…and this is a 
Astonishing pusillanimity
Category: Evil • Politics
Posted on: July 1, 2008 8:06 PM, by PZ Myers
This has to be seen to believed. John Conyers asks John Yoo a simple question: "Is there anything the president could not order be done to a suspect?" He can't give a straight answer. So Conyers reduces it to a simple hypothetical: "Could the president order a suspect to be buried alive?" He still can't answer! It's a yes or no question!
What can be done in the face of such a disgusting evasion of simple decency from the Bush administration? Not much, but laugh.
Gary Farber has invented a game, "Stump the Yoo". Go ahead, think of some outrage you would propose as a hypothetical to John You, just to see him squirm.
Gary suggests, "Can the president order the arms of a suspect eaten by wolves while still attached?"
How about, "Can the president order a suspect to be impaled for his lunchtime entertainment?"
Or perhaps, "Can the president order a suspect to be repeatedly drowned to the point of suffocation?"
Your turn. Can you think of a question that would get John Yoo to say simply, "No, the president cannot order that"?
Politics
Comments
Can a president order a person to eat his own foot?
Posted by: JoJo | July 1, 2008 8:12 PM
Could the president order a president to be buried alive? That depends which other country this other president was the president of. If he was the president of, say, a country the US had just invaded, then sure.
(Going by past history, anyway.)
Posted by: Nix | July 1, 2008 8:17 PM
Can a president order a person to never get a straight, thoughtful and honest answer that goes to the very hearts of all questions that person might ever ask?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | July 1, 2008 8:18 PM
PZ is that your example: "Can a president order a president buried alive?" Himself, or his Dad, or maybe Clinton or Carter?
Oh the imagery.
Can a president order a suspect's knees raked with a cheese-grater, then have him dragged around the shark tank at Sea World?
Posted by: Craig Messerman | July 1, 2008 8:21 PM
Can the President order me to get pregnant, and not have an abortion?
Can the President throw me in prison and torture me if I won't believe in his god?
Don't get me started PZ I can turn grown men into piddling puppies with my haraden behavior over the prez...grrr!
Posted by: Patricia | July 1, 2008 8:23 PM
Recall that Yoo got put on the spot sometime back by a constitutional scholar from Notre Dame who asked him if the president could order that an enemy's son have his testicals crushed, and Yoo said he could.
The reason Yoo is hedging here is because he knows he will be skewered if he gives what he thinks the answer is, because it is YES to all of the above.
Posted by: Pablo | July 1, 2008 8:24 PM
The real question is whether Yoo believes the President could do all these things not to a hypothetical "enemy combatant," but to a citizen of the United States.
I'll bet the answer to that is "yes," but we won't get it.
Posted by: Randomfactor | July 1, 2008 8:27 PM
Can the president order that an immovable object be made?
Can the president order the sun to stop shining?
Well really, why not ask those questions? Yoo seems to model the president on the same thing the Bible models its god upon, the eastern despot who is responsible for inanimate nature, as well as humanity.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | July 1, 2008 8:31 PM
Gary suggests, "Can the president order the arms of a suspect eaten by wolves while still attached?"
of course!
didn't SCOTUS just state that all citizens have the right to bare arms?
The president has as much right as any citizen to bare arms, regardless of the circumstances of their, uh, "liberation"...
(you may now smack me with a rolled-up newspaper)
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 8:32 PM
Yoo would be more at home with a Mugabe-style strongman than a democratically elected Presnit. It is truly terrifying to see exactly what sort of individuals were given positions in the Bush regime (the Liberty University grads in the DoJ come to mind).
And to think, we're not out of the soup yet!
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | July 1, 2008 8:33 PM
Just what we need more of in politics- grandstanding in Congress and serious questions boiled down to simple "yes" or "no" answers.
Woo's evasion of the question isn't commendable, but Mr. Conyers doesn't exactly acquit himself well either.
Posted by: Corey | July 1, 2008 8:37 PM
Could the president order you, Mr. Yoo, to be renditioned to Saudi Arabia to be interrogated, then decapitated? And if not, why not?
doov
Posted by: Duvenoy | July 1, 2008 8:39 PM
Can the President order a person to shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die?
Posted by: Greta Christina | July 1, 2008 8:46 PM
Could the president order me to turn myself inside-out?
Posted by: zaardvark | July 1, 2008 8:49 PM
Can the president order John Yoo to declare that the "enhanced interrogation techiques" were indeed torture?
(From someone whose first name is Yoo, not John Yoo.)
Posted by: Yoo | July 1, 2008 8:52 PM
Can the President send a side order of broccoli to his father?
Posted by: John McKay | July 1, 2008 8:52 PM
George W playing along:
"Can the President order a thin crust pizza? no seriously....i'm hungerly. he he he"
Posted by: BMatthews | July 1, 2008 8:54 PM
Note that the second question Conyers asks is "Can the President order a *suspect* to be buried alive," not "[...] a president to be buried alive."
Posted by: co | July 1, 2008 8:56 PM
Yoo has gone on record previously as supporting torture of a suspect's family members. Such despicable opinions, especially from a senior Justice Department official, should be exposed as widely as possible.
Posted by: JoJo | July 1, 2008 8:58 PM
Can the president order me to burn out my eyes with a soldering iron, then make me take a DMV eye test?
Posted by: BobbyEarle | July 1, 2008 8:58 PM
Could the President make you, John Yoo, answer my questions with a simple "Yes" or "No" response?
Posted by: R Hampton | July 1, 2008 8:59 PM
Could the president order a cattle prod to be shoved into a suspect's anus and then turned on?
Could the president order that the suspect explode in a shower of rainbows, polka dots, and Care Bear plushies?
Could the president order that the suspect must travel in time to save Lincoln?
Could the president order giant ants to consume the suspect alive while the suspect sings the national anthem?
Could the president order that the suspect solve pi to infinity?
Posted by: Rahne | July 1, 2008 8:59 PM
Corey @ 11
There is a place for direct yes/no questioning; when people repeatedly refuse to address the issue or the obvious consequences of their positions.
I agree that oversimplifications are juvenile and unhelpful in many circumstances, but do you really believe that is what is happening in this context? John Yoo isn't defending a complicated, nuanced, considered position that requires education and investigation to understand. He's simply being a yes-man to an administration that has used fear and misinformation to deprive citizens of their human rights while lining their own pockets with the proceeds of an illegal war.
My submission: Could the president order a suspect to be grated into a powder and sprinkled on his toast?
Posted by: silentsanta | July 1, 2008 9:01 PM
All of these commands make me think of the "Preacher," comics by Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon. Humper-dumper-di-do!
Posted by: Jeph | July 1, 2008 9:06 PM
Can the president bring down the god he is always mentioning to in his speeches?
Posted by: Holbach | July 1, 2008 9:07 PM
Can the President order anybody in congress openly religious to prove the existance of their deity?
Can he order Congress to reduce their pay to the income level of the average middle class American?
Can he order the Federal Reserve to be directly accountable to the American people?
Can he order any of the members of the three branches of government to pass a simple high school science exam?
Posted by: Helioprogenus | July 1, 2008 9:14 PM
Q: Can the president order all the books he has read (both of them) in alphabetical order?
A: No, the president cannot order that.
Posted by: SiMPel MYnd | July 1, 2008 9:17 PM
Can the president make a boulder so big that even he can't lift it?
Posted by: Mike | July 1, 2008 9:18 PM
Can the president order the new Batman movie to come out a week early? That would be a good order.
Posted by: joeschmo | July 1, 2008 9:23 PM
Could the president order an act so foul that even he would be sickened by it?
Posted by: mothwentbad | July 1, 2008 9:24 PM
I am certain that every Cal student, graduate and faculty are proud to know that a person of this moral character functions at their wonderful school. What a waste of protoplasm!
Posted by: Dave Lockwood | July 1, 2008 9:25 PM
Ha! this is getting to be a farce! Should we spend all night with this? We can run through the gamet of all sorts of possibilities! Can the president mutter in his sleep, "Can the president...snore"
Posted by: Holbach | July 1, 2008 9:25 PM
Can the president order a suspect to listen to the full Michael Bolton discography?
Can the president order a suspect to eat a booger sandwich?
Can the president order a suspect to give a human sexuality class to Rick Santorum?
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 1, 2008 9:30 PM
Subcommittee transcript:
Representative Amplexus (D-MN)
Could a president legally crack open a suspect's skull and spoon feed the suspect's brain tissue to him?
Could a president fart loudly in a cabinet meeting and blame it on a terrorist plot to release toxic gas?
Could a president order gay sex on the down-low and still be masculine?
Could the president order his dog barney to be neutered for soiling a rug in the oval office?
May a president eat only the marshmellows out of a box of lucky charms?
Can John Yoo answer a question without replying?
Thank you chairman it looks like im out of time
Posted by: Amplexus | July 1, 2008 9:33 PM
Can the president order someone to spend a week with Ken "Wackaloon" Ham?
I'd sooner kill myself.
Posted by: ChrisKG | July 1, 2008 9:36 PM
Can the president order that he may not order anything?
Posted by: FigaroTheParrot | July 1, 2008 9:39 PM
Can the president order a acetone and pumice enema to prevent a terrorist attack?
Could the president order a suspect to subsist only on sweetener-free brownies while a 24hour loop of the 2 girls one cup video plays endlessly at full volume to gain human intelligence?
Could the president force a detainee to wear an asbestos bodysuit while guards pout molten iron right on his testicles?
Posted by: Amplexus | July 1, 2008 9:43 PM
And this guy is a law professor. It's kind of like Ken Ham bragging that he used to teach science.
Yoo has no moral center at all. He is a puppet, mouthing lines that he hopes will protect other amoral people from the consequences of their actions.
Posted by: RBH | July 1, 2008 9:44 PM
@#38 More than that, people like Yoo have given the terrorists a propaganda victory that is in a sense giving aid to the enemies of the United States. Ergo: Yoo is guilty of treason.
Posted by: Amplexus | July 1, 2008 9:47 PM
Can the president order you to put a gag ball in his mouth?
Posted by: Capital Dan | July 1, 2008 9:56 PM
Can the president
I'll stop there.
Posted by: SC | July 1, 2008 9:58 PM
Can the Preesident order a detainee to Goatse himself?*
*If you don't know, check Wikipedia & Urbandictionary first. Your eyes, mind, body, & soul will thank you.
Posted by: Skwee | July 1, 2008 9:58 PM
Can the president have a man tied up, doused in barbeque sauce, and thrown on top of an ant hill if that man went on a date with his daughter, said he would call her back, and never ended up doing so?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 1, 2008 9:58 PM
Bullshit. The reason that serious questions have been boiled down thusly is that Yoo and his ilk have dissembled, prevaricated, and in general failed to provide good faith answers when those questions are asked. And even when the question is simplified to the point where a two-year-old ought to be able to provide a satisfactory response, they still won't give a straight answer. If your looking for someone to blame for the situation, there they fucking are.
I mean, lets be serious here. If someone representing the president of the United States doesn't reply to the question of whether the president can have a person buried alive with "of course not, are you insane?" then there is something seriously wrong, and it is not the questioner.
How the fuck can you not see this?
Posted by: Sophist FCD | July 1, 2008 9:59 PM
Could the president order a suspect crucified? ... if he washed his hands afterwards, of course!
Posted by: John Pieret | July 1, 2008 9:59 PM
Can the President order ALL the citizens of a foreign country to join arms and sing the "We Both Reached for the Gun" number from 'Chicago'?
With an encore?
hmmm....
Can I watch?
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | July 1, 2008 10:16 PM
Can the president have a man's children ground to beef and make him eat it?
Can the president have a really long garden hose shoved up a man's anus, up threw the intestines, come out of his mouth and use that garden house to water the lawn of the White House?
Can a president have a man's hands removed and surgically replaced with the tentacles of an octopus just to see what would happen?
Can the president put the American people and the rest of the world threw 8 excruciating years of nothing but corruption, war, torture, stupidity, and utter incompetence and still be able to look himself in the mirror without drenching himself in gasoline and liting a match?
Posted by: Feynmaniac | July 1, 2008 10:19 PM
Conyers should have framed the questions to be specifically in reference to Yoo himself.
Could the President lawfully order that John Yoo's nuts be crushed in a garlic press?
Posted by: Jon H | July 1, 2008 10:28 PM
Well said.
Posted by: Moses | July 1, 2008 10:37 PM
It is you who is not acquitting yourself well by absurdly equating asking a yes/no question to "grandstanding". In the history of this republic, thousands upon thousands of yes/no questions have been asked of witnesses appearing before Congress ... were those all examples of "grandstanding"? I'm at a loss as to how a person of any intelligence could make your charge, or expect any intelligent person to think it makes sense. And your notion of "boiling down" is foolish nonsense -- Conyers asked many questions trying to determine the shape of this administration's theory of presidential power; it isn't Conyers who isolated that question or posted it here for you to make your transparently ridiculous comments about it; nor is it Conyers who trampled the Constitution, making these hearings necessary. The boiling down is that Yoo's response to this question illustrates well, as Conyers said, the games being played. And that this is so bleeding obvious indicates that you too, are playing a game.
Posted by: truth machine | July 1, 2008 10:51 PM
Can the President order a plausibly deniable fake terrorist attack somewhere in America and then use that as an excuse to invoke martial law and cancel the November election?
Can the President remain in power indefinitely if martial law is declared and not revoked?
Can the President appoint the Vice President as Acting President for an indefinite period of time during a period of martial law?
Posted by: Dick Chaney | July 1, 2008 10:53 PM
Tangentially, reminds me of the immortal FafBlog:
A Taste:
Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?
A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.
Q. See it's the checks and balances that make all the difference in our democratic system.
A. It's true.
Posted by: wk | July 1, 2008 10:54 PM
Can the President order a plausibly deniable fake terrorist attack somewhere in America and then use that as an excuse to invoke martial law and cancel the November election?
hmm, you wouldn't be the first to ask that.
http://www.concordbridge.net/NSPD-51.htm
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 10:58 PM
Conyers: Can the president order someone to take a required physical examination to avoid being grounded after being detailed to Alabama for a year from the Texas Air National Guard?
Yoo: Well, duh, no!
Posted by: arghous | July 1, 2008 11:04 PM
Can the President order Snake Pliskin to be coerced into sneaking into Los Angeles, now turned into a penal colony, to retrieve the remote control unit for a set of military satellites, right now in the hands of a terrorist and the President's daughter?
Posted by: mds | July 1, 2008 11:11 PM
even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.
O.o
would he have to cut himself into thirds in order to do so?
oh wait...
"Can the president override himself with a two-thirds vote if he partitions himself into three pieces with say, a chainsaw?"
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 11:16 PM
Now for your entertainment: John Yoo answers the questions of the ages!
I'm sorry but I can't comment on an ongoing investigation.
I can't recall from that meeting.
I'll have to refer you to my colleague Mr.Wind and his report On the blowin' of answers
Well you see we're getting into a legal gray area here... Lead is measured in English ounces and Silver in Troy ounces... I'm afraid I don't know enough to answer that question...
Not until she stops deserving it...
I'm afraid i'm not qualified to make judgements on the taxonomy of avians..Posted by: Amplexus | July 1, 2008 11:18 PM
I like Conyers, something I can't say of many politicians. I'd suggest he could be a VP candidate... but, as unpleasant as it is to ask, would an all black ticket be electable in the US today?
truth machine, while you're here, have you considered writing your own blog?
Posted by: amk | July 1, 2008 11:18 PM
Thanks muchly, P.Z. Good to see this stuff get publicized. Loved your suggestions.
Minor wordo in your post: "Could the president order a president to be buried alive?"
That's "order a suspect to be...."
Ah, I see the commenters have made lunch of that. :-)
I've just added to my post, as an addendum, YouTube audio of John You agreeing tha the President can order the crushing of the testicles of a suspect's children, and a transcript, and my comments from last year on this, which I made at Obsidian Wings, so if anyone wants to hear and read that, too, go check it out again. :-)
Posted by: Gary Farber | July 1, 2008 11:24 PM
Could the President lawfully order that John Yoo's nuts be crushed in a garlic press?
Yoo's (non) answer would be the same ... that he can't envision the President needing to do so, neither confirming nor denying under oath that the Bush administration's view is that there are no Constitutional limits on the President's power. Although I'm not clear why he bothers, since the administration is operating under that view, which includes refusing to prosecute contempt of Congress, and Congress refuses execute its own power to have the Sergeant-at-arms seize those who are in contempt.
Posted by: truth machine | July 1, 2008 11:25 PM
Although I'm not clear why he bothers, since the administration is operating under that view
hmm, last year, didn't Cheney essentially define himself as "above" any label of administration or congressional representative one could apply to him, in refusing to fork over various legal documents?
do you remember what his exact argument was again?
I recall it having raised a few eyebrows at the time.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 11:31 PM
Could the president order John Yoo (and everyone else in America - nay - in the world) to accept Evolution and disavow "god"?
Posted by: marc buhler | July 1, 2008 11:31 PM
Can the President part his hair behind?
Can the President dare to eat a peach?
Can the President wear white flannel trousers, and walk along the beach?
This is fun.
Myself, I'd prefer the President, and John Yoo, "etherised upon a table...."
Posted by: Smurch | July 1, 2008 11:33 PM
truth machine, while you're here, have you considered writing your own blog?
My view right is now is that I don't think it is necessary to order me to write my own blog.
Posted by: truth machine | July 1, 2008 11:35 PM
... I did find a reference to it:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/12/exarchives_security_chief_chen.php
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 11:36 PM
do you remember what his exact argument was again?
He argued that, as President of the Senate, he was not part of the executive branch.
Posted by: truth machine | July 1, 2008 11:39 PM
because they have both legislative and executive functions
False dichotomies are the bread and butter of sleazy politicians, but rarely are they employed so brazenly. Even Cheney's de facto agents in the media had trouble keeping straight faces.
Posted by: truth machine | July 1, 2008 11:43 PM
Q.Could the President read and understand any of the Constitution of the United States?
Posted by: Autumn | July 1, 2008 11:47 PM
Sweet merciful fuck, Conyers, can we get on with the Inherent Contempt already? You can put him in jail for contempt of congress, and you can bypass the infected DoJ to do it.
What are you waiting for?
FUCKING DO IT ALREADY!
Posted by: stogoe | July 1, 2008 11:47 PM
Hey, I've got one!
Can the president spin a man in a desk chair until he vomits enough to fill a small tub, then drown the man in his vomit?
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | July 1, 2008 11:52 PM
What are you waiting for?
I keep thinking that our older representatives are recalling Nixon and Clinton, the Iran-Contra affair, and others, and thinking it would be better NOT to open that can of worms again. Moreover, they likely are pressuring other congress critters not to do so as well, in the false belief that avoiding the pursuit of criminal proceedings would somehow be "better for the country" (or at least, themselves).
If that's really the reasoning behind things like this, and Pelosi's tabling of even discussing impeachment, it's most certainly backfiring on them.
the only group that has as low a rating as the current administration is Congress itself, last I checked.
Time for a fire sale.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 1, 2008 11:54 PM
From Ichthyic's link
It was David Addington.
In fact, when considering the numerous evils of this administration streaming out of the the VP's office, that statement almost always applies. Addington is the least visible yet among the most culpable of these villains. Compared to him, Yoo is the model of straightforwardness and respect for Congress: Just a few days ago, Addington explained that he could not answer questions because al Qaeda may be watching C-SPAN:
www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/26/david-addington-i-cant-talk-about-torture-because-al-qaeda-may-be-watching-cspan/
This may seem amusing, but the facts about Addington are not -- torture, Plame, secrecy, unitary executive, you name it and Addington is in the thick of it.
Posted by: truth machine | July 1, 2008 11:58 PM
Can the president order a concern troll spit-roasted alive?
Also:
Wait a minute. This can't be right... ;)
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 1, 2008 11:59 PM
His argument was that the vice president is not constitutionally a member of the executive branch and instead is a congressional tie breaker.
-------------------
The weird thing is that I agree the Vice president is not executive at least as set out in the constitution. Al Gore functioned as sort of a surrogate chief of staff to Bill Clinton which is actually not the role as written in the constitution.
The problem then is in the view of the VP as a political appointee Cheney is outside of executive privilege( Executive privilege is actually not consititutional itself it was something that nixon pulled out of his ass when watergate was bearing down on him.)
By all legal standards the only thing keeping Bush in office is how liberals are not the types to lead a legislative overthrow of bush.
Posted by: Amplexus | July 2, 2008 12:05 AM
the only group that has as low a rating as the current administration is Congress itself, last I checked.
However, when you break it down, it turns out that it's largely the Republicans in Congress who are dragging those numbers down, and the huge losses of Republican seats being predicted for November, as well as their recent loss of three seats in Republican stronghold districts reflects that. And while the Democratic leadership is somewhat spineless, the great majority of Democrats in Congress have repeatedly voted the right way -- e.g., 2/3 of Dems in the House voted against the new FISA bill. But far too many people ignore the inherent problem of democratic voting, and attribute the behavior of Republicans and blue dog Democrats to "Congress" or "the Democrats" as a whole.
Posted by: truth machine | July 2, 2008 12:08 AM
Can the president teabag a suspect live on Pay-Per-View (with all proceeds going to pay for cocaine) while simultaneously setting fire to the Constitution and drinking absinthe?
Posted by: mikecbraun | July 2, 2008 12:21 AM
The weird thing is that I agree the Vice president is not executive at least as set out in the constitution.
This simply isn't so. The executive powers of the President devolve onto the VP when the President is "unable" to discharge them -- one could argue that, in the case of Bush, that's all the time.
The problem then is in the view of the VP as a political appointee
The VP is not a political appointee; he's an elected officer, as laid out in the 12th amendment.
Posted by: truth machine | July 2, 2008 12:22 AM
one could argue that, in the case of Bush, that's all the time.
LOL
Now if only we could get Pelosi to say that...
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 2, 2008 12:25 AM
His argument was that the vice president is not constitutionally a member of the executive branch and instead is a congressional tie breaker.
That does make the false dichotomy quite explicit. He is, of course, both. Cheney is certainly no less a part of the executive branch than are the cabinet members and their staffs, whose powers are not detailed in the Constitution. The Cheney dodge was particularly absurd in light of his own "unitary executive" position, but absurdity of a position is no barrier to these people presenting it, and barely any barrier to others swallowing it.
Posted by: truth machine | July 2, 2008 12:31 AM
The weird thing is that I agree the Vice president is not executive at least as set out in the constitution.
I would note that this "weird thing" would lead to the conclusion that a pinch hitter isn't a hitter, an understudy isn't an actor, a backup disk isn't a disk ...
Posted by: truth machine | July 2, 2008 12:35 AM
I guess I'll go against the tide here and say that Mr. Conyers was being a bit of a dick.
Yoo was attempting to answer and Conyers just kept interrupting. Yoo didn't even get to complete a _single_ remark before Conyers started in on demanding answers.
After the second interruption, it's certainly clear that Yoo was intending to provide a very weasely, toady kind of answer to a very simple and direct question whose answer is equally simple and direct, but give the guy a fucking chance to say a single sentence before you pillory him for it. That way at least you don't look like you never intended to let the guy talk at all.
Posted by: Ian | July 2, 2008 12:46 AM
The single sentence he was supposed to say was "yes" or "no". I think Conyers gave him more than enough time to do that.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 2, 2008 12:54 AM
fuck that.
THE ENTIRE ADMINISTRATION ought to be held in contempt for the same reason.
*grrrrrrr*
gotta stop thinking about it before I blow a gasket.
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 2, 2008 1:00 AM
Ian: "Mr. Conyers was being a bit of a dick."
No shit. That's the whole point. You don't take it easy on a mealy-mouthed weasel who is trying to justify torture. You make it hard on him, and you take matters to their logical conclusion and ask if they are just.
Bravo Rep. Conyers.
Posted by: notthedroids | July 2, 2008 1:03 AM
For all X, where X is an interrogation technique: if X is not torture, would you mind if The President ordered it applied to you?
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 2, 2008 1:11 AM
What would he have to answer "no" to?
"Could the president order a suspect to be forced to declare that Jesus Christ is not his Lord and Savior?"
Posted by: Brent Royal-Gordon | July 2, 2008 1:14 AM
Can The President get AT&T and other phone companies to illegally spy on US citizens domestically, without wiretap court orders, and then retroactively make it legal so that they're protected against a lawsuit in progress?
He can answer that one "yes"
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 2, 2008 1:15 AM
Posted by: scooter | July 2, 2008 1:20 AM
Fuck yeah, Keep it going, I'm already editting these down, I'm going to use this stuff on the radio tomorrow, no shit, got me LOL!!
noon o'clock Central
stream at http://kpft.org
or 90.1 fm if you're within 50 miles of Houston
Texus that isssss
Posted by: scooter | July 2, 2008 1:34 AM
notthedroids: "No shit. That's the whole point. You don't take it easy on a mealy-mouthed weasel who is trying to justify torture. You make it hard on him, and you take matters to their logical conclusion and ask if they are just.
Bravo Rep. Conyers."
There's a difference between being tough on somebody and being a fucktard. Asking straightforward questions with straightforward answers and being tough on them when they try to weasel out of answering it? Fine.
Asking straightforward questions with straightforward answers and start pitching the guy shit before he can even articulate a single thought? Now you're just announcing to the world "Hey! I'm an asshole and wasn't asking that question in good faith!"
Posted by: Ian | July 2, 2008 2:31 AM
I have been told by friends that the reason that "shrub" is still president is who it would be that would replace him/ would you really want a president Chaney?
actually they said that was why no one has tried to kill him. though most of the killings have been of more liberal leaders than conservative ones.
I will be amazed if the election comes off free & open at all let alone honest and fare.
uncle frogy
I heard part of that exchange on the radio almost sounded like a mafia hearing.
Posted by: uncle frogy | July 2, 2008 2:32 AM
Could the President order the Justice Department to act with extreme partisanship and without conscience while ignoring the Constitution?
Oh wait... we know the answer to that one.
If there's justice in this world, things will be busy at The Hague come Jan. 21, 2009.
Posted by: Ragutis | July 2, 2008 2:33 AM
actually they said that was why no one has tried to kill him. though most of the killings have been of more liberal leaders than conservative ones.
well, apparently the conservatives get shot too.
they just
won't
die!
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 2, 2008 2:34 AM
Asking straightforward questions with straightforward answers and start pitching the guy shit before he can even articulate a single thought? Now you're just announcing to the world "Hey! I'm an asshole and wasn't asking that question in good faith!"
you need to actually watch the whole proceeding to get an idea why he is reacting like that.
you should watch CSPAN more, evidently. You'd see this kind of thing a lot more, and realize it's the END result created by previous evasions on the part of who it is directed at.
He's acting entirely appropriately in attacking Yoo in this fashion.
as to the term "fucktard"...
I'm sorry, but that is entirely reserved for one Kent Hovind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ge3bDSqKno
Posted by: Ichthyic | July 2, 2008 2:38 AM