the Valley" instead of "guardian of enemy combatants' rights."

BTW - would one of you explain to us all how the US Constitution applies here?

Those who advocated and approved these 'above the law' behaviors should themselves be subjected to them as evidence is gathered for their 'crimes against humanity' trials. Worse, they have seriously undermined the citizens faith in the US government and our global standing.

WHY is this man Yoo drawing a taxpayer financed salary teaching LAW at Berkeley?

Why is he in this country at all?

He is obviously an enemy of the United States of America.

"Those who advocated and approved these 'above the law' behaviors should themselves be subjected to them as evidence is gathered for their 'crimes against humanity' trials. Worse, they have seriously undermined the citizens faith in the US government and our global standing."

Posted by: William L | April 2, 2008 8:07 PM

Is that BEFORE or AFTER being proven guilty?

Apparently, you DO advocate the treatment that is ongoing now.

Good for you, Bill.

What's amazing here is that century's of scientific study that has proved that torture doesn't work,and is counter -productive, has been thrown out the window by a bunch of thugs who spent there youth avoiding the draft.

I don't know about you,but if somebody twisted my balls,I'd tell them I killed jesus christ himself,just whatever you told me I did.

professor yoo indeed sounds like one of the german legal scholars that wrote the various twisted enabling laws during the nazi period. going in that direction of permitting torture for some short term gain of averting a catastrastophe: let us go back to the year prior to 9/11: those were "enemy combatants" [Allah's Army? religious fantatics]: would you automatically torture Atta if you picked him up on a traffic violation in Florida: implict in Yoo's madness is that the floodgates open. Yoo is a poor man's Jesuit when it comes to law. That the Government under Bush had to take the time and honor consuming route of torture and Guanatmo speaks ill of them. That Bush and Cheney with all their lying crimes are still head of the government speaks ill of the congress and the American people.

Some of you Republicans are barbarians! I'm just awaiting the future war crimes trials for the Bush administration and cohorts.....whistle, whistle...I'm waiting!

Post a comment

(Anonymous comments will not be posted. Comments aren't posted immediately. They're screened for relevance to the topic, obscenity, spam and over-the-top personal attacks. We can't always get them up as soon as we'd like so please be patient. Thanks for visiting The Swamp.)

Please enter the letter "f" in the field below:

News, but funnier


Bill Clinton dances

More Handelsman

Editorial cartoons



Iraq War 5th anniversary


Campaign trail



Your Obama IQ

No virus found in this incoming message.