John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
David Limbaugh ·
Jan 19, 2011 at 10:47am
Stewart is formidable on his own turf, but he was no match for our John Yoo. I urge you to watch these videos and see how John frustrated Jon, who didn't even come close to getting it, and, more importantly, didn't come close to laying a glove on John, despite trying and trying. Stewart even confessed after the interview that he was disappointed, or in his words, it was "pretty unsatisfying."
Can you imagine what a worse smackdown this would have been had Stewart not interrupted John on almost every question?
And, congratulations to John on his new book, "Crisis and Command," a book that Jon Stewart didn't seem up to digesting.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Yes, that was a pretty impressive feat, although as John later stated, it was mostly due to his experience in dealing with students that think themselves very clever but haven't done the reading. He talked about this in a speech he gave to the commonwealth club (or maybe it was federalist society?) only a few days after that Stewart interview, but I can't for the life of me find the link anymore.
Edited on Jan 19, 2011 at 11:12amOct '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Thanks, David. I had not seen these. Wow! Fantastic job, John. You're my hero!
Many quotes come to mind here, but these two stand out:
"Those who wish to appear wise among fools among the wise seem foolish" . (Marcus Fabius Quintilian); and,
" It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt" (Abraham Lincoln)
May '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Sad to admit, I'm not that impressed. Stewart pressed a very reasonable question which John failed to answer.
If the President had the power to do anything in wartime, then there would be no need for lawyers to define "torture" or "cruel and unusual punishment". John kept talking about the leniency Presidents are afforded during war, but never addressed the limits that Presidents are obviously never (legally) free of. Stewart was correct to resist the idea that wartime Presidents are effectively kings.
And, assuming there are definite and constant limits, John also failed to address how they went about legally distinguishing interrogation from torture. Perhaps that's because Stewart's questions were not confined to the focus of John's book.
Am I missing something?
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Just ordered the Nook version. Don't have a Nook, but have the free Nook app for my iPad. I wonder why the Kindle version isn't available. I think there was a lag of about a week with my book, so maybe Crisis and Command Kindle version will be here very soon.
Sep '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
John Yoo was good with Stewart but he's better with Robinson and Epstein. This weeks' "Uncommon Knowledge" is excellent. I especially liked the segment where Peter Robinson quotes Jeffrey Toobin to Richard Epstein. Hilarity ensues.
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Aaron Miller:
And, assuming there are definite and constant limits, John also failed to address how they went about legally distinguishing interrogation from torture. Perhaps that's because Stewart's questions were not confined to the focus of John's book.
Am I missing something? · Jan 19 at 11:50am
What I think you might be missing, Aaron, respectfully, is that Stewart kept interrupting John, rarely letting him develop his answers. Stewart was only interested in one-upmanship, not eliciting John's answers. I assume much of his book -- and certainly his legal memo(s) to the Bush administration, addressed that very question, so it's not as if John would have an incentive to duck it. If that were his mindset I doubt he would have written this book, which invites those kinds of very difficult questions, which, by the way, John acknowledged were difficult and questions of first impression.
Jul '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Aaron Miller:
...
If the President had the power to do anything in wartime, then there would be no need for lawyers to define "torture" or "cruel and unusual punishment". John kept talking about the leniency Presidents are afforded during war, but never addressed the limits that Presidents are obviously never (legally) free of. Stewart was correct to resist the idea that wartime Presidents are effectively kings.
And, assuming there are definite and constant limits, John also failed to address how they went about legally distinguishing interrogation from torture. Perhaps that's because Stewart's questions were not confined to the focus of John's book.
... · Jan 19 at 11:50am
In John's defense on the legality question, he addresses the legality of torture early in the interview and never comes back to it on receiving the question in different for again and again. He addresses it saying that compelling cooperation does not require resort to the extremes of torture.
He also appears to endorse Nixon's interpretation of the extent of Presidential power, but makes clear elsewhere that Congress and the Supreme Court have the power to block, as both did in their turn in Nixon's case.
Oct '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Aaron Miller: Sad to admit, I'm not that impressed. Stewart pressed a very reasonable question which John failed to answer.
If the President had the power to do anything in wartime, then there would be no need for lawyers to define "torture" or "cruel and unusual punishment". John kept talking about the leniency Presidents are afforded during war, but never addressed the limits that Presidents are obviously never (legally) free of. Stewart was correct to resist the idea that wartime Presidents are effectively kings.
And, assuming there are definite and constant limits, John also failed to address how they went about legally distinguishing interrogation from torture. Perhaps that's because Stewart's questions were not confined to the focus of John's book.
Am I missing something? · Jan 19 at 11:50am
He did answer the question: The President does not have the power to do "anything", only that which is "necessary to win the war". Necessary implies limited, the boundaries of which need to be legally defined.
Edited on Jan 19, 2011 at 12:23pmMay '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Good Berean
He did answer the question: The President does not have the power to do "anything", only that which is "necessary to win the war". Necessary implies limited, the boundaries of which need to be legally defined.
That's not an answer. Who defines "necessary"? If the President, then that's like writing his own check.
Perhaps the problem is that non-lawyers like me immediately think he's talking about morally necessary when he means legally necessary.
Sisyphus
He addresses it saying that compelling cooperation does not require resort to the extremes of torture.
That's just saying interrogation and torture are different. It doesn't say anything about how to distinguish between them.
Sisyphus
...makes clear elsewhere that Congress and the Supreme Court have the power to block, as both did in their turn in Nixon's case.
That he did, but it felt a weak argument with so much emphasis on the extraordinary powers of wartime Presidents. I'm sure it seemed to many that John was saying the usual checks and balance go out in the window during war.
Stewart was gaming him and interrupting him, but John knew that was coming.
Jun '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Jan-Michael Rives: Yes, that was a pretty impressive feat, although as John later stated, it was mostly due to his experience in dealing with students that think themselves very clever but haven't done the reading. He talked about this in a speech he gave to the commonwealth club (or maybe it was federalist society?) only a few days after that Stewart interview, but I can't for the life of me find the link anymore. · Jan 19 at 10:51am
Edited on Jan 19 at 11:12 am
I know he said it on a Ricochet podcast around a year ago, I think it was in one of the first 10 pod casts.
May '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
I'm not saying John did terribly. I just don't agree that it was such a clear or grand victory.
When you're faced with a hostile host, it's foolish to think you'll have time to make elaborate arguments. The emphasis should be making quick points and raising sharp questions that the host cannot casually dismiss without appearing weak or foolish. John certainly did best Stewart at times... just not overwhelmingly, as seems to be the common impression here.
For what it's worth, I'd say John does a much better job in true debates.
In any case, I assume the main point of accepting invitations to appear on hostile shows is to advertise one's book and hopefully plant the seeds of questions for viewers to pursue later. John did accomplish that, I think.
Oct '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Aaron Miller
Good Berean
He did answer the question: The President does not have the power to do "anything", only that which is "necessary to win the war". Necessary implies limited, the boundaries of which need to be legally defined.
That's not an answer. Who defines "necessary"? If the President, then that's like writing his own check.
Perhaps the problem is that non-lawyers like me immediately think he's talking about morally necessary when he means legally necessary
_____________________________________________________________________
Yes, the issue is legal necessity This is why John was asked to render a legal opinion. This is routinely done when the President anticipates a legal challenge to his actions.
Jul '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Aaron Miller
...
Sisyphus
He addresses it saying that compelling cooperation does not require resort to the extremes of torture.
That's just saying interrogation and torture are different. It doesn't say anything about how to distinguish between them.
Sisyphus
...makes clear elsewhere that Congress and the Supreme Court have the power to block, as both did in their turn in Nixon's case.
That he did, but it felt a weak argument with so much emphasis on the extraordinary powers of wartime Presidents. I'm sure it seemed to many that John was saying the usual checks and balance go out in the window during war.
...
As a responsible lawyer, I do not believe that John would presume to speculate on a boundary that is not nailed down in law or precedent, especially a boundary as slippery as torture.
My reading on his interrupted powers argument was that questions of legality need to be considered against national survival in the event of crisis/war, with the President's prime responsibility being to protect the existence of the Union over legal propriety. I concur that Stewart's approach to interviews defeats clarity, allowing all comers to draw their own conclusions.
May '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Hard to believe Stewart is really as stupid as he comes across in the interview. Willfully obtuse might be a better description.
Jul '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Aaron Miller:
When you're faced with a hostile host, it's foolish to think you'll have time to make elaborate arguments.
"Foolish" is not a word I would associate with John Yoo.
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Kenneth
Aaron Miller:
When you're faced with a hostile host, it's foolish to think you'll have time to make elaborate arguments.
"Foolish" is not a word I would associate with John Yoo. · Jan 19 at 2:08pm
A double amen to that.
Jan '11
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart was looking for John Yoo to break down and confess that he was wrong to authorize torture. Confess, damn thee! And when Yoo came across and argued an entirely sane response, Stewart simply had nowhere to go.
I haven't read the book yet, but I plan to. I hope to find out what Yoo would have said, had he been given the chance. In that sense, the interview was a success, because it piqued the viewer's interest in the book.
What comes up in any discussion about torture is the lack of any clear definition. Opponents have little more than a "c'mon, man" attitude, as if no discussion is needed. They take an absolute hands-off-the-prisoner approach. But that same definition dismisses any regard for interrogation, especially during time of war. If you define torture absolutely, you deny the legitimacy of interrogation.
May '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
David Limbaugh
Kenneth
Aaron Miller:
When you're faced with a hostile host, it's foolish to think you'll have time to make elaborate arguments.
"Foolish" is not a word I would associate with John Yoo.
A double amen to that.
The purpose of some hosts is not honest discourse. Some simply pursue the opportunity to smear their guests or capture them in a "gotcha" moment.
Oct '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
I do not think that "wartime" constitutes a get out of "jail free card," in the sense that if the president broke some law of the Union unrelated to the war effort, he is still accountable as every citizen to the law (Watergate was mentioned as an example). It seems that the rock and a hard place is that conventional interrogation techniques were not sufficient or expedient in getting information related to combat or threats in our borders and the president wanted to stay within the guidelines set by Geneva. The question might be is there even a middle ground and where is the line drawn? It is as much a moral question as a legal one. John makes the legal case for the actions, history or victor-army war courts make the moral.
Dec '10
Re: John Yoo Easily Bests Jon Stewart
I wish to disagree with some, without being disagreeable.
In the first place, I did not want to watch those videos, because Jon Stewart always bowls over everybody and turns what might be an interesting discussion into a carnival. I watched them anyway and these weren't that bad. There was vastly more give and take in these than I have previously observed.
In the second place, Jon Stewart, himself, made the point that he would not allow John Yoo to make. It is difficult to map out the boundary between law enforcement interrogation and military intelligence gathering during a time of war.
Stewart himself described that program as "torture", in the text in David Limbaugh's link. He found that experience unacceptably difficult. In this context of evaluating executive policy, Stewart may jokingly refer to watching his own program as above the bar that defines torture, which for John Yoo he made (in his own words) equivalent to attaching electrodes to genitals. Ha ha!
I think Professor Yoo did well and we have a clear range established for what some might consider beyond the limits of Executive authority, during a time of war; forcing others to watch Comedy Central.