If ever there were a spectacular example of how the logic of authoritarianism inexorably creeps from A to D and ultimately Z, John Yoo is it.
Mr. Yoo, the torture-adoring, Geneva Convention-denying, law professor servant of "unitary executive" power has put his mind to work on the U.S. Attorney scandal and finds it all a mere "hubbub": Wouldn't things be simpler if we just extended the president's virtually unfettered war-making and foreign-policy powers to the domestic realm as well?
Spectacularly simplistic and simple-minded also come to mind. But, for the right, simple is good. Simple is understandable. Simple sells. The Wall Street Journal is always a willing vendor, and Thursday it published Mr. Yoo's simplistic and simple-minded "think-piece" that is, simply, a bunch of hooey.
First, according to Mr. Yoo, the scandal is just politics -- neglecting that more than a handful of Congressional Republicans are less than amused. But what the hell. That sort of complication only complicates; better to sweep it under the rug so we can keep arguments tidy -- and simple.
And how reassuring it is to simply snicker about those notoriously political Democrats simply wanting to watch "Karl Rove squirm before a congressional committee" while "placing bets on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's tenure in office," all of which "is great political sport."
Well, frankly, yes it is, Mr. Yoo. But so was Watergate, which also happened to double as something of a real problem.
But then, Mr. Yoo gets serious. He furrows his brow in preparation for making us wake up and realize that "much more than partisan circuses is at stake."
Are you ready? Are you now as sober as Mr. Yoo? Good. We've had our fun, but it's time to recognize that dark, incendiary forces loom and "those who toss more fuel onto the fire threaten the nation's unifying force in law enforcement and well-run government -- the president's core constitutional prerogative to fire his subordinates."
Which government is that? Is there some "well-run" outfit around here we haven't noticed? And hasn't this president repeatedly soiled himself precisely because he didn't fire every Tom, Dick, Donald and Brownie as boneheaded as he?
Still, all of that "constitutional prerogative" garbage was just filler for Mr. Yoo. To justify an article of respectable length he had to write something other than that one word, the object of his political affection and the mere thought of which really pumps him erect: and that one word was, of course, unitary -- meaning, once disrobed, "dictatorial."
There is nothing, no national ill, which in the opinion of Mr. Yoo's ilk cannot be cured by one-man rule. From singlehandedly interpreting treaties to launching preemptive wars to deciding the contours of prosecutorial matters -- if only we had just one authority, we'd have no fuss, no muss. Simple as that.
I saw John Dean in a cable-news interview the other night and he was recalling that when he became a conservative, conservatism meant limiting one man's rule. He seemed genuinely perplexed as to what's happened. Mr. Yoo happened, Mr. Dean.
But I'll end where Mr. Yoo began: "Since the very beginnings of the Republic, presidents have always had the constitutional right to remove their political appointees, for any reason or no reason at all."
What that historical overview profoundly failed to take into account is that "since the very beginnings of the Republic" most presidents haven't abused their constitutionally granted powers, invented new ones, elbowed all other constitutionally limiting authorities and generally made an absolute mess of everything.
I've got some news for yoo. The "hubbub" really is as simple as that.
AND, in mirrorspeak it spells bubbuh, which translated for Yoo in Gonzalese is Banana Republican. Only Krauthammer's irrationale for Bushlaw is more torturous, but also reflects the usual depraved Ziononsense.
Posted by: Vic Anderson | March 24, 2007 at 08:22 AM
John Yoo's beliefs - whether reflected in his justifications for legalized torture, or those cited above about a Unitary Executive - are closer to the ideals of National Socialism (Naziism) or Soviet Totalitarianism than they are to any semblance of American Democracy. The man is a crackpot member of the Bushivik Politbureau and ought to be discredited. (Besides which, I'm sure he'd change his tune if we had an isolationist president in office, as opposed to an imperialist one).
Posted by: David Grimm | March 24, 2007 at 09:51 AM
It's time to move on to a parliamentery democracy. The executive branch must go. Right now Nancy Pelosi would be the Prime Minister. Bring democracy back to the people. No more executive privilege.
Posted by: Tom Coombs | March 24, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Mr. Yoo is the kind of crackpot that would try and convince you the the Bible exalts slavery, and the subservience of women to men. He's of the same mold as the so-called scientists that deny global warming. Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the Neocon mental midgets decide what they want and then they find ass kissers to strangle the justification for it no matter how many hundreds of legitimate and more knowledgeable real authorities say the opposite. Don't forget that more than half of the top 15 of the original Bushies insist that the world really is only 6,000 years old. Birds of a feather.
Posted by: Bill Short | March 24, 2007 at 02:00 PM
If you read the various war crime laws and treaties, those who help formulate policies are as guilty as those who give the orders or pull the trigger.
Therefore, Mr. Yoo is an indisputable war criminal.
The irony is that for all his goose-stepping defense of the Bush administration, foot soldiers like him are far more likely to be prosecuted than those at the top.
Posted by: Professor Smartass | March 24, 2007 at 02:56 PM
If we return to the early days of the Bush administration we will see these same tendencies being offered as good governance. Hmmmm and the Democrats and especially the Republicans bought into it. Why? I think it is because the Bush bunch of Banana Republican Leo Kraussians are not only insane but violent to boot. Grover Norquist's desire to drown the Government of the United States in a bath tub after his pals shrink it. Then Grover turns criminal with Jack the K Street bandit and exposes the limited moral compass of Newt, Delay, Bennett and the entire cast.Faith based indeed. Pat Robertson and his African buds & businesses, Jerry "We will legalize the Bible" Falwell, and the rest of the fallen Christians make a bundle off the Jesus trademark. Wow, what faith! Now that we have a huge prison industry here in the new world perhaps Frau Blucker will escort this bunch to the pookie.
Yo Yoo's guys are pathetic.
Posted by: Enery the 8th | March 24, 2007 at 03:50 PM
Yoo is a crazy...
The constitutional crisis started before Bush started penning signing statements. And Yoo precipitated. No law school should allow him to teach constitutional law. I question his teaching any law classes, except how to "create" laws and opinions out of whole cloth.
Posted by: babaloo | March 24, 2007 at 03:57 PM
It's true. You can prevent Mr. Woo from leaving a table simply by whispering "Unitary" in his ear.
Posted by: Perry Logan | March 24, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Instead of Unitary Executive, how about Urinary Executive...since that is exactly what they're doing to the U.S. Constitution, checks and balances, separation of church and state, habeas corpus, our active-duty military, the sovereignty of our states, the Democrats, our nation's children, social security, our nation's military veterans, etc. etc. etc....pissing on them all.
Hmmmm, Urinary Executive would have made a great Saturday Night Live skit, by Gilda Radner, playing Emily Latella.
Neevvveeerr Mind.
Posted by: The Oracle | March 25, 2007 at 01:52 AM
Yoo knwo , i could almost deal with a unitary exec, if the rules of war were changed , to when countries which couldnt resolve their impasses ,then the unitary execs sat down , conveyed their concessions wanted from each other , and if no resolve happens , they arise take 10 paces turn and fire. to the winners go the spoils.
Nwo dont git me wrong, but if this were the case concerning rules of war where the unitary execs dueled when diplomatic concessions couldnt be reached, id probably be like all the other bush fanatics voting for bushes and praying for wars, at least until all the bushges were burnt.(sic) lol -30-
Posted by: rxgary | March 25, 2007 at 06:24 AM