Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
John Yoo ·
Aug 1, 2011 at 6:38pm
Here's my first try at embedding video: a debate on Sunday morning at the Aspen Institute (a great place to have a debate, by the way). The subject: liberty vs security and the war on terrorism. On one side: me and Alberto Gonzales. On the other Tony Romero of the ACLU and David Cole of Georgetown Law. Who won? You decide.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Re: Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
See, John, the Aspen Institute requires you to be fully clothed during debates. I'm now going to have to put my foot down and impose the same requirement on "Law Talk."
Edited on Aug 1, 2011 at 7:35pmNov '10
Re: Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
I cannot believe that Tony Romero seriously went up there and insinuated that you should be prosecuted. That guy is a schmuck.
Jul '10
Re: Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
There seemed to be an underlying assumption on the part of the opposition that the Geneva Convention rules apply to the war on terror - and I believe that this is not the case. Other than that not being specifically addressed, you guys won. While the opposition did use emotional arguments that may have swayed some, you had the facts on your side.
Re: Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
Romero sounds like a sleazy defense attorney defending a guilty client.
Apr '11
Re: Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
Did you have a follow-up on the al-Qahtani issue? Did you think that the interrogators acted appropriately in that case? Sorry if you've already responded to this elsewhere...
I thought that your arguments and presentation won out especially over Romero, who was generally sloppy. Cole came off as a reasonable, articulate debater but in the end his comments never honestly addressed the realities of war, particularly post 9/11.
Oct '10
Re: Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
John, I thought you made the most cogent arguments. Two examples: relating how you went to the Department of Defense and got their statistics on the results of water boarding our troops; and your point of what the situation was like on September 12, 2001 with an ill defined law versus today with ten years of experiences and discussions. I am not a fan of the ACLU and view them not as a defender of civil liberties, but a defender and advocate for left wing causes, but Anthony Romero wasn’t effective in my opinion. He seemed too stridently anti-Bush, portrayed opinions as facts and glossed over important distinctions. David Cole at least agreed that a system was necessary for combatants.
There is one point on which I’m unclear. Shouldn’t there really be three frameworks: criminal justice; military justice and enemy combatant justice? It seems to me there should be different rules for uniformed soldiers, reporting through a defined structure, who represent a defined country at war and those who are not in uniform, hide among civilians, don’t represent a defined country and kill primarily civilians. Did calling it the “War on Terror” blur this distinction?
Jun '10
Re: Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
You, Mr. Yoo, have great patience, debating these folks who, I am guessing, mock you with easily as much hate as the ordinary American feels towards the terrorists who forced their brothers, sisters, Mothers, and Fathers to jump 100 stories out of buildings as a better choice for death than to burn alive. But just as you helped make the courageous decisions in the aftermath of 9-11, you continue to stand up to challenges put before you. My hat is tipped. Only a blatant fool could possibly sit there and call you and Bush lawbreakers while glossing over Obama's actions as being, well better, because he acknowledged how bad Bush was as he proceeded to do exactly the same things Bush did. These debaters get the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, yet they are still wrong. Amazing.
Dec '10
Re: Liberty vs. Security and the War on Terrorism
It took me most of the day to ingest that, but I would say that the conservative side came off best.
Cole was good, if slippery. Romero was slovenly, dismissive, and blatantly dishonest at times. E.g., when he staged the false comparison of waterboarding by the Japanese, during WWII to that which was authorized under enhanced interrogations. Obviously he knew there was no justifiable comparison, but that time constraints were on his side and nobody would get a chance to rebut him.
Did anything to do with Khatani occur at Guantanamo?
In the meantime, when these issues were being discussed by ordinary Americans that were trying to sift wheat and chaff, I was in a waterfornt bar when the subject of indefinite and unclear detention came up. Everybody else was in the 'hang them all" mood, whereas I had some issues. I felt, and said, that I thought it was wrong to hold Padilla, as an American citizen, without trial. Otherwise, what were we fighting for? I got cold-cocked for saying so. Wrong place to say it, I suppose, but was it the wrong thing to say?