john yoo
In the famous ticking time bomb hypothetical, it is moral to torture one person in order to save the lives of thousands, that the right to life trumps the right to physical integrity and security. This is a false construct.
Justice was served by bin Laden's death. But the Bush administration policy of torture deserves no credit. Never again should Washington, like Esau, sacrifice America's fundamental values for a mess of pottage.
Why did the torture debate in recent years fail to engage fundamental morality? Why hasn't John Yoo's amorality banished him years ago from any voice in public debate?
WHAT'S HAPPENING
Yoo's chief problem as a constitutional commentator is that his underlying constitutional analysis of presidential power is literally the opposite of what the Founders intended and wrote.
Last week, almost five years after we filed our request under the Freedom of Information Act request, we managed to obtain two Bush administration legal memos about government surveillance.
It would almost be funny that lawmakers give more credit to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Liz Cheney and alarmist Fox News anchors than to their own retired senior military leaders -- but only if the consequences weren't so serious.
Failing to ratify START will have serious ramifications for other U.S. priorities around the world. Yet nuclear terrorism and reduced leverage on Iran are risks Republicans seem blithely willing to tolerate.