.jpg)
John Yoo: Supreme Court’s Guantanamo Ruling ‘Suppresses Creative Thinking’
John ‘Torture ‘Em Good’ Yoo has come up with one of the unintentionally funniest quotes of the day in today’s NY Times article on the Supreme Court’s Guantanamo decision:
cartoon: Bob Gorrell/Creator’s Syndicate“What the court is doing is attempting to suppress creative thinking.”
Poor guy. All that ‘creative thinking’ that went into justifying all torture of terror suspects short of “organ failure.” Those Supremes just took away Johnnie’s right to do away with the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution as constraints on U.S. anti-terror policy! What spoil sports!
He further expands on his complaints:
“The court has just declared that it’s going to be very intrusive in the war on terror. They’re saying, ‘We’re going to treat this more like the way we supervise the criminal justice system.’
“It could affect detention conditions, interrogation methods, the use of force,” he said. “It could affect every aspect of the war on terror.”
…In past wars, the court used to let the president and Congress figure out how to wage the war. That’s very different from what’s happening today. The court said, ‘If you want to do anything, you have to be very specific and precise about it.’ “
Gee, he must be really PO’ed that the Court has finally decided that Bush’s free post-9/11 ride was over. National security issues are going to get the same scrutiny that a capital murder case gets. What took ‘em so long?!
Doesn’t it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside that this pisses off people like John Yoo so?? I know I felt that way when I read this sentence written by Adam Liptak:
The wholesale rejection of the administration’s positions in Hamdan may have its roots in part in judicial hostility toward the memorandums Professor Yoo helped prepare several years ago.
Justice Stevens couldn’t have picked a more worthy constitutional ‘creative thinker’ toward whom to express his hostility.
Liptak closes his interview with Yoo with another beaut:
Professor Yoo was not inclined to accept the decision as a triumph of the democratic process. Instead, he saw it as a judicial usurpation of the president’s power to protect the nation. “The court is saying we’re going to be a player now,” he observed ruefully.
And I say: ‘About time!’
