“I have seen people (correctly, IMHO) connecting the dots from John Yoo to torture to Al Qaeda propaganda victories. It;s hard to deny: John Yoo is objectively pro-terrorist.”

I volunteer to crush his testicles in ‘enhanced interrrogation’.

It’s the only way to be sure.

It is also worth noting that if the federal bench had a sack, “the government attorneys who argued the administration position in the detainee cases” would have been held in contempt of court several times over.

That’s sad although not uncommon. The smears of Cheney and Kristol are on a much deeper level of malevolence, and they cannot be referred to a board or committee for disbarment from humanity. But now we know what they are.

I am sure that Yoo is not, and has never been a Salafist mole. However, if he had been a really smart Salafist mole, I don’t see what he would have done differently.

I have seen people (correctly, IMHO) connecting the dots from John Yoo to torture to Al Qaeda propaganda victories. It;s hard to deny: John Yoo is objectively pro-terrorist.

I should point out, though, that Shafiq Rasul and Lakhdar Boumediene aren’t bad guys by any stretch, and that Salim Hamdan is so minor a player that whether he’s good or bad is essentially meaningless. The Kiyemba petitioners — who might well have been part of some good law-making — are innocent by every account. Al Bihani was a kitchen assistant. I could go on, but you get it: this isn’t even bad guys making good law.